Iran and the right to defend themselves

eoin5

When I hear most people on the Iranian nuclear issue they seem to be thinking along the lines of a new North Korea. While they definitely arent internationally innocent, they have been messed with so much with operation Ajax and the 10 year war and whatnot that I'm not surprised that would want to become a nuclear power from just wanting to defend themselves.

The nuclear deproliferation treaty has only got gestures from the bigger countries, a promise here and a nuclear sub there. I dont like it but I can see why they would ignore it.

Why should they give in to international pressure?

Dannyboy83

They shouldn't.

The problem is, people are worried that they don't plant to use them defensively. I don't know enough about Iran to say wheter that's true or not.
There is also the fear of an Iranian funded dirty bomb.

From the outside looking in, measured by our cultural standards and what is portrayed in the media, by what they do to their own citizens, it seems like a worrying kind of regime to possess nuclear weapons.
Especially when they are an Authoritarian dictatorship - these don't have a good track record.

eoin5

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

From the outside looking in, measured by our cultural standards and what is portrayed in the media, by what they do to their own citizens, it seems like a worrying kind of regime to possess nuclear weapons.
Especially when they are an Authoritarian dictatorship - these don't have a good track record.

Yep, and then from their point of view neither do western oligarchys (sp?). It really sucks either way but I think all this negative press and sanctions are too biased against them.

problemchimp

As far as I know the only people to use nuclear weapons in anger are the Americanos. Remember Sadaams weapons of mass destruction, the invisible ones? The iranian president is a bit of a spacer but there are bigger spacers around who are backed by the Americanos, Saudi Arabia,Vladimir Putin and Britney Spears. Don't worry about the Iranians, they won't attack anyone. They are guilty of having oil just like Iraq and Venusuela. Not sure if I spelt that last one right.

wes

Well, there is no real evidence they are even building a bomb as it stands.

Now Iran, to be fair are not cooperating fully with the IAEA, which is something they need to do asap. Once they cooperate fully, they can exercise there right to enrich nuclear fuel, to be used in there reactors for power.

Dannyboy83

eoin5 wrote: »

Yep, and then from their point of view neither do western oligarchys (sp?).

Agreed

It really sucks either way but I think all this negative press and sanctions are too biased against them.

I think Neda Salehi would disagree.
Many articles I've read would seem to say the opposite.
Many Iranians want to be free from the Theocracy and Authoritarian dictatorship.

In Western countries, you can go out and protest about whatever.
"Behead those who insult Islam". Hence the rise of the BNP etc.

In Iran, you can't even defend your human rights or protest against a rigged election.
If Irish Army Snipers opened fire on Siptu members when they marched in Dublin, we would (deservedly) have a bad reputation too.

I understand the point your making - we have our view, they have theres.
But that doesn't justify murdering your own people to control them - anymore in Iran, than it does in Krygystan or North Korea or wherever else.

Now Iran, to be fair are not cooperating fully with the IAEA, which is something they need to do asap. Once they cooperate fully, they can exercise there right to enrich nuclear fuel, to be used in there reactors for power.

Agree fully.

anymore

wes wrote: »

Well, there is no real evidence they are even building a bomb as it stands.

Now Iran, to be fair are not cooperating fully with the IAEA, which is something they need to do asap. Once they cooperate fully, they can exercise there right to enrich nuclear fuel, to be used in there reactors for power.

An understatement to be sure. The problem is not enriching uranium for commercil/civil use but is enriching to produce weapons grade material which can only be used for a bomb. The fact that Iran's leader has stated his intention to destroy Israel is no doubt a factor which causes some unease. Perhaps if Israel gives back the Iranian territory it is occupying - OOps. - it isnt occupying any Iranian territory !


