Iran won’t back down “one iota’ in nuclear dispute: Ahmadinejad

[sabra]

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/April/middleeast_April269.xml§ion=middleeast&col=

Iran won’t back down “one iota’ in nuclear dispute: Ahmadinejad
(AFP)

TEHERAN - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed on Monday he would not back down “one iota” over Iran’s nuclear programme, again rejecting a UN Security Council demand for Teheran to freeze sensitive enrichment work.

“Be certain that the government which serves you will follow the wishes of the people with wisdom and strength, and will not back down one iota,” the hardline president said in a speech carried live on state television.

Ahmadinejad also cryptically promised “very good nuclear news in the coming days”, but did not elaborate.

“Our enemies know they are unable to even slightly hurt our nation and they cannot create the tiniest obstacle on its glorious and progressive way,” he also said in the speech, given in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

[jseankil]

1. Ahmadinejad is an idiot.

You publicly decry Israel's existance and then you won't compromise in regards to you're nuke program, what does he expect to happen?

[havocmom]

3. Let's see, nations without nukes, like Iraq for instance, can be invaded

Gee, I wonder why Iran wants the capability to protect itself.

With Yee-HAW-Shock & Awe as US foreign policy under the corporate controlled junta, I tend not to be critical of ANY nation that sees a point in arming to the teeth. It is probably what the junta wants. GE and others make obscene profits when the world is on edge and looking to buy weapons systems.

And, weren't Cheney/Rumsfeld involved in helping Iran get some materials and equipment not so long ago? They sure as hell made sure Ms Plame's network for tracking weapons components was trashed. Now, why would they do that? Sure as hell was not to make the world safer.

[cliss]

7. Right after Iraq was attacked,

Kim Jong Il came out publicly and said, "They invaded them because they didn't have nuclear weapons". = meaning, if you have a nuclear weapon, they won't dare invade.

I'd say there's a lesson there.

[truth2power]

26. You are correct, Havocmom. Anyway...we gave them the blueprints

IIRC. Here's what I remember, from an article I read. I'm hoping someone here can corroborate this. (I save articles to my HD, and then I can never FIND something when I need it. A disorganized mind is a curse) But I digress...

Supposedly, back around 2000 or so, the CIA contracted with some engineer/spy to pass along some "flawed" nuclear blueprints to the Iranians. The purpose was to get an indication of their nuclear capabilities. Well, the engineer, not in on the whole story, looked at the document and knew it was bogus, so he passed it along anyway, but told the recipient where the flaws were. Something like that. If this is bogus, someone please let me know and I'll be appropriately :blush:

[Rex]

35. That is how it happened.

The engineer not only knew where the flaws were, but by the time the blueprints landed in Iran the flaws were fixed and they had a working copy of how to build a nuclear warhead. Personally, I think the Ukraine sold them 250 or so working warheads. Who really knows how many Lil Kim has.

Humans should have never uncorked the nuclear genie bottle.

[ladjf]

17. He's either very dumb, or on the "take" is some way or

is blackmailing Bush with some type of information about Bush.

[The Stranger]

45. Someone, can't remember who, did call his country part of an AXIS OF EVIL,

long before he was even in office (of course, not to bother you with the facts).

[dipsydoodle]

2. Not even two iotas

or even a jot or two. Wouldn't seriously expect him to. I suppose if he was a better game player he'd simply use the tactic that he'd leave the treaty unless Israel joined it or at least allowed inspectors in - which they don't with US approval.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_nnp_treaty.php

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cliss]

6. I'm sure of it.

I'm convinced Russia is in the background, assisting Iran. I believe they have oil contracts with them. Also, Russia sold missiles to them 2 years ago.

As if that wasn't enough, India is closely allied with Iran. The Iranians recently had a ship with military people go to India for training. The US downplayed it; Rice said it was "nothing".

This time, Bush is outnumbered. And he knows it.

[tatertop]

9. This is a nail biter

We all know he should not do it -
for a plethora of reasons -
but he just can't hep' himself.
I think he is still trending heavily
in favor of attacking.

[Strelnikov_]

15. Chindia And Russia Are Sitting This One Out On The Sidelines

Chindia will be in a position to forge stronger energy alliances in the Gulf once the US has further weakened its position with another misguided conflict.

Russia stands to profit all the way around by conflict. The US is weakened, and if Saudi Arabian production is reduced, they will be the worlds top energy exporter, in an even more energy starved world.

[jseankil]

8. I find it odd and distrubing that you would want them to have nukes

Giving a regime nukes is not the answer to stopping Bush. If you haven't noticed Ahmadinejad is likely more dangerous than Bush, I know it's hard to swallow but go back and take a peek and what he has said in the past year. Not to mention Iran is a country fully contolled by religious nuts, don't let your hate for Bush cloud your judgement and support oppressive regimes.

[brentspeak]

10. s/d

[winter999]

11. Bravo. I never thought

that people here would advocate Nukes. Distubing.

BTW, Iran and N. Korea were working on Nukes long before BushCo made an appearance.

[Strelnikov_]

14. Yes, They Were

So why did the Maximum Leader and his party ignore Iran up to now, and is still ignoring North Korea, all the while depleting our military on an ill-conceived and mis-managed blunder in Iraq?

[Warren Stupidity]

18. "Ahmadinejad is likely more dangerous than Bush"

Because the Iranians have invaded some country recently? Given that we are the belligerant force here, tromping around the middle east with an avowed intention to transform it to suit our purposes, your statement there is farcical.

Oh wait, but of course Ahmadinejad says stuff you don't like. That makes him more dangerous than Bush, the actual war criminal. Of course. Rather obvious now that I see your point.

[jseankil]

25. Yes they openly support terror as well as the destruction of a nation

But you want to give them a pass and a few nukes because they hate Bush as much as you do, brilliant.

[truth2power]

28. Bush DOES things, like drop daisy cutters

and other assorted weaponry on innocent people. Ahmadinejad says stupid shit.

Yeah, Ahmadinejad is more dangerous. :rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

33. They do not 'openly support terror'.

Blah blah blah. The usual one sided happy talk version of current affairs in the middle east. Grow up. Open your eyes. There is terrorism aplenty on both sides.

All of our good muslim buddies, including nuclear pakistan provide support of various sorts to various palestinian organizations. Dubai, which we were going to turn our ports over to, refers to Israel as 'the zionist entity'.

The history of the use of nuclear weapons is that they have only been used when the opponent doesn't have any to shoot back.

[jseankil]

42. Except that they do...

Blah, Blah, Blah all you want it doesn't change the fact that they have and do support several terror oganizations including Islamic Jihad and The Hizballah organization.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. Yes of course they support palestinian organizations.

As do all of the muslim states, including Pakistan. I haven't seen Pakistan launching any nukes, have you?

Would you classify any organization that attacks civilians 'terrorist'?

[0007]

19. This country is just as full of religious nuts as Iran and they have a way

of crawling into our political structure. The only country to use the bomb was us.

[jseankil]

24. We can vote our religious nuts out, Iran cannot.

So while you might like to think that the U.S. and Iran governments are comparable they are not. We do not have a Guardian Council, a non-elected body that can veto anything and controls who may run for office.

And yes the U.S. used the bomb 60 years ago, point being?

[truth2power]

30. We can vote our religious nuts out? Really??

I'm sure you'll disagree with this, too, but I don't think honest elections are even in the mix anymore.

[jseankil]

40. I'm not sure what you mean by honest...

Do i believe that elections are fixed in the U.S. No I do not, if I did I wouldn't live here.

[truth2power]

50. Fixed or fraudulent. Either will work...

Do you really think Bush was elected in 2000? Do you really believe there was no fraud in '04, especially in Ohio?

Do you think touch screen voting, no paper trail, machines owned by a private company with ties to Republicans, and no access to source code is going to give us an accurate vote count in '06 or '08?

I don't think voting these monsters out is an option.

[0007]

36. How can you vote the Jerry Falwells, the Pat Robertsons and the

Fred Phelps out? Give me a break!!

[jseankil]

39. True we can't vote out free speech, nor do I want to

You see those men aren't elected officals nor do they have any first hand power. What you can do is vote for and support those who don't share their agendas, quite simple really.

[0007]

44. What in the fuck are you talking about, these cretins have the same

kind of control as the mullahs in Iran.

[coalition_unwilling]

32. I'm rooting for Iran in this fight, sorry. Because I know how

many Iranians will die as opposed to how many middle-class SUV-drivin' Americans. And because I'm almost always for the underdog.

[daleo]

38. Go back and look at what he did, not what he said

Or what our That's what is important. Iran has not invaded anyone. The U.S. has invaded at least two countries since Bush took over.

[jseankil]

41. They have openly supported terror against Israel for years friend.

So I am looking at what they do and I'm worried about what they could do with a nuke. I'm also worried about global warming, can't prove that man is creating it but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to stop it in case we are.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. So we should kill many innocent Iranians

because if they build a nuclear weapon they might use it against Israel? And you would sleep well knowing that thousands, perhaps millions of people are dead to prevent something that might or might not happen? Don't you think that an action as grave as going to war against another country requires a little more substance than 'but they might nuke Israel'? Have you learned nothing over the last three years?

[daleo]

48. To compare pre-emptive war with preventing global warming

Is to conflate two very different things. Preventing global warming won't kill hundreds of thousands (possibly millions, if nuclear weapons are used) of innocent people, while a preemptive war against Iran almost certainly will. Furthermore, it could lead to a much wider war, perhaps involving current nuclear powers. World War I started when a regional issue spun out of control, due to the actions of great powers. This could easily happen again.

Israel has nuclear weapons, and would launch a devastating counter-strike against Iran if it ever used atomic weapons against Israel. That deterrent should be sufficient.

[baby_mouse]

5. Goodness!

He sounds like a monkey on a pile of bananas.

[Strelnikov_]

12. Maniac Meets Incompetence

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/

If anybody were to act militarily against Iran, the result could easily be to throw the entire Middle East into turmoil. It could lead to the overthrow of the al Saud family or to the destruction of oil production facilities or just to terrible trouble in the oil markets. It could spell the end of the West's sixty-year-long dependency relationship with Mideast oil -- and that would probably leave the West's industrial economies in ruins. That may be a gamble that the Iranians like, given the seeming verve of China and India lately -- but I would not expect these nations to thrive if the West was hung out to dry. After all, Mr. Ahmedinejad gives every sign of being a true maniac of the type that the world produces every four decades or so, and the strategic fantasies of such maniacs often end up being very self-destructive.


Combined with the most incompetent President in modern times, I am afraid we are in big trouble.

[Malva Zebrina]

13. Bush publically named Iran in his SOTU address as a member of the

"axis of evil". Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Umm, He invaded Iraq on false pretenses, destroyed the country, and without a plan as to what to do next, has thrown that country into utter chaos. He virtually has killed tens of thousands of people in Iraq with his pre-emptive policies.

Now any country worth it's salt, and any country with a leader willing to defend itself will note that North Korea is not being bothered one bit--in fact, we have chosen to have "talks" instead and will arm itself suitably to protect it's country and it's citizens. To NOT do so would be negiligent behavior.

If Israel has a beef with Iran, then let them send their young to die and to kill and maim children by blowing off their heads, their limbs and their existence on earth. Go Israel! I am firmly against this insanity that we must support Israel's claim it needs to defend itself, by sending our young to kill, maim and murder innocent people.

Iran cannot be a threat to the United States. By all accounts, it, as well as Israel has a right to "defend itself"

Bush egged it on. Thought it made his cowardly carcass look "manly" as he wore his military costume of the day, and made speeches complete with smirks over the deaths of children and innocent people.

Now, in his insanity, and we hear hear him saying insane things such as no other president was brave eneough to do this (invade Iran with nukes no less) he will be the one!!!! It will be his legacy as the greatest president ever. Surely, those with a reasonable mind, one that can think, recognize that this president is insane.

[arewenotdemo]

22. great post

:thumbsup:

:kick:

[ladjf]

16. Either Ahmadinejad has terribly damaging information about

Bush or he is the dumbest guy on the planet.

[lovuian]

20. I really believe he does have nuclear warheads

and yes he is a crusader for his religion...

I just wish we could resolve this diplomatically...

[tatertop]

21. I think he is far less likely to use them than the US

I think Iran would only use them as a last resort.
Bush clearly wants to nuke someone pre-emptively and NOW.

[oblivious]

23. The assumption by some here that Iran is after nuclear weapons is wrong.

Iran has a legal right to pursue enrichment under the NPT, as long as it is for peaceful purposes.

Ahmadinejad has said over and over and over that Iran wants nuclear energy for electricity and has no interest in nuclear weapons.

The IAEA has confirmed that they have found no evidence whatsoever so far that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons.

So why the assumption that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

[jseankil]

27. several reasons for the assumption

1, They hide their enrichment program from I.A.E.A. inspectors.

2,Iran’s President stated that Israel must be “wiped off the map.”

3, They current support terror organizations against Israel

4, Economically it does not make sense to invest in nuclear energy when it has huge oil and gas reserves.

[oblivious]

31. Those don't justify the assumption.

1. They are not hiding their enrichment program. They have been perfectly open about it. They even voluntarily stopped it even though they did not have to under the NPT. They resumed it because they got nothing but threats in return. The IAEA produced a detailed report in November 2004 after extensive inspections that concluded that Iran was not pursuring a nuclear weapons program. All reports since then have concluded that there was no evidence that the situation has changed.

2. That statement means Israel should be named Palestine. That has been Iranian policy since the overthrow of the Shah.

3. What does that have to do with assuming Iran is developing nuclear weapons when IAEA inspectios has shown no indication of nuclear weapons development.

4. Economically it makes perfect sense to generate cash from exports of oil and gas and to make their fossil fuel reserves last as long as possible. The US argued the same for decades. The US started, encouraged and supported Iran's development of nuclear energy for electricity:

Lost in Bush’s current obsession with Iran’s nuclear intentions is the fact that the United States—from the Eisenhower administration through the Carter years—played a major role in the development of Iran’s nuclear program. In 1957, Washington and Teheran signed their first civil nuclear cooperation agreement. Over the next two decades, the United States provided Iran not only with technical assistance but with its first experimental nuclear reactor, complete with enriched uranium and plutonium with fissile isotopes. Despite the refusal of the shah to rule out the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons, the Ford administration approved the sale to Iran of up to eight nuclear reactors (with fuel) and later cleared the sale of lasers believed to be capable of enriching uranium.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsControl/Nuclear.asp

[jseankil]

37. I think they do, or at least a let's be safer than sorry attitude

1. In 2002 the IAEA discovered that Iran had some hidden nuclear activities (including Uranium-Enrichment Program) some which violated the safeguards agreement with the IAEA, how is that out in the open? In addition the IAEA has complained about Iran not co-operating as they agreed to do so after the 2002 discovery.

2. So 'destruction' just means name change? What does Hashemi-Rafsanjani really mean when he said "If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality."

3. Iran has shown that it will use terror to further it's causes.

4. The financial analysis conclusions I've read is that the cost of gas vs nuke power generation is about even.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. so we will just kill a whole lot of iranians so that

we (and it isn't eve 'we', its Israel,) can be better off safe than sorry. Hummph. Perhaps you lost your way. Perhaps you have learned nothing over the past three years.

[Ratty]

29. Normally I'd say the US posturing is a bluff

I mean, using nuclear weapons as a first strike option. Invading a second country while still deeply deeply in debt and mired in the first. How absurd can you get? The rational person might realize the US is leveraging the Iraq experience to put other problematic nations on notice. We used our big stick once, we'll do it again.

But with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge rationality is thrown out the window. It's truly frightening.

[VegasWolf]

34. Never fear! China has a firm hand on Commander Cuckoo Bananas just

like Cheney does. China/Russia will not allow Bush to invade Iran, else China will pull the plug on Bush's little 8 trillion dollar spending problem.

[StrafingMoose]

47. Also..

China now runs the port security in the USA.