Hypothetic War with Iraq Question

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

OK- so Iraq is attacked by US and our allies. Hussein in a desperate attempt to do whatever, much like in the 91 war fires scuds at Israel. Ariel Sharon has already said that Israel will retaliate (I guess inbetween West Bank incursions). So what happens if Israel does retaliate? Odds are Hamas suicide bombings will escalate, but what about neighboring Arab countries like Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, etc etc. Will they respond to Israel?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

One of the mods should make a hypothetical question thread.

 

 

I don't think any of the other countries would use force against Isreal. They'd get their ass kicked, and they don't wanna make the U.S. angry. Also I think the U.S. could talk Isreal out of retaliating against Iraq.

[Guest Mad Dog]

While everyone hates Isreal they are afraid to attack them. Notice the only thing they do is suicide bombings.

[Guest nikowwf]

A real serious attack on Israel (one which threatens the integrity of their territory) may result in a nuclear response by the, so I don't think its a good idea. Its kind of scary Iran has nukes soon, cause if Iran lobs one at Israel, Israel is lobbing 200 of them at the whole freaking middle east, and we are all in the toilet.

 

niko

[Guest Anglesault]

Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Isreal. Take that for what it's worth.

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

If Iran has nukes, and are part of the much ballyhooed 'axis of evil' why isn't Bush pressuring them to disarm? Why havent they even been mentioned by the Bush Administration?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I heard Mubarak's government might not last long. Especially if Israel strikes Iraq. Radicals will want to take over Egypt and then go to war with Israel.

 

Remember..

 

Egypt has biological and chemical weapons.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Iran shouldn't have even been in the Axis of Evil. They have stable elections, their country has recently passed civil rights for women legislation, and they have the initiative and referendum process. They harbor terrorists? So do we. That doesn't mean their population is full of them.

 

They could, quite possibly, be the beacon of democracy in the Middle East in the near future. Why would we fuck that up?

[Guest teke184]

IMHO, Iran is in there because the leadership of the country refuses to give in to the will of the people. Didn't they call for new elections immediately after all the moderates won a few years ago then even MORE moderates won in that new set?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

We have trouble giving into the will of our people, too. They're in the axis of evil because of past events and the fact that they "harbor terrorists" (as was the original reason for the said axis). That's absurd, we harbor terrorists too. It doesn't mean the whole population agrees with them, or even the government.

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

If that's the case, Saudi Arabia should be the capital of said Axis...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

That's an entirely different story.

 

Saudi Arabia SHOULD be in the Axis of Evil.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Tyler do you mean the U.S. harbors terrorist. Do you mean the sleeper cells, or something else?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Sleeper cells, KKK, militias, etc.

 

They all live inside of our borders, it doesn't mean we're a 'terrorist nation', perse. Iran is somewhat the same way. I'm not gonna say they're entirely innocent, because they have WILLINGLY harbored terrorists in the past; however, they are very democratic and they don't openly support the terrorists. I don't think they have any business being a country in the "Axis of Evil".

[Guest Powerplay]

Sleeper cells, KKK, militias, etc.

 

They all live inside of our borders, it doesn't mean we're a 'terrorist nation', perse. Iran is somewhat the same way. I'm not gonna say they're entirely innocent, because they have WILLINGLY harbored terrorists in the past; however, they are very democratic and they don't openly support the terrorists. I don't think they have any business being a country in the "Axis of Evil".

That's the most inane argument for us "harboring" terrorists EVER. Iran harbors terrorists who want to destroy the western world. They've attacked us at embassies, in other countries, and have held our people hostage before.

 

We, on the other hand, "harbor" terrorist groups... that want to destroy THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. It's slightly different, Tyler. We have terrorists that want to destroy us while Iran ALSO has terrorists that wants to destroy us. Am I the only one who notices this flaw here?

[Guest JMA]

Speaking of the KKK, wasn't there something in the papers about them buying chemical weapons?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Provide evidence that Iran willingly harbors terrorists. Else, you're just full of shit.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I think President Bush said Iran was part of the Axis of Evil, because of the religious sect that still has alot of power inside the country.

 

There the ones who support terrorist, and probably are giving safe haven to member of Al Qaeda.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Probably, maybe, sorta, kinda.

 

Frankly, their government, which is ELECTED AND FAIR, GIVING CIVIL RIGHTS TO WOMEN (which is an abberation in the Middle East) has not given support to these terrorists, and simply because their police squad seems to be inept (if they truly do harbor terrorists), it doesn't give us free reign to nuke the fuck out of them.

[Guest Powerplay]

Provide evidence that Iran willingly harbors terrorists. Else, you're just full of shit.

Tyler, you are just missing the point completely. You say we are harboring terrorists. "Harboring" means giving someone refuge from someone. Who the HELL are we protecting? What international terrorist group are we protecting from a foreign nation? The terrorists that are here are trying to destroy the US, not some foreign power. We DON'T harbor terrorists.

 

Secondly, what has Iran done to put down any of the Iranian terrorists groups that exist in it's country, particularly the Anti-West, Anti-US ones? Anything? They don't bother them, nor do they try to destroy them, creating a danger to our country. Just because I can't show willingness towards it doesn't mean the Iranians don't do it. Absence of Proof is not Proof of Absence. Even you should understand that concept.

 

Frankly, their government, which is ELECTED AND FAIR, GIVING CIVIL RIGHTS TO WOMEN (which is an abberation in the Middle East) has not given support to these terrorists, and simply because their police squad seems to be inept (if they truly do harbor terrorists), it doesn't give us free reign to nuke the fuck out of them.

 

Their democractically elected government has no power. The Ayatollah has to approve of everything that passes the government, and no matter how much their elected officals want something to pass, if the Ayatollah doesn't like it, it doesn't go. And why in God's name would we nuke them? Christ, overreact much?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Does Iran still have an Ayotollah?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Secondly, what has Iran done to put down any of the Iranian terrorists groups that exist in it's country, particularly the Anti-West, Anti-US ones? Anything?

 

Can you prove they even know these terrorists are in the country? If the US asks Iran to surrender one or more and they refuse, that's an entirely different story. If they simply can't catch the guys (and you cannot back up the fact that they aren't looking with a source not coming out of the mouth of Dubya Bush), how are they to blame?

 

They don't bother them, nor do they try to destroy them, creating a danger to our country.

 

Bullshit. Prove it.

 

Absence of Proof is not Proof of Absence. Even you should understand that concept. (empasis added)

 

So quickly you turn this into a stupid ad hominem debate. Wonderful. Yes, I understand the concept, but I fail to see how you are backing your argument up.

 

Their democractically elected government has no power. The Ayatollah has to approve of everything that passes the government, and no matter how much their elected officals want something to pass, if the Ayatollah doesn't like it, it doesn't go

 

Please provide your source. I have a few that contradict that.

 

 

 

 

Full Text:

(Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times 2000 all Rights reserved)

 

Iran's exercise in democracy during last week's parliamentary election has prompted an intriguing reaction among the Persian Gulf state's Arab neighbors: unadulterated envy. In country after country, commentators have been asking: Why don't we have the same thing?

 

The Iranian vote, in which more than 80% of the electorate participated, including women and youths 16 or older, resulted in what appears to be a peaceful transfer of legislative power from hard- line conservatives to pro-freedom reformers for the first time in Iran's modern history.

 

The atmosphere of the election was noted by the Arab commentators. The political slinging was hard but fair; each side had access to mass media and made no bones about criticizing its foe, and both accepted the outcome as legitimate and final.

 

Even though the stakes were high, there was no noticeable intimidation of voters and no known rigging of the results. There was an important flaw in the process: the elimination of many would-be parties and candidates from participating because they were deemed to reject Iran's Islamic basis and constitution. Within those parameters, however, there was a wide spectrum of allowable opinion.

 

Everything considered, commentator Riad Najib Rayyes concluded in Lebanon's An Nahar newspaper, Iran's democratic process stacks up well and is miles ahead of anything practiced in the modern Arab world.

 

"In spite of the fact that it is a theocratic state ruled by a group of clerics, it has managed over the course of 20 years to nurture institutions . . . based on a mechanism of democratic competition," he wrote.

