Iran, Dangerous or not. I believe the president of Iran is a lunatic,a terrorist and is capable of causing?

Question

mass destruction! Your thoughts?

Answer 1

With statements like saying Israel should be "wiped off map" he and Iran are VERY dangerous and Nuclear weapons in the hands of these lunatics would be a disaster

Answer 2

Yes Iran is dangerous and have problems with surrounding countries but all of their nuclear programs are ones that you have to do in order to get the equipment and material to build a nuclear power plant. I dont think the US had anyone breathing down their necks when they were doing all of this. The UN should just put some people in place to watch the processes and if they start going the othe way then yes they should have sanctions but right now I think Bush is just trying to stick the US nose into another manufactured war.

Answer 3

Well he certainly wouldn't get my vote; but far from being a lunatic I think he is a very intelligent man.
He knows which buttons to push to get George Bush dancing like a performing bear and he knows exactly what to say to get his captive audience (native Iranians)on his side.
What really worries me about his policies is the nuclear issue from a purely safety point of view.
Iran is earthquake prone. There is no safe site in Iran for a nuclear reactor and they want to put it as far away from the seat of government as they can, right on the edge of the Arabian/Persian Gulf ( written in that order for alphabetical reasons only).
As to the entire Holocaust issue? It is all a smoke screen.
Dip carefully into what he has to say and it comes up as politician speak, pretty much like our own home grown cretins.
Sad but true.
We should be wary of the silent ones; they will be our undoing!

Answer 4

If you read his comments about his perception of the US, you'll find that Iranians feel much the same way about us, and our president. We remain the only country ever to use weapons of mass destruction on a civilian populace. History may in some part forgive Hiroshima, in the context of WWII, but Nagasaki was purely 'because we can.' No one has forgotten that.

You've put your finger on the reason why the Bush administration has so damaged world politics, and why the world is so much more dangerous today. Countries who are led by lunatic terrorists capable of causing mass destruction now have legitimate reason to view our leaders as lunatic terrorists capable of causing mass destruction. Bush gave them ample cause to do so, our history of using nuclear weapons indicates a willingness to do it again, and for the first time in our history much of the rest of the non-Muslim world views him, and the people of the USA, in the same way.

There's nothing to do but escalate from here, if our government's policies don't change drastically. Your concerns are valid, so are theirs. We see them as if we were being threatened by a scorpion, or a really big ugly spider--scary, but crushable. They see us as though they have been backed into a corner by a rabid animal, and they have to try and protect themselves, knowing they are going to be bitten. We have frightened them, the worst thing we can do now is make them desperate.

Answer 5

Iran=Danger=Probably the starter of the next world war.

Answer 6

He may be what you said about him. But America did support the Shah of Iran who was a very unpopular tyrant in Iran. In so doing has caused a great distrust towards USA. Its very much like you are not allowed to own a knife while a person you believe to be an evil enemy has always wielded his long sword to push his way around. THINK ABOUT IT.

Answer 7

Iran is not dangerous at all. President of Iran is neither a lunatic nor a terrorist and is not interested to cause any harm to any body. Iran Nation and it's citizens has equal rights to possess Nuclear Material as U.S., U.K., etc., have, for development purpose.

The alleged fear in the minds of U.S., citizens are false and fabricated created by its lunatic president, Mr. Geoarge W Bush.

Answer 8

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a constitutional theocracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Iran
The commander-in-chief of the military is **not** the President. The President is elected to a four-year term. The true power under Iran's constitution is the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei who is appointed for life by the council of mujtahid experts (clerics).

Since 2005 Iran's clerics have made statements about the "right" and "need" that Iran has to possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declares that Iran's acquisition of nuclear technology is for peaceful nuclear power. http://www.fisiusa.org/fisi_News_items/news109.htm
(Actually, President Ahmadinejad's dialog is taqiyah 'dissimulation' to protect Islam in Iran.)
http://www.meforum.org/article/1002
http://www.wahhabism-info.com/AkhtarRizvi/Taqiyah.htm

>>>
Iran Emrooz (Iran Today) quoted Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer Kharrazi, secretary-general of Iranian Hezbollah, as saying in a February 14, 2005, speech, "We are able to produce atomic bombs and we will do that. We shouldn't be afraid of anyone. The U.S. is not more than a barking dog."[32]
>>>
On May 29, 2005, Hojjat ol-Islam Gholam Reza Hasani, the Supreme Leader's personal representative to the province of West Azerbaijan, declared possession of nuclear weapons to be one of Iran's top goals. "An atom bomb . . . must be produced as well," he said."That is because the Qur'an has told Muslims to 'get strong and amass all the forces at your disposal to be strong.'"[33]
>>>
As a confidant of the Supreme Leader, Hasani provides a window into his thinking. In February 2006, Rooz (Day), an Iranian website close to the Islamic Republic's reformist camp, quoted Mohsen Gharavian, a Qom theologian close to Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, one of the Islamic Republic's staunchest ideologues, as saying it was only "natural" for the Islamic Republic to possess nuclear weapons.[34]

Here is a list of Iran's key nuclear sites . If you go to the website you can see a map and satellite photos. It is interesting that Iran's nuclear technology matches application for weapon use and does not match power applications.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4617398.stm#esfahan

>>
BUSHEHR - Nuclear power station
Iran's nuclear programme began in 1974 with plans to build a nuclear power station at Bushehr with German assistance. The project was abandoned because of the Islamic revolution five years later, but revived in 1992 when Tehran signed an agreement with Russia to resume work at the site. There are two pressurised water reactors at the site - one reportedly near completion.

>>
ISFAHAN - Uranium conversion plant
Iran is building a plant here to convert uranium ore into three forms:
** Hexafluoride gas - used in gas centrifuges
** Uranium oxide - used to fuel reactors, albeit not the type Iran is constructing
** Metal - often used in the cores of nuclear bombs.

The IAEA is concerned about the metal's use, as Iran's reactors do not require it as fuel.

>>
NATANZ - Uranium enrichment plant
Iran suspended work on an uranium enrichment plant at Natanz in 2003 - but has recently reopened the facility. In 2003, a leaked International Atomic Energy Agency report said that weapons-grade uranium had been found in samples taken from the site, although Iran blamed contaminated imported equipment, and an independent report later confirmed this.
According to some estimates, when complete, Natanz could house some 50,000 advanced gas centrifuges, which would produce enough weapons-grade uranium to produce more than 20 weapons per year. Other estimates suggest the plant will have a total of 5,000 centrifuges when initial stages of the project are completed. With that number, Iran would be able to produce sufficient enriched uranium to make a small number of nuclear weapons each year.

>>
ARAK - Heavy water plant
The apparent existence of a heavy water facility near the town of Arak first emerged with the publication of satellite images by the US-based Institute for Science and International Security in December 2002. Heavy water is used to moderate the nuclear fission chain reaction either in a certain type of reactor - albeit not the type that Iran is currently building - or produce plutonium for use in a nuclear bomb.

Answer 9

I think Iran is dangerous. And not just because of the nuke thing. Its mainly because, this is my UNinformed opinion, that Iran can and has the opportunity to REALLY manipulate the world with this threat. I think they are already asking for concessions to curb its program and right now, we have no choice but to give in to their demands or risk going in for another battle (and weak a$s Iraq is giving us problems, can you imagine well funded Iran?).

I'm watching all this with trepidation because Iran is showing the US its not the super power it once was. Right now, USA can't really do anything.

Answer 10

very dangerous. I hope sanctions are good enough to stop Iran.