LA Times - "Disclosure of nuclear plant adds to Iran rift"

[TomCADem]

I actually find this story surprising, because I thought the Iranian citizens wanted nuclear weapons and would rally around Ahmadinejad and against Israel, particularly when it become clear that Iran was developing a second secret nuclear plant, which bring them closer to this goal. Indeed, some folks who on this board have vigorously argued in favor of Iran's "right" to build nuclear weapons, which I do not agree with.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-nuclear27-2009sep27,0,7657537.story

###

Disclosure of nuclear plant adds to Iran rift
Iranians have always rallied around their country's nuclear ambitions, but it's unclear whether they will support President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei this time.

Reporting from Cairo and Tehran - The international pressure and diplomatic embarrassment facing Iran after the secret of its second nuclear plant was revealed by the U.S. two days ago are deepening the rancor between the country's opposition movement and those loyal to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Nuclear development is a point of national pride for Iranians, but the program that once united them is now intensifying the differences between political reformers, who increasingly want to engage the West, and the hard-liners who for years have resisted what they regard as international meddling.

President Obama's announcement Friday of Iran's newest uranium enrichment plant came as supporters of opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi have been seeking new momentum in protests over the disputed June reelection of Ahmadinejad. Massive street rallies over allegations of voter fraud have shaken the regime, but security forces led by the Revolutionary Guard have backed Ahmadinejad and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Mousavi's "green movement" blames Ahmadinejad for recklessly inciting the West and raising the prospect of new economic sanctions by his stubbornness and cat-and-mouse games with international nuclear inspectors. As Ahmadinejad headed for the United Nations last week, the opposition announced its suspicions -- shared by the U.S. and denied by Tehran -- that the regime is refining technology to produce atomic weapons.

"The Iranian green movement does not want a nuclear bomb, but instead desires peace for the world and democracy for Iran," read a statement addressed to the world by one of the movement's spokesmen, filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, who lives in Paris. "The green movement in Iran furthermore understands the world's concerns and in fact has similar concerns itself."

###

[ShortnFiery]

1. Wanna bet? The expatriots aren't part of the equation.

The people of Iran know that if they don't support their government, there will be another brutal "Shah" put in as the USA's puppet to once again rule with an iron fist while their oil fields are "privatized" and the people starve.

Santions won't work because it will HURT the people more and cause them to despise the USA even more than they already do now.

[TomCADem]

2. Well, Your Point Is Consistent With The Media Stereotype of the Iranians

They all hate the U.S., and all want to develop nuclear weapons, and there really is no point in trying to negotiate with them, since they don't trust anyways. In fact, just like you, the Neocons have advocated that we cancel the upcoming talks because the Iranians will never give up their aspiration to develop nuclear weapons. Thus, the only real option according to the Neocons, if we do not want a nuclear Iran, is to bomb Iran according to John Bolton and company.

Edit: Here is one such article by William Kristol that makes your same point that there isn't any real point, because the Iranians want nukes.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/299qkttg.asp

[ShortnFiery]

4. No, they have reason to be distrustful of America. Our CIA overthrew their democratic

elected leader in 1953. That's something, as a nation ... even a YOUNG nation, you do NOT easily forgive.

However, if you wish to listen to the expatriot "Chalabi wannabes" you go forth and believe that they want the USA meddling in THEIR neighborhood. :eyes:

[TomCADem]

6. Here Boehner and Cantor Agree With Your Point, "What Is There To Talk About?"

I think the neocons agree with your point. The neocons argue that Iranians do "NOT easily forgive." They are filled with hate towards the United States. Thus, they (like you) agree that the Iranians will never agree to restrict their nuclear weapons program. Thus, why bother to negotiate with them? I personally would like to think that the Iranian people do not all view the United States through a prism of hate, and that diplomacy should be given a chance.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/25/2080394.aspx

###

REPUBLICANS POUNCE ON THE IRAN NEWS

Republicans are using the revelation of a secret nuclear facility in Iran -- something that U.S. intelligence has known about for about a year -- to criticize the Obama administration's willingness to talk to Iran.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor was first out of the gate with a statement:

"The existence of a second uranium enrichment facility not only undercuts the Administration’s policy toward Iran, but leaves little doubt that terrorist nations are not to be trusted or negotiated with diplomatically. Congress should act immediately to give the President the tools he needs to implement sanctions on Iran by passing the bipartisan Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act."

