First of all, just based on English, a country can't "export" people, namely terrorists. A country can deport people, or outsource people, but not "export" since that word describes shipping ITEMS. That being said...
Lol. ABSOLUTELY WRONG. I would like anyone, anyone at all, name an Iranian person who directly carried out a terrorist attack? Hmm...either the response would "I don't know any" or "Yeah, that blah blah Arab guy"...of course forgetting that IRANIANS ARE NOT ARAB!!!!!!!!! Also, it's surprising, that despite 9/11th, the person doesn't seem to mention Saudi Arabians, which constituted a majority of the hijackers. Hmm...Maybe that's because the Bush Administration, who basically grovel at the royal Saudis feet (look at the gas prices if you need proof ;)), have completely misinformed the stupid that Saudis are friends and that Iran is the enemy. This is laughable because the Saudis have a monarchy (which Americans ironically fought against in the Revolutionary War, remember?), compared to Iran, which has a semi-representative government. Of course, the big difference hinges the fact that Iran doesn’t supply oil to the U.S, whereas Saudi Arabia does. So, if you want to be a Saudi puppet like the president, then by all means support the quote.
Furthermore, just as a little known fact, Iran has captured the most Al-Qaeida agents than any other country in the world, even including the US :D. Take that sucka. So perhaps, the U.S. people when they vote for someone who is tough on terrorism and gets the job done, should elect Iranian government officials instead of people like Bush...just as a thought.
"Iran is one of the biggest exporter of oil and gas but they say they need atomic energy! Isn’t it funny?"
What a bunch of croc. Iran, despite being a huge exporter of oil, has an inadequate refining capacity and huge amount of oil demand internally. This is due to the country's energy needs, both automotive and industrial, growing at an alarming rate. Therefore, in order to export as much oil as possible, these internal needs can't be siphoned off to Iranians with huge subsides. How? Through plans initiated by the government which will head initiatives for automobiles to run on compressed natural gas, which is less in-demand than oil, and yes, by using nuclear power to generate electricity. Make sense? And while the cost of internally supplying nuclear fuel is huge and not economical, Iranians has learned all to well that foreigners can't be trusted in sensitive matters, such as the oil nationalization crisis in 1953, which brought in the repressive Shah. So, if for example, Iran decides to receive foreign nuclear fuel and not produce it, and then the foreign nuclear fuel abruptly stops being delivered. That would mean a huge part of the power grid would go out permanently until Iran could find another way to supply electricity. That could take an order of a year to do, which would not be good for any country. Still makes sense? Add to the fact that oil WILL eventually run out, the nuclear option is tantalizing.
Notice that this doesn't disprove that Iran may want nuclear arms as well, merely that generating nuclear power is a wise decision and good on it's own.
A country which once ruled half the world. Currently under the dictation of an Islamic government, which is ripping the nation to pieces.
Various terrains, such as mountains, jungles, deserts, grasslands, etc., can be found in Iran without much difficulty. Huge natural gas and oil reserves are probably the reason Iran is still on the Map.
There are people of many races, religions and cultures all around Iran.
All 'n all, great country to spend a vacation in, not the place you want to raise your children.
Ruled by the Pahlavi line until 1979, when the religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini came to power. In November 1979, Iranians overran the American embassy in Tehran and took 66 people hostage, some of whom were eventually kept for 444 days. There was a failed American attempt to come rescue the hostages, but it was over a year of negotiation with then-President Jimmy Carter and the fact that Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 (for unrelated reasons) that probably led to the hostages' release after Ronald Reagan had been elected President. Iran and Iraq stayed at war until 1988.
Furthermore, it has been historically shown that any empire that tries to conquer the modern day Iran either losses control of it in about a hundred years, gets destroyed by Iranians, or eventually is taken over by Iranian administrators since the guys who have conquered Iran do not have a clue about running the governments. And given the current case of Iraq, the USA certainly falls under that category.
Furthermore, if the USA attacks Iran, a country with three times the land and populous of Iraq, would very dangerously stretch US forces too thin to effectively engage in an actual threat from another country.
If you research deep iranian,american,and iraqi history, you would find out that the bush senior supported and persuaded saddam to attack iran, a YEAR before the gulf war. What the Hell is going on hear?
but ran by dumbasses who cant keep this great country in good health