Who here still thinks Iran should have nuclear technology?

[breakfastofchampions]

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading towards annihilation ... The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

While I do admire the the President's use of metaphor, I am frightened by what he says. Anybody who believes Iran can handle nuclear technology is accepting nothing less than a nuclear attack on Israel.

[monktonman]

1. youve been watching too much television

[IndianaGreen]

42. Too much Faux News, I'll say

The neocons in America and Israel shot their wad when they fooled us all into an unnecessary war in Iraq. We just ain't biting on Iran!

[xultar]

2. Why shouldn't they? I'm frighetened by Bush and what he says.

Aren't we the only country who has used nukes. People shouild be scared of us.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. I am. Believe me, I am.

But a) two wrongs don't make a right, and b) while I don't trust the American government with the ability to kill a million people at the press of a button, I trust the Iranian government with it even less, by a considerable amount.

If nothing else, I don't think an American president is likely to try and nuke anyone who can nuke back, and while that's a small consolation, it at least means that the death toll would be tens of millions rather than potentially billions.

[begley]

154. How come there aren't massive protests August 6 and 9 each year

to commemorate the WW2 bombings? I've often wondered that.

[electron_blue]

3. I don't think any country should be allowed to make nuclear bombs,

so obviously I don't think they should be able to.

[pat_k]

4. Who ever said they "should" have nuclear weapons?

[ContraBass Black]

74. Let's have us a good, old fashioned

Straw man beating.

[pat_k]

102. Love your tag line!

It brings to mind "Beware of false prophets. . . By their fruits you will know them."

Matthew 7:15-20

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?

Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit.

A good tree can't produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit.

Every tree that doesn't grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire.

Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.

[patdem]

5. Well, since Lukid..the 'Zionist regime' did go down..seems he might

have something there...and the more moderate people of Isreal are now speaking out...do not forget Zionism is not Isreal, but the ultra rieght wing of Isreal!

[Warren Stupidity]

9. I rather suspect that most muslims would view the Likud replacement as

nearly identical to its predecessor.

[Loge23]

6. No nuclear weapons at all, for anyone

Dreaming of course, but there should be a total ban on any country possessing nuclear weapons.
As an energy source, maybe. But with very strict guidelines.

[Bonobo]

7. I do!

[Warren Stupidity]

8. They have the right to defend themselves.

And in the current situation the only way they can fully defend themselves against a devastating attack by the United States is through the development of a credible nuclear deterrent. Do I like this? No! But I accept that this is the reality of the world situation the Bush Cabal has created.

By the way, as Israel has a huge world class nuclear force, it is rather unlikely that the Iranians are going to lob any nukes that way. The thing about nuclear weapons is that you can only use them against nations that don't have them, which is how we all managed to survive the cold war.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. I strongly disagree.

They don't have the right to use *any means necessary* to defend themselves. If their only options are "be conquered" or "use nuclear weapons", they still have no right to use nuclear weapons. It's a matter of proportionate force, and the use of one nuclear weapon could too easily lead to the use of others, and the end of civilisation as we know it. No one has the right to use nuclear weapons, ever, for any reason whatsoever.

I don't like America, or Israel, or the UK, or China, or anyone else having nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan having them scares the hell out of me, as does North Korea. But Iran is even less unlikely to use them irresponsibly than any of those, and their having them would be even worse.

And I don't agree with your assessment that the Iranian government wouldn't use nukes just because Israel could nuke back.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. Of course they have the right to defend themselves.

And as they cannot hope to match us with conventional forces, as North Korea has demonstrated, their only recourse is to have a nuclear deterrent. It is really too bad if Iran having nuclear weapons is disagreeable to you, but this is the inevitable outcome of a nuclear Israel and its belligerent nuclear ally the USA, and the US/UK/Israeli effort to acheive complete military domination of the region.

"And I don't agree with your assessment that the Iranian government wouldn't use nukes just because Israel could nuke back."

You don't have to agree with it. However the facts are simply that, so far, no nation has used nuclear weapons against another nuclear armed nation. Of course this does not prove that Iran wouldn't be the first, but it does argue, with facts rather than speculation absent any facts, what sort of behavior can be expected from a nuclear Iran.

Is this the best we can hope for? No, there is another path of course, a path of peace and reconcilliation. That path has been rejected out of hand by the Bush Cabal. Instead we are hell bent on domination and war, and part of the blowback from our misguided policies is the spread of nuclear armed states. That is the reality we have created.

By the way I did not state that the Iranians have the "right to use *any means necessary* to defend themselves". They have the right of self defense, and against a belligerent nuclear power that must include a nuclear deterrent.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

65. Their right to defend themselves is not an absolute.

I have a right to defend my property against burglars, but that doesn't include the right to set nuclear devices on it; I have a right to use a *proportionate level* of force *against the aggressor* to defend it.

Conventional nuclear weapons have no use except the mass killing of civilians. There is no way to "defend yourself" with one; the only thing you can do with one is threaten to kill huge numbers of *innocent* people. That's *never* justified.

If they developed a weapon that would kill all of an invading army and no-one else, or even one that would kill most of an invading army and not many other people, and it did not appear that they were likely to use it against civilian populations instead, then fair enough; but my understanding is that nuclear weapons are not the most efficient way of doing that (although I should stress that that's anything but an authoritative opinion; I may very well be wrong).

Even if Iran can't match America's conventional forces without recourse to nuclear weaponry, that doesn't give it the right to it.

That Iran wouldn't use nukes is every bit as much speculation as that it would - no fundamentalist Islamic government has ever had nuclear weapons before. The Iranian president's recent speeches, while far from proof, are certainly evidence that it might well.

If you don't think the government of Iran (*not* "the Iranians"; the one is by no means perfectly representative of the views of the other) is entitled to use any means necessary, but you do think it's entitled to use nuclear weapons, what means don't you think it's entitled to use?

[Warren Stupidity]

69. Not even when the burglers are using nuclear weapons?

What an absurd analogy.

"Conventional nuclear weapons have no use except the mass killing of civilians."

You keep missing the point. Conventional nuclear weapons have a demonstrated capability to keep the peace. It is their non-use that has proved to be highly effective in this regard.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

78. No, not even if the burglars are using nuclear weapons.

The analogy illustrates the point I wanted to make, "proportional force against the aggressor only", perfectly.

There's a limit to how much harm you're allowed to do to others in defence of yourself. Nuclear weapons are past that limit; they don't just kill an army, they kill lots of other, innocent, people too.

One is never justified in targetting anyone except the aggressor in defence of yourself; the primary use of nuclear weapons is to kill civilians.

That nuclear weapons have been "proven to keep the peace" is debatable at best - vide Vietam, Korea, Afghanistan etc. They certainly haven't been proven, or even demonstrated, to do *anything* when in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists, because that's thankfully never happened before.

[TankLV]

87. Bullshit. So bunkerboy can decide to use NUKES preemptively, & any other

country - if ATTACKED FIRST - doesn't have a right to DEFEND themselves?

I'd say not only do they have the right to defend themselves by any means necessary, they would also have the right to "preemptively" attack US - because WE have taken it as OUR "right" - thanks to the repukes and the dems who NOT ONLY SUPPORTED THIS, BUT DO NOTHING TO STOP THIS!

That's why we have to REMOVE, ARREST, IMPRISON & PUNISH these repuke bastards who got us into this mess - it wasn't IRAN who got us into this mess - that's for sure!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

96. No, that's not at all what I believe.

I didn't say that America *was* justified in using nuclear weapons, I said Iran *wasn't*. America isn't either - if I had my way, America would unilaterally disarm its nuclear weapons. No-one, America or otherwise, has any right to use them. But two wrongs don't make a right - America's possession of nuclear weapons doesn't justify the Iranian governments attempts to do so, and vice versa.

I find it hard to believe that you actually believe that Iran has the right to preemtively attack the US. Possibly you're phrasing your views too broadly?

[guinivere]

153. Oh, I agree. nt

[enough already]

10. Bush started this, not Iran

If Iran feels they need nukes to protect themselves from Chimpus Khan, who can blame them? Israel has made their bed.

[creeksneakers2]

103. Bush made things far worse than they were

But Iran first purchased plans and equipment for nuclear enrichment from AQ Khan and Pakistan back in 1987.

[gulliver]

11. Republicans do, not Dems.

You have the wrong board. You need to go over and check out the "end times" pinheads over at FreeRepublic.com. They want Israel nuked so their murder-suicide fantasy can play itself out. Trying to remember... I think this whole business of Iran going nuclear never happened under Clinton. It didn't right?

[ScreamingMeemie]

12. Who here thinks anyone should have nuclear technology?

If we have it, other countries of course feel they should have the right. No one died and made us the boss of everything.

[tatertop]

13. They have every right according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act

of which they are a member in FULL compliance.

They have done NOTHING wrong.

[breakfastofchampions]

17. Iran WANTS to do something wrong

The leader of Iran has a stated goal of the destruction of Isreal. He says this will be done with "one storm". Why hasn't he sent this storm to Israel? Because he can't. It must stay this way.

[norml]

Fuck Israel!

Iran isn't going to be sending any nuclear storm against anyone, unless they want to assure their own destruction, and it would take about ten years before they'd even have that capability.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. Ten years isn't that long.

And I don't think that mutually assured destruction would necessarily be enough to stop the Iranian government from using nuclear weapons, and/or supplying them to a third party who would use them while the Iranians maintain semiplausible deniability.

[norml]

28. Any device used would be easily traceable back to it's source.

These things have certain signatures that can be observed when they go off.

The argument that they're nuts and don't care about their own destruction was wrong when used to lobby for a first strike against the Soviet Union too.

Ten years will be long enough for these rule the world crackpots to be out of power, I hope.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

97. Just because it wasn't true of the Soviets

Doesn't mean it isn't true of the Council of Guardians. No fundamentalist Islamic regime has ever had nuclear weapons before.

I'm not saying that I'm certain they *are* that nuts. I am saying that I think you're wrong to be as confident as you are that they *aren't*.

[tatertop]

41. They absolutely have the right to nuclear energy, plain and simple

They have the right and they are in compliance.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

70. I'm afraid I think that's sophistry.

I think the evidence that Iran is trying to aquire nuclear weapons is fairly overwhelming; if it hasn't been proven to be in breach of the non-proliferation act then it's only a matter of time.

They do indeed have the right to nuclear energy, but not to nuclear weapons. If their nuclear energy program is a front for a nuclear weapons program (which I think is fairly clear) then that makes it illicit too.

[Kailassa]

81. I believed the evidence against Iraq before that farce began.

So I don't blame you for being taken in by the propaganda here.

But don't let them fool you again, there is plenty of information around on the real reasons why Buschco want to attack Iran.

[tatertop]

92. True. We are not attacking Iran because of their 'nuclear program'

That legless casis belli will be easy to sell to americans, however.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

95. You're not attacking Iran at all, yet.

And while I think it's almost certainly something being considered, I'm think the odds are probably less than 50/50 that it will happen. The question at issue isn't "is America right to attack Iran", though, it's "does Iran have a right to nuclear weapons".

The answer to that one is, I think, clearly "no". The answer to "do Iran's attempts to aquire nuclear weapons make America attacking it justified/worthwhile" is probably also "no", I think, although I'm certainly willing to listen to arguments to the contrary.

[Warren Stupidity]

100. What do you call it when our troops are inside their country then?

We have more or less admitted that we have oour forces inside Iran performing 'target identification'. That my friend is an act of war, plain and simple. We have initiated hostilities and the war train has left the station and you it seems, will be braying about how the bad Iranians can't be trusted with big weapons while we bomb the shit out of them with conventional and perhaps huclear weapons killing thousands and perhaps millions.

[tatertop]

91. Either invade Israel or leave Iran alone

"For some states, the third pillar of the NPT, which allows uranium enrichment for fuel reasons, seems to be a major loophole. However, the treaty gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and as the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station designs use enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be allowed to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market. Peaceful uranium enrichment can arguably be considered a small step away from developing nuclear warheads, and this can be done by withdrawing from the NPT. No state is known to have successfully constructed a nuclear weapon in secret while subjected to NPT inspection. However, according to many sources, Israel has succeeded in developing over two hundred nuclear warheads without having been questioned or investigated by the UN Security Council."

Either invade Israel or leave Iran alone.

[Warren Stupidity]

105. Why start being even handed now? nt.

[breakfastofchampions]

111. why invade Israel

They are a free country that doesn't threaten to destroy other countries :shrug:

[TheBaldyMan]

140. free if you are not an israeli arab, free if you have done your national

service, it's not very free if you are a palestinian living in the occupied territories. Free countries don't annex chanks of neighboring countries and settle ethnically cleansed areas in those occupied territories.

I'm not advocating invasion of Israel but to suggest that they are innocent of any wrongdoing is ignoring the history of the region and the facts.

How would you feel if you were a Palestinian arab living under the control of a state where you are not free, doesn't recognise your nationality and actively discriminates against your people. There is an apartheit state that exists in the Middle East and that state's name is Israel.

[0007]

115. ....and how many wars has the U.S. had in the last fifty years

compared to Iran? Who has Iran ever invaded? (Other than religious wars with Iraq?)

Iran knows they'd be vaporized if they dare touch Israel.

[stillcool]

66. Iran wants to do something 'wrong'?

Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that's the way the empire grows -- a base in every region, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Sixty years after World War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty-two years after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.

http://www.killinghope.org/

February 14, 2002: US Military Bases Line Afghan Pipeline Route
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=pipelinePolitics
The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv notes: “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created , one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.” Ma’ariv also states, “Osama bin Laden did not comprehend that his actions serve American interests... If I were a believer in conspiracy theory, I would think that bin Laden is an American agent. Not being one I can only wonder at the coincidence.”

[CabalPowered]

147. How many times has Iran preemptively attacked a country?

[norml]

14. I've no problem with it.

Wiping Israel off the map has been a standard campaign promise in Iran since 1979.

If Israel wants to nuke Iran, let them do it with their own nukes.

[0007]

116. You mean with the nukes we gave Israel.

[Chulanowa]

15. I'm allergic to kool-aid

Iran with a nuclear weapon? No thanks, the people who already have one are enough to give me nightmares aplenty.

Nuclear technology? Certainally. Nuclear energy frees up Iran's oil reserves for sale, thus lowering world prices as supply increases. Iran gets some new fistfulls of money to improve itself with, thus providing an economic base for a largely destitute middle east - Or considering our 51st state to the west of Iran, maybe i'll have to settle with central asia getting htat economic boost. Lord knows, Tajikistan could use it...

[Christa]

16. I do

why should they not? We have nukes, Israel has ...

[Warpy]

19. That's quite a leap

Yes the rhetoric is both flowery and inflammatory. However, it isn't any nuttier than what's coming out of our own government about his country, and it's not as bad as some of the stuff about Iran being said in Israel.

This guy would never have been elected had the Persians not seen a need to match our madman with one of our own.

They were moving toward moderation until that asshole and his gang of criminals stole the White House.

My advice is to tune out their rhetoric and work with us on figuring out a way to oust the religious wack jobs from our own government.

[breakfastofchampions]

27. can you post some quotes

first, I won't "tune out the rhetoric" of someone who desires nuclear technology. They are going to be a major factor is the world "like it or not".

second, please post quotes from leaders in the USA and Israel calling for the destruction of Iran as you claimed they have.

[kentuck]

29. Axis of Evil ?

Iraq, Iran, and North Korea? So said by George W Bush, as I recall? Maybe I am wrong?

[breakfastofchampions]

35. as I said before

Please post a quote in which a current American leader and a current Israeli leader calls for the destruction of Iran. That is all.

[Mythsaje]

36. The precise quote that gave the hardliners

in Iran the opportunity to take the country back from the moderates. This is one development that can be laid right at GW's feet and that one incident of pure stupidity.

[The Straight Story]

120. Clinton called them the Unholy Axis

Clinton said the US stands in opposition to the "reckless acts of outlaw nations" and an "unholy axis" of terrorists, drug dealers, and organized crime. While the US would greatly prefer a diplomatic solution to the crisis, Clinton reiterated that the US is ready to use force.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980217/1998021741.html

US Vice-President Al Gore said the US is "working around the clock to pursue a possible diplomatic solution to the crisis," but warned "When it comes to protecting our vital national interests, Americans will stand as one."

Force can never be the first answer, but sometimes it's the only answer," Clinton said.

------------------------

To me it sounds like same old same old from politicians in general.
We need to figure out perhaps a little deeper into who is promoting all this - or we need to figure out if both clinton and bush have more access to information we do and things really are as bad as they paint.

Eight years of Clinton, 5+ of bush, and the message has been almost the same on iraq and iran. The question is - why?

[kentuck]

20. I think Pakistan is much more dangerous than Iran..

..and they have nuclear weapons already.

[marbuc]

22. We should hold them to the same standards to which we hold ourselves

For better or worse, if we can have one, they can also. We cannot make a deal with India to enhance their nuclear program, then turn around tell Iran they cannot do likewise. I would prefer no one develop this technology, but that's how it works in a world of sovereign nations.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. No, you should hold them to the standards to which "you" should be held.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because Bush *did* make a deal with India to enhance their nuclear program, doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Similarly, the right thing to do in Iran is to try and prevent them from aquiring nuclear weapons if it can be done without prohibitive cost (although I'm far from convinced it can be - I don't think a war would be justified, and I'm not sure anything else will/would work).

[marbuc]

30. On what grounds?

Because they don't like the almighty US? Because their funny hats impede their ability to reason?

[breakfastofchampions]

39. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't wear a funny hat

but he did say this very recently : "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation ... The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

[marbuc]

44. We have lost the moral authority to tell me they cannot possess nukes

no matter what they say.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[marbuc]

48. Frank Burns, is that you?

[breakfastofchampions]

52. no

RIP. September 29, 1939 - April 10, 2000.

again, please leave the internet

[marbuc]

58. Ahhhh, Larry Linville may have passed

but Frank Burns will never die.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[TankLV]

89. BINGO!

Ya got that right!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

85. Because their religious fanaticism impedes their ability to reason.

Don't fall prey that because many people disapprove of Islamic fundamentalists for bad reasons there are no good reasons for disapproving of Islamic fundamentalists, for example the government of Iran.

I don't object to their skin colour, or the fact that they make their women cover their faces as well as their breasts, or that their people have chants instead of bells in their places of worship.

I do object to the fact that they're an oppressive, misogynistic, fanatical, ultra-conservative, militaristic, barely-democratic, fanatically religious regime whos beliefs about the nature of reality and morality are such that they often act in ways that I consider evil.

A lot of the objections that get raised to Islamic fundamentalism (and to Islam in general) do boil down to "they wear funny hats". There are, however, plently of valid ones, and more than enough to make the government of Iran even less fit to possess nuclear weapons than those of America, India, China etc (although arguably not less so that the government of North Korea).

[ShortnFiery]

123. "religious fanaticism" our religious wing-nuts or theirs?

Both of our countries have their share of "CRAZIES."

I refuse to buy this lame, "They're savages" bullshit!

Like us, they have a figurehead leader who spews propaganda.

Yes, Propaganda catapulted. You'd think by now us American Sheeple can discern empty rhetoric. :P

[Donald Ian Rankin]

124. The shares are rather different

Iran's lunatic fringe is a) even more lunatic, and b) much less fringe than America's. The American Christian right wield considerable influence over Bush's social policy; the Iranian Islamic right runs the country and is the only show in town, politically. While Ahmadinejad is arguably a figurehead, the Council of Guardians, who wield the genuine power in Iran are even less savoury.

Only an idiot would dismiss Iran as "savages", but I think only a fool would refuse to recognise how unpleasant and how fanatical their government is.

I can discern empty rhetoric, and I'm far from convinced that Ahmadinejad's threats towards Israel are.

[Bridget Burke]

127. Iranian women do NOT cover their faces....

They wear modest clothing & scarves over their hair. (Perhaps ladies in remote villages are more conservative.)

I believe you've confused Iran with Saudi Arabia, our good friend.

Grab your sword & put on your Crusader's cross. Then GO!

[Virginia Dare]

24. I trust Iran's current government with nuclear technology....

about as much as I trust the U.S.'s.

:(

[creeksneakers2]

25. If there is a peaceful way to prevent

Iran from getting nuclear weapons I hope we can find it. I think we will. The Iranians already offered to allow the Russians to take over the uranium enrichment process. The only sticking point is whether or not Iran can conduct research. That sounds like something where compromise is possible.

Iran puts out belligerent statements but I'm sure they are even more scared than we are.

[Skip Intro]

31. is the test of who we "allow" to have nuclear tech, "do you like Israel?"

how many countries use nuclear technology? Is Pakistan a friend of Israel? (or the US, for that matter?) How about North Korea? Those countries are among many with nuclear weapons. The argument that, "they're scary" or that, "they hate Israel" doesn't seem to be applied evenly.

In addition, is Iran in violation of some agreement, accord, pact, etc, in its actions?

And what people do we lay waste to next, in our crusade of "peace and freedom" - ?

[kentuck]

32. And don't forget...

that the Iranian people marched in support of America after 9/11? And the reason we are in that part of the world is supposedly because of 9/11? What happened??

[Kailassa]

33. Who here still thinks America should have nuclear technology?

There is only one country making credible threats, that country has already proved it will happily annihilate another country, and boasts about being the one to hit first.

Its citizens have shown themselves to be incapable of removing the government, despite its corruption becoming more and more obvious. The country no longer holds democratic elections, merely a farce in which the election machines use a secret code, owned by the ruling party.

This same government has even turned on its own citizens, allowing 1000s to die in an attack on the twin towers, lying about the conditions there afterwards so 1000s of Americans who heroically helped in the clean-up would slowly die in agony afterwards from mesothelioma, and cutting necessary funding for levees in New Orleans after a study showed that the substandard levees could cause 1000s to die there, and refusing aid to the people of NO after the inevitable flooding trapped them there.

At the moment, the biggest danger to humanity is that the moran in the White House will trigger events that could lead to a nuclear winter, and cause the total extinction of humanity from this Earth.

[Blue_Tires]

109. my question as well

[KansDem]

34. Who all has "the bomb" now...?

US
Russia
Former USSR satellites (?)
France
Great Britain
Israel
India
Pakistan
North Korea

...any others?

[kentuck]

38. Japan....but they're keeping it concealed...

to use on the US when the time is right? No, not really!

[KansDem]

40. LOL!!!

You had me going there for a moment!

[stubertmcfly]

37. Who here still thinks the US should have nuclear technology?

Perhaps an even better question. Seems to me that right now, we are the ones threatening to use nukes. If I were pretty much any other country in the world, I'd sure as hell want that deterrent.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

98. They definately shouldn't.

But two wrongs don't make a right.

America has no right to nuclear weapons.

Iran has no right to nuclear weapons.

Nor do China, the UK, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, etc. Nor do any of the other countries that currently don't.

The only thing nuclear weapons can do better than conventional ones is kill large numbers of civilians (disclaimer: I believe this isn't true of some of the most recent ones, but I as far as I know it's true of most of the US's arsenal, and probably of most things Iran could build). That's not a power anyone has a right to wield, or even to have access to. The fact that other people have or attempting to aquire that power doesn't alter that.

[nolabels]

136. Which, by definition, is terrorism

x(

[skeeters2525]

43. Why Not

Tons better then Bush having nuclear weapons. We know Bush is an evil dictator that loves to kill.

Doesn't this kill one of the great Reich Wing talking points. Invading Iraq scared other Countries to give up getting weapons.

Yep, Iran is shaking in their boots.

How long before Bush says, Bring It ON.

Kaboom

[BillZBubb]

46. Geez, you've really swallowed the Kool-Aid!

They've catapulted the propaganda right inside your skull. Faux news or some fundie preacher? Who got to you?

Quite the leap of "logic" there: Believe Iran can handle nuclear technology == accepting nuclear attack on Israel. Get a clue.

[kentuck]

49. And learned absolutely fucking nothing from the lies of Iraq...

Oh, Goody! Let's do it again !

[breakfastofchampions]

50. you need to put down the KoolAid

Oh YEAHH!!

you are willfully ignoring the words of Iran because the Kool Aid has overflowed into your ear canal.

[kentuck]

51. I think his comments were interpreted anew...

and he never really said what you say he said...But the White House continues to push that propaganda. Yes, he's the next Hitler! Almost as bad as Saddam Hussein!

[breakfastofchampions]

55. sorry, I never posted a link

Here you go:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/ahmadinejad-israel-a-rotten-dried-tree/2006/04/15/1144521534197.html

do you have any links to quotes of Israeli leaders or American leaders calling for the destruction of Israel? I don't believe you do. If you find me one, I could change my mind. If you are unable to find even a single quote, I suggest you examine your own beliefs.

[Bonobo]

57. Deleted. Wrong place.

[kentuck]

59. So you interpret this as a nuclear bomb on Israel ?

"Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called Israel a "rotten, dried tree" that will be annihilated by "one storm".

Personally, I think that is a stretch. But, I would agree there is no love lost between the two countries. So, let's bomb them, huh?

[breakfastofchampions]

62. Mahmoud should have been a poet

but he's a politician who should never be allowed to posses nukes.

If it takes censure to stop him, that's great.
If it takes bombing, then so be it.

Anything less is irresponsible and lazy.

[kentuck]

63. Irresponsible and stupid....

I would say. The answer to every problem is not the "bomb".

[breakfastofchampions]

64. what is the answer?

how do we prevent Mahmoud from being able to create a nuclear weapon?

[marbuc]

71. Who cares?

I say we gain independence from middle eastern oil, and leave the region to their own devices.

[breakfastofchampions]

72. I care about nuclear world war 3

If you don't care, then why are you even commenting on it?
If you don't care, then why haven't you left the internet yet?

[marbuc]

76. Nuclear World War 3

Is that a new video game? I thought GWOT was WWIII? At least that's what they are saying on your fav conservative forum.

[Kailassa]

86. It's obvious you care about WW3, I see you trying to start it.

It's so easy to start, bomb a country that has strong protectors.

The rest of the world has had enough of insane American aggression.

The next time your type invade a country, the retaliation could be like nothing an idiot could imagine.

But then, perhaps you believe that will force the return of your imaginary friend, who will then take you to fairyland.

[norml]

110. You mean Dubya Dubya III?

I'm hoping to put a stop to that too.

[kentuck]

75. How did we prevent Pakistan and North Korea from creating nukes?

So you think Iran is more dangerous and must be prevented from attaining any type of nuclear power? That said, there is no proof, repeat no proof, that they even have nuclear weapons. But, we have intelligence that they did get 'yellowcake' from Niger and are a threat to US and all their neighbors in the region. Also, he is a madman. You seem to want to expand this war in Iraq into Iran? I think it is a foolish and dangerous idea..

[Kailassa]

84. You are just one of many who enjoy urging others to kill

for dishonest reasons.

I hope life sends you that which you recommend for others

[Warren Stupidity]

106. I assume you meant destruction of 'Iran'.

Our president has repeatedly called for the destruction of the Iranian regime. We have floated numerous officially sponsored rumors that we are considering nuking Iran. It appears that we have troops on the ground in Iran performing 'targeting operations'. And on the Iranian side, we have some of the usual anti-Israeli blustering.

[marmar]

47. No one should have nukes, the U.S. included...

Why does the United States get to be world's arbiter of who gets nuclear weapons and who doesn't? Like on Bush's recent trip when he gave India the OK, but told Pakistan no. THE GALL!
And any claims we had to being the world's moral authority are highly laughable now.

[magellan]

53. I don't think it's any of our business. (nt)

[Malva Zebrina]

54. Bush has declared to entire world that Iran is part of the axis of evil

Hurupmf

He chose to attack Iraq on LIES and devastated the country and now we are involved in building a huge embassy--can you say we are intrenching oursleves in Iraq as a colonizer? I do say it.

The complex is reported to be 104 acres! It is reported that is will contain some 21 buildings.

We attacked Iraq, knowing full well, Iraq did NOT possess W"MD and as more and more is exposed it is fairly certain that the entire mess in Iraq was justified by LIES, by our president and his cabinet and his National Security acvisor at the time. They all lusted to invade Iraq--and knowing that Iraq did NOT have the means to fight back, sent our children to kill and be killed on his f**king lies.

This is the bottom line and nO ONE is bringing it to the forefront of this regime's horrifice decisions. So now we got a great big embassy--the size of the Vatican. Come on--it is obvious what the intentions were by George Bush who LIED to us--as a result, tens of thousands of innocents were killed--make that murdered--by none other than the lying George , the buffoon, Bush.

He LIED.

Under those circumstances, Iran, who was named along with IRaq as the
axis of evil" has a perfect right to become alarmed. It is surrounded. Bush has named them as a target. To NOT try to defend itself, much like Israel has a right to "defend itself" would be negligent on the part of the leaders of Iran.

So far as I know, Iran, has NOT threatened the United States. It considers itself an enemy of Israel. And Israel has the NUKES and has threatened many times to fly over Iran and destroy its nuclear plants, just as it did to Iraq.

A country, surrounded by American imperialistic desires, certainlyh can do nothing else but try to defend itself.

Like Iraq, Iran is NOT a threat to the United States. It is a threat to Israel, our so called "ally"

I submit, if Israel is so threatened that they take their young, their best and the committed, and fight Iran. Go for it Israel or is it more to the advantage of Israel to hold b ack and allow Americans to die, in order that Israel survive?

How many of the young in Israel have died in Iraq? How many brave warriors did Israel send to kill and be killed to eliminate Saddam Hussein? Israel has certainly benefitted by holding back--and ours die.

[twenty2strings]

60. if they use them ,they will die.n/t

[bahrbearian]

61. They signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty , We tore it up.

[Jai4WKC08]

67. I agree, BUT...

Iran "should" not have nuclear weapons technology. Hell, in a perfect world, none of us "should" have it. I'm a little more ambivalent about nuclear energy, and not just because it's Iran.

But what are we gonna do about it? Attacking them militarily makes no sense whatsoever. Not at this point. At best, we could only delay their getting it, and might even accelerate the process. In the meantime, we make them heroes in the Islamic world, create more terrorists, put our Muslim allies on the defensive, and I'm guessing Bush will do it without Congressional approval so we have a (another) Constitutional crisis as well.

As Wes Clark has said, sure, we can probably take them out with a military strike, but the important question to ask ourselves is, What happens next?

[breakfastofchampions]

68. after we take out their nuclear technology

they won't be able to make nukes.

I say leave them alone after that. Just let them know that any attempt to posses nuclear technology will be destroyed.

[Jai4WKC08]

82. Oh nonsense

One they've got it, it's not that hard to reconstruct. 10 years at the outside; five is more likely. And that assumes our intelligence is good enough to get it all.

Even then, they could buy it from another country and would have far more incentive to do so. North Korea or maybe even Pakistan. Musharef won't be there forever.

It's only a matter of time. We either figure out a long-range plan to make it worth their while not to have nukes, or eventuallly they will.

[Warren Stupidity]

107. And of course in order to 'take out their nuclear technology'

we have to 'take out their air defense system' and in order to do that we have to 'take out their communications infrastructure' etc etc etc. It is so easy to sit back, wave your hands, and pronounce how the Iranians should be dealt with, but the end result of our next war crime will be thousands and perhaps millions of dead people who did nothing to deserve their fate.

Seymour Hersh's article indicates that the targeting for the initial bombardment is on the order of 400 targets, many requiring multiple strikes.

[freestyle]

73. Technology, yes. On weapons, the U.S. can have nothing to say.

It is none of this country's business. We have absolutely no moral ground to stand on. I don't think anyone should have nuclear weapons, but that view has clearly lost. Also, Israel has nuclear weapons and this acts as a powerful deterrent. President Ahmedinejad sounds so crazy that I often wonder who he really works for. The Iranian people would certainly get nothing out of a war.

Let us not forget that right now, the bush regime is discussing using nuclear weapons in an offensive attack on Iran. Who is it that can't handle nuclear technology?

[TankLV]

77. Chill out dude/dudette! Stop watching FOX and posing false questions.

It's like asking "Should we support our courageous pResident or the democratic traitors?" - it's a strawman aargument.

We should be asking "Should we believe the pResident's new crop of LIES concerning his march to WAR?"

[breakfastofchampions]

79. I took this quote of an Australian newspaper

spit that Kool Aid out of your mouth (not on the keyboard) and ask yourself what Mahmoud means when he says Israel "will be eliminated by one storm". I did take a few English courses in my time so I can identify a bit of methaphor, perhaps some foreshadowing.

[TankLV]

93. The only one drinking the Kool Aid around here is you and your one friend.

Stop repeating repuke lies!

Iran has no intention of using nuclear tech for war, unlike our boy who has publicly stated he DOES and has CHANGED THE RULES REGARDING IT'S USE!

But of course you knew that!

We certainly know something about you from your posts, that's for sure.

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. Supreme Ayatolah Ali Khamenei's fatwa agains nuclear weapons

Those familiar with the Middle East are well aware of this kind of bravado. Just as those familiar with the Bush Administration are familiar with their kind of bravado.

But for the record the Iranian President is not the commander of Iranian Armed forces. The final Decision would be up to the Supreme religious leader who has already delivered a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. And as pointed out in the Juan Cole article-even the Iranian President has stated several times that he would never condone any mass killing of civilian.

But for the sake of argument, if Iran or one of their minions were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel - they would not only desecrate Islamic holy sites, desecrate a land considered sacred to all Muslims--they would kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims; including countless Shiites in southern Lebanon; and this does not include those killed by a retaliatory strike. This is quite implausible

And let us remember, so far their is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is anywhere near such a capacity.

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state."

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."

[Clarkie1]

83. Sit down. Take a deep breath. Relax. Iran is not going to Nuke Israel.

These statement are made for Domestic consumption in Iran. The leader of Iran is not stupid. He has no wish to annihilate his own country.

"Should Iran have nuclear weapons" is the wrong question to be asking. We need to be talking directly with the Iranians. In the end, we may be only to delay their aquisition of nuclear weapons. We cannot solve this problem militarily in the long-run. And a short-run military attack on Iran would run grave risks for our national security in the long run, and the stability of the middle east.

[Flabbergasted]

94. International Law gives Iran the right to have a civil nuclear energy

program.

[ShortnFiery]

122. They say the Nuclear Technology will be for industry not

for weapons. Hell! Who are we to play referee? How about Iran's ACTUAL (not occupying) neighbors push this issue. Why does our Bantee Rooster Preident insist that the USA has either the moral or legal authority to "Lord over" everything concerning foreign relations? Even in a region that is NOT our own?

[fujiyama]

99. I don't have

any problem with Iran having nuclear technology for energy use. As long as it is tightly monitored by the international community and he abides by the terms set forth by the NPT since his nation is a signatory.

I admit I don't like him and his regime having nuclear weapons, but I see little that can be done to stop him. While he has never said "we'll have nukes", it's clear he means that. People claiming they are not interested in building them are naive.

But I don't believe US intelligence regarding where their reactors are or when he actually has the potential to build a nuclear weapon. The reactors are spread out in various underground facilities. I also believe the Iranians have been smart enough to learn from Saddam's mistakes, when they got their Osirak reactor bombed by Israel.

I also don't believe Iran is quite as great a threat as it has been made out to be. A threat - sure. It doesn't add to world stability to have another fanatical religious thug having nuclear weapons capability, but to believe he'd use it is a stretch...Were he to do so, him, his regime, and millions of Iranians would be killed.

[doc03]

101. Too much Faux News, Israel has several hundred

nukes. If Iran used one they would be totally wiped off the map. The only country to ever use one is the US and it sounds like we're building up for it again, is it safe for the rest of the world when we have a nut case in charge here too.

[smoochpooch]

104. A great opportunity exists to prevent nuclear attacks,

With all the talk here about MAD, a solution incorporates John Kerry's idea from 04: collect all the loose nuclear material from ex-Soviet (and other) countries that can't keep track of it on their own. Then, simply let the world know that use of any nuclear weapon will result in the utter destruction of the offending nation. There will be no excuses accepted for not being able to keep track of the material; if the material in the device originated in your country, your country will cease to exist. It becomes necessary for those who seek the responsibility of possessing these weapons to understand the consequences of their use. Iran understands this precisely. The rhetoric from Iran is, as posted, just that. It serves the same purposes for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the "Axis of Evil" served for Bush- he never intended to invade N. Korea, but it sure got the public in his corner. If a rogue scientist, (see Pakistan), turns to Al Queda, he will condemn his country. Hey, got any better ideas? Of course it doesn't work if the U.S. uses nuclear weapons!

[TheBaldyMan]

108. They already have nuclear technology, that's what the fuss is about

however please let me say this, Iran has signed the Non-proliferation Treaty in contrast to Israel and India, both favoured by the Bush regime.

