Iran Parliament Shouts "Death To America!",Mandates Uranium Enrichment

[MMMMMM]

Are these guys for real? It's not hard to guess who will be next...


(excerpt)TEHRAN, Iran — To shouts of "Death to America," Iran's parliament unanimously approved the outline of a bill Sunday that would require the government to resume uranium enrichment, legislation likely to deepen an international dispute over Iran's nuclear activities.

Still, Iran's top nuclear negotiator Hossein Mousavian told The Associated Press there was a 50 percent chance of a nuclear compromise with European nations.

He ruled out an indefinite suspension of key enrichment activities — a concession that European negotiators have sought — but suggested Iran would consider calling a halt to building more nuclear facilities. (end excerpt)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137197,00.html


(excerpt) TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's parliament unanimously approved the outline of a bill Sunday that would require the government to resume uranium enrichment, legislation likely to deepen an international dispute over Iran's nuclear activities.

Separately, Iran's top nuclear negotiator said there was a 50 percent chance of a nuclear compromise with European nations, though he ruled out an indefinite suspension of key enrichment activities.

Shouts of "Death to America!" rang out in the conservative-dominated parliament after lawmakers voted to advance the nation's nuclear program, an issue of national pride that provides a rare point of agreement between conservatives and reformers. (end excerpt)

http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/i/1107/10-31-2004/20041031053004_12.html

[Victor]

good news for the admin. it should be very easy to make a case to invade iran now. perle, wolfowitz, rumsfeld, etc (and sharon) must be salivating right now. they get four more years to play their version of war video games and they wont even have to spin propoganda this time.

[jakethebake]

If they'd like some enriched uranium, I think we should provide it to them.

[MMMMMM]

Yeah, it's pretty funny how the Iranian government keeps insisting their enrichment program is for peaceful purposes only, but as they write it into law, they are shouting "Death To America!"

LMAO, could be on The Simpsons or something.

[ThaSaltCracka]

YES ANOTHER WAR!!! /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
YES ANOTHER WAR!!! /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]It wouldn't really be much of a war. And if they're developing nukes I think we'd better do something don't you? Or would you prefer they're setting them off here instead?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
YES ANOTHER WAR!!! /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest investing your money into companies concentrating on a viable means of removing radiation from petroleum products. My best guess is that their stock will soar in value within 18 months.

[Victor]

yea....certainly darkly humorous.

the iranian gov does not seem too bright. i really do not see how this move can bring anything positive to their country. they have to have the foresight to realize that they are gonna get beat down if they continue. i guess that they are extremists so their ability to reason and strategize is blinded by their inherently flawed idealogy.

sadaam, otoh, was smart enough to know if he got caught with anything on gdub's watch then he was done. that is why he did not have anything. sadaam liked power and was smart.

like i said this war will be a very easy sell to the american people, especially after they already got away with the iraq deception.

[andyfox]

Why do you think there were some shouts of "Death to America"?

[Victor]

because they hate democracy and want to destroy freedom. cmon andy dont you ever listen to want GWB says.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think there were some shouts of "Death to America"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they thought Kerry won? I don't think so.

[Randy_Refeld]

Because they thought Kerry won? I don't think so.

Since this was on Sun maybe they wanted their voice heard in the election.

RR

[andyfox]

Well, I think one of the reasons is that they know the history of our country's interference in their affairs. It's certainly not the only reason. I just hope our government takes that fact into consideration in their dealings with Iran.

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I think one of the reasons is that they know the history of our country's interference in their affairs. It's certainly not the only reason. I just hope our government takes that fact into consideration in their dealings with Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, we should take into consideration our appeasement of Iran dating back to the Carter administration. And then, having contemplated the dividends that this approach paid, we should bomb the mullahs into submission. Unfortunately, I fear that even the "warmonger" Bush is not up to the task.

[andyfox]

"we should bomb the mullahs into submission."

I imagine that's exactly the mullahs' foreign policy thinking as well.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
"we should bomb the mullahs into submission."

I imagine that's exactly the mullahs' foreign policy thinking as well.

[/ QUOTE ]That's why we gotta be first.

[andyfox]

I'm glad, then, that the president, who has said he favors solving our disagreements with Iran peacably, was elected instead of you.

[daveymck]

Iran are just posturing to get round the table, do you really think even if they develop these weapons they can lob them too america. You are well out of range.

India and Pakistan both have nuclear programs yet I dont hear anyone saying lets invade them. Both have a lot of fundementalism there.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad, then, that the president, who has said he favors solving our disagreements with Iran peacably, was elected instead of you.