Next was House Minority Leader John Boehner:

"The United States should not participate in direct negotiations with Iran – negotiations that will further legitimize this brutal regime – until we have answers to these important questions. Unfortunately, the Administration has not, to date, given Iran reason to believe we are serious about preventing them from acquiring or developing a nuclear capability, especially in light of the Administration’s recent policy decision regarding missile defense in Central Europe and its public remarks about Israel and the Middle East peace process"

###

[ShortnFiery]

8. That's not my point and you know it. Nice spin but no points for you.

Yes, we should negotiate with Iran. However, President Obama (USA) flanked by leaders of two other FORMER EMPIRES coming forth in a Press Conference to censor Iran is NOT a good start.

The war drums are beating and I want them to stop. Unfortunately you are seemingly so enamored by President Obama's intelligence, you can't see "the masters of war" working their puppets (M$M, CIA, PsyOps) in the background.

I'm very worried. Truth be told, IMO, Iran having a nuclear weapon would be no more dangerous than the other two nations in the area who already have nukes (Pakistan and India). It just might serve as a deterrent to the world.

BTW did you hear that the President of Brazil commenting that it would be good for them to have Nuclear Weapons capability as well. :wow:

It's the USA who is nuking up the world. If you get out of the States, you'd be surprised that many people are scared shitless of the USA's or Israel's quest for WORLD DOMINANCE, not of Iran having nukes.

Wake up and listen to the war drums: It's deja vu - from Iraq memes 2002 ... rebroadcast.

[TomCADem]

10. Didn't You Say Iranians do "NOT easily forgive"? What Is Your Point, Then?

You saidm, "Iranians do 'NOT easily forgive," the United States, which suggest that the Iranians hate us albeit (according to you) for good reason do to the U.S's role in installing the Shah of Iran. So, good for you, at least you are not saying that they "hate us for our freedom." You appear to be saying that they "hate us for some very good reasons."

So, after arguing that the Iranians have good reasons to hate the United States, then how does your point differ from Cantor and Boehner who are asking what is the point in negotiating with them.

You suddenly pivot and decry the war drums AFTER you have argued the Iranians will not forgive us. Huh?

So, do you agree or disagree with Kantor and Boehner and think that the upcoming talks are useless, since you argue:

"Wake up and listen to the war drums: It's deja vu - from Iraq memes 2002 ... rebroadcast"

In other words, like Cantor and Boehner you are arguing that war is inevitable.

Finally, "Iran having a nuclear weapon would be no more dangerous than the other two nations in the area who already have nukes (Pakistan and India)." Sorry, I think it is a terible thing that Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, and believe that is dangerous.

[ShortnFiery]

11. You misquoted me above. The Iranians have reason to be DISTRUSTFUL of us ... look at our record?

We prop up despots. We sent the CIA in and overthrew a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader in 1953. The Shah who replaced this leader was a BRUTAL THUG and the people suffered under his iron fist. The stories of his "secret police" are horrific.

If the above happened to US, how would YOU feel?

Iranians have every right to be distrustful of FORMER EMPIRES who have tried to RAPE the OIL resources from the Middle East. Study your military history and see that we have had a bloody footprint in the region only upstaged by our brothers, the Brits.

No, consider how you would think/believe given the USA's track record in the ME not to mention our horrible meddling in Latin America during the 1980s.

Hell, much of Latin America as well as those not cozy with us in the Middle East are scared shitless of the USA.

We need to give up this horrific quest for world domination lest we destroy the human race.

p.s. Here's an excellent resource:

[TomCADem]

12. Well Congratulations At Least You Aren't Saying They Hate Us For Our Freedoms...

Your point is that they have a good reason to hate us. So, aside from the underlying reason, your point is the same as the right wing who insist that the Iranians hate us. Your only caveat is that they have a good reason for hating us. Also, like the Republicans, you also insist that war with Iran is inevitable.