It should be stated that enough irridated material is available to make a 'dirty' bomb, if that was the intention of any militant group. A ' dirty' bomb does not actually need to produce a nuclear detonation; the psychological factor would be quite sufficient to cause mass panic. So the notion of Iran handing over a nuclear bomb to a militant group is a bit of a red herring, I think.

digme

The Israeli Prime Minister has decided not to partake in the forthcoming Nuclear Security Summit in Washington over Egypt and Turkey’s plan to file a motion demanding that Tel Aviv open its nuclear facilities for international inspection.

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/turkey-move-deters-netanyahu-from-nuclear-meet/

Well seems Israel are the ones who need to cooperate.
I wonder will the press demonize isreal and demand they open there nuclear weapons plants?
Don't think so.

smithy1981

anymore wrote: »

.... The fact that Iran's leader has stated his intention to destroy Israel .....

Any link to this?

digme

Watch him quote cnn, the crowd who sold you the iraq war........

tim_holsters

Iraq has no nuclear weapons and is attacked North Korea has and isn't, it's a no-brainer why Iran would want the bomb. The double standards applied to Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons by the west is nauseating.

wes

anymore wrote: »

An understatement to be sure. The problem is not enriching uranium for commercil/civil use but is enriching to produce weapons grade material which can only be used for a bomb. The fact that Iran's leader has stated his intention to destroy Israel is no doubt a factor which causes some unease. Perhaps if Israel gives back the Iranian territory it is occupying - OOps. - it isnt occupying any Iranian territory !

Iran didn't threaten to destory Israel.

Secondly, even if they did, there is no evidence they have a nuclear weapons program. Any civilian program will inevitably result in the ability to build a bomb. Japan have that capability, as do several other countries who use nuclear power. Iran will also eventually have this capability, but as long as they allow IAEA inspections there is very little to worry about. While Iran aren't fully cooperating, there are still inspections, which make a weapons program next to impossible to achieve with no one finding out.

anymore wrote: »

It should be stated that enough irridated material is available to make a 'dirty' bomb, if that was the intention of any militant group. A ' dirty' bomb does not actually need to produce a nuclear detonation; the psychological factor would be quite sufficient to cause mass panic. So the notion of Iran handing over a nuclear bomb to a militant group is a bit of a red herring, I think.

Well, wouldn't it make more sense for the world governments to educated the media about what a dirty bomb could actually do? It would negate the threat of mass panic, if fear mongers in the media were openly challenged. A dirty bomb seems to be one of those things that simply educating people about, would reduce it effectivness a great deal, and i am surprised such steps have not taken place.

problemchimp

it's all about the oil lads. Iran, Iraq and next Venusuela.

eoin5

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I understand the point your making - we have our view, they have theres.
But that doesn't justify murdering your own people to control them - anymore in Iran, than it does in Krygystan or North Korea or wherever else.

Nothing justifies that, but in the television reports and media I've seen they don't seem to clearly differentiate between the leaders and the people. They seem to be lumping all of Iran into the villain category.

anymore

wes wrote: »

Iran didn't threaten to destory Israel.

Secondly, even if they did, there is no evidence they have a nuclear weapons program. Any civilian program will inevitably result in the ability to build a bomb. Japan have that capability, as do several other countries who use nuclear power. Iran will also eventually have this capability, but as long as they allow IAEA inspections there is very little to worry about. While Iran aren't fully cooperating, there are still inspections, which make a weapons program next to impossible to achieve with no one finding out.



Well, wouldn't it make more sense for the world governments to educated the media about what a dirty bomb could actually do? It would negate the threat of mass panic, if fear mongers in the media were openly challenged. A dirty bomb seems to be one of those things that simply educating people about, would reduce it effectivness a great deal, and i am surprised such steps have not taken place.

By SEAN YOONG
The Associated Press
Thursday, August 3, 2006; 10:49 AM

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.
"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said

As the good people of Iran re-elected thier leader, I presume they endorse his Programme for Government.

Iran has rejected having uranium enriched to civil purpose standards done in Russia. There is no doubt about Iran's intention to acquire nuclear bombs.
I have long given upo hope to see the world's governmenys act in rational manner and am far too modest to suppose that there is anyone with the remotest interest in learning anything from me.

