# A Current Look Inside Iran



## Adam's Apple (Feb 15, 2008)

Will "change" come to Iran?  Not likely.  The leaders want to effect "change" in the entire world, beginning with the anniliation of Israel.  

*Iran's Winds of Change*
By Iason Athanasiadis, _Boston Globe _
February 14, 2008

Ten months after moving to Boston from Iran, I returned in January to a snow-blanketed Tehran. After a nine-month crackdown on what Iran's moral guardians call un-Islamic dressing, the city had gone back to looking remarkably like its representations in the just-released film "Persepolis," a movie set in the repressive post-Revolutionary years of the early '80s.

The moral crackdown sweeping through Iran's largest cities denuded public spaces of eye-catchingly dressed people and created cityscapes that evoke the drab, alienated figures populating Tehran's streets in Marjane Satrapi's film.

for full article:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/02/14/irans_winds_of_change/


----------



## DeadCanDance (Feb 15, 2008)

Well, trying to scare the american people with exaggerated and false stories about an Iranian nuclear weapons program, and a non-existant alliance between Iran and Bin Ladin didn't work, so I suppose fear mongering about dress codes is what were left with. 

Iran's leaders are nutty theocrats.  And they need to be confronted and pressured on a range of issues.    But, until you can demonstrate some grave threat to america - other than stupid dress codes - I'm afraid I'm not going to piss my pants in fear.   The dress codes and treatment of women in our good "ally" Saudi Arabia is more conservative and theocratic, than in Iran.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 15, 2008)

You would be defending Iran even after they detonated a nuke I suspect. Well at least until a Liberal is in Office, then what ever THEY say will be good enough for you.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Feb 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You would be defending Iran even after they detonated a nuke I suspect. Well at least until a Liberal is in Office, then what ever THEY say will be good enough for you.



Learn to read:



> *Iran's leaders are nutty theocrats. And they need to be confronted and pressured on a range of issues.* But, until you can demonstrate some grave threat to america - other than stupid dress codes - I'm afraid I'm not going to piss my pants in fear.



Until you give me some evidence that we need to bomb iran, or be pissing our pants in fear, I refuse to be afraid like a little girl, like you are about iran.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 15, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Learn to read:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you give me some evidence that we need to bomb iran, or be pissing our pants in fear, I refuse to be afraid like a little girl, like you are about iran.



None of us are pissing in our pants retard. AND we want action taken, you claim you want it and then want to remove a set of options from play that may be needed.

We have heard now for 3 years how Bush was gonna invade Iran, Bush was gonna bomb Iran..... he is running out of time and I doubt Congress would give him permission so your ignorant fear mongering that an invasion is just around the corner would be funny if not so stupid.

In fact , correct me if I am wrong, but ALL Bush has done is try diplomatic solutions to the problem. And as I recall he was roundly attacked by Liberal Democrats for being soft on Iran and North Korea. While decrying our invasion of Iraq the same people were demanding military options on North Korea and Iran just a few years ago. Demanding to know why Bush was only using diplomacy on those two nations.

In fact as I recall Bush allowed Europe the lead in dealing with Iran. And was roundly attacked by those same liberals for THAT as well.

Get back to me when we invade.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Feb 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> None of us are pissing in our pants retard. AND we want action taken, you claim you want it and then want to remove a set of options from play that may be needed.
> 
> We have heard now for 3 years how Bush was gonna invade Iran, Bush was gonna bomb Iran..... he is running out of time and I doubt Congress would give him permission so your ignorant fear mongering that an invasion is just around the corner would be funny if not so stupid.
> 
> ...



Plenty of Cons have made it abundantly clear on this board and elsewhere that they want to attack Iran.   And I still remember the Iraq war, where Cons claimed they prefered a diplomatic solution, but as soon as the bombs started dropping, they immediatley put on their cheerleader skirts, grabbed their pom-poms, and cheered for war.  

You yourself have made false claims, for many months, that iran has a nuclear weapons program and questioned the sanity of anyone who asked you for proof.   You turned out to be wrong, and never admitted you were wrong. 

