Iran

[James]

Ok so you would have to be living in a vacuum to not know what is now going on.
What are everybodies thoughts?

Iran might be telling the truth - they might only be doing it so that they can have it for civilian power.
Can the risk be taken though? Hitler etc etc
But is he (refering to the president) a risk?

Another, indeed if not the most important factor, is israel. If the situation isn't soughted out sharpish; israel is highly likely to take action. This guy has after all said that he wants israel wiped off the map, and he apparantly denies the halocaust. The signs arn't good...

[ComradeOm]

We have another few years before things get really nasty. By the way that this fool of a president is shaping up he won't last that long. So he's hardly a factor.

Besides, Israel will solve this problem for us when it does come to a head. If there's no thing that the Israelis have proven time and time again its a willingness to destroy what they perceive to be threats to Israel's existance. I suspect that we'll see them employ their own nukes to end target the facilities

[Noah]

I'd say if Iran and Isreal did go to war then Iran would put up a harsh fight. If they called Jihad as a Muslim country they would be declaring Isreal as a threat to their religion and I would imagine resistance fighters would come for all around the world to protect their faith (mainly extremists).

It could also lead to further anti-semitism?

Only time can tell?

[BuyOurEverything]

If there's no thing that the Israelis have proven time and time again its a willingness to destroy what they perceive to be threats to Israel's existance

Replace 'Israel' with 'every country in the world' and you are correct.


I suspect that we'll see them employ their own nukes to end target the facilities


I doubt that very much. First, nukes are completely uneccessary for limited tactical strikes. Second, why would they officially reveal that they have nukes for no apparent reason? Third, they would lose all international support, of which they could potentially have alot of if Iran was in fact developing nuclear weapons.

Frankly, I doubt Iran is, and even if they are, I don't really see it as a big deal. Yes, the president has said Israel should be destroyed, but why would he launch a nuclear first strike against them and essentially seal the demise of his entire country? Realistically, how long would it be between Iran launching a nuclear missile and Iran becoming a sheet of glass? One hour? Two? It's all just rhetoric.

[Sentinel]

I don't believe anyone would be foolish enough to nuke a that close neighbour because of the radiation other than as a last option, facing an immediate overpowering threat.
A regular war is possible i suppose, but I'd rather think Ahmadinejad is merely boasting. Populists are known for that sort of behavior,and that raving lunie is a populist if anything.
If Iran really is trying to produce nuclear weapons I'm certain they're meant as an "insurance" against invasions. Israel on the other hand has severe internal problems to solve before starting a war against such a powerful opponent.
So, I find a cold war between Teheran and Jerusalem more likely than a "hot" one.

[Intifada]

I agree completely with the two posts prior to this one.

Self-preservation is the main worry for Iran's leaders at the moment.

They are not stupid enough, if they have the capability in the first place, to nuke Israel. Such a proposition is truly fucking ridiculous.

[cccpcommie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:29 PM
Ok so you would have to be living in a vacuum to not know what is now going on.



or you work at bestbuy like myself..whats occuring in Iran?

[Morpheus]

Iran has decided to resume work on nuclear technology. It says it's going to use the technology to build nuclear reactors, not weapons, but the US & Western Europe are getting all paranoid about this being a front to develop nuclear weapons (recall that they used similar excuses to justify invading Iraq, even though it abandonded its nuclear weapons program in the early '90s). Even if Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons, it's the height of hypocrisy for the US & friends to complain about this because they have more nukes then anyone. IF they can have them, then Iran should have the same right.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:43 PM
I doubt that very much. First, nukes are completely uneccessary for limited tactical strikes. Second, why would they officially reveal that they have nukes for no apparent reason? Third, they would lose all international support, of which they could potentially have alot of if Iran was in fact developing nuclear weapons.
The Iranians aren't stupid and they saw what happened to Saddam when he tried to set up his own nuclear plant. These facilities that the Israelis will be targeting are dispersed, well protected and deep underground. In other words its not your typical West Bank apartment block.

"Overkill" or "public relations" aren't concepts that the Israeli generals are familiar with. If they feel that Israel's existence is threatened then they will act regardless of the political, or actual, fallout. And to them any country besides themselves in the region possessing nukes is a threat.

Besides, who else is going to do the job? Both the US and the Europeans are sitting safe knowing that even if their talks and diplomacy fail the Israelis can always be relied upon to do the smart thing.

[Tekun]

If Iran took action against Israel, chances are that the Americans would indirectly/directly protect their little colony
And if possible, due to their military strength, they would overthrow Iran and set up a puppet
After all, the US has branded Iran as part of the "axis of evil"

It would be Kinda like when Iraq invaded Kuwait, except this time they would definitely invade Iran and occupy it, with Israeli help

Not the smartest move by Iran, so my guess is that this type of jibberish is bluffing from their president

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

I agree with comrades Morpheus and BuyOurEverything. The reasons given to the public to justify the Iraq war were exactly the same, and were a pack of lies, just as these claims are.

When Mohammad Khatami says Israel shoul be wiped off the map, I believe he does not mean this literally - even if Iran had the potential to develop nuclear wepons, no leader would send his entire nation into suicide through attacking a country with over 200 nuclear warheads as well as the support of the US and UK. He means that Israel is an illegitimate state - he refuses to recognise it as that, because it is built on the occupation of Palestinian land, which I personally agree with. He means thats the land should be given back to the people who have lived there for the past hundreds of years.

And it is disgusting for the US to adopt this role of world policeman, telling other countries what they can and cannot do - let them and Israel abolish their nuclear programmes, then Iran will abolish theirs.

As comrade Noah said, there will not only be resistance fighters from around the world going to help Iran, but also Russia has sold Iran tens of millions of dollars worth of SA Missiles to fight off a potential attack from Israel. Also Iran is much bigger than Iraq and it will be harder for an invader to control that amount of land. An attacking coalition will also be smaller than say, the Gulf War one, because the smaller nations have learnt lessons from the Iraq war not to get involved.

[bunk]

The bottom line is although Iran is a much more difficult prospect than Iraq, the US can't sit by and let them open their oil market in euros. That's the real issue here. it could mean the end of the petrodollar

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

True. But what can they do? US troops are in Iraq for the next few years - about 300 000 of them. Their forces and resources are tied down elsewhere. The only thing they can do is let their middle eastern attack dog Israel do the job for them. But perosnally I think they are incapable of doing this, as their armed forces are not big enough, and Iran has Russia'a (supposed) support.

Another factor is who the next Israeil PM will be. If Sharon dies, his replacement is, allegedly, even more hardline than he was.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 12 2006, 12:51 PM
Another factor is who the next Israeil PM will be. If Sharon dies, his replacement is, allegedly, even more hardline than he was.
Not important. In cases like this it is the Israeli military that calls the shots and, unless there's a complete dove in power (an impossibility in Israeli politics), the government will merely rubber stamp their decisions and deal with the fallout.

[redstar2000]

An invasion of Iran by the U.S. does not look practical at this time.

A series of targeted air strikes is always practical for the U.S.

The question then becomes how the Iranians will respond?

It is easily within their power to strike U.S. bases in Iraq, Kuwait, and "Saudi" Arabia. Indeed, they might be able to shut down oil production in their immediate neighborhood for a considerable period of time.

When Israel bombed Iraq, Saddam Hussein blustered...but otherwise decided not to retaliate. The Iranian government could very well do likewise.

I'm not sure the mullah regime in Iran can afford another war...defeat could mean the "end of the line" for them.

If the U.S. does bomb Iran, this will deepen hostility towards U.S. imperialism in both western Europe and Latin America...with possibly interesting repercussions.

So it's not a "slam dunk" for the U.S. by any stretch.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[James]

I think as long as "progress" is still being made, then israel will restrain itself from acting: an example being the gulf war when saddam launched scuds - israel didn't respond. However, if it seems progress is not being made (which i don't think is a likely situation - due to the international interest/worry), then israel may do some tactical strikes. I agree that they won't use nukes for this purpose.

What seems like a simple solution is the one posed by russia, which (as i understand it), would mean that iran gets the power it seeks, but not the ability to create a bomb (although i'm not clear on the ins and outs; thats what russia seemed to be proposing, in my opinion: if i'm wrong please someone correct me).


I think the iranian president is certainly a problem.
Also a little stupid. If he was a little more subtle he could tap into pro-palestine, anti israeli feeling; i think he has gone a little too far though in his claims/statements.

You have to take everything into account: he denies the holocaust (a call sign for anti-semitics), and has called for the nation to be "wipped off the map". It is certainly aggressive language, combined with actions that are potentially dangerous - on what seems to be an anti-semitic background.

What IS clear though, is that iran isn't making it easier for itself. It does seem to be, quite willingly, the cause of panic. Might just be ego; but it might not.

But then again if it did intend to fight israel - surely it would be more covert about the affair, to give itself more chance of victory? I suppose we have to bare in mind the jihad/martydom mentality as well.

Its certainly a tricky one.
Whilst i havn't made my mind up for sure; i'm certainly leaning towards the opinion that iran is a threat...



Also, for those who think that this is all done to the US trying to police the world: you do need to realise that this is a concern of numerous countries now. Indeed, China seems to be the only major "player" who is unalarmed.

[Quzmar]

it's simple! they are playing a game and they are playing well! and it's all coz of the bastard American government.!
they are doing this coz they know that most of the American army is Iraq and they will know well in advance if America is going to attack them!
the question is: what do they want!
i think we are suffering as a result of the selfish imperialist policies which made the whole world instable!
The interesting thing is to see how real are some comrades are!

[Sentinel]

I agree with comrade Morpheus. Regardless how twisted the Iranian leadership is,
I cannot see justification for any action against them for trying to get nuclear weapons.
Not before the United States is put on trial for having the largest reserve of them in the world, +actually having used them (against the people of Japan).
The nuclear weapons are a very powerful tool in world politics, so it is obvious why the
American empire wants to have a monopoly over them. I don't see why the world should let them.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:45 PM
i'm certainly leaning towards the opinion that iran is a threat...


Also, for those who think that this is all done to the US trying to police the world: you do need to realise that this is a concern of numerous countries now. Indeed, China seems to be the only major "player" who is unalarmed.
Comrade James - have you not learnt any lessons from the Iraq war? We were taken to war on a lie - the whole idea about weapons of mass destruction was a prefabricated myth, as was the 40 min from annihilation claim. There have still been no weapons found, and look at Iraq now. Iran poses as much a threat as Iraq posed 3 years ago.

Are you denying that the US polices the world? Can u clarify what the major concern is please.

[bunk]

It is the same scenario as Iraq, Iraq had been selling their oil in euros for a year when the US invaded. There were so many looters because US military was first assigned to secure oil sites. The first act was to change Iraqi oil back to selling in dollars. Iran will threaten the whole US economy by opening an oil market in euros so the US will have to do something.

Of all they can do probably the most convenient would be to lend support to Israeli strikes on Iran then it won't be so blatant.

[James]

Comrade James - have you not learnt any lessons from the Iraq war? We were taken to war on a lie - the whole idea about weapons of mass destruction was a prefabricated myth, as was the 40 min from annihilation claim. There have still been no weapons found, and look at Iraq now. Iran poses as much a threat as Iraq posed 3 years ago.

I appreciate your point, but do not think that it is a terribly similar case. For example, why would they sell the same lie/spin again in such a short period of time? It is politically dangerous, as well as conconvincing. Also, this is not a perceived threat, only seen by some. It is fact that they are trying to develop certain technology. True purpose is hard to prove. But the main difference here is that this time things are much clearer.
With iraq, saddam was suspected/believed to own WMD. WMD that were "hidden". Indeed, none of significance have been found.

There is not suspicion regarding whether or not Iran has broken the UN seal, and are pursuing such technology: they have made it very public that they have done so. What is under debate, is what the intent is. This is incredibly hard to prove either way. What is clear though, is that the same fundamental technology supports both possibilites, and thus arguments (although it should be pointed out that many argue that the iranians still have to develop their delivery system). Both arguments have credible grounds.

I suppose the major problem is as follows: if the iranians are telling the truth, then they get certain power for their population.
However, if the credible suspicion that iran is lying is correct: then there is a major issue.
For one, they may get one (bomb), and then use one; which is an obvious potential threat in itself.
However, and this is what i believe to be the biggest threat, if iran is suspected by the israeli's as having taken the path to create an a-bomb; then it is most likely that israel will take action against iran to stop it. This in turn would have obvious conseqences.

Remember, israel is like any other nation regarding foreign affairs. Its first and overriding priority is the protection of the state and its people. Their nation has been invaded on more than one occasion since the end of WW2. Simily, many israeli's probably already consider themselves to being under a form of attack from iran (which again is a credible assumption; which does not lack evidence). Indeed, similar considerations arguably forced, or at least "excused" russia's imperialism following WW2 (to create a buffer zone; for national protection etc etc).


So my concern is on many levels. A concern which is not significantly reduced by the fact that the US and UK was wrong in the past about a different country with different circumstances


Are you denying that the US polices the world?

May i ask if you do?

Personally, i do "deny" it. I think that it is a popular assumption that is incredibly childish; often grounded in anti american propaganda. Elements within the US government and its agencies may wish to police events (some clearly do!): they may want to shape the world after themselves (which nation doesn't?).

This desire does not translate into reality on a global scale. It may, to certain degrees, in certain locations: but certainly not on the world.

Look at Iraq: it cannot police/control the situation; even with its emense fire power. Indeed, look at alot of US foreign policy following the fall of the berlin wall. It has on several occasions attempted to police/control events. Sometimes with a degree of succes, but often failing to achieve anything of significance. Indeed such failure damaged US self confidence, and goes some way to explaining why the US didn't help in Rwanda in the 1990s.

Also, i think alot of action perceieved as america policing the world is wrongly interpreted. For example, most large scale UN operations require US power - be it manpower, resources, or firepower. Thus in these cases, it is more accurate to say that the UN is attempting to police the world (which of course the US has influence within: but not by any means total control. Any suggestion otherwise is grounded in a weak understanding of how the UN operates).

The same applies, without a shadow of any doubt, to Nato. Take the kosovo conflict; there is a very convincing argument that the halting of the ethnic clensing would not have been stopped as easily, if at all, without US support. Especially air power. So again, maybe this was an example of NATO trying to "police", in this case an area of europe, events. Indeed, this specific subject brings up the important question of what policing means and actually involves. Many who argue that america shouldn't "police the world", seem to suggest that they want no US involvement in world affairs. This is either for anti-american reasons (a form of cultural hate maybe?), or because they do not want ANY form of international police action being taken, ever. This makes them isolationists. Personally i do not agee with the isolationist argument. Nor do i think actual isolationism is practically possible.

Like it or not, US imperialism has many negative features: but it has also helped bring a halt to ethnic clensing in Kosovo and iraq (ask the kurds). This is not me supporting imperialism. Merely giving the other side of the coin that is very rarely recognised by numerous elements of the left.

[James]

rereading that i feel that i need to make the following clear:

- i do not deny that some americans want to "police" the "world"
- i do not deny that the US has tried to police many events in many localities; indeed usually as part of a global policy/intent
- i do not deny that many cases of US action have been "wrong" (indeed: often counter productive)

- i do deny that "the US" in general, wants to police the world (numerous amounts of americans do not)
- i do deny that the US could police "the world" even if it tried: indeed, the US has on certain occasions been unable to police localities/events: despite trying.

- i pointed out that US power is often needed for any significant international intervention.
- i pointed out that "policing the world" (another word even being imperialism) is a controversial subject. It has led to persecution: and has also saved thousands (if not millions).

The problem with the term is that it is so simplistic. It is a bit babyish.