 

For all their excesses and human rights violations, including waves of arrests and executions that took place after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, censorship and restrictions on women and religious minorities, Iran's rulers have never outlawed the ballot box. Last Friday's election, in fact, was the 21st vote held by the Islamic state since its inception.

 

During that time, Iran's elections have grown more like those held in the United States or Western Europe, with clearly defined political parties and platforms, paid campaign advertisements and modern vote-getting techniques such as polling and mass mailings.

 

By contrast, most states on the Arabian Peninsula are monarchies. If they have elected parliaments at all, the bodies' powers are secondary to those of the ruling family. And when there are elections, women and even some adult males often are excluded from voting or running for office.

 

Other "democratic" Arab states hold elections, but there is a sham quality to the process. Security forces often suppress opposition, enabling ruling parties to hold on to power for decades. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Tunisia and Libya are in this category to greater or lesser degrees.

 

Rayyes noted that Iran's Islamic brand of democracy was open enough to produce a moderate such as President Mohammad Khatami, whereas elections had not elevated "a single liberal reformist to a position of leadership throughout the length and breadth of the Arab world."

 

Also praising Iran was Adnan Hussein, in the Saudi-owned newspaper Asharq al Awsat. Unlike some Arab states, he wrote, Iran did not offer a bagful of excuses such as "the extraordinary conditions" or "the imperialist aggression" for blocking a transition to democracy.

 

Such praise is ironic given the history of Iran's relations with the Arab world. Arab leaders were terrified by the Islamic Revolution, fearing that the philosophy of clerical rule of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini would spread. Their nightmare was that the Arab kings and emirs would be toppled in the same fashion in which Iranians, a linguistically and ethnically distinct people, got rid of their shah.

 

Now, if anything, it seems that Iran's chief political influence on the Arab world may be as a model of democracy, not theocracy.

 

Admiration for Khatami is one reason many Arab countries seem determined to upgrade relations with Tehran, even at the risk of annoying the United States.

 

In a milestone, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia last week extended his country's first invitation to the highest leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to visit the kingdom that is home to Islam's holiest sites.

 

With Iran legitimizing democratic institutions, it is small wonder that the U.S. recently has been "running after Iran to open a dialogue with it," while Arab countries have to plead with Washington for even a small bit of attention, according to the London-based pan- Arab newspaper, Al Quds al Arabi.

 

"To put it very simply, Iran is moving forward," said the paper, quoted by the Mideast Mirror monitoring service. "We are moving too: backward."

 

HEADLINE: SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ;

Iran and U.S. Starting a New Dance;

Though labeled part of an 'axis of evil' by President Bush, Tehran is trying to reposition itself quietly as a friend to West and foe of Iraq.

 

BYLINE: Azadeh Moaveni, Times Staff Writer

 

DATELINE: TEHRAN

 

BODY:

Like any good guest, the new British ambassador here brought a present when he visited the cleric who heads Iran's chief foreign policy agency. It was far more important than a keepsake, flowers or pastry.

 

It was a message.

 

According to diplomats, envoy Richard Dalton reassured Iranians that there would be no place in a postwar Iraq for the militant group Moujahedeen Khalq, which is dedicated to overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who fought an eight-year war against this nation in the 1980s, provides shelter and support for the group.

 

The cleric, Hassan Rowhani of the Supreme National Security Council, smiled at the news, which diplomats say also reflected the U.S. position. The Bush administration has labeled Moujahedeen Khalq a terrorist organization.

 

"This is a good sign," said a senior Iranian official. "Iran's concerns are being heard."

 

On the surface, it appears strange for a Western power to be reassuring Iran -- a member, along with Iraq and North Korea, of President Bush's "axis of evil." But Iran and the U.S., which was once branded the Great Satan here, are rediscovering an old adage: The friend of my enemy is my enemy, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

For months, Iran has discreetly accommodated U.S. plans to invade Hussein's nation, by aiding Iraqi dissidents and even helping to prevent oil smuggling by Iraq.

 

Both moves have hurt Hussein's regime while allowing Iran to present a constructive face to the West in hopes of broadening political ties to Europe and discouraging U.S. perceptions of the Islamic Republic as a threat.