[/ QUOTE ]
It has worked so well in the past that it'll certainly work again this time. Of course he said that before today's news. I believe he even said that about Iraq at one time.

[thomastem]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran are just posturing to get round the table, do you really think even if they develop these weapons they can lob them too america. You are well out of range.

India and Pakistan both have nuclear programs yet I dont hear anyone saying lets invade them. Both have a lot of fundementalism there.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this reasonable reply doing in this thread?

[andyfox]

My point is that to simply say we have to get them before they get us is to assume they're out to get us, that they have the capability of getting us, and that we should shoot from the hip first and ask questions later. I prefer the president's approach.

[daveymck]

Who is this they? When have any of these countries made any indication of an aggressive act against America or the West, the more shooting from the hip you do the more sense of injustice the Middle Eastern world will feel and the more chance of attacks.

We were attacked many times by the IRA it didnt stop your people sponsoring that terrorism and didnt lead to us bombing the hell out of Belfast. There at least there is now a peace process somthing that doent seem to be in the vocabulary on here.

One attack on your soil and thats it the bruiser comes to live and swings wildly not caring whether the people they hit had any involvement or future intent.

This is the attitude that scares me the most hopefully the next four years will be more peaceful.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran are just posturing to get round the table, do you really think even if they develop these weapons they can lob them too america. You are well out of range.

India and Pakistan both have nuclear programs yet I dont hear anyone saying lets invade them. Both have a lot of fundementalism there.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are ways to get them here besides lob them.

[daveymck]

I my have misundersttod your point but i am not sure.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that to simply say we have to get them before they get us is to assume they're out to get us, that they have the capability of getting us, and that we should shoot from the hip first and ask questions later. I prefer the president's approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not an assumption. They've publicly stated they are out to get us for years.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Who is this they? When have any of these countries made any indication of an aggressive act against America or the West

[/ QUOTE ]What world do you live in? They are continually making threats against the U.S. and its citizens.

[ QUOTE ]
We were attacked many times by the IRA it didnt stop your people sponsoring that terrorism and didnt lead to us bombing the hell out of Belfast.

[/ QUOTE ] First, they didn't bomb you until you stuck your nose in their affairs. Second, once they committed an act of terrorism toward you, you should have ended it right there.

[ QUOTE ]
One attack on your soil and thats it the bruiser comes to live and swings wildly not caring whether the people they hit had any involvement or future intent.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. One attack and we should do whatever necessary to prevent further attack.

[andyfox]

If you're talking to me, I agree with you.

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran are just posturing to get round the table, do you really think even if they develop these weapons they can lob them too america. You are well out of range.

India and Pakistan both have nuclear programs yet I dont hear anyone saying lets invade them. Both have a lot of fundementalism there.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, but neither one is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Neither one has, through support of Hezbollah, already slaughtered hundreds of US Marines.

And I do not fear a missile from Iran. I fear a jihadist in America with an Iran-supplied suitcase nuke.

Of course, we can always take the Neville Chamberlain approach and negotiate "peace in our time" with the fanatics who have chanted "death to the great Satan" for the past 25 years. Yeah, that'll work. They're reasonable people, after all. Or, failing that, I'm sure some sanctions will make them change their minds. If these plans strike you as plausible, you might also want to look into the Maharishi's plan to restore world peace by getting the square root of 1% of the population to meditate.

[andyfox]

"One attack and we should do whatever necessary to prevent further attack."

We were attacked by Al Qaeda, with Bin Laden in the lead, given aid and sanctuary by Omar Mullah and the Taliban in Afghanistan. What did this have to do with attacking Iraq. We have not been attacked by Iran. Some in their legislature have shouted "death to America."

[andyfox]

And my point is that it's to be expected that when "for year," you interfere in their country and people suffer as a result, you can expect that there are some who are out to get you. It doesn't mean you let them get you, but it should mean that you take this into consideration in your dealings with them.

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who is this they? When have any of these countries made any indication of an aggressive act against America or the West

[/ QUOTE ]What world do you live in? They are continually making threats against the U.S. and its citizens.

[ QUOTE ]
We were attacked many times by the IRA it didnt stop your people sponsoring that terrorism and didnt lead to us bombing the hell out of Belfast.

[/ QUOTE ] First, they didn't bomb you until you stuck your nose in their affairs. Second, once they committed an act of terrorism toward you, you should have ended it right there.

[ QUOTE ]
One attack on your soil and thats it the bruiser comes to live and swings wildly not caring whether the people they hit had any involvement or future intent.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. One attack and we should do whatever necessary to prevent further attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is the they, which countries are planning a number of strikes against america, which countries have perpetraded attacks against america in living memory.