So, great distinction between you and the right wing. The right wing says they hate us for some stupid reason, you say the Iranians hate us for some very good reasons, to wit:

"Iranians have every right to be distrustful of FORMER EMPIRES who have tried to RAPE the OIL resources from the Middle East. Study your military history and see that we have had a bloody footprint in the region only upstaged by our brothers, the Brits."

So, is your point then that there is no reason to negotiate with them given the depths of their hate for the United States that you have articulated so well? If not, what is your point?

[ShortnFiery]

14. Your penchant for hyperbole is endless. No, I think we should use diplomacy.

Yes, by all means. However, I was saddened by President Obama's bravado this past Friday during the news conference. It's not a good first step.

Yes, we should use diplomacy but hesitate before imposing sanctions because we all know that will only stress THE POOR of Iran. The ruling class will not suffer.

The poor, if you employ Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs will blame the USA for their suffering, not their leaders. It's basic needs - psychology of the human condition.

Bottom line: We want privatized oil and are miffed at the FACT that Iran is switching from Dollars to Euros within their oil trade.

Follow the money and you will see what truly draws much of this FEAR-mongering.

Iran has competent leaders who can be negotiated with ... through mutual interests and basic respect. How about we do that?

[TomCADem]

15. Shoot, This Is like Your Sixth Post and Finally You Say We Should Use Diplomacy...

I have repeatedly spoke in favor of diplomacy, while you have argued that the Iranians hate us, and that we are going to war, and now you finally say that you really meant that we should use diplomacy.

Seriously, look at your prior posts. Where did you say that President Obama should proceed with the upcoming talks and engage in diplomatic talks?

[ShortnFiery]

16. Only you used the word "hate" - I did not. "Distrust" is the word I used.

Of course, why would I not be in favor of Diplomacy?

But again, pick-up this book or take a moment to read online excerpts:



Then perhaps you will understand that our agenda is CORRUPT.

We must demand MORE TRANSPARENCY from our elected leaders.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

17. You need more of those playing cards that you love so. They are more fact based then this post.

So the people of Iran who demonstrated the last election were all really supporting the government? What they really wanted was a brutal Shah? You need to get your point consistent with facts.

Also, a counter-argument could be made that sanctions will hurt the average citizen enough to the point where they've had enough snd stand up against the government. My take on this is the people there have had it with the current regime.

[ShortnFiery]

18. Classy. No, I'll forego the trading cards because, on this, I have Noam Chomsky on my side.

:evilgrin:



Here's some excerpts from April 2009 re: Iran

http://cyberfaith.blogspot.com/2009/04/noam-chomsky-speaks-out-on-iran.html

[BlooInBloo]

3. The bulk of the population are reasonable people, not warmongers...

And after the stolen election and other shit prior to that, this development makes perfect sense. And it's likely that Obama was aware of this, as well.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Even with the latest not so suprising developments, NOT developing NUKES.

To date, the powers that be in Iran say they are developing uranium for Nuclear POWER not Nuclear WEAPONS.

We have no right to be meddling in their political processes.

[TomCADem]

7. Agree With Bloo, There Are Some In Iran Who Want To Engage

I also think that the Iranians are not that different from the U.S., which has a sizable percentage of the population who are not happy that we have such large nuclear weapon stockpiles. I think it is a mistake to assume that the Iranians all want to develop nuclear weapons as a matter of national pridce, particularly after the government has insisted publicly that it was only developing a nuclear program for peaceful purposes, but then it is disclosed that they had a secret second facility.

[ShortnFiery]

9. They want to develop nuclear power - but the USA won't even let them have that. eom

[Cha]

13. I'm not surprised but really glad to see this..

thanks for the article, Tom.

I Rec'd this!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[ShortnFiery]

20. Yes, some "powers" wish it to be so ... but the jury is still out. eom