They also have a government that has ruled use of nuclear weapons to be unislamic, this is a far more positive stance than the Bush regime that seems to be doing everything it can to spread conflict.

The media and the government are pushing Ahmedanijad as typical of Iranians when he is plainly not. His theatrical posturing is propagandist show. If Iran had an aircraft carrier he would be swooping in and landing on the deck like Bush, your very own Hollywood Cowboy. Rumours of him taking the controls of the plane would circulate afterwards.

It's a fairground sideshow and the barker wants you to buy a ticket.

[HuffleClaw]

112. 'Anybody who believes Iran can...'

*yawn*

[NativeTexan]

113. With BUSH in charge.....

....I'm not sure the U.S. should have nuclear technology!!

[kineneb]

114. Sure, why not?

1.I doubt they would use it for bomb building, and even if they did, so what? Israel has the Bomb, as does Pakistan and India, never mind Russia and China, oh, and don't forget North Korea.

2. Remember, nuclear fallout does not respect boarders, and the wind blows from west to east in that area. Bombing Israel would mean also affecting Iraq and Iran itself.

3. Only true madmen (BushCo) would entertain actually using nukes.

[leesa]

117. I'm sure they can't because they are barbaric Muslims, right?

WE are the ones who use nukes recklessly...WTF are YOU talking about?? And, deny it as much as you will, Israel has been threatening Iran and the rest of her neighbors for years with her nukes, and no one seemed to mind THAT rhetoric at all. But we aren't bigots.

[Douglas Carpenter]

121. I have not heard ONE SINGLE NON RACIST ARGUMENT for war on Iran

they may try very hard to avoid phrasing it that way...but every single argument completely overlooks facts, evidence and rationality and bolsters their case on base racist assumptions. But then again that has probably been the case for every single imperial war in the history of the world.

thank you...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

125. I haven't seen many people advocating war with Iran,

But if you want to see non-racist argument arguing that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons and can't be trusted with civilian nuclear technology until it stops trying to aquire them then just read this thread.

I'm not sure it can be prevented by non-military means, but I think that pretty much no stone short of outright war should be left unturned to prevent it, for the reasons I've outlined in other posts.

If you think that makes me a racist, then I'm not sure I can provide a more detailed rebuttal than "you're wrong". I'm judging the Iranian government not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their souls, a standard by which they score very low indeed.

[Bridget Burke]

128. So take up the White Man's Burden....

Is Xenophobia a better excuse than racism? You have looked into their souls & found them wanting.

Some of us have looked into your soul.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

129. How do you justify extrapolating

From "I think the government of Iran are very unpleasant religious fanatics" which is what I've said to "I don't like foreigners" which is what xenophobia is?

Do you think it's impossible to believe the first without believing the second, or do was it something specific I've said that makes you think it, an if so, what? Or are you just making a general observation about xenophobia in my direction without actually going quite as far as accusing me of it?

I note in passing that you haven't actually contradicted my claim about the government of Iran, you've just impugned my motive for making it. Do you think it isn't true?

[Bridget Burke]

131. I don't think that Iran's government is the worst in the world.

But Bush & his pals are glad that you do.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

132. I do?

Thank you for telling me. I never knew that until now. Is there anything else about my views that I didn't previously know you'd like to tell me?

And can you tell me what the relevance of whether or not there are governments even worse than Iran's out there is to the question, please?

[Bridget Burke]

137. Ah, but I've looked into your soul!

You know the truth about the Iranians because you have looked into their souls & found them wanting.

When you bring up souls, logic flies out the window.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

139. Tell that to Martin Luther King.

Picking up on a rhetorical device and playing silly buggers with it may be fun, but it's a lousy way of actually debating an issue. It's a great way of point-scoring, but if you want a productive argument you'll do better to try and interpret things as meaning what you think the person saying them wants them to mean, rather than creatively misinterpreting them.

Obviously, the way to guess at what's in people's minds (and souls, if you believe such things exist, which I don't) is by looking at their words and their actions. The Iranian governments' do support my contention, mine don't support yours (I claim).

[Bridget Burke]

144. Ah, but you brought up "souls" ....

I'm judging the Iranian government not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their souls, a standard by which they score very low indeed.

I'm not here to score points. But I disapprove of Bush's evident plan to bomb and/or invade Iran--because of the possibility that they might be able to manufacture nukes some years from now. The actions of Bush & his gang have caused a great deal of damage. Yes, the Iranian leader speaks blather. But Bush speaks blather & backs it up with death.

[Douglas Carpenter]

130. there simply is no evidence that Iran is anywhere near the ability

to acquire nuclear weapons. Nor has Bush Administration shown ANY sign of being willing to deal with Iran in any manner except confrontational and has rejected out-of-hand any face to face talks with Iran--which the Iranians even according to Gen. Wesley Clark are anxious to have.

But for the record the Iranian President is not the commander of Iranian Armed forces. The final Decision would be up to the Supreme religious leader who has already delivered a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons. And as pointed out in the Juan Cole article-even the Iranian President has stated several times that he would never condone any mass killing of civilian.

But for the sake of argument, if Iran or one of their minions were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel - they would not only desecrate Islamic holy sites, desecrate a land considered sacred to all Muslims--they would kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims; including countless Shiites in southern Lebanon; and this does not include those killed by a retaliatory strike. This is quite implausible

And let us remember, so far their is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is anywhere near such a capacity.

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state."

snip:"Tehran denies having military labs aiming for a bomb, and in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program."

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."