[Enragé]

"The question then becomes how the Iranians will respond?"

they could simply use their influence in southern iraq in regard to SCIRI and let all hell break loose in the south as well.

say bye bye to the brits in the south

[Intifada]

Iran is not undeniably a threat to any nation in the region, or world.

The fact is that any pre-emptive action would be unjust and hypocritical, and such actions are counter-productive in the so-called "War Against Terrorism".

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:38 PM
Iran is not undeniably a threat to any nation in the region, or world.

The fact is that any pre-emptive action would be unjust and hypocritical, and such actions are counter-productive in the so-called "War Against Terrorism".
It may not be a threat to you but you can be damned sure that the Israelis perceive it to be a pretty big threat. For once I can't say I disagree with them. The last thing the world needs is a bunch of mullahs with nukes.

[Intifada]

you can be damned sure that the Israelis perceive it to be a pretty big threat

Who cares what the Israelis think?

What right do they have to do what they like, when they like?

Iran has as much of a right to have nukes as Israel does, and you can't blame the Iranians for trying to protect themselves with a nuclear deterrent, if that is indeed their intention.


The last thing the world needs is a bunch of mullahs with nukes.

The last thing this world needs is proliferation of nuclear weapons, and we all know which countries are guilty of that.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:50 PM
Who cares what the Israelis think?

What right do they have to do what they like, when they like?

Iran has as much of a right to have nukes as Israel does, and you can't blame the Iranians for trying to protect themselves with a nuclear deterrent, if that is indeed their intention.
Well the Israelis care about what they think and that's enough for them. The rest of the world can go to hell if they feel otherwise. If the generals in Tel Aviv feel that Israel's security, never mind existance, are threatened then they will act

In these circumstances I can't blame them. An Iran, or any Islamic power, with nukes is very bad news for the Jewish state. Considering their history their fears are fully founded. And I for one would rather not see a radical Islamic regime with these weapons.

And the nuclear deterrent argument doesn't wash either. Israel is a lot smaller than Iran and would come of the worse in any nuclear war. So they will strike before the Iranians have a chance to develop a working warhead.

[Intifada]

Well the Israelis care about what they think and that's enough for them. The rest of the world can go to hell if they feel otherwise. If the generals in Tel Aviv feel that Israel's security, never mind existance, are threatened then they will act

And do you support/condone such an attitude?


An Iran, or any Islamic power, with nukes is very bad news for the Jewish state.

Iran, at the moment, is one of the most threatened state in the world. It is becoming surrounded by hostile nations.

Iraq and Afghanistan have been invaded by the US, a nuclear power that has threatened Iran for decades.

They then have Israel, which has also threatened "pre-emptive" attacks against the Iranians, to worry about.

Moreover, Iran is also bordered by a pro-American nuclear power in Pakistan.

I cannot blame the Iranians if they wish to have the same "deterrent" that nations such as Israel and Pakistan possess. Their fears are fully founded.

The attitudes of the anti-Iranian West reek of the "nuclear apartheid" that Manouchehr Mottaki criticised last year.

Why can't an Islamic nation have the inalienable right to nuclear technology that Western nations can enjoy?

The Iranians have not acted in an illegitmate fashion, and should not be treated with double standards.


So they will strike before the Iranians have a chance to develop a working warhead.

Such a "strike" would be unjustified and idiotic.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 09:25 PM

An Iran, or any Islamic power, with nukes is very bad news for the Jewish state.

Iran, at the moment, is one of the most threatened state in the world. It is becoming surrounded by hostile nations.

Iraq and Afghanistan have been invaded by the US, a nuclear power that has threatened Iran for decades.

They then have Israel, which has also threatened "pre-emptive" attacks against the Iranians, to worry about.

Moreover, Iran is also bordered by a pro-American nuclear power in Pakistan.

I cannot blame the Iranians if they wish to have the same "deterrent" that nations such as Israel and Pakistan possess. Their fears are fully founded.

The attitudes of the anti-Iranian West reek of the "nuclear apartheid" that Manouchehr Mottaki criticised last year.

Why can't an Islamic nation have the inalienable right to nuclear technology that Western nations can enjoy?

The Iranians have not acted in an illegitmate fashion, and should not be treated with double standards.

Iran shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons when their leader says Israel should be wiped off the map, or the holocaust never happened. I seriously doubt Iran and Pakistan getting into a war in the near future. Pakistan developed their weapons after India got them, not because they felt they needed to nuke Iran.

If the Iranian leader was killed and mullahs put out of power, then I would support an Iranian nuclear power. At the current time, though, they shouldn't be allowed to have weapons like that. That said, the entire world, including the US and Israel, should dismantle their weapons. But first we need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Besides, I highly doubt the US would attack Iran when a third of the US population supports the war in Iraq.

If Iran got nuclear weapons, they'd most likely sell them to Hezbollah, so they can kill as many people as they possibly can. I honestly believe that Iran isn't only building nuclear technology for their defense.

[Sentinel]

Has anyone thought about how many muslims would die should Iran nuke Israel? They would be nuking Palestine at the same time.
Or jews if Israel nuked Iran? Iran still has one of the largest jewish populations of
the muslim countries, despite the emigration after the islamic revolution.
No, I can't just see that happening.
They might as well nuke themselves instead of each other :P

[James]

Intifada.
I think you misunderstand the problem regarding israel.

The problem is that israel will defend itself before it allows iran to get nukes.
Is it justified? Well that is a rather subjective question. A better, and more helpful question is; how likely is it that israel will defend itself from such a threat?

the answer is undoubtably: "highly likely".


What right do they have to do what they like, when they like?


That is incredibly naive of history.

Remember this is not an argument that israel "has a right to do what it wants".

The entire modern history of israel, is one of defence against anti-jewish aggression (from an israeli perception). Set up after over 6million had been systematically murdered in europe (this reason is often forgotten when people argue that israel has no right to exist); suffered several invasion attempts from all around its borders, suffers daily from terrorism etc etc.

It is a country that was created to defend jews: and it is a country that has since had to defend itself from numerous different forms of aggression.

Now the motivation behind such attacks isn't really the point. This is not after all an argument that it is "right" or whatever.
The point is that israel feels (with good reason) that it has a history of being persecuted: it is simply not going to allow a group, led by a guy who denies the holocaust + has called for their nation to be wipped off the map (which together makes a rather obvious problem), which is suspected of actively supporting terrorism against israel, to get a nuke.
It simply won't.

As far as israel is concerned: iran is already attacking israel.
Would you give a gun to someone who is trying to kill you? Would you allow him to get a gun?

Rights don't matter in "realism": what matters is the protection of one's population. To israel, its population has a right to survive: a right to security.


Iran has as much of a right to have nukes as Israel does, and you can't blame the Iranians for trying to protect themselves with a nuclear deterrent, if that is indeed their intention.


Very true. they have been included in the axis of evil. Two of its neighbours have been invaded and occupied. All its potential enemies in the region have nukes. North korea is left relatively alone - most likely because it has nukes.

I don't know about this "right" to a capability to destroy.

I'm not convinced by the whole "the cold war was a period of safety because there was balance: the two powers could destroy each other". It was/is a high risk strategy of international security. As cuba ever so nearly showed. If it fails, it fails BIG time. We should be arguing for less, not more nukes.

Also you have to question the mentality. Indeed, no doubt you are highly critical of religion and the effect it often has on someone's perceptions. Remember: this religion has contributed to the decision for some individuals to commit suicide whilst causing mass murder. It doesn't take a genious to translate such action from individuals "on the ground", to individuals on a state level.

I'm not saying that the president would do this: but i'm "putting it out there", that he seems to share a very similar set of ideas and philosophy to those who have murdered, and not minded paying for it with their lives (indeed, death seems to be a positive rather than negative thing).



Also, it must be remembered that iran signed a contract saying that it had stopped such research/ and would not resume such work. They have broken this agreement.

[xenite]

Ok I'm trying to think like an international socialist here and then it's obvious that neither the fundamentalist Iranian leadership or the imperialist capitalist nations of USA, EU and Israel deserves any leftist support.

Reasons against Iranian nukes:

1) The reactionary Mullahs of Iran might sit safer backed by Nuclear weapons, it makes insurrection and intervention less likely. This is a very bad thing, the mullahs must be regarded as the enemy by all revolutionaries. During the 1979 Iranian revolution the struggle against the US backed fascist shah was at first led by strong nationalist and communist groups. There was hope for a true people’s revolution; it was not until Khomeini returned that the revolution swung in favour of the extreme rightwing fundamentalists. These then proceeded to hunt down and kill many thousand socialists, communists and trade union Iranians. Thousands more fled the country. Many of these people remain in the diaspora to this day opposing the fundamentalist leadership of Iran.

2) Nuclear weapons are always to be avoided if possible because of the unimaginably horrible consequences if they where ever used.

Reasons for Iranian nukes:

1) An Islamic nation with nukes in the region might make the US and Israel less likely to invade and bomb Arab nations at their leisure killing thousands of innocents and keeping the Arab populations down. Western Europe, USA and Israel as nuclear powers and with histories of vicious imperialism and colonialism have absolutely no right to moralise over a third world countries attempts to get the weapons to protect themselves.

2) Historically the best way to halt American aggression seems to be to have nuclear weapons or nuclear allies. To exemplify Cuba avoided American intervention because of soviet nukes, the Soviet Union itself and China probably too. North Korea is much safer from invasion since it might have nukes. On the other hand Iraq shows that stopping nuclear programs and not having any WMD:s probably increases the risks of US invasion.

Conclusion:

We must also consider that it is probably a long time before Iran has usable nukes and that the situation might change. The Iranians might easily back down before that, or the plants might be struck by the Israeli air force making it a non issue but if not:

I think that the region and especially the Palestinian freedom struggle might benefit from Iranian nukes. It would mean that Israel and USA lost their total military superiority. Nukes seem to be the only deterrent to American imperialism. The risks of nuclear war should be small since both the Iranian mullahs and Israeli militarists are (kind of) rational people.

I think that the problem must be seen in the context of the Middle East being a region occupied and exploited by the imperialist nations of America and Israel. As such the nations of the Middle East and hopefully in the long run the peoples of the Middle East must be allowed to defend themselves against imperialist aggression. That’s the only way that they might get into a position to control their natural recourses (oil), free them selves from imperialism and hopefully develop towards socialism.



Also as a side note it's a fun fact that when the shah dictator ruled the country the US government was actually backing a large Iranian nuclear power program, funny how they don't do that anymore... :)

Also excuse any spelling and grammar errors, my first language is Swedish.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 09:25 PM
And do you support/condone such an attitude?


I can understand their position. Its actually very easy to see where the Generals are coming from - Iran with nukes is a serious threat to Israel so therefore Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. There is nothing underhand or devious about this position, Israel is simply thinking about its survival.


Iran, at the moment, is one of the most threatened state in the world. It is becoming surrounded by hostile nations.
I can easily see why the Iranians might think that. However they are not in any danger of being attacked. Neither the US or Israel are able to make a move against Iran unless they continue to develop these weapons. Acquiring nukes will simply make things worse for Iran.

On the other hand Iran has clearly proven to be hostile to Israel through both the recent statements and its history of sponsoring anti-Israel terrorists.


Why can't an Islamic nation have the inalienable right to nuclear technology that Western nations can enjoy?
Because the regime is unpredictable, unstable and frankly dangerous. I am not going to ignore the despotic nature of the Iranian government just because they are anti-Western. An enemy of my enemy is not my friend.


The Iranians have not acted in an illegitimate fashion, and should not be treated with double standards.
They hid a nuclear program for 18 years!


Such a "strike" would be unjustified and idiotic.
To you perhaps. It makes perfect sense to the Israelis and I'm inclined to agree with them on this one.

[Sentinel]

Could someone who is against the Iranian nuclear program please define against
who, and on which scale , they are afraid the Iranians might use nuclear weapons?
The nutball leader of Iran has made the statement "Israel should be wiped of the map".
With that statement he is in his populistic way showing his solidarity to the palestinian cause, right? Now:
Israel and Palestine are geographically the same country.
How would Iran nuking Israel help the Palestinian cause? Not in any way! It would end the history of Palestine. Such islamic heroes the "mullahs" would become!


Originally posted by Chinghis Khan
If Iran got nuclear weapons, they'd most likely sell them to Hezbollah, so they can kill as many people as they possibly can

Same goes for the Hezbollah: How would they contribute to their cause by polluting the
land they strive to liberate, for centuries? This makes no sense!

[James]

UPDATE

"Iran threatens to end UN cooperation"

"In case Iran is referred to the UN security council ... the government will be obliged to end all of its voluntary cooperation," Iranian television quoted Mr Mottaki as saying.
...
Iranian authorities said the country was resuming "merely research" and that "production of nuclear fuel" - which would involve enrichment - "remains suspended".

However, the IAEA said Tehran also planned small-scale enrichment of uranium - a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors to generate electricity or material for nuclear weapons.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1685821,00.html


If iran only intends to do it for electricity, then they have nothing to hide. It would only be "pride" and arrogance that would lead them to cut off co-operation with the UN and watch dogs.
The purpose of watch dogs is to observe and make sure nothing "bad" happens. Watch dogs put others at ease: because they know nothing "bad" is happening.

Throwing them out makes no sense what so ever. Even if they are saying the truth: they are certainly implying otherwise by their actions.
Makes no sense!


+ + + + + + + + +


Could someone who is against the Iranian nuclear program please define against who, and on which scale , they are afraid the Iranians might use nuclear weapons?

Well i think that i am against it... but i'm not sure as of yet.
The obvious target would be israel. Beyond that, any perceieved aggresor i suppose. The scale is hard to predict. I suppose such things would depend on circumstance, and to what purpose they would be used.


Although i would like to point out that it is my opinion that this isn't the primary threat. The primary threat to stability and peace; is israel acting in self defence. It simply will not tolerate the iranians developing such a means of destruction. Especially under this leadership that thinks europe "made up" the holocaust.



The nutball leader of Iran has made the statement "Israel should be wiped of the map". With that statement he is in his populistic way showing his solidarity to the palestinian cause, right?

Whilst i agree that it is highly likely that alot of his comments are designed to generate popular (uneducated) support for his rule (see - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...cset=true)...it (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-holocaust15dec15,1,6837922.story?ctrack=1&cset=true)...it) does seem to go beyond this mere argument against zionism.

Serious questions need to be asked when someone thinks the holocaust is a "myth". It also demonstrates a lack of understanding as to why many israeli's are "paranoid" to the extent that they wanted their own nation: a nation which would defend jewish people.

I also think his claims regarding "put it in europe" are crap too. Jews have strong links back to where israel now is. Hence the name, judea (sp?). Much stronger claims there, than their own nation in europe.

And either way; the nation is now there. It is stupid to think that they are going to move away. Some in the middle east should know this especially! They have after all tried to military force them off the land: and failed (and suffered the blow back).




Now:
Israel and Palestine are geographically the same country.

No not quite. Only a bit of israel.


How would Iran nuking Israel help the Palestinian cause? Not in any way!

You seem to not understand the different variet of nukes available. Bunker busters for example, are incredibly small: but still nukes. There are also entire israeli cities, quite a distance from any land that is claimed by palestinians.

[James]

There is alarming information on: http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/

Pieces of note are:
- the ever growing list of countries condeming/disapointed with iranian decision.
- reports on the treatment of the population (recent hanging of a 19 year old woman); and especially the historical treatment of kurds, largest minority iranian group. Ain't good.
- interesting background information on prominent members of the cabinet and the president. Again: it doesn't look good.

+ + +

ALSO, an article on the guardian.

"The sickness bequeathed by the west to the Muslim world"
Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday December 14, 2005
The Guardian



But everyone has their limits and last week I reached mine. On Thursday the president of Iran chose to stand with the cranks, neo-fascists and racists who deny the factual truth of the Holocaust.

"Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces," said Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "Although we don't accept this claim..."

Suddenly, the usual apologetics won't work. No one can say Iran's president was really complaining about Israel or Zionism, rather than Jews. No one can say he was talking about the west's colonial crimes. He was peddling, instead, one of the defining tropes of the racist hard right: Holocaust denial. It is a stance that seeks to deny Jews their history, their suffering, almost their very being. Like denying that African-Americans were ever slaves, it is a move made by those who wish only harm.

In this light, Ahmadinejad's previous musings look rather different. When, in October, he stood beneath a banner that promised "A world without Zionism" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", many Jews felt a chill at what seemed an annihilationist fantasy. Cooler heads said no, this was merely the hyperbolic style of the region, deployed to press a robust anti-Zionist rather than anti-semitic case. What he wanted, they explained patiently, was a world without Zionism, not a world without Jews.

Well, now I'm done with the charitable explanations. A man who refuses to believe the historic truth is capable of anything. This is not an Arabic cable TV station or an obscure Egyptian newspaper. This is a head of government, the leader of a nation of 70 million - a country that aspires to lead the Muslim world. And, lest we forget, Iran has nuclear ambitions. So now it's not paranoid to worry about a president with annihilationist dreams - it's smart.

Unfortunately, it doesn't end with Ahmadinejad, a man with no experience outside Iran, a hick who, Iranian analyst Dr Ali Ansari concedes, is a "monumental embarrassment". For he has given voice to a sentiment that runs deep in Iran and in the wider Muslim world.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1666626,00.html

Indeed, i think that sums up alot of my concern.

And remember: what i believe to be the major threat is not so much an iranian attack: but an israeli first strike (which is not without some good reason to israelis; and also non israelis) aimed at preventing iran from even being in a position to threaten the use of such weaponary. Obviously, such a strike would most likely have dramatic consequences.

Think that is basically my position.

[Sentinel]

James: thanks for your reply! My views:


No not quite. Only a bit of israel.

Depends on who you are asking. Many Palestinian liberation groups actually
claim the entire former nation of Palestine for the arabs. I think this is what
Ahmadinejad meant by "wiping Israel of the map".


You seem to not understand the different variet of nukes available. Bunker busters for example, are incredibly small: but still nukes
There are also entire israeli cities, quite a distance from any land that is claimed by palestinians.

I was under the impression that the proletariat in Israel mainly consists of palestinians, and that they do most of the shitty work even in these Israeli cities.
In this I might be wrong however.

Different types of nukes: I think we can outrule the use of any larger ones to begin with. Bunkerbusters and "dirty bombs" - Allright, maybe not impossible, but most unlikely. The Iranians would not dare to draw the international judgment of such actions on themselves.

On this we are in complete agreement: The denial of the holocaust is outrageous !! I have very little love for Ahmadinejad and his regime indeed.
But I really hope that he'll be overthrown not by any western intervention but by the people of Iran.

[Intifada]

(Chingis Khan)

Iran shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons when their leader says Israel should be wiped off the map, or the holocaust never happened.

I agree.

Although, take into account the fact that as of yet there is no evidence that Iran wishes to create nuclear weapons.

The Iranians have concerns which are as understandable as the Israeli concerns. With this in mind, the Iranians are only acting in an understandable way.

If Iran wants nuclear technology, that is their right.

"Pre-emptive" strikes are not going to help. If such a policy is undertaken by Israel, the consequences will be destructive.

I can be sure of that.


I seriously doubt Iran and Pakistan getting into a war in the near future.

That isn't the point.

Why should a dictator be allowed to possess nuclear weapons?

Moreover, Pakistan is not exactly a bastion of freedom and human rights.

Hypocrisy is severely detrimental to all Western arguments against Iranian actions.


Pakistan developed their weapons after India got them, not because they felt they needed to nuke Iran.


In the same way, the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons and that two of Iran's neighbours have been invaded by the US, surely you can understand why the Iranians are acting in the manner we have seen so far?


But first we need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.


No.

First all nuclear powers must dismantle their arsenals.

Those nations in possession of nuclear weapons are the biggest threat to world security and any hopes for peace.

If the likes of Washington and Tel Aviv wish to dissuade Iran from apparently building nuclear weapons, the best thing they could do is offer the branch of peace and get rid of their own nuclear weapons.

Until this happens, they are in no position to criticise the Iranians.


Besides, I highly doubt the US would attack Iran when a third of the US population supports the war in Iraq.


I don't think military action against Iran by the US is realistic, considering the position they find themselves in at the moment with Iraq, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan.


If Iran got nuclear weapons, they'd most likely sell them to Hezbollah, so they can kill as many people as they possibly can.

Rubbish!

Iran, and Hezbollah are not going to risk their own position by doing such a stupid thing.


I honestly believe that Iran isn't only building nuclear technology for their defense.

Your worries are unfounded and irrational.

[James]

James: thanks for your reply!

:lol:
Sorry, i do just "get going". Also, i believe it is very important. Which enhances my "going"ness.
Also i'm meant to be doing an essay. So anything but that....


Depends on who you are asking. Many Palestinian liberation groups actually
claim the entire former nation of Palestine for the arabs. I think this is what
Ahmadinejad meant by "wiping Israel of the map".

Well the whole issue is highly politicial. Not made any easier by an unclear past, the ottoman empire, the british mandate, and the proceeding establishement of israel: invasion of, and proceeding treaties.

I would be interested to see what these liberation groups actually define palestine as. Are they going to invade jordan? Because arguably that makes up the majority of old palestine (i.e. the british mandate zone). See definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_Palestine

Like i said, the ottoman empire makes it all terribly tricky. What happens following the fall of an empire? What makes a state? etc etc

Sure, he may mean: lets go back to so-and-so date of palestine. But why not back further? Indeed, why go back at all?

Should scandinvia get back the danelaw land in the east of england? Should the people of north north scotland, and highland wales be allowed to take back england? After all, it was the land of the celts before the saxons came. And then the normans came! etc etc And of course the celts wern't the first people there either! So i find all of that kind of bullshit just that. Bull shit. Whats the problem with a two state solution?

Also, as i pointed out - this guy doesn't just want the zionists removed: he thinks, and argues, that the holocaust never happened. He seems to be a populist anti-semitic wanker. Why should we listed to those idiots? Would you give hitler weapons? Incidently, adolf was firmly into the whole "get rid of the jews" thing, and also believed in the german people's land. etc etc



I was under the impression that the proletariat in Israel mainly consists of palestinians, and that they do most of the shitty work even in these Israeli cities.
In this I might be wrong however.

I havn't been there. Nor have i seen relevant statistics. So i don't know.



Different types of nukes: I think we can outrule the use of any larger ones to begin with. Bunkerbusters and "dirty bombs" - Allright, maybe not impossible, but most unlikely. The Iranians would not dare to draw the international judgment of such actions on themselves.

PArdon?
They don't give a fuck! pardon my french... they broke an agreement. They have said that if they are reported to the security council then they shall throw out the watch dogs an end "voluntary co-opetation". Iran glamourises pal suicide bombers; their leader deines the holocaust and thinks their nation needs to be wiped off the map.

I think you are giving the current iranian regieme toooo much credit!!!


On this we are in complete agreement: The denial of the holocaust is outrageous !! I have very little love for Ahmadinejad and his regime indeed.
But I really hope that he'll be overthrown not by any western intervention but by the people of Iran.

I agree.
But i think if they carry on upon this path they are asking for international action, and possible israeli retaliation.

Why bring this on to yourself?

[Intifada]

(James)

The problem is that israel will defend itself before it allows iran to get nukes.


Which I have never denied.

Such an action, I think you will agree, would have disastrous consequences in the "War Against Terrorism".


The entire modern history of israel, is one of defence against anti-jewish aggression (from an israeli perception).

You left out the bit where the Zionists "drove out the Arabs" as Ben-Gurion aimed to achieve.

Ahmedenijad is not the only person to have uttered threatening behaviour to a minority that is discriminated against. I could provide you with pages of hateful crap that the Zionists have spewed, without any outrage being heard from the "international community".


suffered several invasion attempts from all around its borders

Debatable.

Let's stick to this topic for now though.


suffers daily from terrorism

Not daily.

Such a fact would apply to the Palestinian people.


Would you give a gun to someone who is trying to kill you?

Rhetoric does not relate to an attempt to destroy something/somebody.

I could try to act "hard" in order to show off and gain a "rep" amongst my peers, or to try and deter somebody from attacking me.


what matters is the protection of one's population. To israel, its population has a right to survive: a right to security.


The Iranians feel exactly the same way.

Look at North Korea.

It seems as though the DPRK has nuclear weapons and this has deterred military action by the US against the Korean regime.

Iran may believe, I think rightly, that nuclear weapons would deter the possibility of an attack by the US.


We should be arguing for less, not more nukes.


Indeed.

Like I wrote in my response to Chingis Khan, the West must lead the example, otherwise countries like the UK and US are in no position to criticise Iran for apparently trying to gain nuclear weapons capabilities.

The first step that should be taken is the dismantling of nuclear weapons owned by the US, UK and Israel, to show that they want a nuclear weapon-free world.

We all know that is not going to happen.

In fact, the opposite is happening.


Remember: this religion has contributed to the decision for some individuals to commit suicide whilst causing mass murder.

Correction: Religion is used by certain people in order to justify such acts of terrorism.

Bush does the same.

He often refers to "God", and how he is "on side" with his actions.


I'm not saying that the president would do this: but i'm "putting it out there"

Personally, I believe that the Iranian leadership would rather not risk losing power by doing something as stupid as nuking a country.


Also, it must be remembered that iran signed a contract saying that it had stopped such research/ and would not resume such work. They have broken this agreement.

Iran has a right to do research in the field of nuclear technology.

[Intifada]

(ComradeOm)

I can understand their position.

In the same manner, you should also be able to understand the Iranian position.

They were accused, by George W. Bush, as being part of an "Axis of Evil".

Iraq has been attacked, so has Afghanistan.

Iran is therefore understandably concerned by the possibility of being attacked next. Nobody can deny the power a nuclear weapon has as a deterrent. Iran, if it has the intention of making nuclear weapons, would only be doing so in order to protect themselves. They are not dumb enough to jeopordise their own position by starting a nuclear war which would only end up with losers on all sides.


Israel is simply thinking about its survival.


So, it can be argued, is Iran.


However they are not in any danger of being attacked.

Don't be silly.

The USA cannot be trusted.

There is a probability that Washington may decide to take military action against Iran.


Acquiring nukes will simply make things worse for Iran.


Iran seems to be in the same lose-lose situation Iraq found itself in a few years ago.


Because the regime is unpredictable, unstable and frankly dangerous

The same could be said about Pakistan.


An enemy of my enemy is not my friend.


The imperialist actions of the US, UK and Israel are not very friendly either.


They hid a nuclear program for 18 years!

Iran had every reason to keep its nuclear programs hidden from world view.

In fact, Israel did the same.

Since the freedom-loving-Shah's fall in 1979, the US regime has done everything in its power to prevent Iran from gaining access to any nuclear technology. For years, the US effectively blocked Iranian attempts to complete its nuclear power reactor at Bushehr, by pressuring Germany to terminate the construction contract.

So, you can understand why Iran hid their nuclear technology ambitions.


It makes perfect sense to the Israelis and I'm inclined to agree with them on this one.

Fair enough.

I believe a "pre-emptive" strike would only serve to highten extremism in the region.

We agree to disagree.

[James]

Which I have never denied.

Such an action, I think you will agree, would have disastrous consequences in the "War Against Terrorism".




I didn't mean to imply that you had denied it: simply that you had failed to understood that iranian action could lead to it.



You left out the bit where the Zionists "drove out the Arabs" as Ben-Gurion aimed to achieve.

Don't misunderstand my post. I wasn't arguning a zionistic argument. I have serious "issues" with israel and numerous causes of action that it has taken.

HOWEVER: my point was that israel has a history of being frequently attacked.

Also, we could split hairs over your comment: but i don't think there is much point. Suffice to say, i strongly disagree with alot of "anti israel arguments", which often ignore arab action.



Ahmedenijad is not the only person to have uttered threatening behaviour to a minority that is discriminated against. I could provide you with pages of hateful crap that the Zionists have spewed, without any outrage being heard from the "international community".


I think you fail to understand my point. To an extent, i don't think it really matters, this whole highly politicalised history of that region.
My point, was that if iran continues to pursue its current course of action to a significant extent, it is going to force israel into attacking it.

This will most likely have terrible consequences.

Also, this guy is head of a nation. He deines the holocaust (do you? Don't you see the problem with what this guy is saying - and do you deny the track record of people who often say this?) etc etc
Thus it is incredibly likely that israel percieves iran as a massive threat.


Debatable.

Let's stick to this topic for now though.


What???
You think it is debatable that israel has been invaded, on more than one occasion??

What the hell is your problem? ARe you completely detached from reality? ? ?


Rhetoric does not relate to an attempt to destroy something/somebody.

I could try to act "hard" in order to show off and gain a "rep" amongst my peers, or to try and deter somebody from attacking me.


As i am quite sure that i made clear, i don't perceive iran to be the main direct threat. My opinion is that iranian attempts (actual or perceived) to achieve such weaponary is bound to lead to israel taking action against iran.
Thus causing alot of shit.

Also, do you think it "cool" to deny the holocaust?

Come on man, your anti israeli stance is blinding you to the obvious truth.



The Iranians feel exactly the same way.

Look at North Korea.

It seems as though the DPRK has nuclear weapons and this has deterred military action by the US against the Korean regime.

Iran may believe, I think rightly, that nuclear weapons would deter the possibility of an attack by the US.


I stated my views on nuke deterent. And also, i have covered what i believe to be the primary threat.



Correction: Religion is used by certain people in order to justify such acts of terrorism.


Again: you are being blind.
You think these people are going to blow themselves up for no reason?
It is clear that their perceptions of death and glory, right and wrong, are shaped by "religion".



Iran has a right to do research in the field of nuclear technology.
And it could make life alot easier on itself.

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Comrades, please use your logic! What is the country with the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons? America. Which is one of the only countries to have used WMDs and other horrific weapons - America - atom bombs, napalm, depleted uranium, gas, cluster bombs, landmines etc.

Would the leader of Iran lead his nation into suicide through using nukes against Israel of an other nation? No! And thats assuming Iran is lying and has developed nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them.

One by one over the last decades, countries have obtained nuclear weapons and they have acted as a deterrent - using them would mean both nations at war committing suicide. Its completely justified for Iran to want nuclear weapons, and certainly to have nuclear power.

The fact that 6 million jews were slaughtered in WW2 is a terrible one and one not to be forgotten. But it cannot be used as a justification for that state to do as it pleases in the middle east. There were also many millions of gypsies, disabled people and gays murdered by Hitler - have we seen the creation of a "gay" state? No. So this argument is invalid. Jews are not a race - judaism is a religion, right? Its like the kurds saying they want an autonomous sovereign muslim state because they have been repressed by Saddam Hussein, and come over to New York to claim it.

When I said the US polices the world, I meant that (i hope most would agree with me) that its governments have always been aggressive, imperialist and expansionist. Its corporations exploit hundreds of millions and keep entire population in dependency and poverty. It has invaded dozens of countries and slaughtered tens of millions of people. The fact that it took part in a UN peacekeeping mission does not wipe its slate clean.

[Sentinel]

James: I agree with you on the argument that putting "rightful claims" on long lost territory is BS. That has been done by both parts in this conflict.

I think that Israel was founded on unjust arguments.

But I also see, that it "is there" now, and we have to make the best of the situation. I'm leaning towards the two-state solution, and I also think that Jerusalem should be made some sort of international, mutual territory.
Then at least wackos of no religion could cry and whine about not having access to their "holy" sites.

