English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

11 answers

"Question : How do you know a politician is lying ?

Answer : His lips are moving ....."

2006-09-20 05:21:42 · answer #1 · answered by Dolev 2 · 0 0

No, he is not lying. The Mullahs may be sitting on vast oil reserves, but they have absolutely no intention whatsoever of using that oil for the well being of the populace. The only thing the Mullahs understand is MULLA=money. Money is way more important to them than religion (religious extremism is just a cover). They would certainly prefer selling all the oil and filling their own pockets rather than give it to the people. Therefore, given the drastic increase in population in Iran, they need an alternative CHEAP form of energy for the future that would allow them to sell the oil and gas unfettered. This is their plan, since Iran has been looking at alternative forms of energy for the past few years. During my Masters degree classes in engineering back in 2000 in Switzerland, we were told that Iran was the second largest builder of hydoelectric dams behind China.

However, I do believe that Iran is seeking the know-how in order to build a bomb at very short notice should they be attacked. It is called deterence. In this regard, the President is not lying, since Iran is not seeking to physically build a nuclear weapon, but wants the know-how.


To Frith25:

You are missing some key points:

1. As I said earlier, the Mullahs want to sell their oil, rather than use it for the energy needs of the populace. And this is even more apparent given the price of gas these days. What fool would seriously consider burning oil for energy (revenu = nearly 0) rather than selling it for $60, $70 or $80 a barrel???

2. The "Death to America" slogan is just that: "a slogan". The Mullahs in Iran would s.u.c.k. Uncle Sam's d.i.c.k. if that would make them richer. Everyone knows that these people are driven by money and money and money. The hatred is just a facade. Actually, the majority of the population is young (60% under 30) and did not experience the religious nostalgia of the 79 Islamic revolution in Iran. Most of them are pro-American, but don't necessarily support Bushism, or should I say Babboonism.

3. I hope you are not mistaking Mohatma Gandhi (the "Gandhi") with Indira Gandhi, who was the daughter of Nehru and adopted Gandhi's last name: no family relation between Indira and "Gandhi". Gandhi was actually assassinated in 1947-1948 I believe.

4. I think Israel and the US government, especially headed by ignorant men (Bush, Cheney,etc.) that don't know squat about diplomacy or tactfulness, are a greater threat to the world than terrorists or Iran. Quite frankly, what is more dangerous??:

A huge nuclear arsenal in the hands of a childish monkey and a country more interested in solving problems through violence and war (Israel) or a country like Iran, that would be annihilated if it even dared to use its arsenal???And how about Pakistan, where the majority of the people are muslim radicals; they HAVE nuclear weapons!!

5. How will it end??: nothing will happen. Iran will not build a weapon, but will have the necessary knowledge to do so if attacked. Protected by China and Russia and being the main provider of oil to Europe, the US can do nothing to stop Iran, short of starting a third World War. What's scary: The Shrub in the White House is capable of doing just that.




To Kent S.:

I agree with your post, but need to remind you:

Ethnically and linguistically: IRANIANS (OR PERSIANS) ARE INDO-EUROPEANS, THEREFORE CAUCASIAN, THE MORE SO, SINCE THE CAUCASUS MOUNTAINS IS PRETTY NEARBY AND WAS ONCE PART OF IRAN. ISLAM IS A RELIGION NOT A RACE.

2006-09-20 14:11:15 · answer #2 · answered by Shivers 2 · 0 0

Yes. There's no doubt.Set aside everything that's been said, and take notice of what Iran is DOING. do they really need extensive heavy water research for nuclear energy? No, not really.Do they need nuclear energy for their power grid? No, they're the 4th largest exporter of oil.
Its a simple power play.The thinking is "if you have the bomb, you wield a big stick".without getting too deep into political science, wouldn't having that "big stick" give Iran excessive influence over Asia minor, & the middle East in friend & foe alike?
How about their sworn hatred for the US.(and it is the United States,not just the administration.Terrorists aren't going to target just administration.that's just silly thinking.

Go Back to the 1970's when India was seeking nuclear energy.Indira Gandhi,(yes that Gandhi) was seeking nuclear energy,and their excuse was for(you guessed it)power generation. They built a bomb, and she was considered "passive" at the time.India knew the bomb would give them leverage over Pakistan,as well as China& Russia.A few yrs later, Pakistan had the bomb as well.
Can you imagine this scenario in the middle East?Can you imagine a hated enemy of yours with an extreme devotion to their religion possessing such power?
One thing is for sure;The issue will be resolved one way or the other.This is something that cannot be ignored.

2006-09-20 12:46:13 · answer #3 · answered by frith25 4 · 0 0

Yes he is lying.

He has stated in his own media that his aim is to wipe Israel and the United States off the map. The only way he can do this is with nukes.

Iran has no need for nuclear power, they sit on top of some of the richest oil reserves in the world.

The sad thing is that he's managed to charm the US and Western Media into thinking he's a good guy. He is pure evil.

2006-09-20 12:18:39 · answer #4 · answered by East of Eden 4 · 2 0

The question is :Why should Iran be denied the right to have nukes while the US is not denied bearing in mind that the US is the only country in history that ACTULLY used nukes.It was against Japan in 1945

2006-09-20 16:37:01 · answer #5 · answered by incredible22 3 · 0 0

Yes, but he is a better at it than Bush. I felt from the beginning that the main reason for our foolish invasion of Iraq was for reelection purposes and oil. We need to break our "addiction to oil" in the next five ... not "25 years."

2006-09-20 12:21:27 · answer #6 · answered by Pey 7 · 0 1

Yes and I also think he has no choice, because like it or not we are going into Iran one day, and they would be dumb to not arm themselves.

2006-09-20 12:16:54 · answer #7 · answered by DEEJay 4 · 1 0

The US stared the problem because of its double stardard agreement.

The Devil made economic sanctions to Iran

The US have nuclear weapons why can't Iran have one!!!

because they are not caucasians? they are Moslems?

Discrimination

2006-09-20 12:24:06 · answer #8 · answered by Kent 3 · 0 2

yes he does the classic liberal flip flop giving speeches promising to destroy the USA and Israel and he say he just need power how else would he destroy the USA other than nuke it sad things is the liberals are going to let him

2006-09-20 12:42:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I'll go with East of Eden's answer!

2006-09-20 12:30:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers