Iran 'does not need nuclear arms' (says Ahmadinejad) | BBC

[Ediacara]

Iran 'does not need nuclear arms'
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that his country does not need a nuclear weapon.

At a news conference in Tehran, Mr Ahmadinejad said they were needed only by people who "want to solve everything through the use of force".

His comments come amid international condemnation of Tehran's move to restart its nuclear research.

Iran says it has a right to peaceful nuclear technology and denies claims it is covertly seeking to develop weapons.

More at the BBC

[Greeby]

1. Umm, OK

Somehow I don't think that gets you out of Dick and Rummy's crosshairs :scared:

[formercia]

2. How many nuclear weapons

will the Iranians recover from the wreckage of the Israeli aircraft they shoot down? I imagine there will be plenty of fissionable material laying about.

[Toots]

5. Why would they send planes when missles would do the job better?

I am convinced we meaning either the US or Israel will use Nukes but not delivered by airplanes. Even Stealth Jets won't be carrying nukes. those will come from missles. The whole reason we have to use nukes is so there will be no way anyone can say there was no nukes there. there will be radiation levels and we will use that as our evidence that we got their nukes. It is a given. Remember Bush* used to stick firecrackers up frog's butts when he was a child. This is how he thinks...

[Josh999]

14. One sick dude

"Remember Bush* used to stick firecrackers up frog's butts when he was a child. This is how he thinks..."

My G*D, is this really true? I heard that people who abuse animals as children are among the most dangerous of us walking around.

[TheWraith]

16. Yes, that's true.

And you're right that animal abusers are dangerous in pretty much every way. Generally, the way that a person treats animals is indicative of the way they would treat people if unrestrained. Criminal psychologists and profilers often treat animal abuse as a precursor or warning factor for other sociopathic behavior, because it denotes the ability to cause suffering without a guilt response. It's a trait you see in a lot of serial killers.

[Josh999]

17. I never could understand how anyone could mistreat an animal of any kind.

I remember how I used to cry when one of my fish died and I really took good care of them.

[Pavulon]

15. Why would

we use nukes on a third world country? Never used them through the entire cold war, or before the soviets had the technology. Even when we had no nuclear adversary.

If we were to use nukes we would use stealth jets to launch a coordinated strike. 40 - 50 planes with no notice until 40 nuclear weapons go off at the same time.

Missiles have warnings, radar IR sig. Black jets don't.

No one is going to nuke iran. Any conventional bombing at NUCLEAR sites would release radiation.

I'm missing your point.

[Opusnone]

18. Third world?

Which third world country are you talking about?
Iran is hardly third world.

[Pavulon]

21. Yep

They are third world. Their military is third world. They manufacture nothing. Their economy is third world Petro based.

Do you own anything from Iran? No?

This is all saber rattling and they might get a strongly worded letter from the UN.

This will end in a stalemate between israel and iran, if we are lucky.

[oblivious]

3. Ahmadinejad: Iran considers nuclear weapons illegal

...He reiterated Iran’s rejection of US allegations that it was seeking nuclear weapons. "Our nation does not need nuclear weapons, nor is interested in having them, and even considers them illegal," he said.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1982212_2,00.html

[Zynx]

9. I somehow don't think it is logical to take this man at his word.

I believe him as much as I believe Bush.

[george_maniakes]

19. I agree. Everything this man says has to be tempered...

by the fact that he's fucking nutz.

[oblivious]

23. OK, fair enough. People have reason to be skeptical.

Iran did work outside the NPT before 2003, despite being a signatory. But now that they are following the rules of the NPT, inviting IAEA supervision, snap inspections, and so on, it doesn't seem to be sensible to penalize them. It will only push them to work secretly again and send the wrong message to the rest of the nuclear aspirants that you gain nothing by signing the NPT and making your nuclear program transparent.

[Missy M]

4. The truth is NO ONE needs nuclear weapons yet the US...

has more than anyone.

[pinerow]

6. I'm not liking these developments...

The last thing this world needs is a nuclear attack...no matter what the origin.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Ahmadinejad: now he talks sense.