But I still agree with Intifada and others on that the west has no moral right whatsoever to point their fingers and accuse Iran for their possible nuclear aspirations. And I also find any military conflict started by either Israel or Iran most unlikely. If anyone starts a fight it will be the US with friends.

As I said before I think the Israelis lack the power due to their internal crisis.

[James]

Comrades, please use your logic! What is the country with the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons? America. Which is one of the only countries to have used WMDs and other horrific weapons - America - atom bombs, napalm, depleted uranium, gas, cluster bombs, landmines etc.

America is hardly "one of the only" nations to have used such weapons (with some exceptions - e.g. nukes etc).

Iran and Iraq was a particularly nasty war, where many nasty weapons were used. The death toll was imense.


Would the leader of Iran lead his nation into suicide through using nukes against Israel of an other nation? No!

How do you know?
Iran does give support to suicide bombers in israel. It also glorifies the cause.

A better question is perhaps: would the leader of iran purposely make a deal, and then break it. And then cut off talks with the EU. Then threaten to break of vuluntary co-operation with watch dogs?
Why would you do that? Such action seems illogical. Thus it isn't "logical" to assume iranian action will always be "logical"

(although i agree, i don't think the main threat is that the iranians will use one)



The fact that 6 million jews were slaughtered in WW2 is a terrible one and one not to be forgotten. But it cannot be used as a justification for that state to do as it pleases in the middle east.

You don't understand the point i was making.
The point is that israel's number one priority is the protection of its people. True, the same is true of most nations. One of the main reasons for israel was the protection of jews. Anti semitism is not a paranoia. It is a real problem. As is the threat to israel from many of its neighbours.

Thus, and this was the point, israel is highly likely to not allow iran to get such weapons. I'm not a massive fan of arguing about "states rights". It is a wishy washy concept which different people deffine differently. Indeed, one could argue that israel has the right to protect itself. If you are coming from a israeli "Realism" (a general political philosophy; see's the state as dominant actor in international politics) perspective - this is the most important "right", or function, of israeli.

Also, please refer back to my arguments concerning nuke deterent.



There were also many millions of gypsies, disabled people and gays murdered by Hitler - have we seen the creation of a "gay" state? No.

Thus the comparison doesn't really work. The fact of the matter is that a state was created, and has been there now since the end of WW2. Its there to stay. Get over it already.

Judaism is not like christianity. It is indeed far more "cultural", or "racial" tradition. Have you never wondered what anti-semitic actually means? Look up, and read about semites, hebrews etc etc.

Suffice to say, there is a link.


Its like the kurds saying they want an autonomous sovereign muslim state because they have been repressed by Saddam Hussein, and come over to New York to claim it.

Two problems with that.
One, i think you are confused by whom the kurds are. They are a distinct ethnic/cultural group. They form large minorities in iran, iraq, turkey and that general area.

Secondly:well it isn't really a fair comparison is it. The kurd's have no roots in New York. Indeed, their main roots are in the "kurdistan" area: where they effectively do have their own state. Simily, judaism has traditional roots in the judea area. So its not without any grounding. Although i agree, it isn't really desirable. See my post before where i discussed the celts taking back all of their homeland, britain. Back on the Kurds: this didn't come about because they are simply seperatists/nationlists. It was the results of years of persecution and murder. Kurdistan is effectively a safe zone. Its where they can flea to for garunteed safety. I'm not suggesting that this is how the would should sort its problem. Indeed i'm against it in principle. But its not my "right" to go and tell them to go back to southern iraq and get gassed.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no zionist. I would be against it if it was being discussed today. But the fact of the matter is that it does exist, and it exists primarily to offer a protection to a people whom have suffered an awful lot of persecution.



When I said the US polices the world, I meant that (i hope most would agree with me) that its governments have always been aggressive, imperialist and expansionist

How does that equate to policing the world??


If that is what you mean, why not just say "aggressive, imperialist and expansionist"? As opposed to America "polices the world".


The fact that it took part in a UN peacekeeping mission does not wipe its slate clean.

I didn't say it did. I pointed out that much US action in world affairs, is primarily in support of international organisations. Whom can't do much, without US support.

[James]

James: I agree with you on the argument that putting "rightful claims" on long lost territory is BS. That has been done by both parts in this conflict.

Exactly. And it seems to be the same sort of mentality that is shared by the iranian president.


But I also see, that it "is there" now, and we have to make the best of the situation. I'm leaning towards the two-state solution, and I also think that Jerusalem should be made some sort of international, mutual territory.
Then at least wackos of no religion could cry and whine about not having access to their "holy" sites.

I agree. A two state solution seems the only solution. Any other proposal will simply not be workable. Even so, there will still be people who ***** and moan about this solution. I also agree concerning jerusalem.


But I still agree with Intifada and others on that the west has no moral right whatsoever to point their fingers and accuse Iran for their possible nuclear aspirations.

I don't think such "rights" really exist.
Indeed, iran refuses rights to many of its own citizens. What does this mean? Well not much i suppose!
Rights is such a wishy washy subject. And it is all linked in with soverignty and realism/realpolitik.

And let us not forget, iran could get alot of the capability that it wanted, IF it went about it differently. Russia for example seemed to be trying to some extent to get this situation, but it seems iran's actions and attitude have alienated itself from any remaining friends it had, and ultimately, the aim that it claims it wanted to achieve.


To highlight how rubbish talk of rights is; take israel. To israel why should it put it's rights below any other nation?
Iran has been involved in attacks on israeli's. So why on earth should they endanger their "rights", just so the iranian president (whom denies the holocaust and believes their nation should be wiped off the map) can enjoy the "right" to a capability of destruction.

And then again, there are my comments regarding nuke deterrents. I'm not sure that MAD (mutually assured destruction) really did make the cold war a safe position. Whilst it may have forced a pause in the emediate conflict, the conflict still continued through over means. Indeed, such action nearly sparked off MAD (cuba). The problem with MAD, is that it is an incredibly high risk strategy.
If iran wants assured soverignty, why on earth is it alienating international support for its cause?

It simply does not add up.


And I also find any military conflict started by either Israel or Iran most unlikely. If anyone starts a fight it will be the US with friends.

hmm possibly. But i think the main reason for any such strike will be primarily because the israeli's are about to do it anyway.


As I said before I think the Israelis lack the power due to their internal crisis.

Well i don't think we are at crunch time yet... Think there is still a year or so left before it gets desperate.
Also, i'm not convinced with your assumption. Indeed, it is usually the case that when a nation has an "enemy", the nation unites.

[Reuben]

sorry to go a little off topic but it does need to be pointed out that while the Iranian president has *talked* about wiping a country off the map Israel *has* effectively wiped another country off the map

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by James
How do you know?
Iran does give support to suicide bombers in israel. It also glorifies the cause.

Still a long road from there to using nuclear weapons. Once again let me remind you of the power of radiation caused even by the smaller nukes we spoke of earlier.
I think Ahmadinejad could have a hard time explaining to the Council of Guardians
or whatever those a-holes in the muslim supreme court that de facto rule Iran, are called in english, why muslim pilgrims to the Al Aqsa mosque keep returning home with cancer as a souvenir. :rolleyes:



So why on earth should they endanger their "rights", just so the iranian president (whom denies the holocaust and believes their nation should be wiped off the map) can enjoy the "right" to a capability of destruction.

I don't completely outrule a minor war between the two countries.
In such a war, however, I find it unlikely that much other action than a few ordinary, non-nuclear missiles are fired in both directions.

But which targets do you suggest the Israelis would bomb in Iran? The Iranian nukes, even if made public, would sure be skillfully hidden. The nuclear plants where they get the raw materiels? That would cause radiation and deaths of possibly millions of civilians.
You don't entirely grasp how taboo using of nukes actually is. Israel is a small nation, after all. The US would hardly defend them anymore after such atrocities from their side. And then, fellows, then they would be fucked.

[Atlas Swallowed]

If the US is foolish enough to wage war with Iran, it may bankrupt them and thus destroy Israeli power which is nothing without US financial and military backing. Israel probably would not fight Iran when the USA is stupid enough to do thier dirty work, besides why should the IDF fight armed opponents when they can shoot school children armed with stones as they are accustomed to?

[Intifada]

(James)

simply that you had failed to understood that iranian action could lead to it.


I have always understood such a possibility.


my point was that israel has a history of being frequently attacked

Iran doesn't exactly have a great history with the United States of America.

Thus the Iranians do not trust the Americans, and their actions are completely understandable.


My point, was that if iran continues to pursue its current course of action to a significant extent, it is going to force israel into attacking it.

This will most likely have terrible consequences.

Wow, you are really insightful...

Such an action seems very likely.


Also, this guy is head of a nation. He deines the holocaust (do you? Don't you see the problem with what this guy is saying - and do you deny the track record of people who often say this?) etc etc

How many Israeli leaders have said similar things?

Unlike Ahmadinejad, the Zionist have put their disgusting ideology into practice. Of course, the international community couldn't give two squirts of piss, because they didn't "see a problem" with the ethnic cleansing of brown people.

Anyway, I thought you stated that "this whole highly politicalised history of that region" is not an issue, to a certain extent.

You have a terribly hypocritical perspective of this dispute.


Thus it is incredibly likely that israel percieves iran as a massive threat.


Don't you think that perhaps the Iranians are feeling threatened at present?


You think it is debatable that israel has been invaded, on more than one occasion??


There is a whole context that has to be considered when discussing the "attacks" on Israel.

The Six-Day War, for example, was provoked by the Israelis, by the admission of the likes of Menechim Begin, and others.


Also, do you think it "cool" to deny the holocaust?


No, of course not.

What a stupid question.


Come on man, your anti israeli stance is blinding you to the obvious truth.


What "obvious truth"?


I stated my views on nuke deterent. And also, i have covered what i believe to be the primary threat.


And it has not changed my view whatsoever.

You seem to have no problem understanding the so-called "concerns" of Israel, yet fail to comprehend the fact that Iran itself is feeling exactly the same threat, yet in a more direct and real way.


You think these people are going to blow themselves up for no reason?


Islam does not tell people to kill innocents, let alone commit suicide. Both are strongly condemned in the Qu'ran. Certain people, however, can use twisted interpretations in order to convince themselves and others that what they are doing or supporting is justifiable.


And it could make life alot easier on itself.


By giving in and losing that inalienable right to nuclear technology?

No.

The situation is not of Iran's making, but the West's.

[BuyOurEverything]

If the US is foolish enough to wage war with Iran, it may bankrupt them and thus destroy Israeli power which is nothing without US financial and military backing

Um, no. The US is not stupid, regardless of how much people here would like it to be so. They're not going to start a war if it would require them to cut back military and aid spending. They are purposely running up a deficit so they can sell off and privatize social programs. They are not stupid.


besides why should the IDF fight armed opponents when they can shoot school children armed with stones as they are accustomed to?

Totally man, cause Israel's never fought a war before.


How many Israeli leaders have said similar things?

Denied the holocaust? Um, lemme just check my sources here, oh ya...


Unlike Ahmadinejad, the Zionist have put their disgusting ideology into practice. Of course, the international community couldn't give two squirts of piss, because they didn't "see a problem" with the ethnic cleansing of brown people.

Before I reply to that, I should just clarify. Are you saying that there is no difference between what happened to the Palestinians and the holocaust?


There is a whole context that has to be considered when discussing the "attacks" on Israel.

The Six-Day War, for example, was provoked by the Israelis, by the admission of the likes of Menechim Begin, and others.

So you're saying that Israel's never been attacked...


Islam does not tell people to kill innocents, let alone commit suicide. Both are strongly condemned in the Qu'ran. Certain people, however, can use twisted interpretations in order to convince themselves and others that what they are doing or supporting is justifiable.

Oh bullshit. In the bible it says lending money is a sin and rich people won't go to heavan. Do we say anybody that lends money or is rich is 'not a real christian?' Very few of us. To take religion solely as what a single book says is ridiculous. By the way, do you know what percentage of Muslim Palestinians support theses sinful un-muslim suicide attacks?


By giving in and losing that inalienable right to nuclear technology?

Wow, you've certainly gone off the deep end.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Who said the US was stupid? the quote says if they are foolish enough. If they attack Iran they probably believe they will have a cake walk like thye believed would be the case in Iraq. Yeah they will gut social programs some more but that will only get them so far, they are pretty much gutted presently. The jack asses that are currently running the US will never admit defeat regardless of how obvious. Attacking Iran may be the final nail in the coffin. All empires fall.

[Matty_UK]

I don't think they'd be stupid enough to attempt to conquer Iran; BUT the hardliners in Washington who are stupid enough could quite possibly convince the rest of Washington to launch an airstrike against Iran's nuclear facilities, but not conquer Iran. Think what would happen if Iran were attacked; it would be interpreted as the start of an invasion, and they are likely to instantly launch missiles at American ships in the gulf, at the Iraqi Green Zone, and American bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and possibly missiles into Tel Aviv.

If this happened, the US would not let it lie; it would attempt to completely destroy Iran's military. This would see lots of casualties, and it's even not unlikely Syria would launch a few of their missiles too if it looked like the Americans could be repelled. If this happened, I really don't think America could win.

Iraq would also see a MUCH fiercer insurgency; there are already hundreds, if not thousands of Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Iraq who are organising and provisioning the Shia militias, and Iran has lots of radio stations and newspapers in Iraq; this would mean the Americans would have to deal with Shia violence as well as Sunni. In addition, there'd be a lot more foreign fighters.

[Intifada]

(BuyOurEverything)

Denied the holocaust?

I made a mistake there.

I thought he was talking of "wiping a nation of the map".

Though, there are some similarities between what the Nazis aimed to achieve, and what the Zionist project aims to achieve.


Are you saying that there is no difference between what happened to the Palestinians and the holocaust?


There is a massive difference of magnitude.

The Holocaust was a much more massive atrocity in comparison to the tragedy of the Palestinian people.

Anyway, such a thing is irrelevant, because, as far as I am aware, the Iranians were not responsible for the Holocaust.


So you're saying that Israel's never been attacked

No.

I am saying that the "attacks" on Israel have to be looked at in context.


Oh bullshit.

Where in the Qu'ran does it say that killing yourself and innocents is alright?

I have never read a Qu'ranic verse, nor a Hadith, which advocates such actions.


By the way, do you know what percentage of Muslim Palestinians support theses sinful un-muslim suicide attacks?


It doesn't matter.

Such an issue has nothing to do with Iran.


Wow, you've certainly gone off the deep end.

Really?

Iran has an inalienable right to peaceful nuclear technology.

[BuyOurEverything]

I am saying that the "attacks" on Israel have to be looked at in context.

The 'context' you speak of seems to be that they were fabricated. So in other words they weren't attacked.


Where in the Qu'ran does it say that killing yourself and innocents is alright?

I have never read a Qu'ranic verse, nor a Hadith, which advocates such actions.

It doesn't, I don't believe. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what some fucking book says, it's what people of that religion do.


It doesn't matter.

It's an example of how you are wrong when you try and say that Islam is peaceful and condemns killing innocents.


Really?

Iran has an inalienable right to peaceful nuclear technology.


Ah, I though you were refering to nuclear weapons, my mistake. Nonetheless, I'd hardly call it an 'inalienable right'. But you are correct, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.

[Intifada]

(BuyOurEverything)

The 'context' you speak of seems to be that they were fabricated. So in other words they weren't attacked.


Israel was attacked, but there is more to the attacks than just that.


What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what some fucking book says, it's what people of that religion do.


I agree.

That was not what James was discussing though.


It's an example of how you are wrong when you try and say that Islam is peaceful and condemns killing innocents.


Islam is not defined by a group of people and what they do and support.

Islam is defined by the Qu'ran and the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad.


I'd hardly call it an 'inalienable right'.

Well, no state has the right to stop Iran from researching nuclear technology.

[BuyOurEverything]

I agree.
and then you contradict yourself:

Islam is not defined by a group of people and what they do and support.

Islam is defined by the Qu'ran and the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad.

Which is it?


Well, no state has the right to stop Iran from researching nuclear technology.

I agree.

[BuyOurEverything]

I don't think they'd be stupid enough to attempt to conquer Iran; BUT the hardliners in Washington who are stupid enough could quite possibly convince the rest of Washington to launch an airstrike against Iran's nuclear facilities, but not conquer Iran.

No they're not stupid. They know exactly what they're doing. I can't believe how many people actually think that the people running the US don't know what they're doing. If it wasn't such a dangerous way of thinking, I'd laugh at how naive it is.


Think what would happen if Iran were attacked; it would be interpreted as the start of an invasion, and they are likely to instantly launch missiles at American ships in the gulf, at the Iraqi Green Zone, and American bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and possibly missiles into Tel Aviv.


Think that one up all by yourself? The only problem is you're assuming that the US government is stupid enough to accidentally start a war. Also, Iran's not going to just randomly lash out at surrounding countries if they get hit with a few missiles. Just look at Iraq.


Yeah they will gut social programs some more but that will only get them so far, they are pretty much gutted presently

I'm not talking about fiscal restraint or cuts to social programs, I'm talking about the systematic selling off and privitization of them.


The jack asses that are currently running the US will never admit defeat regardless of how obvious

What defeat? Last time I checked the guys that started the war are raking in the fucking dough and they've managed to turn Iraq into a complete neo-liberal playground. There never was a plan to rebuild.

[deak]

Let's stick with facts shall we. Of course no one wants Iran to have nukes, I don't think I want Isreal or the US with them either. But all this is a mute point because the fact is that IRAN IS NOT begining work on nuclear weapons. They removed the seals that were placed on their nuclear enrichment plants that they were silly enough to agree to put on after the EU-3 team basically scared them into it by telling them that this would appease the Americans who want to have any excuse to attack. These seals were not part of any reprocussions for defying the Non-Prolification Treadty, they were unnessesary conssesions to appease Europe and the US and they were not supposed to be permanent. Of course, Europe and the US is now using the fact that they allowed the seals and now are removing them as PROOF that they are building nuclear missles now. In reality, there is no such program or the IAEA would be charging that there was. Three years ago when IAEA claimed that there were irregularities in their nuclear power program, Iran allowed IAEA to come into their country and oversee the entire project. The IAEA has been watching since then and monitering with inspectors, and cameras. Unless Iran has some sort of elaborate underground program hidden somewhere (which would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE) then there is no weapons program in the works. IF IRAN HAD A WEAPONS PROGRAM, we'd be the first to know (especially since the CIA and Isreal has an extensive "intelligence" gathering program opperating within the country). Just like had IRAQ HAD WMD, we would have seen pictures of it on our Wheaties boxes. It is a way to tell Iran, don't fuck with us, because we've already shown how we can justify an invasion. This is all just hype, distortion, and psuedo-macho postering in order to scare Iran into not excluding the American oil companies out of their billion dollar pot.


http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs...l=1112188062620 (http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1137193813484&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112188062620)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11572.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...4&articleId=457 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=AKL20050324&articleId=457)

[Intifada]

(BuyOurEverything)

and then you contradict yourself:



Not really.

I agreed that "all that matters is what the people of that religion do".

I don't care about a book, but the definition of Islam is just that - a book (and the sayings and actions of Muhammad).

[Janus]

It seems that the US and some of the European nations may threaten sanctions in order to immediately stop Iran's nuclear program.

Source: BBC News

The European powers will ask the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to meet 2-3 February, more than one month earlier than scheduled.

Key UN members have agreed Iran must stop nuclear research, the UK says.

Western countries fear Iran aims to build nuclear weapons. Iran denies it, saying it wants civilian nuclear power.

It sparked a crisis last week by breaking international seals on three of its nuclear research facilities.

But Russian President Vladimir Putin has hinted compromise is still possible.

He said Tehran had not rejected an offer for Iran's uranium enrichment to take place in Russia - which would make it harder for Iran to make nuclear weapons.

The US, UK, France and Germany have been trying to persuade Russia and China to support a hard line on Iran.

The six countries held a closed-door meeting in London on Monday.

After the meeting, the UK Foreign Office said the six had agreed Iran must stop nuclear research immediately.

Earlier, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had said it was up to Iran to reassure the international community about its intentions.

"The onus is on Iran to act to give the international community confidence that its nuclear programme has exclusively peaceful purposes," he said.

Mr Straw said Western trust had been "sorely undermined by its history of concealment and deception".

Western pressure

The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said he cannot confirm that Iran's programme has a peaceful objective.

Western diplomats are thought to believe Russia can be persuaded to back a tough stance against Tehran, despite Russia's large investment in Iran's nuclear industry.

But China seems much more reluctant to threaten sanctions.

"All relevant sides should remain restrained and stick to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue through negotiations," a Chinese foreign ministry statement said on Monday.

There are other high-level discussions taking place in parallel with the talks in London.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is meeting UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in New York, while Mr ElBaradei is hosting US Under-Secretary of State Robert Joseph in Vienna.

'West's fault'

Iran says it will not be intimidated by international pressure and warns the threat of sanctions could result in higher oil prices.
Iran is the fourth largest exporter of crude oil. Prices rose in London to nearly $63 a barrel on Monday, with violence in oil-exporting Nigeria also seen as a factor.

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said in a BBC interview that the West was partly to blame for the crisis for allowing Israel to develop a nuclear arsenal.

He said nuclear weapons benefited no-one, and called for a nuclear-free zone in the Gulf.

The matter escalated last week when Iran broke the seals on three nuclear facilities, ending a two-year moratorium on atomic experimentation.

Mr ElBaradei has told Newsweek magazine that after three years of intensive work, he is still not able to conclude that Iran's nuclear programme is aimed purely at energy creation rather than the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

"If they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponisation programme along the way, they are really not very far - a few months - from a weapon," he said.

[BuyOurEverything]

I don't care about a book, but the definition of Islam is just that - a book (and the sayings and actions of Muhammad).

Well I disagree. But if you were to believe that, then you must concede that Islam is completely irrelevant in explaining anyone's motivation or beliefs.

[Lazarus]

Iran has every right to nuclear power. It VOLOUNTARILY engaged in a unilateral moritarium on uranium enrichment and it has unilateraliy decided to resume such research.

Armedinejad is proving himself to be extremely astute, honest, idealistic, forthright and steadfast. Wouldn't it be nice to have such leadership in this country?

The IAEA seals where placed there at Iran's request and were broken in the presence of IAEA inspectors. No 'conract/law/agreement' was broken in this process.

The US is unable to attack directly as it has insufficent resources to do so, and it also prefers to attack weak opponents, the EU-Troika will not attack.

The US will not push for sanctions in the near future as these are likely to backfire in terms of higher oil prices.

China and Russia have to much invested in Iran to permit any sanctions which will impact upon said investments.

Israel will not attack directly as Iran has more than enough capability to inflict significant damage upon the aparthied state.

To which we have come to the real source of all the panic on the subject.

The apartheid state is unable to act upon this issue and is leveraging its zionist supporters in western governments and media to turn this into a 'situation'.

The only nation significantly threatened by an Iran with nuclear capabililty is Israel. It isn't directly threatened by Iran, rather it's regional strategic superiority will be undermined by a nuclear capable Iran (whether weaponised or not)

The most strident voices on this issue will continue to be the governments in which zionists wield disproportionate power, and those voices that harp on about the threat Iran poses are either incapable of individual thought or are merely zionists couching their beliefs under some less racist rationale.

PS:

- Israel has never been attacked. It only CLAIMS to have been attacked first or to be carrying out some kind of defensive pre-emtive offensive.

- There is no difference between the holocaust and what the aparthied state is carrying out on the Palestinians. Actually there are obvious differences: numbers of victims, their race and religion and the location of the crime.

Aside from that what differs? Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing. Arguments about the means, methods and scale are merely sophistry.

- I personally try to avoid judging all Jews by the aparthied ethnic cleansing of the Israelis, or by the xenophobic, racist and inhumane nature of their holy book; the Torah.

I hope this forum has members with sufficient intelligence to be able to do the same for islam and muslims.


and hello everyone...

[Intifada]

But if you were to believe that, then you must concede that Islam is completely irrelevant in explaining anyone's motivation or beliefs.

It depends on interpretation.

Different groups/people have different interpretations of the Qu'ran.

[Sentinel]

Armedinejad is proving himself to be extremely astute, honest, idealistic, forthright and steadfast. Wouldn't it be nice to have such leadership in this country?

AHMAdinejad has so far proved himself to be an ignorant religious bigot.

That the people of Iran deserve nuclear energy and arguably even nuclear weapons, doesn't change that fact.

I don't know which country you speak of, but I personally would rather eat excrements than have an idiot such as him leading my country.

[James]

Intifada

You said regarding iranian action,

I have always understood such a possibility


Well i really don't understand what the problem is here. Indeed, you said that my point was incredibly basic/blatant ("wow your really insightful" or something).

Well this is the area of debate you see. Hence why i said to a degree the history/claims doesn't matter.
The situation is that the iranians are pursuing technology that can be used for nuke weapons. Indeed, their refusal to take the russian option (which would give them the power, but not the weaponary) seems to suggest alot. Combine this with the way that they have acted. They have renegaded on an agreement, and have threatened to throw out the watch dogs.

There is a very strong chance that this will lead to the israeli's taking action, which will then result in intense instability.


I don't think saying that iran has a "right" to a means of destruction is helpful. Nor do i even think that such a right exists. Indeed, it is concept completely made up. As such, it is totally irrelevent. I think what this debate has evolved into is you arguing that iran has a right to weaponary (which stems from your perception that i "have no problem understanding the so-called "concerns" of Israel, yet fail to comprehend the fact that Iran itself is feeling exactly the same threat, yet in a more direct and real way"). If this is your position, then fare enough.
But it does seem silly. Afterall, i do not deny that iran feels threatened. Most nations do. But most nations don't act in a way on purpose which they knowingly alienates the international community, and makes themselves seem a bigger and more direct threat to neighbours. Most leaders also do not deny the holocaust. Which has its obvious related issues: which you seem to ignore.

Would you give nick griffin nukes if he was in charge of a country? Afterall, it is his "right". You seem alarmingly unconcerned by the problems with iran's regieme/mentality. I suspect that it is mainly caused by your negative perception (which is justified to an extent) of israel.

You also seem alarmingly unconcerned by the manor of iranian action. You said "Don't you think that perhaps the Iranians are feeling threatened at present?". What iran is doing at the moment is making itself a bigger threat to other nations, by its intent and manor (it seems like only china is standing by it now, and russia still hoping iran will take up their logical offer). I think a very strong argument can be made that iran's action/intent/fear of attack in this respect, is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Islam does not tell people to kill innocents, let alone commit suicide. Both are strongly condemned in the Qu'ran. Certain people, however, can use twisted interpretations in order to convince themselves and others that what they are doing or supporting is justifiable.


I said "It is clear that their perceptions of death and glory, right and wrong, are shaped by "religion"."

I'm not arguing that islam itself promotes such ends. I expect it is rather like christianity: bits of it could be used on their own, add a few interesting interpretations etc etc: and hey presto you have "christianty/islam" which shapes someones perception of death and killing. Take the christians who kill doctors who perform abortions. Of course they are not followers of christ: as such action goes against his teaching.
No doubt though they believe themselves to be "christian", and probably use aspects of the bible.

There is clearly though a form of religion in this region that glorifies death: both martydom and killing.

I don't think the action/idea is already there in the head, and is then justified with a religious text. It stems from an ideology based on certain texts/ideas.

[Intifada]

(James)

The situation is that the iranians are pursuing technology that can be used for nuke weapons.

[emphasis added]

So?

Muhammad El Baradei has said that forty countries, if they wanted to, could make nuclear weapons.

Iran, under the Third Pillar of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has the legal right to peacefully use nuclear technology.


Indeed, their refusal to take the russian option (which would give them the power, but not the weaponary) seems to suggest alot.

They want an independent programme.

I cannot say I blame them for that.


They have renegaded on an agreement

Which one?


and have threatened to throw out the watch dogs.


If Western harassment continues.


There is a very strong chance that this will lead to the israeli's taking action, which will then result in intense instability.


I agree.


I don't think saying that iran has a "right" to a means of destruction is helpful.

Bullshit.

I have never wrote that once.

You do have a habit of putting words into another's mouth, don't you?

I have only stated that Iran has the right to nuclear technology on a peaceful basis.


think what this debate has evolved into is you arguing that iran has a right to weaponary

Yet again, you write bullshit.


But most nations don't act in a way on purpose which they knowingly alienates the international community, and makes themselves seem a bigger and more direct threat to neighbours.

Iran is standing up to Western bullying and double standards.

If anything, it is the Iranians who find themselves in a Catch-22 position.

Iran has never argued for the possession of nuclear weapons, and has condemned the production, stockpiling and use of such weapons many times, with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei even issuing a fatwa against it.


Most leaders also do not deny the holocaust. Which has its obvious related issues: which you seem to ignore.


According to you "history" doesn't matter in this issue.

I have already condemned the Iranian regime, for obvious reasons.


Would you give nick griffin nukes if he was in charge of a country?

More bullshit.

When will you end this crap?

I have never argued that Iran should be given/allowed nuclear weapons.


What iran is doing at the moment is making itself a bigger threat to other nations, by its intent and manor

Iran, is in a Catch-22 position.

They want their legal right to peaceful nuclear technology, but a hypocritical West seems unmoving in its determination to stop this.

This dispute, as I have already mentioned, is of the West's own making.

If anybody is doing the alienating, it is Washington.

[James]

So?

This is getting boring. You don't seem to understand "my problem". My problem is not just with iran. I'm not "picking on" it. Its the situation which is the problem - whereby iran is being a complete and utter dick about it all (threatening to throw out watchdogs, breaking their word, ignoring russias option etc etc: combined with a president who denies the holocaust, thinks israel per se needs to be destroyed, and a general regieme which glorifies/encourages attacks against israe), which in turn is going to scare the crap out of israel - who will retailiate.

The situation does not have to be like this. This is the whole problem! It is a situation which can be avoided (for by example taking up russias offer).

Which i think answers your "so?"



They want an independent programme.

I cannot say I blame them for that.



Well purusing such a thing is seen with deep suspicion (especially after they broke their word/lied about the whole affair), due in a large part to the way that iran has approached the issue.
If they want power - then take up russia's offer. It gives power to iran AND avoids potential instability.



According to you "history" doesn't matter in this issue.

I have already condemned the Iranian regime, for obvious reasons.

Now look who is putting words into other people's mouths. No, i said that to an extent history isn't important to the emediate situation. Why? Well see my first paragraph in this post.


So do you see the problem with someone who denies the holocaust, wanting to develop technology that can be used in nukes? Bearing in mind they have refused russias offer which would give them the power - but not the means to make a weapon.


I have never argued that Iran should be given/allowed nuclear weapons.

Yes you do.
If you didn't, then you would support the russia option.



Either way though, i'm rather bored of this argument which has turned into a tenis match. The same points being hit back and forth. So i suppose we shall simply have to agree to disagree.
Then we can be friends again!
:wub:

[Intifada]

Its the situation which is the problem - whereby iran is being a complete and utter dick about it all

This is the difference between myself and yourself.

I believe that this dispute is of the West's making.

One can see this by examining the history of the West and an Iran which wants to be independent.


It is a situation which can be avoided (for by example taking up russias offer).


The situation can be easily solved by the West, by offering to stop its hypocritical approach to the whole issue of nuclear technology/weapons, and to lead the campaign to dismantle nuclear weapons arsenals.

The Iranians are entitled to their rights and should not bow to pressure which may see them lose some of their independence.


Well purusing such a thing is seen with deep suspicion

It doesn't have to be.


So do you see the problem with someone who denies the holocaust, wanting to develop technology that can be used in nukes?

I can understand that, but I do not see why Iran should be stopped from developing its own peaceful nuclear technology, just for the sake of Israel.

Iran, like I have shown before, has the right to research peaceful nuclear technology.

By the way, the West started this dispute long before Ahmadinejad was elected President.


Yes you do.

Stop lying.

You really are turning into a Blairite.


So i suppose we shall simply have to agree to disagree.

I agree.

[James]

Blairite! lol
No, i wasn't lying. You stated that you thought that they should be allowed nuke technology. This includes weapons too. If you just wanted them to have power then you would see no problem with the russian option.

[Intifada]

(James)

No, i wasn't lying.

Yes you were.

I stated, correctly, that I have never argued that Iran should be given/allowed nuclear weapons, and you replied with: Yes you do.

Unless you can show me where I have argued that Iran should be given/allowed nuclear weapons, your claim is false.

In other words, you lied.


You stated that you thought that they should be allowed nuke technology.

Peaceful nuclear technology.

And I didn't just state that, it is Iran's right to have peaceful nuclear technology.


This includes weapons too.

No it doesn't.


If you just wanted them to have power then you would see no problem with the russian option.


I already addressed this issue.

[James]

You argue that they should have the "right" to research/get the technology.
But you do not argue that safeguards should be taken to prevent them getting nukes.

Your refusal to argue that they should not be allowed nukes means that you give your tacit consent to them being allowed nukes. Thus, you argue that they should be allowed nukes.

[Intifada]

(James)

But you do not argue that safeguards should be taken to prevent them getting nukes.


Why should I?

For the record, I think it should be done with inspections and the like.


Your refusal to argue that they should not be allowed nukes means that you give your tacit consent to them being allowed nukes. Thus, you argue that they should be allowed nukes.


You come up with some gems.

Stop shoe-horning.

[jaster]

this has been floating around the nets at both reputable and some less-then reputable sites, it my be true that iran is enriching yellowcake (that elusive material that is supposedly floating around iraq somewhere...) to make nuclear warheads (the yellowcake can be used either way and the motive for use is unclear until actual proccessing of the warhead). so lets say for a moment that Iran is planning on a nuclear missle, this might only be a detterant stand aginst the zionist state of israel. the reasons for this are relativly sound
-israel has the 2nd largest stockpile of nuclear weapons( thanks in part to the U.S, which it receives the majority from)
-the resulting standoff could be a sort-of mini cold war. Iran gets the bomb, Israel gets more sophisticated S.A.M's. etc.
And saying that there was a nuclear breakout, it could effectavly destroy the middle east, if iran struck first, they would aim for juresalem, and tel-aviv, this would eradicate both the holy city and most of the israeli gov't, however be fore this happenened israel wouold have already been warned. (thanks to an "at least 48 hours" approach that was proven wrong by the arab armies in 1973) and launched there missles for tehran, (and perhaps damascus or beirut), from that, clouds of radiation would spread out, depending on the wind, basiccly killing or sickining the entire O.T. much of jordan, syria, lebanon, iraq, saudi arabia, or eygpt, depending on the weather that day.

anyway it would be a catastrophe

[James]

"You come up with some gems.
Stop shoe-horning. "

You claim that you don't think they should have nukes, but you also claim that they have an inalienable right to them (nuke technology: technology which has a dual purpose). your position is at best, confused.
But, if you do think they should not have nukes: then i'm glad. We both share the same opinion. And we can move on and be friends!

The obvious solution seems to be for iran to swollow its pride, and accept russias offer. Not because of "the anti iranian west": but simply because the current situation has a great amount of potential instability and fear. I don't think there is another alternative right at this moement, because of the way that things have developed. For example, I guess that the EU is pritty pissed off after "wasting" a couple of years negotiations.

Although i do recognise that your opinion is that watchdogs are the best way of preventing nuke development. To me though, it seems it has gone too far to go back to that. Once the situation has cooled off, then such things would however be possible. And iran could pursue its own nuke technology on its own soil.

Having a president who denies the holocaust though makes it all a little worse!

[Atlas Swallowed]

The President denied the holocaust which is foolish, granted. How may years has Israel been run by actual war criminal? A man personally responsible for the deaths of women and children. After all the lies with the Iraqi WMDs why should anyone believe Iran is anywhere near nuclear capability or even trying? The Zionist fanatics are sitting on a stockpile of nuclear weapons in Israel. The only country that has ever used a nuclear weapon is sitting on a stockpile of them in the USA. Why are you concerned about Iran so much? I think an idiot, religious fanatic, liar, drug addelled alchoholic like George W. Bush having access to nuclear technology is alot worse than Irans.

Ever think that if a country that strongly opposes Israel had nuclear capability, maybe Israel would not commit so many attrocities against the Palestinians? Maybe the US would not invade middle eastern nations at will?

I heard my neighbor is going to buy a shotgun, he may use it against me and my familly? I better go shoot my neighbor before he purchases said shotgun :blink:

[James]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1691730,00.html

"Iran shifts billions from banks in Europe amid fears of UN sanctions "

Also, brit government invites iran to afghan talks.
Possible opportunity to get things "going" again. Hope it works: doubt it will.


+ + +

"The President denied the holocaust": it is a bit beyond "foolish". Especially when combined with the fact that he wants to pursue nuke technology: and rejects russia's offer etc etc.

[bunk]

March is the date of the Iran oil bourse

[Atlas Swallowed]

Can not say I blame Iran for moving thier money, as UN sanctions were responsible for over a decade of starvation in neighboring Iraq.

So James do you support a war(if it comes to that) between two nations run by nutcases with nuclear weapons against a nation run by a nutcase that supposedly(remember same two nations lied about Iraqs nuclear capability) wants nuclear weapons and not just nuclear power?

How is saying the holocaust never existed worse than actually participating in murder(Sharon)or invading a nation and being responsible for the deaths of thousands for no just cause(Bush)?

Your views seem to imply that Jewish lives are more important than those of anyone elses and that the nation of Iran is lesser evil between them and Israel and the USA.

Do you support a US global empire? If not you seem easily manipulated by thier propaganda.

[James]

hehe, i think this is entrampment.



Can not say I blame Iran for moving thier money, as UN sanctions were responsible for over a decade of starvation in neighboring Iraq.

Neither do i. It was merely an update on the situation. Don't read into my "intent" tooooo much.



So James do you support a war

Like this!



(if it comes to that) between two nations run by nutcases with nuclear weapons against a nation run by a nutcase that supposedly(remember same two nations lied about Iraqs nuclear capability) wants nuclear weapons and not just nuclear power?

Well as i think my posts make extremely clear: my "side" is the peace side. It is exactly my point: i don't want such a war to break out.



How is saying the holocaust never existed worse than actually participating in murder

Do some research on this president. He has an interesting past, along with many of his cabinet.

Nor did i say "it is worse" than anything. So stop trying to imply that i think such things please!



Your views seem to imply that Jewish lives are more important than those of anyone elses

How did you come to that conclusion?
Because my posts havn't got that cliche anti-israel character to them?


No; i was merely pointing out that this guy clearly has "issues" with "jews". Therefore, israel is simply not going to let him get nukes.
Nor do i think they should be allowed nukes whilst this anti-semitic chap is in command of their nation. Just as i don't think nick griffon should be allowed any dangerous weapons.


and that the nation of Iran is lesser evil between them and Israel and the USA.

Surely you meant to say that i implied that iran is the greater evil?


Do you support a US global empire? If not you seem easily manipulated by thier propaganda.

lol
Yes i want everynation to be under the control of the US and their corporations. Oh wait a minute, that seems wrong! wow wish i "saw through the propaganda" like you clearly have!


No don't be silly. I think you would probably benifit from reading my earlier posts in this thread: they set out my position, especially in regard to what my "problem" is with iran at the moment. I think on page 1 or 2 i also set out my opinion regarding the claim that the Us "polices the world".

[Ol' Dirty]

I think Ahmoud Ahmedinajad is a major anti-semetic, that Iran's nuculear power research program is just an excuse to get weapons power over its South-East Asian enemies, and that the goverment is run by a bunch of extremist, bigoted religionists determined to be the worlds dominat power... Also, they are limiting free speech (like most tyranic oligarchys), which is load of deceptive bull-shit.

Peace.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:31 PM
You claim that you don't think they should have nukes, but you also claim that they have an inalienable right to them (nuke technology: technology which has a dual purpose). your position is at best, confused.
For fucks sake.

Iran, as a signatory of the NPT has the legal right to peaceful nuclear power technology.

That is a fact, and that is what I have been arguing for the last few days with you.

The only person who is confused, or trying to confuse my words, is you, my friend.


But, if you do think they should not have nukes: then i'm glad

I have never argued that Iran should be allowed to build nuclear weapons.

I am anti-nuke, and pro-disarmament.

[James]

For fucks sake.
Iran, as a signatory of the NPT has the legal right to peaceful nuclear power technology.
That is a fact, and that is what I have been arguing for the last few days with you.
The only person who is confused, or trying to confuse my words, is you, my friend.


Well that is my mistake then. I thought you were arguing that they should be allowed to develop nukes.

If i was wrong, then i'm happy. As it means we both have the same opinion.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Yeah your side is clear peace through appeasement to the US and Israeli policy. It is hypocritical for the US and/or Israel to tell any nation that can not devolop nuclear technology. Appeasment did not work to well with Hitler and it probably won't with the neo-con war hawks.

The US empire is more of an economic empire as oppossed to policing the world.

As for the comment about Jewish life meaning more than others, I appologize it was not accurate, have not looked through the posts in a while and confused you for someone else.

I am not a supporter of the Iranian president but I believe the Iranian people as any other people deserve do defend themselves against hostile aggressors.

Some of my critisisms of you were unjust James and for that I appologize, should have reread the thread before I posted last time.

[James]

Yeah your side is clear peace through appeasement to the US and Israeli policy.


Well i would say that that is a slight simplification.
True, i do think iran is making the situation worse (denying it had a program, then wasting talks, then going back on an agreement, then refusing to use russia's offer - even as a short term solution).

The problem is that it is a international problem: a potential crises.
Its not "siding" with israel, to acknowledge that it is likely to prevent a nation from being able to develop nukes: baring in mind the nation is headed by an anti-semitic, ex-military president, and that the nation has a strong culture of hatred toward israel and jews in general. Then of course we have the whole issue of iranian support for suicide bombings in israel. etc etc
So it is realistic to expect that israel will react.

Nor is it "anti iranian" to be suspisicious of iran and its intent. Again, it is realistic, baring in mind the above factors.

Nor is it appeasement of israel and US: it is appeasement of everyone apart from iran (and china to a small extent).
China is the only nation that is still on "irans side" (i.e. is the only nation that seems to think iran isn't making a bad situation worse).

So i think your statement is deeply wrong.
Indeed, any logic that it may be based on will most likely be of the kind that can used right back at you. Are you an appeaser of iran?
After all, iran can have the power that it seeks to develop - via russia's offer. russia has offered to supply iran, and has also offered the iranians an option of developing such power themselves (on russian soil).

So no. I think you are wrong.



It is hypocritical for the US and/or Israel to tell any nation that can not devolop nuclear technology.

Well my position is not that iran is not allowed nuke power, or even a chance to develop such technology. I doubt US/Israel/much of europe/Russia even seek to tell iran that it can't have nuke power per se. It is a far more confused situation than you suggest though. It has current international implications, in part caused by iran's attitude/behaviour/refusal to compromise. Also: in part caused by their leader's beliefs (this isn't a "throw away idea" you know: when someone denies the holocaust, it suggests alot).

Its very well saying that iran has a right to do what it wants: but as anyone who lives in a community will tell you: living together peacfully means making compromises.


Appeasment did not work to well with Hitler and it probably won't with the neo-con war hawks.

Or iran...
And i must say: and i think this is what you wanted to know before: in a "great war" between neo-con's and iranian theocracy - i do back neo-con's if forced to.


The US empire is more of an economic empire as oppossed to policing the world.

Thanks for the leftist rhetoric. How does it apply?



As for the comment about Jewish life meaning more than others, I appologize it was not accurate, have not looked through the posts in a while and confused you for someone else.

Thank you very much. It is often hard to appologize: so thanks.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Why back the aggressers? Israel is a theocracy and the US under Bush is moving that way(you have beaten that horse enough). Is it Islam you have a problem with? Israel and the US are guilty of more worldwide terror than Iran is by far. I don't give a fuck if every nation in the world supports an unjust attack on another nation or people. Whats wrong is wrong regardless of how much support it may have. You use community as an example. The US and Israel are the bullies of the world community if any other nation dare to not do what they dictate they are attacked as being evil. The US recently told Venezuala that they are building up to large of a military and spending to much on arms(what a fucking joke concidering the pentagons budget). Being bullied and making compromises are two different things. I am not appeasing Iran since they are not hypocritacly dictating to others what must be done. The Bush addministration wants to develop mini-nukes and use them on other nations and your worried about Iran! You sir are wrong. Sometimes the bully needs to be punched in the nose.

The leftist rhetoric as you call it, oh smug one was refering to earlier posts made by you pertaining to the US policing the world. By the way if you have not noticed this is a leftist site.

[James]

Why back the aggressers?

I don't...



Israel is a theocracy and the US under Bush is moving that way(you have beaten that horse enough).

Hardly on the same scale.
And either way, as i'm sure you can infer: i'm a supporter of personal liberty over theocracy. And it is that that i would support.


Is it Islam you have a problem with?

No... theocracy


I don't give a fuck if every nation in the world supports an unjust attack on another nation or people.

you misunderstand what i was saying. Maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough.
I was pointing out that i'm not appeasing two nations: but i'm merely one of the many who think iran is making a bad situation worse. This is not a tricky concept to recognise. My point was that china is the only one who seems to think iran is acting in any sensible way.

So its not a question of aggression (i wouldn't support a neo-con attack on iran): but action.
I do not appease a the action of one theorcracy, simply because it isn't the US. Its actions are hihgly likely to spark a problem.
Of course, such action isn't the root of the problem. Roots which do need to be looked at in the long term. But it is becoming an immediate problem that needs "damage limitation".

[quiote]The US and Israel are the bullies of the world community[/quote]

Every nation attempts to get the other to support them.
Just is they have more weight behind themselves.



I am not appeasing Iran since they are not hypocritacly dictating to others what must be done.

And i'm not "appeasing" non-iranian opinion, on such hypocritical arguments.

Its just clear that such action could be the final straw that breaks the camels back.

Plus the iranian president is anti-semitic. He's essentially a racist. I'm not sympathetic to anything such people say/think.



The leftist rhetoric as you call it, oh smug one was refering to earlier posts made by you pertaining to the US policing the world. By the way if you have not noticed this is a leftist site.

I'm aware that it is a "revolutionary" site.
The rhetoric is just that. How does it apply to what i said earlier. Hint.... go back and read what i was posting in REPLY to. It was a direct question.

[ColinH]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:18 AM
March is the date of the Iran oil bourse
That time also coincides with Israeli general elections (a competition to see who can be the best warmonger) and the installation of Iran's new anti-air missile system.

Not much time left now...