I'm glad you've come over to my side of the aisle:  that the way to go is inspections and diplomacy, in the absence of any evidence of an imminent threat.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 15, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Plenty of Cons have made it abundantly clear on this board and elsewhere that they want to attack Iran.   And I still remember the Iraq war, where Cons claimed they prefered a diplomatic solution, but as soon as the bombs started dropping, they immediatley put on their cheerleader skirts, grabbed their pom-poms, and cheered for war.
> 
> You yourself have made false claims, for many months, that iran has a nuclear weapons program and questioned the sanity of anyone who asked you for proof.   You turned out to be wrong, and never admitted you were wrong.
> 
> I'm glad you've come over to my side of the aisle:  that the way to go is inspections and diplomacy, in the absence of any evidence of an imminent threat.



There is no evidence that Iran has stopped its quest for Nuclear weapons. In Fact France insists that is EXACTLY what they are doing. And my proof has always been intelligence from other sources since I have no first hand knowledge.

But do again get back to me when we INVADE Iran.


----------



## jillian (Feb 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In fact as I recall Bush allowed Europe the lead in dealing with Iran. And was roundly attacked by those same liberals for THAT as well.
> 
> Get back to me when we invade.



Allowed Europe the lead?? Allowed? lol... He had no choice because he totally ruined his ability to conduct diplomacy because of his past rhetoric and actions. As you recall, Ahmadinejad also blew him off and humiliated him. 

But we've blocked that out, eh?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Feb 15, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is no evidence that Iran has stopped its quest for Nuclear weapons. In Fact France insists that is EXACTLY what they are doing. And my proof has always been intelligence from other sources since I have no first hand knowledge.
> 
> But do again get back to me when we INVADE Iran.



_In Fact France insists that is EXACTLY what they are doing._


Link me up with an official unclassified French intelligence service document, that says Iraq has an active nuclear weapons program; not some stump speech statement from a french politician. 

I've given you the unclassified report link from _sixteen american intelligence agencies_ plus the report from the world's foremost international nuclear weapons authorities - the IEAE - that says Iraq does not have an active nuclear weapons program, and there's no evidence of one.


----------



## akiboy (Feb 15, 2008)

I am with RGS on this one. Iran could acquire a deliverable nuke in the next 2-3 years. There is also a strong unconfirmed link that Pyongyang gave Iran the design of the Nodong missile. Iran also recently tested a space rocket. Hell..They have reached this far..How long will it take to fix a warhead onto that rocket?

Frankly , I don't see any other option of Washington dealing with the Iranian threat other then invading/taking down their reactor and setting them back by a decade. It sounds ugly but that's the truth.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Feb 15, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> _In Fact France insists that is EXACTLY what they are doing._
> 
> 
> *Link me up with an official unclassified French intelligence service document,* that says Iraq has an active nuclear weapons program; not some stump speech statement from a french politician.
> ...




Crickets chirpping......


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Feb 15, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Plenty of Cons have made it abundantly clear on this board and elsewhere that they want to attack Iran.   And I still remember the Iraq war, where Cons claimed they prefered a diplomatic solution, but as soon as the bombs started dropping, they immediatley put on their cheerleader skirts, grabbed their pom-poms, and cheered for war.
> 
> You yourself have made false claims, for many months, that iran has a nuclear weapons program and questioned the sanity of anyone who asked you for proof.   You turned out to be wrong, and never admitted you were wrong.
> 
> I'm glad you've come over to my side of the aisle:  that the way to go is inspections and diplomacy, in the absence of any evidence of an imminent threat.



I have no problem using diplomacy and sanctions on Iran.  But I'm also convinced that they are going to do something that will make an attack and forced regime change absolutely necessary at some time within the next five years or so.  While there are many terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, there are only two nation-states providing support for them, Iran and Syria.  Both are going to have to go at some time.  Either via revolution from within or them doing something stupid to bring on attack from outside.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 15, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Crickets chirpping......




Here is the facts you make your own conclusions.

12/13/2002
 CNN Splashes 5 commercial satellite photo of Iranian nuclear facility and cites U.S. spy satellite photos that reveal the site is more than it seems.  IAEA demands Iran reveal the purpose of their nuclear facilities, Iran denies existence.

2/9/2003
 Iran finally reveals the existence of their nuclear sites and invites in IAEA, and the follow up report from the IAEA demands more details, clearly indicating the IAEA has found the evidence that traces of weapons grade material has beeJune 2004
 All media outlets report on the ElBadarai (IAEA chairman) report 10 that cites Iran may already have all the ingredients to test a nuclear weapon.  Traces of weapons grade material continue to be found and the possible sites for weapons grade material manufacture continue to be overly busy. n found.  Iran refuses.