 

The policy, termed "active neutrality" here, has had its difficult moments for this predominantly Shiite Muslim country. Iran, torn between fundamentalists and a restive population seeking political reform, cannot be seen as actively aiding the West, even against Iraq, a traditional enemy controlled by rival Sunni Muslims.

 

"After almost 25 years of chanting anti-U.S. slogans, we can't turn around and fight alongside America," said a senior Iranian official. "Even Kuwait can't announce that it's doing this. That's just the reality of the region."

 

The presence of an armed Iraqi opposition group inside Iran poses an added challenge for Tehran: how to back the fighters' ambitions in Iraq without running afoul of the U.S.

 

Iranian policymakers hope a cloak of ambiguity will enable their country to reap the political capital of accommodation to the West while keeping its Islamic credentials intact.

 

"When talking to Muslims, Iran is against war. But when talking to the West, it favors Iraq's disarmament and compliance with Security Council resolutions," said a senior Western diplomat in Tehran, who like many of those interviewed asked to remain anonymous.

 

Iran's immediate agenda, diplomats say, is to have a key role in any decisions about a postwar Iraq, to consolidate its position in the region and to deepen relations with Europe. These goals would strengthen ties to nations friendly with the U.S. that could lobby on Tehran's behalf should hawks in Washington advocate going after Iran.

 

"This is not proactive diplomacy. It's damage control," said an Iranian analyst.

 

Iran began preparing for the aftermath of war early last year, according to officials and diplomats, when Tehran concluded that a U.S. invasion of Iraq was inevitable. The clerical regime also wanted to avoid repeating mistakes involving Afghanistan.

 

During the Afghan conflict, the Iranian government worked with the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance militia and shared valuable intelligence that helped produce a swift American victory in late 2001, only to have Bush deliver his "axis of evil" judgment a month later.

 

"The fall of Saddam would be good news for the Iranian people and the people of the region," said Vice President Mohammed Ali Abtahi in an interview here last week. "But the region's problems need to be solved in an international framework, not by the unipolar impulse of the United States."

 

For more than a year, the bimonthly meetings of the Supreme National Security Council have debated American objectives in seeking to drive Hussein from power, along with Iraq's possible responses and what brand of neutrality could best promote Iran's interests.

 

"What we want from Iran is not confusing or demanding," said a U.S. official in Washington.

 

What the U.S. wants is for Iran to not complicate an already dangerous area by getting militarily involved. Iran has trained and armed a Shiite Muslim organization, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose military wing is seeking to deploy 5,000 guerrillas in northern Iraq. When British Prime Minister Tony Blair met with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi in London last month, he carried an American request that Iran keep the fighters, known as the Badr Brigade, out of the north, according to Arab diplomats in the region.

 

In public and in private, Iranian officials indicate they will oblige. In the event of war, the Badr Brigade guerrillas would not be permitted to open their own front from Iran's border, the Iranians have said, and those present in northern Iraq would be pressed to stay out of the U.S. military's way.

 

"Iran doesn't want to provoke American sensitivities," said Abbas Maleki, who was deputy foreign minister under former President Hashemi Rafsanjani. "There's no desire to interfere."

 

In contrast to the campaign in Afghanistan, during which some elements of the Iranian government aided fleeing Al Qaeda members and sought to disrupt U.S.-led reconstruction efforts, there is consensus within Iran not to make mischief in Iraq.

 

"No one is motivated to interfere this time around," said a senior Iranian official closely allied to President Mohammad Khatami. "Everyone is united in hatred of Saddam."

 

With little to offer the United States besides agreeing not to cause trouble, Iran has tried to strengthen its position from the sidelines, through its special relationship with members of the Iraqi opposition who have made Iran their stamping ground.

 

Iran offers the only safe, generally reliable land route for the opposition into Iraq, and it has increased its long-standing ties to Iraqi Kurdish and Shiite dissidents.

 

"The message is 'We're important,' and the target audience is the U.S.," said an analyst in Tehran.

 

Since last fall, Iran has allowed the Iraqi opposition to expand its activities. For example, officials granted long-delayed permission for Ahmed Chalabi, the secular Shiite whose Iraqi National Congress is funded by the State Department, to open an office in Tehran.