[18tir]

There is no doubt that Iran is run by a oppressive Islamic regime. Most agree that the world and the region would be better off if they didn't have nuclear weapons. But it is also true that Iran is surrounded by nuclear armed countries. The Israelis have over 200 nuclear warheads, Pakistan and India each have a few dozen and the United States possesses thousands, not to mention a large military presence in the Gulf. If the Western powers are serious about nuclear proliferation, then they should end this hypocrisy and encourage Israel to dismantle its nuclear bombs. They should make a joint declaration that no harm will come to Iran. From here, some sort of negotiated agreement can be reached.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:47 PM

And i must say: and i think this is what you wanted to know before: in a "great war" between neo-con's and iranian theocracy - i do back neo-con's if forced to.


Do you really think it is about nuclear weaponry? Was It really about gettin Osama Bin Laden? Was it about Iraqi WMDs?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4567150.stm

It all about oil and power. Yet you would support these scumbags in the third nation they invade unjustly.

Your reasoning is Iran is a theocracy.

Israel is as much of a theocracy. Only Jewish citizens have full citizenship, can hold public office, can vote and own property. They even have thier holy symbol on thier flag. Oh but they claim to be a democracy. Too bad they are fool of shit.

The Iranian president is a racisist.

So is George W. Bush and many other Republicans and neo-cons and Israel is run by Jewish Supremicists.

You seem to have a major bullshit double standard.

You can rationalize all you want but supporting aggressers in any war is wrong regardless of the lies they sell. Iran is not invading another nation. Iran is not committing attrocities against a race of people in order to steal their land. The Iranian government is flawed as all governments are but that does not give any nation the right to attack them. When Israel and the USA destroy all thier nuclear weapons then maybe I would support them trying to prevent other nations from obtaining them. Until them they should be regarded as the hypocrites that they are.

[James]

Do you really think it is about nuclear weaponry? Was It really about gettin Osama Bin Laden? Was it about Iraqi WMDs?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4567150.stm

It all about oil and power. Yet you would support these scumbags in the third nation they invade unjustly.

Your reasoning is Iran is a theocracy.

Well hang on there carol. That is not at all what i said: or even implied.
The way you sweep through my posts and latch onto some things, and let go of others is.... well it is quite amazing. It is sort fo ammusing, but does get boring rather quickly. Perhaps mildly irritating.

Anyhow: no. It doesn't really matter. I'm not "supporting" the US here and co.
My "side" is the prevention of the outbreak of war.
Did you miss the whole "damage limitation" stuff? Maybe i need to post some of it again

"you misunderstand what i was saying. Maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough.
I was pointing out that i'm not appeasing two nations: but i'm merely one of the many who think iran is making a bad situation worse. This is not a tricky concept to recognise. My point was that china is the only one who seems to think iran is acting in any sensible way.

So its not a question of aggression (i wouldn't support a neo-con attack on iran): but action.
I do not appease a the action of one theorcracy, simply because it isn't the US. Its actions are hihgly likely to spark a problem.
Of course, such action isn't the root of the problem. Roots which do need to be looked at in the long term. But it is becoming an immediate problem that needs "damage limitation"."



Israel is as much of a theocracy. Only Jewish citizens have full citizenship, can hold public office, can vote and own property.

Where is your source for this? Just so i can see where you are coming from.

Also i would like you to note that i'm not supporting israel over iran. I just don't want a war to break out between them.


The Iranian president is a racisist.

So is George W. Bush and many other Republicans and neo-cons and Israel is run by Jewish Supremicists.
You seem to have a major bullshit double standard.

Not really: as the point was "israel won't let someone be able to get nukes, who denies the holocaust". Nor will anyone else with more than one brain cell.


You can rationalize all you want but supporting aggressers in any war is wrong regardless of the lies they sell.

hehe: you mean, "stop arguing in a way that doesn't make you have the non-leftist argument that i need you to have so that my rhetoric applies to you".
Well i'm sorry darling, i'm simply not going to argue that, because i don't believe that.


Iran is not invading another nation.

I didn't say that it was.
I did however state that israel beleives itself to be underattack from iran in various ways (e.g. various ways means of support to sucide bombers).

You can argue against it all you want. It doesn't really matter, because you seem to be missing the point (because you are obsessed with the concept that i'm "blinded" by "western" propaganda, and havn't seen the marxist light, like you).



Iran is not committing attrocities against a race of people in order to steal their land.

I'm sure the iranian kurds will be happy to be told this by you!

Also, lets not think that the palestinians have only been treated badly by israel. Pritty much all the arab nations treated them like shit earlier in the C20th when they fled to their nations.



The Iranian government is flawed as all governments are but that does not give any nation the right to attack them.

Now it is getting boring.
Listen - i didn't say this.
Untill you grow another braincell, and read what i was actually saying, then this debate can't go any further.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Good I was getting annoyed with your smug mildly liberal attitude. You said if it came to war you would support the neo-cons(who are obviously the aggressor and have no fucking justfiable reason to attack Iran) that is inexcusable no matter how much one may spin. Where you get Marxist idealogy from (besides pulling it out of your asshole like most everything you post) is beyond me, since I am not a Marxist and never studied Marx. Should not waste my time with a wishy washy moderate anyway. Would not surprise me if you are a Tony Blair supporter. My brain is fine thankyou, when you pull your head out of your ass and get some air maybe you will realise that.

As for making the situation worse

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligen...21-045606-6575r (http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060121-045606-6575r)

Threaten a whole nation with destruction for the actions of one man. Shit somebody should threaten the USA because we can not control our president.

Maybe, I am having trouble following your hypocritical views.

[James]

Good I was getting annoyed with your smug mildly liberal attitude. You said if it came to war you would support the neo-cons(who are obviously the aggressor and have no fucking justfiable reason to attack Iran) that is inexcusable no matter how much one may spin.


I actually said "And i must say: and i think this is what you wanted to know before: in a "great war" between neo-con's and iranian theocracy - i do back neo-con's if forced to."
Thus it wasn't a case of "i support neo cons whatever": it was a case of, if push comes to shove and one has to take one side of the fence, i take liberalism over theocracy.

This doesn't translate into me supporting an invasion if iran out of the blue.
Indeed, you need to understand that iranian action is not passive - it is acting aggresively. Thus if an invasion/strike does happen eventually: it will most problably have been provoked to a great extent.


Where you get Marxist idealogy from (besides pulling it out of your asshole like most everything you post) is beyond me, since I am not a Marxist and never studied Marx.

Ok, "revolutionary leftist" then!



Should not waste my time with a wishy washy moderate anyway. Would not surprise me if you are a Tony Blair supporter.

How did you come to that conclusion darling?



My brain is fine thankyou, when you pull your head out of your ass and get some air maybe you will realise that.

As for making the situation worse

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligen...21-045606-6575r

Threaten a whole nation with destruction for the actions of one man. Shit somebody should threaten the USA because we can not control our president.

Maybe, I am having trouble following your hypocritical views.

This link shows that my earlier posts were bang on. I said that this would happen.

Please, i think you would benifit from reading my earlier posts. Then you would actually understand my position.

Israel will not tolerate an anti semitic regieme being allowed to develop nuke capability.
Indeed, your link states:
"Mofaz, formerly chief of staff of Israeli defense forces, told the annual Herzliya Conference on the Israel's national security that in addition to Tehran's nuclear ambitions, Iran was directly sponsoring the Hizbollah terrorist organization to the tune of $100 million a year."
...
In addition, Iran is the main sponsor of the Islamic Jihad, which carried out most suicide attacks in Israel last year, including the attack in Tel Aviv's central bus station."

He added that Islamic Jihad cells in the West Bank received about 10 million dollars from Hizbullah in 2005, compared to just 5 million dollars in 2004. "


Thus, to israeli's, israel is already under attack from iran. It isn't a case of "starting a war". The war already exists, albeit at a low level/intensity.

Hence, your comparison with appeasing hitler actually applies. The israeli's are not going to allow a regieme to get a nuke: a regieme that hates them and is at war with them. It makes no sense for iran to be appeased.


Yes iran can have nuke power. But the times are sensitive. Thus there needs to be an amount of give and take. Israel feels threatened: as does iran.
Therefore, iran needs to act more responsibly. As does israel. But it is hihgly unlikley that israeli's will allow iran to proceed with its intentions.
Iran is thus making a bad situation worse (it can get power - this is all it claims ti wants: so it is either being stupid, or it is lying).

[James]

a more recent update:


JERUSALEM, Jan. 22 (UPI) -- Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz says his country is prepared to "defend itself" if Iran does not halt its nuclear research program.

Mofaz said Israel will take diplomatic action to convince Iran to give up its nuclear program, but said the country was preparing for any eventuality and had the "capability to defend itself," the BBC reported.

The BBC said the warning appears to be a veiled suggestion that if diplomacy fails, Israel may be planning a repetition of its 1981 pre-emptive strike against Iraq when Israeli aircraft destroyed the Osirak nuclear research center near Baghdad.

Iran insists the program is purely aimed at meeting its energy needs.

Israeli concerns about Iran have grown since the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map, the BBC said.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...22-071656-7763r (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060122-071656-7763r)

[James]

also see

a interesting page on jews/muslims: and how to improve relations.
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligen...20-125350-2232r (http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060120-125350-2232r)

Again, on israeli opinion regarding iran
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligen...17-035100-6373r (http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060117-035100-6373r)



And on iran in general: because many seem to think israel/Us are the "worse evil"

views of one cleric whom used to be part of the establishment;
"At the beginning of the revolution the late Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini] and I gave promises of liberty, and these promises have not been lived up to," he said in a rare interview at his home in Qom, Iran's clerical capital just south of Tehran.
also contains information on how the election did not allow non-right wingers to stand.
also contains information on the place of women in iranian society: and what he thinks is, and should be, the actual islamic view/right of women in iranian society
(SPEAKING OF WHICH: can you supply your information regarding israel not allowing non-jews from standing?)
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?ed...rticle_id=15026 (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=15026)



an example of iranian stupidity.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180776,00.html

[Atlas Swallowed]

Yes I realize the point you were trying to make and I was trying to make the counterrpoint to be blunt: Who the fuck is Israel and the USA in making hypocritical demands on the issue of nuclear weaponry, especially since the only one who has threatened to use nuclear weaponry and has done it in the past is the USA.

A couple of links about differences in rights between Jews and non Jews in Israel:

http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Palestin...i-apartheid.htm (http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Palestine/israeli-apartheid.htm)

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2378

Yes Israel is a democracy but only for Jews since they are the only ones granted full citizenship in turn making them a theocracy.

As for Iran being stupid not going to IAEA meeting, maybe it was thier way of telling the US and Israel to fuckoff. Iraq complied in every way and look where that got them. Iran is giving them more of an excuse to attack but they are more than likely going to attack regardless of what Iran does. This lesson should have been learned by the Iraq situation leading up to the war. Maybe they are trying a different tactic to avoid war, the best way to scare off a bully is to stand up to him.

As for my comment about being probably being a Blair supporter that was simply an insult.

The link you provided to the daily star did not work for me so I can not comment on it.

As for Jews and Moslems improving relations I am all for it.

I don't give a damn about the Israeli governments opinion of Iran. My opinion of the Israeli government is obviously low.

[James]

Yes I realize the point you were trying to make and I was trying to make the counterrpoint to be blunt: Who the fuck is Israel and the USA in making hypocritical demands on the issue of nuclear weaponry, especially since the only one who has threatened to use nuclear weaponry and has done it in the past is the USA.

Ah fair enough i get where you are coming from.

Well i appreciate what you are saying. My point was simply that iran seems to have made a bad situation worse: and that israel is bound to act out of self defence against an antisemitic regieme, if negotiations fail.

I'm not saying israel is justified in doing this - it is a bit beyond right and wrong in that sense. It is simply a case that if things continue the way they are going, then the shit is going to hit the fan. And no one wants the shit to hit the fan, because it means we all get covered in shit.

To be fair: iran could have made things easier on itself. This may seem "judgemental" or "arrogant": but it is the truth.



A couple of links about differences in rights between Jews and non Jews in Israel:

http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/Palestin...i-apartheid.htm

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2378

Yes Israel is a democracy but only for Jews since they are the only ones granted full citizenship in turn making them a theocracy.


Cheers for the links. Alot of people have talked about this kind of thing, but i couldn't find anything through google. Will give these a go over tomorrow.


As for Iran being stupid not going to IAEA meeting, maybe it was thier way of telling the US and Israel to fuckoff. Iraq complied in every way and look where that got them. Iran is giving them more of an excuse to attack but they are more than likely going to attack regardless of what Iran does. This lesson should have been learned by the Iraq situation leading up to the war. Maybe they are trying a different tactic to avoid war, the best way to scare off a bully is to stand up to him.



Possibly: but iraq didn't co-operate that well at all. It was only once the invasion was being prepared that he realised some information, destroyed a few missiles.

Also, i do not think that this is the same situation. I don't think america is planning on regieme change in the foreseeable future. Got enough on its plate as it is.

Either way though, the argument for iran is that every nation has a right to peaceful nuke technology. This depends on every nation acting as part of the community. It is subject to watchdogs etc. If Iran only wants peaceful technology, then it has nothing to hide: sorry to use this cliche argument, but it does apply.

It is in iran's interests to get the watchdogs in iran. It is in iran's interest to maintain communications with the UN etc.

Alienating itself from the international community will only achieve just that. And from such a position: there will be few who protest that strongly to regieme change!


The link you provided to the daily star did not work for me so I can not comment on it.

Sorry to hear that. Range of information in that article. I've checked it though and it still seems to work for my comp.




As for Jews and Moslems improving relations I am all for it.

Its the sort of thing that is a strong factor behind this potential shit-fanning.



I don't give a damn about the Israeli governments opinion of Iran. My opinion of the Israeli government is obviously low.

Fair enough. My opinion of it is hardly high!

The point though is that they are simply not going to let iran go ahead with nuke technology, if it percieves that the international community has failed to achieve results.
Thus the current course of iranian action is going to lead to war.

My desire is that iran "softened" its approach. Once that happened then the whole situation will deflate. Then the international community can proceed to make sure that iran develops peaceful nuke technology.
Then it will all be honky dorey! (well not quite - but i'm sure you get my train of thought)

[Atlas Swallowed]

Hopefully it does not end in war, but too many in power have been pushing for it for quite some time. It will not be anyone who deserves to suffer on either side that will pay the price if war is declared. With some luck it will all blow over(alot of luck).

[Atlas Swallowed]

Link worked for me today, kept timing out for whatever reason yesterday. The President Khatmai is a scumbag you won't get any arguments here on that issue. Saddam Hussein is also a scumbag, but I don't believe any people should be bombed to hell because the man in charge of their nation is a peice of shit. If that were the case all of us would deserve a bomb dropped on their head. Well it seems Bush and Khatmai have something in common anyway, maybe he should get some advise from Dumbya on fixing elections the man has plenty of experience.

[Intifada]

Just to correct James on the Russian proposal.

Iran eyes Russia nuclear proposal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4646144.stm)

[James]

How is it correcting me?

It shows that iran is finally showing some sense. Hopefully this will take some of the heat out of the situation.

[Intifada]

(James)

How is it correcting me?

You have stated things which imply that Iran has ignored, even refused the Russian offer.

Well my position is not that iran is not allowed nuke power, or even a chance to develop such technology. I doubt US/Israel/much of europe/Russia even seek to tell iran that it can't have nuke power per se. It is a far more confused situation than you suggest though. It has current international implications, in part caused by iran's attitude/behaviour/refusal to compromise.

refusing to use russia's offer - even as a short term solution

Especially when combined with the fact that he wants to pursue nuke technology: and rejects russia's offer etc etc.


A few quotes from yourself.

So, as you can see, I was simply correcting your statements.