July  2004
 Iranian scientists attempting to buy deuterium gas
 AP reports U.N. diplomats have reported that Iran is attempting to buy deuterium gas, a substance that is used to boost the yield of nuclear weapons.

 March 2005
 Iran Admits Nuclear Facility is Underground
 The admission concerns the Natanz facilities and includes centrifures which are used to process uranium byNovember 2006
 Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran will have "completed its fuel cycle" by February-March of 2007, and brags about bringing thousands of centrifuges online.  And then goes on to say the world accepts an nuclear Iran. 29   .
The IAEA report lists several issues with the Iranian program, specificallyo the enrichment facilities at Natanz:

no response to request for more information on its enrichment program 
no access to suspicious equipment/military personnel possibly involved in nuclear activities; 

February-March 2007
 The IAEA reported that the Iranian Centrifuge facitlity at Natanz has completed the 164 unit cascade, adding to the 10 and 24 unit cascades in the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant that already existed.  The 164 unit cascade is at the production EFP and in which the first 18 will be tested shortly.  The current enrichment quality is at 4.2% U-235 proving the design efficiency of the facility.  Iran continues to deny remote monitoring of the 3000 machine hall but pledges to allow frequent inspector visits. Iran also stated that once the hall reaches 500 machines, all monitoring will cease.  34, 35

April 2007
 The IAEA reports that Iran's publicly visible (as inspected by the IAEA) uranium enrichment capacity has doubled since their last look in March, now operating some 164 separation centrifuges in the gallery they hope to have 3000 such devices in operation.  39
 And with incredible naivite, the IAEA also says that this is not enough capacity to create a bomb in the near term.  As usual, the IAEA, because they are shown any bomb program discount the ability for the Iranians to hide or operate centrifuges.  Incredibly, they also claim that just because the enrichment process to date is low in enrichment quality (4% or thereabouts), that this also means it could still be a decade before bomb material is produced.  This is EXACTLY the logic used with North Korea, yet they surprised everyone by developing a weapons some five years before the most aggressive estimates.  Clearly the IAEA has learned nothing from their own dismal track record.



http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Nuclear-Chronology.htm


----------



## jreeves (Feb 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Here is the facts you make your own conclusions.
> 
> 12/13/2002
> CNN Splashes 5 commercial satellite photo of Iranian nuclear facility and cites U.S. spy satellite photos that reveal the site is more than it seems.  IAEA demands Iran reveal the purpose of their nuclear facilities, Iran denies existence.
> ...



sorry when pasting the timelines they got cut into each other just check the website.


----------



## Paulie (Feb 16, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Plenty of Cons have made it abundantly clear on this board and elsewhere that they want to attack Iran.   And I still remember the Iraq war, where Cons claimed they prefered a diplomatic solution, but as soon as the bombs started dropping, they immediatley put on their cheerleader skirts, grabbed their pom-poms, and cheered for war.



I'm a conservative who DOESN'T want to attack Iran, because number 1, I realize the backlash that would ensue from other nations capable of seriously and immediately doing us harm, and number 2, I realize that the rhetoric towards Iran is for drumming up support of potential military action against them based on protecting the hegemony of the US empire and the Dollar.

It's not about a nuke program, and it never was.  It's about US Dollar hegemony.

Iran's a rogue nation that isn't currently playing ball on the status-quo, and we're going to sanction the ever loving shit out of them for it until they're economically incapable of resisting.  If that doesn't work, we'll bomb them.  If that doesn't work, we'll invade and change regimes.  We've been doing this shit for DECADES.  Why don't people realize it yet?


----------



## eots (Feb 16, 2008)

akiboy said:


> I am with RGS on this one. Iran could acquire a deliverable nuke in the next 2-3 years. There is also a strong unconfirmed link that Pyongyang gave Iran the design of the Nodong missile. Iran also recently tested a space rocket. Hell..They have reached this far..How long will it take to fix a warhead onto that rocket?
> 
> Frankly , I don't see any other option of Washington dealing with the Iranian threat other then invading/taking down their reactor and setting them back by a decade. It sounds ugly but that's the truth.



what about what about pakistan and India and Korea and china etc etc
are we going to nuke em all "fer they gets us"....madness


----------



## Alpha1 (Feb 16, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> _In Fact France insists that is EXACTLY what they are doing._
> 
> 
> Link me up with an official unclassified French intelligence service document, that says Iraq has an active nuclear weapons program; not some stump speech statement from a french politician.
> ...