[yourout]

118. I do.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

119. HAVING nukes does not NECESSARILY justify attack/invasion

I have no desire to see Iran obtain nuclear weapons much less actually use them on Israel or anybody else and I am scared shirtless by the possibility of the US bombing and/or using a nuclear weapon against Iran (or any other countries). I question, however, the wisdom of our country "pre-emptively" striking Iran (or any country of our choosing) unless they have actually initiated an attack on another country or appear to be ready to do so. I don't think that Iran (or any other country we don't like) simply having nuclear weapons should be ENOUGH of a reason to declare war on them and start bombing them. I think we SHOULD be working with Iran (and other countries) DIPLOMATICALLY to attempt to convince other countries NOT to acquire nuclear weapons and/or helping support moderation and "regime change" from inside Iran. However, the more Bush et. al "rattle sabers" and make provocative comments about invading other countries, the less likely we will be able to successfully encourage them to give up their thirst for nuclear weapons or other WMDs, especially since most of them have come to believe, rightly or wrongly, that having nuclear weapons may be the ONLY thing preventing them from being "liberated" by US. The leader or Iran is certainly a crazy zealot and the sooner that he is driven from power (hopefully by his own people) the better but, unfortunately, I cannot say much more for our leader.:eyes:

[av8tor05]

126. Hell no.

If someone told you that some German leader would kill six million of his own citizens all the while needing the manpower to sustain his military you would say it would never happen. If someone told you a Soviet leader would kill millions of his own you wouldn't believe it. If someone said Japan would attack the United States and get them into WWII you wouldn't believe them.

Just remember, Amajenedad IS THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT. He is fully supported by the mullahs. They do not have three equal branches of government for balance. If he is nuts, Iran is nuts.

If AND when they get nukes, look out. We will be drawn into a nuclear exchange.

Just remember in 1948 the "experts" said the Soviet Union was 10 years away from nuclear weapons. They tested their first bomb in 1949. I do not trust "experts."

[Douglas Carpenter]

133. the Iranian President is NOT the commander of the armed forces

The individual who would come the closest to having the final say is Grand Ayatolah and Supreme Judge Ali Khamenei who has delivered a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

Fishing for a Pretext in Iran

by Juan Cole; March 18, 2006

link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9929

snip:"Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa or formal religious ruling against nuclear weapons, and President Ahmadinejad at his inauguration denounced such arms and committed Iran to remaining a nonnuclear weapons state.

In fact, the Iranian regime has gone further, calling for the Middle East to be a nuclear-weapons-free zone. On Feb. 26, Ahmadinejad said:
“We too demand that the Middle East be free of nuclear weapons; not only the Middle East, but the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons.”
Only Israel among the states of the Middle East has the bomb, and its stockpile provoked the arms race with Iraq that in some ways led to the U.S. invasion of 2003. The U.S. has also moved nukes into the Middle East at some points, either on bases in Turkey or on submarines.

snip:"it is often alleged that since Iran harbors the desire to “destroy” Israel, it must not be allowed to have the bomb. Ahmadinejad has gone blue in the face denouncing the immorality of any mass extermination of innocent civilians, but has been unable to get a hearing in the English-language press. Moreover, the presidency is a very weak post in Iran, and the president is not commander of the armed forces and has no control over nuclear policy"

snip: "in November of 2003 the IAEA formally announced that it could find no proof of such a weapons program. The U.S. reaction was a blustery incredulity, which is not actually an argument or proof in its own right, however good U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton is at bunching his eyebrows and glaring."

[av8tor05]

134. Yes he is.

The President of Iran only answers to the mullahs. They put him in power, he serves at their behest, and he runs ALL of the government. He is the government.

[Douglas Carpenter]

135. I'm sorry but that is simply not how the Iranian government works

the previous president Mohammad Khatami was a reformer and relatively speaking-a liberal-who wanted to make a number of liberalising reforms but was blocked by hardliners. His powers to do that were greatly limited. When President Bush declared Iran part of the "Axis of evil" the reformers and relative liberals lost a great deal of their influence that had been growing.

Iran has a very complicated system that includes an elected parliament and a separate judiciary. Ultimately the most powerful figure is Chief of State - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He's the guy who delivered the fatwa against nuclear weapons. In the Shiite version of Islam his view counts more than anyone elses. A fatwa is a final religious judgement that is binding to all Shiites within the Imam's domain. Just as Ayatollah Sistani's word counts more than anyone else to most Shiites in Iraq.

Both the parliament and the president have limited powers.

Here is a neutral website in case you're interested the how the Iranian government functions:

http://www.parstimes.com/gov_iran.html

[av8tor05]

138. Still not true.

Khatami was president for as long as he was useful to the mullahs. When he stopped being useful they selected someone else. They elections in Iran are rigged. Whomever the mullahs want they get. There is no democracy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

141. of course it is not a democracy in the western senses of the term

but it is not as simple as is being suggested.

The political pendulum in Iran swung to the right and President Khatami lost the election to the current President in significant part due to the confrontational nature of the Bush Administration which united nationalistic zeal. Again the President in Iran like the parliament in Iran has limited powers. It was limited for Khatami just as it is now limited for the current president.

[TheBaldyMan]

142. They already have nuclear technology with the remit of the NPT

the Iranians are within the law - get used to it.

[nj_democrat_rocks]

143. There is so much anti-Israel rhetoric at DU

I have seen so much anti-Israel rhetoric at this website that I am seriously thinking of changing to "independent".

I am not sure that I want to be "Democrat" if anti-semitism is the agenda of the DU.

Thank you.

[Douglas Carpenter]

145. I've seen a lot of anti-Arab & anti-Muslim racism - It's very upsetting

but I still manage to stick with DU and the Democratic Party in spite of those tendencies.

What am I going to do, vote Republican?

[rniel]

146. Their president is a fundamentalist

nutcake. Does not represent the population of normal people in Iran. They do not deserve to be nuked and nobody does.

[av8tor05]

148. True.

And the German people did not all think like Hitler, but he had to be stopped.

[nj_democrat_rocks]

150. He's not set up any concentration camps or Nuremburg laws?

Until then, pretend it is 1933, not the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and then you can see what is going on......before that, no one could really tell.....

[nj_democrat_rocks]

151. if you only look through the rearview mirror for future events..

eventually, you are going to die when your car gets into a crackup because you forgot to look through your windshield when you drove.

The past should not be forgotten, but it has to be taken in the context of the present times.

[nj_democrat_rocks]

149. First Strike Nuking is no answer to anything...its the death knell

Everyone with your damn nukes!!!! All nutball nations that have them, want them, etc......please blow yourselves up first and let the rest of the world alone.

[guinivere]

152. I wonder how many countries are afraid that WE have it.

What with the crazy "decider" at the helm.



Sorry, breakfast, it sounds a little too KoolAid too me.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

155. Locking.

Since the Original Poster has departed from this forum, there really is no need to continue debating this thread.

Thanks for understanding,
ncrainbowgrrl
GDP moderator