Oh the ayatollahs are so clever. On alternate weeks they trot out Ahmadinejad to utter inflammatory holocaust denial death to israel nonsense and then just when you think that he is a total nutcase they have him talk sense.

The Iranians are playing brinksmanship here. They appear to be eager partners in the dance they are engaged in with the us neocons. One would think that with our ALL POWERFUL MILITARY they would be less eager for the confrontation that is coming. Instead they are clearly going to push us into doing something very stupid. Why?

[bemildred]

8. About Iran and the current fandango:

1.) Generally speaking, the Iranians are far more "reality based" than the Bushites.
2.) The current song and dance is working very well for the Iranian rulers.
3.) There is no need to push the Bushites into doing something stupid, that is what they always do.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Oh I agree.

Mostly my point was rhetorical. The Iranians have clearly thought this whole thing through and see the confrontation as to their advantage, and they most likely believe that it will result in a rather stunning defeat for our domestic Napoleon and his cru of belligerents.

[worldgonekrazy]

24. I think its pretty much just to bolster domestic support

The Iranian government has been pressured in to enacting some democratic reforms, albeit very limited, in the past few years. I think the government is fanning the flames on this dispute because it gives the Iranian people a reason to put support behind the government. An external enemy is a great way to draw attention away from internal troubles (see Bush Administration, the).

[oblivious]

25. I think you're all correct - posts 7, 8, 11 and 24.

[DemonFighterLives]

10. Fanning the flames last week and throwing a wet blanket on now

He needs to make up his mind. As whacky and crazy as he sounds, dubco is worse. What a predicament!

This getting ballsy is just what smirk and sneer were hoping for.
Do we even have any active peacemakers on the American side?
Can't Hillary or Kerry or someone step up and take the matches and firecrackers away from w?

[leQ]

12. i dont think kerry & hillary are what we need

kerry is on bush's side on this, and i haven't heard where hillary stands, but i'm sure she's not barking the peacenik song.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Hillary is more of a neocon hawk than Kerry.

But I think that the poster meant that perhaps somebody in the Democratic leadership ought to start a counterpoint noise campaign to the Iran war propaganda. You are correct that neither Kerry or Clinton appear to be likely candidates for this job. Kerry's comments in nuclear violater India indicated that he has bought into the Iranian nuclear crisis bullshit.

[fujiyama]

20. How is India a "nuclear violator"?

As far as I know, it's the only country to not have proliferated nuclear technology.

The problem is the anti proliferation treaties put in place are complete bullshit and haven't done anything to stop a nation that wants nukes from getting them. Iran, for example signed on to the NPT and is violating what they signed on to.

And BTW, Kerry has been at the forefront of anti proliferation for years now but I have not heard him push for war (nor have I heard any Dems do so). Could you suggest a better candidate for this job (btw, I'm not necessarily suggesting Kerry would be ideal, but I'm tired of mischaracterizing his record on this issue)?

[daleo]

26. Well they never signed onto the NPT

But they did develop nukes. I suppose they aren't in violation since they never signed the treaty, though.

[oblivious]

27. Iran was violating the NPT but is not presently.

That's the problem. They were left alone in the 80s and 90s when they were violating the treaty, but now when they're finally following the treaty, they're threatened. The suspension of uranium conversion research was voluntary so they had the right to remove the seals as long as the IAEA was notified and invited to supervise.

NPT Article IV1.
Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.

[fujiyama]

22. Umm....

What indication is there that Kerry is on "Bush's side"?

Kerry is against Iran aquiring nukes. That doesn't necessarily make him a Bush supporter on this.

[HuffleClaw]

28. it doesn't matter one bit WHAT iran does

they could reseal those things, invite the atomic energy folks to confirm it, let in un inspectors to verify it and bush will STILL go to war. that is how its gonn a happen. bush will find ANY excuse to go to war with them, ANY. it will, of course, be one of their usual mountain from a mole hill things. bush is gonna have his war and there aint nobody who's gonna stop him.

[meganmonkey]

29. We have a winner, folks

And quite frankly, given the drums beating for war against Iran, if I were them I'd be posturing too.

Are we all going to be surprised when this turns out just like Iraq?

:(