 

In the last two months, a flood of Arab foreign ministers and Iraqi opposition leaders -- many carrying messages from the U.S. -- has created a mood of conspiracy here, turning Tehran into something akin to Casablanca during World War II.

 

Iran has also sought to increase its visibility. At a London gathering of Iraqi opposition groups in January, it was the only major international player at the table besides the United States. The noticeable lack of Arab influence at the talks, and over the Iraqi opposition in general, has helped Tehran's contribution shine.

 

"The rest of the region resents Iran's unique capability in the Iraq crisis," said Maleki.

 

The weight Iran carries with Iraqi dissidents would appear to be less significant in the short term if Washington initially imposed military rule in Iraq. But Tehran retains some long-term leverage as the patron of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, known as the SCIRI, whose participation would be important to the legitimacy of a transitional government.

 

Iran has also tried to exert itself regionally by proposing a summit that would include itself, four Arab states and Turkey. Nothing came of the proposal, but it was seen by diplomats as a baby step in Iran's journey from pariah state toward the status of regional power it enjoyed before the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

 

Undeterred, Iran offered another solution to the Persian Gulf crisis Tuesday, calling on the Iraqi opposition to reconcile with Hussein and for the U.N. to sponsor elections in Iraq.

 

Along with playing host to the opposition, Iran has kept up direct talks with Baghdad, ostensibly to try to convince Hussein to abide by U.N. resolutions and avoid war.

 

In a message to Tehran sent with Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri last month, Hussein offered Iran a broad, generous package of trade and the exchange of prisoners from the 1980-88 war and asked for assurances of Iranian neutrality, according to diplomats. But in his meeting with Sabri, Foreign Minister Kharrazi suggested that Iraq should comply with Security Council resolutions.

 

Iran's talks with Baghdad are hotly debated within the government here. Many pro-reform members of parliament believe Iran has little to gain by ties to a regime whose expiration date appears to be approaching, and they tried to impeach Kharrazi for allowing his Iraqi counterpart to visit Tehran.

 

Some officials believe Iran should let the SCIRI act freely with Tehran's blessing.

 

"If it was up to me, I'd fling the border open and let them through," said one senior official.

 

However, other allies of Khatami, who urged Iran to cooperate openly with the U.S. during the war in Afghanistan, believe the "axis of evil" designation obliges Iran to be more cautious.

 

"Being truly neutral is in Iran's interest," said Hadi Semati, a political science professor and foreign policy advisor to the government. "Being perceived as a participant in this war will leave a lasting scar in the Arab world."

[Guest Some Guy]

Iran shouldn't have even been in the Axis of Evil.

I have this starnge feeling that I've heard this type of thing before. I heard over and over form teh Left that N. Korea shouldn't be in the Axis of Evil last year because the vaunted forirgn policy legends Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton got them to sign a treaty (which they promptly broke, Communist dictatorships can't be trusted) and then came teh big anoucement from Korea that they have Nukes and now they are saying, "why are we going to Iraq when N. Korea is a bigger threat?" Keep in mind that a year ago N. Korea was not any threat in teh Left's opinion. Now then don't you think that the President just might, maybe know more than you do about Iran? Do you have access to tons of intelligence reports everyday about Iran? Sorry but I tend to trust his word about Iran (who are developing Nukes) over yours.

 

I do agree with you about Saudi Arabis though. They should be next after Iraq and Iran. N. Korea is a huge clusterfuck, the only way to win that war would be for us to Nuke teh shit out of them without warning before they could destroy Seoul. N. Korea has had 50 years to build up arms at teh de-militarized zone, Iraq and Iran have not. That is why they are going a different route with Iraq than Korea and why Iraq is first on the list. The goal is to stop them befoer they can get where N. Korea is now.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Did you even bother reading either of the sources I cited?

 

Iran isn't a threat, and while trying to maintain neutrality, have supported the Western cause. They're increasingly democratic. They're not spouting off at the mouth with anti-US statements.

 

North Korea has ALWAYS been a wild card, and they're still a communist country. I originally assumed the reason for putting the NKs in the ill-fated 'Axis' was the fact that they still threatened South Korea. It so happens that we pissed them off enough that they now pose a major and huge threat to the region and the world.