Apart from Libya none. No government is theres a few tin pot terrorist groups under the Al Quiada banner that have managed one attack on America and a few large bombs in Bali and Saudi and in Africa, the reaction from America is an overreaction compared to the real threat.

More people are killed by guns/cars/drugs/alcohol etc etc in a year than will be by terrorism in our lifetimes. Is bush planning a war on Guns a war on alcohol or smoking or cancer, is he shite cos it doesnt further the world he want to create.

Yes there are threats out there and we need to guard and defend against them but you go after the terrorists themselves not the list of States that Bush is going to work his way through.

[andyfox]

So negotiation never works? All we have to do is trot our Neville Chamberlain any time somebody (even the president) suggests trying to take a diplomatic approach.

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that to simply say we have to get them before they get us is to assume they're out to get us

[/ QUOTE ]
This has been clearly established over the past 25 years to anyone paying attention to Iran's statements and actions. They are already responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans.

[ QUOTE ]
that they have the capability of getting us

[/ QUOTE ]
No, what matters is that are able to acquire this capability. We should then strike before they acquire it if possible. In any case, by their ongoing funding of terrorists using conventional weapons, they are capable of "getting us" even without a nuclear capability. Their current zeal to acquire nukes just raises the stakes.

[ QUOTE ]
and that we should shoot from the hip first and ask questions later.

[/ QUOTE ]
They already fired the first shots as early as 1983 -- or 1979, if you count the seizure of our embassy, which was itself an act of war.

[daveymck]

The fact is and I know people here wont agree but at this moment in time the main threat to world peace and stability is actually America.

Peace can never be achieved down the barrell of a gun.

[Mars357]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is and I know people here wont agree but at this moment in time the main threat to world peace and stability is actually America.

Peace can never be achieved down the barrell of a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

you MUST be joking. In a world with groups like Al Quiada and Hammas (spelling?) you have the nerve to call the US the main threat to world peace? How would you suggest we achieve world peace?

Davey gets my vote as Dumb Ass of the year....

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
So negotiation never works? All we have to do is trot our Neville Chamberlain any time somebody (even the president) suggests trying to take a diplomatic approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
If Bush seriously believes that negotiation might work with Iran, he is deluding himself. Negotiation requires as a precondition some common ground and trust. We negotiate with Canada over trade. We negotiate with Britain over our common defense. We share common values with these countries (and many others), and when we sign a treaty we can assume they'll abide by it.

But what shared values does a secular Western government have with an Islamic theocracy? What basis do we have for trusting them? Do you sincerely believe that a negotiated agreement with Iran's current government would be worth the paper it was written on?

This is why the Neville Chamberlain analogy fits perfectly. The agreement with Hitler was worthless because Hitler had no intention of abiding by it. Shortly before he died, Chamberlain lamented that if only Hitler had kept his word, the tragedy of WWII could have been avoided. Will we end up making a similar lament about the Iranian mullahs?

The good news is that religious fanatics are so irrational, that they might not even agree to a treaty with the intent of ignoring it. Do you remember that after 9/11 we offered to leave the Taliban alone if only they handed over bin Laden? They were insane enough to refuse. So far, with regard to their nuclear program, Iran is acting similarly.

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
Peace can never be achieved down the barrel of a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]
Except for the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, and a few others, you're right.

Now if the square root of 1% of the population just gets together and meditates, we can achieve world peace for good.

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
We have not been attacked by Iran. Some in their legislature have shouted "death to America."

[/ QUOTE ]
And they seized our Embassy and held 50 people hostage for over a year. And they sponsored the suicide bomber who killed 17 at the U.S. embassy in Beirut. And they funded the fanatics who blew up 241 marines in Beirut. And they supported the bombers of the Khobar Towers, killing 19 American servicemen. And they provided safe harbor (if not more) to several of the 9/11 terrorists (see the 9/11 commission report). This goes a bit beyond just shouting "death to America."

(I sort of agree with your point about Iraq. It was a terrorist sponsor, but not nearly at the level of Iran. Iran, not Iraq, should have been our second target after the Taliban.)

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Peace can never be achieved down the barrell of a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell that to the Japanese. To be fair they were staring down the barrell of another nuke and not a gun per say but I believe it still disproves your point. That is if you ever had a real point in the first place.

[Koller]

The fact is and I know people here wont agree but at this moment in time the main threat to world peace and stability is actually America.

I agree.

[Losing all]

You make many good points about Iran, and I couldn't agree more about them being a more important 2nd target. Anyone who thinks you can make deals with the people running Iran needs to take a serious look at the examples of terrorism you bring up.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

India and Pakistan both have nuclear programs yet I dont hear anyone saying lets invade them. Both have a lot of fundementalism there.