   Is this the same 16 American intelligence agencies that said in 2002...."BAGHDAD HAS CW AND BW"  ?   The very same ones....and when Bush repeated THEIR claims...you called him a liar....go figure....   [/b]


----------



## Alpha1 (Feb 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Here is the facts you make your own conclusions.
> 
> 12/13/2002
> CNN Splashes 5 commercial satellite photo of Iranian nuclear facility and cites U.S. spy satellite photos that reveal the site is more than it seems.  IAEA demands Iran reveal the purpose of their nuclear facilities, Iran denies existence.
> ...



Here is the facts you make your own conclusions.  LOL 

DCD has come to  his own conclusions long long ago, and he ain't gonna let no freekin' facts change 'em.......LOL


----------



## maineman (Feb 16, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Is this the same 16 American intelligence agencies that said in 2002...."BAGHDAD HAS CW AND BW"  ?   The very same ones....and when Bush repeated THEIR claims...you called him a liar....go figure....   [/b]



If they are untrustworthy now, they were untrustworthy in 2002.  Which is it?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Feb 16, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Is this the same 16 American intelligence agencies that said in 2002...."BAGHDAD HAS CW AND BW"  ?   The very same ones....and when Bush repeated THEIR claims...you called him a liar....go figure....   [/b]



Your president established a commission in 2004, comprised of top experts with a professional staff and millions of dollars at their disposal, charged with *reforming Intelligence analysis with respect to WMD*

-Either the Intelligence analysis reforms worked, and the NIE is a better product now. 

-Or, once again, your president is a complete incompetent failure, and wasted valuable resources and expertise to NOT fix the problem. 

Your choice.


----------



## Alpha1 (Feb 16, 2008)

maineman said:


> If they are untrustworthy now, they were untrustworthy in 2002.  Which is it?




Obviously they were wrong then so theres no reason to put alot of faith in 'em now.....I can see being conned once but not again.....


----------



## Paulie (Feb 16, 2008)

Alpha, your point really does become tarnished when you use all those stupid ass smily's all the time.  It makes a serious post look like it's coming from some 13 year old sending instant messages.

My opinion, of course.


----------



## Alpha1 (Feb 16, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Your president established a commission in 2004, comprised of top experts with a professional staff and millions of dollars at their disposal, charged with *reforming Intelligence analysis with respect to WMD*
> 
> -Either the Intelligence analysis reforms worked, and the NIE is a better product now.
> 
> ...



You're quite free to put your life in their hands, but not mine....

And you really think the President was using his expertise in counter-intelligence to personally re-train them...all of them...all 16 agencies.....what a man....he must have training them at night, in his leisure time.....
done reading?   then reinsert head in rectum....


----------



## Alpha1 (Feb 16, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> Alpha, your point really does become tarnished when you use all those stupid ass smily's all the time.  It makes a serious post look like it's coming from some 13 year old sending instant messages.
> 
> My opinion, of course.



Ahhhhhh.....I couldn't help myself....I'm in good mood, laughing too much,  and it just seemed appropriate....but damn ...they are distracting, aren't they....


----------



## DeadCanDance (Feb 16, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> You're quite free to put your life in their hands, but not mine....
> 
> And you really think the President was using his expertise in counter-intelligence to personally re-train them...all of them...all 16 agencies.....what a man....he must have training them at night, in his leisure time.....
> done reading?   then reinsert head in rectum....



You didn't answer the question.  

Which is it?  The 2004 intelligence reforms Bush mandated made the NIE a better product?

Or, did Bush fail again, and waste valuable resources while NOT fixing the problem?

You been wrong about virtually everything regarding Iraq, WMD, and the insurgency going all the way back to 2003. 

For someone who is so consistently wrong, for years on end, I would suggest you don't participate in threads about either Iraq or Iran.


----------



## Paulie (Feb 16, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> Ahhhhhh.....I couldn't help myself....I'm in good mood, laughing too much,  and it just seemed appropriate....but damn ...they are distracting, aren't they....



There's really nothing funny about topics like this.  It MIGHT be funny, if it weren't so damn sad.