[James]

That was a typo (in that it implied iran had rejected russia's offer: although an argument could be made that iran's action seemed to suggest that it had rejected russias offer: as it claimed it would pursue such tech in iran etc) - as i pointed out earlier, iran had not taken russia up on its offer, but russia was still offering it:

it seems like only china is standing by it now, and russia still hoping iran will take up their logical offer.



The important thing though is that iran is now modifying its behaviour. Good on iran!

[Intifada]

Fair enough.

Just correcting the typos then.

[James]

Just some updates and articles of interest/relevence


tuesday
Bush commits US to defence of Israel in face of Iran threat
· President issues warning over Tehran nuclear plans
· Pressure rises for referral to UN Security Council
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1693448,00.html



today
Iran blocks BBC Persian website"
http://www.payvand.com/news/06/jan/1206.html

from the guardian:
"We want to step out of the Shoah shadow, but we run into obstacles"


And there is a larger, sadder problem. No matter how much time seeks to heal this wound, there are those determined to reopen it. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran may be too ignorant to realise what effect it has when he strives again and again to question the veracity of the death of 6 million Jews at the hands of the Nazis. He has, in the six short months since his election, variously called for Israel to be wiped off the map, branded the Holocaust a myth, suggested a Tehran conference for the world's Holocaust deniers and, most recently, told Europe to brace itself to take in millions of Jewish refugees from Israel.

Coming from a man apparently bent on building a nuclear bomb, how does he expect all that to sound to Jewish ears, except like a warning of a terrible calamity to come, one with the most painful historical echoes? The rest of the world may look at Jews and see a well-established, secure community, and they may look at Israel and see an armed occupier and regional superpower. But when a man like Ahmadinejad starts talking, Jews and Israelis look in the mirror and see something very different: that famous image of a frightened child, his arms in the air, cowering from Nazi guns. It may sound like a form of collective madness, but remember: the gas chambers were in operation only 60 years ago. If the Jewish psyche is still wounded, that should hardly be a surprise

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1694000,00.html

[redchrisfalling]

Wanna start makeing bets as to when the states will invade.

5 bucks says spring 2007

[James]

If any military action is taken against iran, i seriously doubt it will take the form of an invasion.

[MeTaLhEaD]

I really dont think we are going to see any action against Iran i
At least by part of the USA Iran has so many ties and Influence in Irak with the US ! training the new iraki army! and has in the Irak terrirtory the BADR militias (Irani) working with the US army!

[redstar2000]

Experts doubt expediency of attacking Iran (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/25/MNGUNGSNC51.DTL)

US military 'at breaking point' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/4649066.stm)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Solace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:29 PM
Wanna start makeing bets as to when the states will invade.

Any military action against Iran would be more than foolish.

It would give them even more reasons to actually develop nuclear capabilities.

They would wave the card of nuclear deterrence and they would be pretty right about it.

[Comrada J]

A "regime change" for Iran this decade is highly unlikely, they'll most likely just bomb it for a few weeks instead.

[Atlas Swallowed]

If they are foolish enough to bomb Iran it might result in the US being thrown out of the middle east, which would be good. The toll on human life that it will take is frightening.

[James]

seems that things have developed a little further now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1698847,00.html

"Security council backs Iran referral"

("Today's statement appeared to be calculated to reduce speculation about possible military intervention by stressing a determination to continue pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis.")

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 11:50 AM


("Today's statement appeared to be calculated to reduce speculation about possible military intervention by stressing a determination to continue pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis.")
Wow, deja vue go figure.

[James]

Iran papers reveal 'uranium warhead instructions'

· Referral is 'end of diplomacy', says Iran
· Russia and China back US and EU line
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1698847,00.html


from the last part of the article:

One hope was that Tehran would accept a Russian proposal for it to enrich uranium for Iran and audit the fuel going in and out of the country, but Iranian officials have said it is unlikely to be accepted.

Russia and China - which have greater economic ties to Iran - are still attempting to find a negotiated settlement to the crisis despite their support for a security council referral that could lead to sanctions.

The Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, today announced that Russian and Chinese diplomats are to be dispatched to Iran in an attempt to convince it to cooperate with the IAEA.

"I expect representatives of the leadership of the Russian foreign ministry with Chinese colleagues to visit Tehran to explain the agreements adopted in London and to urge Iran to give precise answers to the questions that the IAEA has presented," he said.

[commiecrusader]

I think a military conclusion to this saga, at least by the West, is very doubtful as things stand. The U$ and UK have their troops tied up all over the globe, and are spending on the military an insane amount. There is little way that they could afford to do it, let alone get public backing for it. I could imagine Russia using their military to invade, but hopefully that won't happen. I don't see what makes the U$ responsible enough to have nukes, but Iran not? Just because Iran is in the middle east doesn't mean they are dumb and don't understand that firing a nuke at someone will result in nukes being launched all over the globe.

[James]

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has warned Iran not to make threats against the international community in the growing crisis over Tehran's controversial nuclear programme.

At a meeting in London with foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki, Mr Straw bluntly told him it was not in Iran's interests to block cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency - the United Nations nuclear watchdog.

The 35-nation IAEA board is due to meet in emergency session in Vienna on Thursday to consider a call for Iran to be reported to the UN Security Council.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0...c=ticker-103704 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5586745,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704)

[James]

Iran's message to the west: back off or we retaliate

Iran's foreign minister yesterday threatened immediate retaliation over a move to refer its nuclear weapons activities to the United Nations security council in comments which deepen his country's confrontation with the international community.
In an interview with the Guardian - his first with western media - Manouchehr Mottaki accused the US of manufacturing the crisis and insisted there was still time to avoid a collision. But he warned that any military action by the US or Israel against Iran would have "severe consequences" and would be countered "by all means" at Iran's disposal.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1700266,00.html

[peaccenicked]

I sent the following to the Irish post.
Dear Editor,
The undersigned remaining members of Irish post award winner Freddy Anderson, poet, dramatist, novelist, community and anti-war activist wish to issue the following statement.
"In Scott Ritter's words,"step by step, the militarists in the US government are preparing the political and military infrastructure for an attack on Iran."
in an article subtitled "Sleepwalking To Disaster In Iran" March 30 2005. This description has only been confirmed by the continual demonisation of Iran.
Alongside there has been a stepping down of the protocols for the use of
nuclear weapons. This has been protested by numerous high ranking physicists. Details of this can be viewed on line at http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/ . This includes from the ""Doctrine of Joint nuclear operations" to demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD. "
This combined with report from the "American Conservative" Aug 2005
"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." authored byPhilip Giraldi; ammounts to a matter of great concern for all humanity.

The three week old decision by the UK, France and Germany to abandon their negotiations with Iran, followed by their joint call with the US for Iran’s referral to the UN Security Council by an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board, is a step toward a new war in the Middle East. Iran has responded by reiterating its readiness for further talks but has warned that referral will result in a ban by Iran on further voluntary snap checks by IAEA inspectors. Republican and Democratic members of the U.S. Senate have already announced that military intervention against Iran must be an option.
We call on all responsible-minded people to raise this issues with the purpose of pre-emption with the public and politicians alike in order to call for the ceasation of all military preparations
for war against Iran."
Paul Anderson
Isobel Anderson
Dermot Anderson

The problem as I see it is not of Irans making. It is not based on intelligence as it was not with Iraq. I think it is useless to speculate on the willingness of the US to attack Iran. It involves madness but what is imperialism in general. The point is that things are escalating out of contol. The US invaded Cambodia as it was losing in Vietnam.
The form of the attack might start with sanctions but who knows how it will escalate and what folly the military are capable.
No responsible antiwar activist can afford to be complacent.
These are fearful times and they must be confronted.
No to nuclear war.

[Atlas Swallowed]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_...ence_congress_5 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_co/intelligence_congress_5)

US finally admitting(one member of the government anyway) Iran probably does not have nuclear weapons or the material to produce them. Yet he goes on to state they are still a threat to national security. If national security means oil proffits maybe. Damn I hate the US gopvernment(purposly mispelled).

[peaccenicked]

Bush's sabre rattling is reaching new heights.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d3a86bf0-9358-11d...00779e2340.html (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d3a86bf0-9358-11da-a978-0000779e2340.html)

[Atlas Swallowed]

If any regime needs to be changed it is the Bush regime, unfortunatly with the Republicans in power and being able to fix election easilly(electronic voting, great idea!) its not going to happen. The Democrats might just take over where Bush left off. Damn it great living in a country with a choice between two conservative parties. :o Gawd bless Amerikkka lan dat i lub :angry:

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:57 PM
I'd say if Iran and Isreal did go to war then Iran would put up a harsh fight. If they called Jihad as a Muslim country they would be declaring Isreal as a threat to their religion and I would imagine resistance fighters would come for all around the world to protect their faith (mainly extremists).

It could also lead to further anti-semitism?

Only time can tell?
If Isreali decide to attack innocent Muslim civilans or "accidental destroy a whole city killing innocent people" I would go to the Middle-East and I would be a fighter against them. I dont support what they do to the people of Plastiene and Once things get bad and Isreali attack Plastiene's gov't I would be prepared to fight. I dont support Hamas's attacks on innocent civilians but military targets is free reign.

[( R )evolution]

If the US every tried to invade Iran it would be foolish. Iran is no Iraq, Iran has a actually military and large scale weapons that could be put in action against the US military. The Iranians just wont lie over in front of the US military it will be bloody and lots of death and the US Gov't wont want to try anything to upset the voters of America. Bush took a great risk in Iraq and it is turing out be to be a bad one. But Isreali is a total different story.............. They are not afaird to kill innocent civilans in a blind messege to protect its nation. They will probaly launch missle's and hit gov't bulidings and some civilan houses and entire citys. And the US wont give a shit.

[La Comédie Noire]

Has anyone read the article on the Iranian Oil Bourse? If not heres a run down.

The author, Petrov, talks about how the U.S dollar is backed by oil instead of gold, making the U.S dollar the only means by which to obtain oil so countries have to build up a surplus of U.S currency.

So anyways Saddam Hussein was going to start excepting Euros for Iraq's oil instead of U.S dollars. Every other oil holding country would probably follow In suit making the U.S dollar worthless causing a massive depression In U.S Economy. Is it any wonder why the U.S is in Iraq?

Now Iran is going to open up a Euro Exchange in the ladder half of 2006 which will once again put the United State's "Dollar Supremacy" At Risk.

So either The U.S backs it&#39;s currency by way of Bullion or we get more bull shit. <_<

[peaccenicked]

The BBC warns you&#39;re next.
Heres a Blogspot emailed to me.
http://chimesofreedom.blogspot.com/

It is still incredible to me how many on the left are downplaying the blatant bullying of Iran after the experience of Iraq.
Lies are being told about Iranian intentions
Sanctions are an act of war.
Air strikes are an act of war.

People get killed.

The purpose of this is to maintain US domination as Comradefloyd indicates and is about Iran&#39;s legitimate desire to move to the Eurodollar as it was Iraqs.

If an actual invasion seems unlikely now, who can say when it will be likely, when
this is the logical result of such preparations.

Will the slogan of the warmongers become troops out of Iraq troops into Iran?

[bunk]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2006, 01:14 AM
Has anyone read the article on the Iranian Oil Bourse? If not heres a run down.

The author, Petrov, talks about how the U.S dollar is backed by oil instead of gold, making the U.S dollar the only means by which to obtain oil so countries have to build up a surplus of U.S currency.

So anyways Saddam Hussein was going to start excepting Euros for Iraq&#39;s oil instead of U.S dollars. Every other oil holding country would probably follow In suit making the U.S dollar worthless causing a massive depression In U.S Economy. Is it any wonder why the U.S is in Iraq?

Now Iran is going to open up a Euro Exchange in the ladder half of 2006 which will once again put the United State&#39;s "Dollar Supremacy" At Risk.

So either The U.S backs it&#39;s currency by way of Bullion or we get more bull shit. <_<
Yes this is correct, however Iraq had been selling their oil in euros for a year before the US invaded. The US bought most of this Iraq&#39;s oil but they could not simply print the dollar to pay for it.

There were no US troops to guard hospitals and public services from robbery immediately after they entered Baghdad because they were securing the oil plants. The first action was to return the currency oil was being sold in to US Dollars. Even though this lost money for Iraq because the euro is worth more.


The Iranian Oil bourse is scheduled for March....

[James]

Iran reported to Security Council

"The UN nuclear watchdog has voted to report Iran to the security council over its nuclear activities.

Twenty-seven countries out of 35 on the agency&#39;s board voted for the resolution, with just three against and five abstentions.

The decision follows days of intensive diplomacy at the agency and could lead to possible UN sanctions against Iran.

A senior Iranian official said Tehran&#39;s first response would be to resume full-scale enrichment of uranium..."


full article at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4680294.stm

[James]

article contains:
"Russia and China agreed to support the resolution on condition it did not contain any immediate threat of sanctions against Iran.

Only Venezuela, Cuba and Syria voted against it. "


also,
"16 Feb, Moscow: Russia and Iran resume talks on Russia&#39;s proposed compromise"

[La Comédie Noire]

Iran wants nukes for negotiating purposes, bad news for the U.S.

And to think this could all be stopped if we would just back U.S Dollars with gold. But alas greedy Oil Capitalists want to stay rich.

Actually I hope the U.S goes into another great depression It will give people a chance and a reason to try communism.

[peaccenicked]

I didnt want to open a new thread. Here is a photo of our "hands off Iran" group
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/paulanderson...dnm=167ascd.jpg (http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/paulanderson9/detail?.dir=68ec&.dnm=167ascd.jpg)
Irans intentions should not be confused. The issue of nuclear power has become one of national independence. The nuclear weapons thing is a big red herring as was Wmds. Although as a life long supporter of CND, I am in a quandry- Do nuclear weapons act as a detterent against American aggression?


Articlesof interest.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=1885 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MEY20060204&articleId=1885)

http://www.endempire.blogspot.com

[James]

The Bush administration made an emergency request to Congress yesterday for a seven-fold increase in funding to mount the biggest ever propaganda campaign against the Tehran government, in a further sign of the worsening crisis between Iran and the west.
Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said the &#036;75m (£43m) in extra funds, on top of &#036;10m already allocated for later this year, would be used to broadcast US radio and television programmes into Iran, help pay for Iranians to study in America and support pro-democracy groups inside the country.
...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1710721,00.html

[Husky42]

What do you guys think about this becoming WW3.

Lets see if agression in iran occurs...

We will see heavier fighting in: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and all out war will be declared on Israel (Israel will do the bombing not the US) With all out war being declared on Israel the ME will be on fire and the US will be very involved. Not sure how it will progress but it is rather scary but exciting that maybe the war and change will allow people to view communism as an alternative.

[piet11111]

first of all a link regarding iran&#39;s missile capability&#39;s click (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/)

personally i think a nuclear iran would bring stability to the region aswell as a platform for more political talks.
just because military actions against one another would be suïcidal.
ofcourse its not a desirable situation but it worked wonders for world peace during the cold war and i hope it will do the same for the middle east.

[redstar2000]

Here is an interesting speculation on war with Iran and the ruling class&#39;s plans to transform America...

Iran Attack - Turning America Into A Straussian Totalitarian State (http://www.rense.com/general69/totali.htm)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[piet11111]

im not a big fan of counting bodybags but i do keep an eye out for this website (http://ttp://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/index.php?PHPSESSID=4c624f6c6487b8df51a5d4ff045af8 9a&submit3=Enter+Site)

it seems to be done independantly but as always with the internet sources can never be trusted.
i recomend bookmarking this website you will return to it often.

also i think its funny from what i heared is that most oilcompany&#39;s buy their oil through contract namely x amount of oil barrels for x amount of money per barrel.
the entire notion of prices sky-rocketing seems impossible due to this.
then again i could be wrong the oil industry hides anything related to their prices better then america guarding its nuclear arsenal so to speak.