[/ QUOTE ]


Their lawmakers aren't chanting "Death To America!", either.

On multiple occasions either Rafsanjani or Khameini (or both) has spoken of "solving the problem of Israel once and for all" once Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
]The fact is and I know people here wont agree but at this moment in time the main threat to world peace and stability is actually America.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, so the world was at peace before America invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? NOT.

[ QUOTE ]
Peace can never be achieved down the barrell of a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Example from history, please? Others have listed counter-examples so I'm wondering on what you base this dreamy assertion.

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is and I know people here wont agree but at this moment in time the main threat to world peace and stability is actually America.

I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]
I see you're from Finland. Your comment is further evidence that "Europe" will soon be listed in the thesaurus under "fantasyland."

[andyfox]

"they seized our Embassy and held 50 people hostage for over a year."

That was twenty-five years ago. Should they still hold us responsible for overthrowing their elected leader in 1954?

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
YES ANOTHER WAR!!! /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]It wouldn't really be much of a war. And if they're developing nukes I think we'd better do something don't you? Or would you prefer they're setting them off here instead?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I prefer that the Iranians set off nukes in major American metropolitan areas. It is too bad that this and war are the only options though, I might have gone for something else otherwise.

[MMMMMM]

Andy, may I suggest you go back about 4 posts and read this train of reasoning again...the poster is trying to show that the "Death To America!" recently shouted by Iranian Parliamentarians is not an isolated event. Rather there is a long chain of such statements and even actual attacks against Americans. Iran is a dangerous country which actively supports terrorists, and will become far more dangerous if it is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

[daveymck]

[quote
you MUST be joking. In a world with groups like Al Quiada and Hammas (spelling?) you have the nerve to call the US the main threat to world peace? How would you suggest we achieve world peace?

Davey gets my vote as Dumb Ass of the year....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks I am honoured to receive such an award, I am very proud and would like to thank all those who have made this fantastic acheivement possible.

The reason America is a threat to world peace in my opinion is that they are going after the wrong targets, the politicians are following through on a political state based agenda that is increasing the new east vs west split that is happening and in doing so have also split the european alliance (although I dont see that as too key at this point).

At this point going into Iran or wherever next probably wont lead to a fightback, but I suspect at some point the arab middle eastern block will say enough is enough and unite together to fight leading to a proper full scale war, that is one danger how real I dont know but you can only push people so much.

The second problem is if you go after North Korea, firstly it would be a harder war than the current war in Iraq (which is far from over at this point) if that happens and China gets involved it could escalate again to a much wider conflict.

Thats the two particular scenerios that worry me the most not sure either would happen but when you go round being the agressor at some point people stand up and fight back.

Hammas are another tin pot terrorist group that have no real large capabilities and are left sending children with bombs attached to them as their main weapon, as a worldwide threat again its minimal, Al Quaida again I beleive the threat is overstated. If they were so big I would have expected when Afganistan was invaded Bin Laden would have ordered an all out attack on America from all his cells in the states, guess what none came.

Our secret agencies seem pretty good at the moment on picking up threats and nipping them in the bud, Al Quaida are winning by the threat they give not the actions they take.

People like me have a potential attack in the back of my mind, as I travel round London on the tube or Fly into heathrow wondering if someone is down there with a rocket targeting me it promotes the terror, interestingly since the war on terror started I feel more nervous about attack not less.

So how do we stop the threat, two stages, firstly we have to understand why they are against us and put in policies and negotiations to break down the barriers and economic pressures put on those countries we think are behind funding etc.

There are some groups and people who wont come round and those who are a threat need to be taken out. We should be using out secret services to identify thoese people and use the SAS to get in there and assasinate them, use our bombs etc to target the training camps and actually destroy the people and the infastructure of the terrorist groups. If we get to these people then the world will be safer attacking Iran/Syria/Korea whoever in my opinion will not reduce the terrorist threat.

That is my suggested solution as tyou can see its not soft on using agression and violence and will reduce the terrorist threat somthing I beleive the current war on terror has not.

[Shoe]

It is estimated that Iran could have nukes within the next year.

Israel WILL attack Iran within the next 6-9 months if nothing changes. So even if the U.S. decides not to attack, we have a big problem on our hands.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Their lawmakers aren't chanting "Death To America!", either.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, their lawmakers aren't. How about their citizens?

[MMMMMM]

Obvious question, but that is another issue.

This concerns a rabidly anti-US government moving quickly towards having nukes in the near future.