Go to a comedy club if you want laughter.  Just went to one last night, and my face muscles _still_ hurt.


----------



## Alpha1 (Feb 16, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> You didn't answer the question.
> 
> Which is it?  The 2004 intelligence reforms Bush mandated made the NIE a better product?
> 
> ...



I realize these concepts and conclusion of logical thought don't conform to you preconceived bias and hatred of Bush....and you're free to continue with your own convoluted nonsense.....its a free country and you're free to make a fool of yourself....as you do....


----------



## Alpha1 (Feb 16, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> There's really nothing funny about topics like this.  It MIGHT be funny, if it weren't so damn sad.
> 
> Go to a comedy club if you want laughter.  Just went to one last night, and my face muscles _still_ hurt.



But this is free and I'll wager just as damn funny....just read DCD and imagine the hoops you have to navigate to think like him....the facts you have to ignore, the time lines you can't admit to....the twisted logic you must master....
AND ITS ALL FREE!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 16, 2008)

maineman said:


> If they are untrustworthy now, they were untrustworthy in 2002.  Which is it?



Exactly... IF YOU claim in 2002 they had it all wrong then why suddenly because they say what YOU want to hear do they have it ALL right?


----------



## akiboy (Feb 17, 2008)

*


eots said:



			what about what about pakistan and India and Korea and china etc etc
are we going to nuke em all "fer they gets us"....madness
		
Click to expand...

*
eots wake up. India has a clean record. And why should the United States try and "nuke" us ?We are the world's largest democracy.Get your facts right before posting such erratic lines. India possessing nuclear missiles isn't dangerous for the Western World. But , countries like China , Pakistan , N.K possessing them is a different ball game altogether!


----------



## eots (Feb 17, 2008)

akiboy said:


> eots wake up. India has a clean record. And why should the United States try and "nuke" us ?We are the world's largest democracy.Get your facts right before posting such erratic lines. India possessing nuclear missiles isn't dangerous for the Western World. But , countries like China , Pakistan , N.K possessing them is a different ball game altogether!



A Nuclear Threat From India 

Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalinkPublished: May 13, 1998


India's explosion of three nuclear devices in the Rajasthan desert makes the world a more dangerous place. By arrogantly challenging international efforts to control the spread of the most lethal weapons, the new Hindu nationalist Government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee may win applause at home from those who confuse military might with self-esteem. But for a paltry and short-lived domestic gain, India now faces a ruinous cutoff in foreign aid, a self-defeating arms race with Pakistan and isolation even from friends. 


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEFDC1430F930A25756C0A96E958260

so then we only need to overthrow the governments of iraq , iran , china, korea,and pakistain in your opinion ? 
dont you think it might be prudent to take out india while your at it ? 

I  mean a clean track record of not launching a nuke in 8 yrs is not really enough and if we are disarming everone else we got the whole balance of power thing..then theres the ruskies,those freedom fry mofos...


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Feb 17, 2008)

akiboy said:


> eots wake up. India has a clean record. And why should the United States try and "nuke" us ?We are the world's largest democracy.Get your facts right before posting such erratic lines. India possessing nuclear missiles isn't dangerous for the Western World. But , countries like China , Pakistan , N.K possessing them is a different ball game altogether!



India, like China, is a symbiotic economic partner with the US.  And neither country consistently lives outside the standard of behavior of the community of nations.

N Korea does sit astride the most vital natural resource region on the planet.  And they are completely bankrupt, impotent country that responds very predictably to economic pressure.  They push a button and we cut them off and within a few months they back down.  They are also in China and Japan's backyard and in a very stable part of the world.  Translation for the slow....they are not a real threat to anyone.

Pakistan?  They are a problem and another country we are going to have deal with, probably militarily, at some point, if the religious nuts gain control there.


----------



## Paulie (Feb 17, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Exactly... IF YOU claim in 2002 they had it all wrong then why suddenly because they say what YOU want to hear do they have it ALL right?



Maybe if they're so damn _imperfect_ in assessing "risk", they ought to err on the side of caution and not be so hasty in sanctioning countries to economic demise, bombing them as further punishment, or god forbid, invading and killing 10's of thousands at a MINIMUM, only to find out afterward that the costs far outweighed the benefits?  Or that maybe...just MAYBE...they were flat out WRONG?