 

On the other hand, Iran threatens NOBODY. They're increasingly reformist and women can now hold political offices and vote. It may not be perfect, but they're sure on the right route. They think they have the right to have nukes as well; they're also not threatening to any nation in the region. However, we have nukes to protect ourselves, too. It's stupid logic, and I think nuclear weapons should be banned worldwide (if it was enforceable), but they ARE a valid deterrant.

[Guest Some Guy]

Tyler, I understand that Iran has been trying to democratize but there is still a major Islamo-Facist movement that has power in the government. They are developing Nukes and if the Islamo-Facist regain full power than they will pose a very real threat to America and our interests. I think Bush included them for this reason adn to let them know that regression to their previous from will be a big problem for us.

 

Nukes are a deterant however I would feel much more comfortable knowing that the country with them won't use them unless absolutely necessary and I don't trust Iran considering that they could fall back to their old ways. Progress is nice but I think the President wants more assurance that it will continue and not building Nukes would be a good way to show that they are friendly.

 

I think nuclear weapons should be banned worldwide (if it was enforceable)

 

Well considering that the UN would be the ones to pass the resolution to ban them then we know that it is not enforceable. They won't hold up their more minor resolutions, and they certainly wouldn't be able to or most likely not willing to enforce this.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Agreed on all counts, actually.

 

I don't think we should get involved with them right now, though. Let them progress, and if they fall back to radicalism, then deal with it.

 

As far as nukes go, I understand we need them as deterrants. I wish we didn't have to deal with that at all, though. They epitomize everything that is wrong with the world.

[Guest Some Guy]

We don't really need them as deterants anymore we have the MOAB ("Mother of All Bombs") and plenty of other shit in our arsenal.

It's actually kind of funny how far ahead America is of the rest of the world. We created the Nuke in 1945, N. Korea just figured it out and Iran and Iraq haven't yet.

[Guest Powerplay]

Edit: Due to having a crappy internet connection and lacking my normal college sources, I'm far too late for the argument but I waited a while to find info and I'm still posting it because of the effort that went into it. I don't mean to incite anything else, I just put a lot of time (Stupid 28.8K) into writing this.

 

Tyler, your wrong. I'm sorry to say this, but if you notice, they HAVEN'T CHANGED AT ALL. In the article, it even says that:

 

"For all their excesses and human rights violations, including waves of arrests and executions that took place after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, censorship and restrictions on women and religious minorities, Iran's rulers have never outlawed the ballot box. Last Friday's election, in fact, was the 21st vote held by the Islamic state since its inception. "

 

So they are still the same way. They've ALWAYS had democratic elections for their leaders, except for one:

 

Chief of State: Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI (since 4 June 1989)

Elections: leader of the Islamic Revolution appointed for life by the Assembly of Experts

 

As long as the Ayatollah has power over the entire government, whether or not they have democratic elections means absolutely shit. I'm sorry, but that's how it is.Edit: Some Guy is right: As long as the Ayatollah and the strong Islam-Fascist movement, they are a big threat to the region and to us.

 

Bullshit. Prove it.

 

Prove to me anything has been done. This isn't the Holocaust, Tyler. There isn't common knowledge of Iranian action against Anti American groups. YOU have to bring the proof, Tyler, not me. And here's something that FBI Director Robert Mueller said:

 

Although the most serious terrorist threat is from nonstate actors, we remain vigilant against the potential threat posed by state sponsors of terrorism. Seven countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism -- Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Cuba and North Korea -- remain active in the United States and continue to support terrorist groups that have targeted Americans.

 

This is the Head of the FBI saying that the country of Iran sponsors terrorist groups that threaten America. This was in February of this year. You think they've changed in a month? Arg, I'm sorry if I sound like a hardliner, because I'm not, but things like this can really strike a passion with me. If I've offended anyone, sorry. I hate doing this.

[Guest Brian]

Maybe the British shouldn't be selling Iranians bomb making materials then?

[Guest Powerplay]

Maybe the British shouldn't be selling Iranians bomb making materials then?

They did? Could you link the story? I think I've heard of this, but I'm not sure...