Dannyboy83

eoin5 wrote: »

Nothing justifies that, but in the television reports and media I've seen they don't seem to clearly differentiate between the leaders and the people. They seem to be lumping all of Iran into the villain category.

I guess it depends on the particular media, but I've seen a very different picture.

Since at least 2009, the government/religious extremists and pro-regime people have been portrayed as the villains and the oppressors.

And the anti-regime people or just innocent civilians, like Neda Salehi, have been portrayed as the oppressed. Most of the recent footage I've seen is of Police and Army beating civilians to a pulp.

The British government and BBC were accused of meddling in Iranian affairs, because they were portraying some type of civil war/revolution.
I generally find the BBC to be one of the most neutral news sources.

Twitter is a user driven medium, there is no agenda, and the tweets by the Iranians themselves heavily correlated with the BBC reports.

It seems to have fizzled out in the meanwhile from what I understand, but I don't keep up to date on it.

One point I'd like to make is that usually the Americans are accused of applying double standards, the Iranians are entitled to this, that, the other, America shouldn't dictate terms and conditions etc.
But the same people making that point usually take an equally sensationalist view, from the other end of the spectrum.
The truth is obviously somewhere in the middle.
It's a complex situation.

In spite of that, given a choice between living in Iran and the USA, I don't need to think about which one I would choose.

Brown Bomber

anymore wrote: »

By SEAN YOONG
The Associated Press
Thursday, August 3, 2006; 10:49 AM

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.
"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said

Nowhere at any time does he advocate for anyone to "destroy Israel". What he has called for is peace at a time when Lebanese civilians were being slaughtered in their own homes.

I assume you are ok with this position?

Also, he views ""the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime"

"Solution" to what? A solution to these wars of aggression (were according to The Yesha Rabbinical Council ""according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as 'innocents' of the enemy." http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3283720,00.html ) are instigated by a war-crime committing, human rights abusing, nuclear armed, militarily aggressive, expansionist "Zionist regime"

Personally, I agree. A moderate, humane regime in Israel replacing the current right-wing Zionist regime would go a long way to obtaining peace in the region.

Black Swan

How did Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sound any crazier in his speeches than when GW Bush delivered his Axis of Evil speech?

If you were the president of a nation, and GW Bush named your country on his hit list (Iraq, Iran and North Korea), then he attacked one of the three (Iraq) shortly after, how would you respond?

The "Supreme Leader" of North Korea Kim Jong-il responded by emphasizing his nuclear arms programme, along with delivery vehicle testing after the Bush speech?

My guess is that Ahmadinejad will develop weapons grade materials as a bi-product of peaceful energy generation (and the Bomb for Iran), along with mid-range delivery systems. The big question is whether this is purely for defensive reasons to deter the US from another military adventure (which may have the control of Iranian OIL as a capitalistic incentive), or if it is intended for offensive measures (either directly or by proxy)?

Dannyboy83

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

One point I'd like to make is that usually the Americans are accused of applying double standards, the Iranians are entitled to this, that, the other, America shouldn't dictate terms and conditions etc.
But the same people making that point usually take an equally sensationalist view, from the other end of the spectrum.
The truth is obviously somewhere in the middle.
It's a complex situation.

In spite of that, given a choice between living in Iran and the USA, I don't need to think about which one I would choose.

I'd probably pick Iran TBH. Depending on what state you're in, in the US you can receive very different reactions from people and the offices of the law.

After living in Russia, China, and Thailand, I've learned not to accept the western media or western perception of countries. There are issues with every country on this earth, and the only way to know what a country is like to live in, is to actually live there.

As for the issues with Iranian freedoms, its an issue for them to deal with. They'll fix it in their own time. Forced Democracy hasn't been particularly successful in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other such countries. Its not our business to interfere. Interfering by the west in the overall region has consistently made the situation worse. Let them sort it out themselves.

Personally, I'd prefer it if the western countries sought to fix the problems in their own countries before telling eastern countries the "best" way to live.

Manic Moran

While Iran aren't fully cooperating, there are still inspections, which make a weapons program next to impossible to achieve with no one finding out.

Didn't seem to stop the Israelis. They had quite an elaborate plan in place to deceive inspectors, down to making a false facility. I presume that the IAEA have improved since then (At least if they can get their full inspections), but never underestimate the ingenuity of others.

NTM

eoin5

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

One point I'd like to make is that usually the Americans are accused of applying double standards, the Iranians are entitled to this, that, the other, America shouldn't dictate terms and conditions etc.
But the same people making that point usually take an equally sensationalist view, from the other end of the spectrum.
The truth is obviously somewhere in the middle.
It's a complex situation.

You look for news in the right places. I think its more ommission on the current situation in the country in what I've seen on the likes of Sky and others thats making Iran look bad. There was a bit of coverage during the election alright.

Anyhoo yea its very complicated. I agree with Klaz in that no-one can claim any moral high-ground as western powers have done to other countries what the Iranian government are doing to their own people. Just look at what we helped do to Iraq. Its a UN job to sort us all out through the proper means I suppose.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxWgi7muaO0

When Christopher Hitchens says it, it's the truth!!!

It is an interesting video, nonetheless. More about Iranian society since the revolution. Gives you an interesting perspective on Iranian political culture.

Think about the level of misinformation, confusion and resistance that occurred in this country when the Lisbon Treaty came up.. And that was in a western country with completely free expression (and complete disclosure of information). Is it any wonder there is so much claptrap about Iranian culture & politics when we're outsiders looking in on a very different culture (and with a very different history)?

I respect the opinions that come from Iranians about their country and the way its run. But I still take it with a pinch of salt. Just as I take the information and opinions about the Irish system with a pinch of salt.. and that's with me being Irish...

wes

anymore wrote: »

By SEAN YOONG
The Associated Press
Thursday, August 3, 2006; 10:49 AM

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.
"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said

"Elmination of the Zionist regime" is not the same as calling for the destruction of Israel. He is clearly calling for regime change, and not the destruction of Israel and her people, no more than Bush's call's for regime change in Iraq was saying he wanted to destroy Iraq. So once again, he did no say what you or the poorly written article claims he said.

Oh, btw Iran was on that regime change list as well, and they have nuclear weapons, so I take they should be treated the same as Iran on that basis. Other people with nuclear weapons have called for regime change, and have even sent there armed forces to carry it out. So on that basis, I fail to see how Iran is some how less worthy of having nuclear weapons, than those other states. Now I don't want them or anyone else to have those weapons, but it doesn't matter as they don't have a nuclear weapons program in anyways.

The article is poorly written tbh, I am very surprised that they misrepresented his remark in that manner. Piss poor journalism. Btw, why no link to the original article?!?

anymore wrote: »

As the good people of Iran re-elected thier leader, I presume they endorse his Programme for Government.

In elections that were widely seen to be fradulent.

anymore wrote: »

Iran has rejected having uranium enriched to civil purpose standards done in Russia. There is no doubt about Iran's intention to acquire nuclear bombs.
I have long given upo hope to see the world's governmenys act in rational manner and am far too modest to suppose that there is anyone with the remotest interest in learning anything from me.

There is no proof actually. Iran has a right to enrich urnaium themselves. There rejection of enrichment by Russia, is no evidence of nuclear weapons program, or intention of creating one. It shows that they want to assert the right they have to enrich Uranium themselves.

Your claims simply have no basis in fact. What we do know for a fact, is that Iran is no being fully cooperative with the IAEA. All, this talk of nuclear bombs, is simply rubbish, and imho the same type of war mongering we saw before the Iraq invasion. If the US, concentrated on what Iran is actually doing, and not what they imagine there doing. I am sure they would get a lot further, but there baseless claims harm there cause imho.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Didn't seem to stop the Israelis. They had quite an elaborate plan in place to deceive inspectors, down to making a false facility. I presume that the IAEA have improved since then (At least if they can get their full inspections), but never underestimate the ingenuity of others.

NTM

The Israeli's aren't signatories to the NPT, so the IAEA can't inspect there facilites, and never have to the best of my knowledge. So we have no idea if there deception would have worked.

Also, I am pretty sure US intelligence agencies were well aware of Israel's nuclear program. Iran would have to fool the IAEA, and US intelligence, and I highly doubt they are capable of doing so. If Iran has a nuclear weapons program, than US intelligence would say so, and they haven't. Which make there governments claims all the more puzzling.

Victor

problemchimp wrote: »

Remember Sadaams weapons of mass destruction, the invisible ones?

You mean the ones that killed thousands of Iraqis and over a hundred thousand Iranians?

anymore

wes wrote: »

"Elmination of the Zionist regime" is not the same as calling for the destruction of Israel. He is clearly calling for regime change, and not the destruction of Israel and her people, no more than Bush's call's for regime change in Iraq was saying he wanted to destroy Iraq. So once again, he did no say what you or the poorly written article claims he said.

Oh, btw Iran was on that regime change list as well, and they have nuclear weapons, so I take they should be treated the same as Iran on that basis. Other people with nuclear weapons have called for regime change, and have even sent there armed forces to carry it out. So on that basis, I fail to see how Iran is some how less worthy of having nuclear weapons, than those other states. Now I don't want them or anyone else to have those weapons, but it doesn't matter as they don't have a nuclear weapons program in anyways.

The article is poorly written tbh, I am very surprised that they misrepresented his remark in that manner. Piss poor journalism. Btw, why no link to the original article?!?



In elections that were widely seen to be fradulent.



There is no proof actually. Iran has a right to enrich urnaium themselves. There rejection of enrichment by Russia, is no evidence of nuclear weapons program, or intention of creating one. It shows that they want to assert the right they have to enrich Uranium themselves.

Your claims simply have no basis in fact. What we do know for a fact, is that Iran is no being fully cooperative with the IAEA. All, this talk of nuclear bombs, is simply rubbish, and imho the same type of war mongering we saw before the Iraq invasion. If the US, concentrated on what Iran is actually doing, and not what they imagine there doing. I am sure they would get a lot further, but there baseless claims harm there cause imho.

I suppose for security reasons, you cannot share the intelligence briefings that the CIA routinely forward you, so we will have to take it on trust that you are much better informed on the subject than anyone else !

As for my not giving a link, well I noticed the more links I gave you on the ' Ban the Burka' thread, the more annoyed you became with me and repeatedly told me that you wouldnt reply to me anymore ! So I thought I would avoid disturbing your equilibrium too much on this thread.
Plus the fact that you can simply dismiss as " not nice people " those in hamas who commit mass murder has persuaded me that it would be rather pointless anyway.

anymore

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nowhere at any time does he advocate for anyone to "destroy Israel". What he has called for is peace at a time when Lebanese civilians were being slaughtered in their own homes.

I assume you are ok with this position?

Also, he views ""the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime"

"Solution" to what? A solution to these wars of aggression (were according to The Yesha Rabbinical Council ""according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as 'innocents' of the enemy." http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3283720,00.html ) are instigated by a war-crime committing, human rights abusing, nuclear armed, militarily aggressive, expansionist "Zionist regime"

Personally, I agree. A moderate, humane regime in Israel replacing the current right-wing Zionist regime would go a long way to obtaining peace in the region.

What about " Death to israel", is that more specific for you ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_KfstCcywo&feature=related

BluePlanet

Victor wrote: »

You mean the ones that killed thousands of Iraqis and over a hundred thousand Iranians?