----------



## maineman (Feb 17, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Exactly... IF YOU claim in 2002 they had it all wrong then why suddenly because they say what YOU want to hear do they have it ALL right?



I never said they had it ALL right.  I do know that the president said he would institute major reforms of our intelligence agencies to prevent any more fuck ups like in 2002, but even so...I am not claiming absolute certainty about any intelligence estimates....THAT'S WHY THEY CALL THEM "ESTIMATES"!!!!!


----------



## Annie (Feb 17, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Plenty of Cons have made it abundantly clear on this board and elsewhere that they want to attack Iran.   And I still remember the Iraq war, where Cons claimed they prefered a diplomatic solution, but as soon as the bombs started dropping, they immediatley put on their cheerleader skirts, grabbed their pom-poms, and cheered for war.
> 
> You yourself have made false claims, for many months, that iran has a nuclear weapons program and questioned the sanity of anyone who asked you for proof.   You turned out to be wrong, and never admitted you were wrong.
> 
> I'm glad you've come over to my side of the aisle:  that the way to go is inspections and diplomacy, in the absence of any evidence of an imminent threat.



http://www.nysun.com/article/70818



> National
> 
> U.S. Spy Chief Retreats on Iran Estimate
> 
> ...


----------



## Paulie (Feb 17, 2008)

What's up Kath?  Haven't seen you on in a while.  How are things?


----------



## Annie (Feb 17, 2008)

Paulitics said:


> What's up Kath?  Haven't seen you on in a while.  How are things?



Quiet.


----------



## akiboy (Feb 18, 2008)

*


eots said:



			A Nuclear Threat From India 

Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalinkPublished: May 13, 1998


India's explosion of three nuclear devices in the Rajasthan desert makes the world a more dangerous place. By arrogantly challenging international efforts to control the spread of the most lethal weapons, the new Hindu nationalist Government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee may win applause at home from those who confuse military might with self-esteem. But for a paltry and short-lived domestic gain, India now faces a ruinous cutoff in foreign aid, a self-defeating arms race with Pakistan and isolation even from friends. 


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEFDC1430F930A25756C0A96E958260

so then we only need to overthrow the governments of iraq , iran , china, korea,and pakistain in your opinion ? 
dont you think it might be prudent to take out india while your at it ? 

I  mean a clean track record of not launching a nuke in 8 yrs is not really enough and if we are disarming everone else we got the whole balance of power thing..then theres the ruskies,those freedom fry mofos...
		
Click to expand...

*

Why do you keep expounding on the same bullshit over and over again?

Has India ever seemed like a threat to the U.S? Have our interests ever collided and flared up an incident? Have we encouraged Islamic terrorism? Do we conduct satellite killer tests? Do we promote insurgency anywhere in the world? AND MOST IMPORTANTLY ARE WE SOCIALIST OR COMMUNIST?

You talk about the 1998 nuclear tests without knowing the true facts. If we didn't go nuclear we would have been a colony of Beijing. REMEMBER INDIA IS THE REAL DEMOCRACY IN ASIA. If we did not grow militarily then the Asian subcontinent would be one big nuclear armed Communist "regime".


----------



## eots (Feb 18, 2008)

akiboy said:


> Why do you keep expounding on the same bullshit over and over again?
> 
> Has India ever seemed like a threat to the U.S? Have our interests ever collided and flared up an incident? Have we encouraged Islamic terrorism? Do we conduct satellite killer tests? Do we promote insurgency anywhere in the world? AND MOST IMPORTANTLY ARE WE SOCIALIST OR COMMUNIST?
> 
> You talk about the 1998 nuclear tests without knowing the true facts. If we didn't go nuclear we would have been a colony of Beijing. REMEMBER INDIA IS THE REAL DEMOCRACY IN ASIA. If we did not grow militarily then the Asian subcontinent would be one big nuclear armed Communist "regime".



or we could surmise if India did not go nuclear their neighbours may not of felt the same necessity to do so...or if we did not make a habit of overthrowing sovereign nations and setting up our own puppet government to serve our interests...but i guess we will never know


----------



## akiboy (Feb 19, 2008)

*


eots said:



			or we could surmise if India did not go nuclear their neighbours may not of felt the same necessity to do so..
		
Click to expand...

*

China went nuclear long before India did. Why then did the Western powers not isolate China? Instead they "gently" chided Beijing and see what it has now become!!


----------