Over hundred thousand Iranians? What by wmd's?
You should to read about the use of chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war and there effectiveness or lack of.
It was not dissimiliar to their use during WWI on this continent.

In the context of strategy, chemical weapons use was most effective in a disruptive role - causing disruption within enemy ranks, rather than the "mass-killers" western press romanticises them to be.

I don't remember the statistics but cw were only attirbuted for a very small percentage of deaths during the war, like less then 5% maybe?
I could be open to correction.

The Iran/Iraq war was particularly brutal and fought using ridiculously incompetant strategy. Tanks were used as artillery pieces. In certains cases children employed as mine clearance devices.
Poor storage and handling of CW saw pools of nerve gas lying about, distrupting not just the enemy but their own forces.

Dannyboy83

eoin5 wrote: »

You look for news in the right places. I think its more ommission on the current situation in the country in what I've seen on the likes of Sky and others thats making Iran look bad. There was a bit of coverage during the election alright.

About Sky News, I really can't comment.
I boycotted it when Boris Yeltsin died; some English football in the '66 squad died on the same day - round the clock coverage on him and barely a mention on one of the most important men of the 20th century.

Sky News is 'fair and balanced'.
It's Fox News with a British accent
I think/hope most people are aware of this by now.

Personally I rate the BBC and Der Spiegel among two of my favourites - the most informative and neutral in my experience.
More fact than opinion.

Anyhoo yea its very complicated. I agree with Klaz in that no-one can claim any moral high-ground as western powers have done to other countries what the Iranian government are doing to their own people. Just look at what we helped do to Iraq. Its a UN job to sort us all out through the proper means I suppose.

This is where it gets horribly complicated imo.
Self defense; policies of appeasement; pre-emptive strikes etc. etc.

My thinking is as follows:
In the case of a country like Ireland which is neutral , benign, aid giving and supports peace keeping, it's black and white.
Attacking us would be an act of aggression.

In the case of a country like Iran, which not neutral, not benign, actively funds and supports terrorism (Hezzbolah; Iraqi insurgency), and seeks to extend and project it's sphere of influence, there is a whole lot of gray.
That could equally apply to the US too btw.

In that scenario, the shades of gray scenario, it comes down to whoever has the biggest guns. Don't play with fire if you don't want to get burned!
I haven't seen any Iranian media, but I'm sure they are no less biased than American media are against them.

If a country's government repeatedly claim you are their enemy, they want to destroy you and they attack your soldiers or your country, fund attacks on your soldiers, well then you are entitled to self defense.
Saddam was entitled to defend himself against the (UN disapproved and illegal) invasion.

But Saddam satisfied all the criteria for the shades of gray, and then some.

Brown Bomber

anymore wrote: »

What about " Death to israel", is that more specific for you ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_KfstCcywo&feature=related

Ehm, no actually. That is a 30 second clip in Persian with the first 10 seconds filled with text.

Worse still is the fact that is translated by MEMRI who were founded Neocon Meyrav Wurmser, wife of war monger and WMDs in Iraq David Wurmser. He was also questioned by the FBI regarding passing classified information onto AIPAC as former White House ME advisor. Both Wurmser's were part of the 1996 right-wing think-tank A Clean Break authored for Netanyahu which called for, amongst others the removal of Saddam Hussein and war with Iran.

Here is evidence of MEMRI's lies and Likud propoganda
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/how-memri-doctored-finkelsteins-interview-to-portray-him-as-a-holocaust-denier/

So in answer to your question, no, it is not more specific for me. It is a tiny clip, presumably taken out of context for maximum propoganda value and I am highly suspicious of the translators.

Even if he said what you claim I still wouldn't place too much importance in what he said. Actions speak louder than words and it is the CIA attacking Iran through Jundullah terrorists and Israel threatening them with a nuclear holocaust every other day.

In the short time Ahmadinejad has been in power there has been the 2006 Lebanon War and Operation Castlead 08/09