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

Flamed Diving

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Well, he does say a word that sounds like a derivative of Israel. I am also sceptical, but if they are chanting about Israel, then what are they chanting?

anymore

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Well i ahd the choice of picking the much shorter version available but didnt. I know you or many of the posters wouldnt place too much importance on what he says if clear proof were provided to your satisfaction. That is the nature of bias and choosing only what suits your pupose. We are fortunate to have the Hamas Charter to give clear explanation of Hamas's genocidal intention towards Israel but of course that too is dismissed.

By the way israel does not daily threaten anybody with nuclear holocaust.

wes

anymore wrote: »

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 !

Oh please, you are the one making the accusation, and as such you need to show the proof.

Also, here is US intelligence report from a couple of years ago:
U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Once again, you claims have no basis in fact. Show me some evidence of a Nuclear program, and get back to me. Everyone knows that the US government are full of crap in regards to Iran, they have shown no proof of any weapons program, and considering the last time they made such claims that turned out to be wrong. It is then perefectly reasonable to find any claims about nuclear weapons programs from the US to be highly questionable.

anymore wrote: »

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.

Well, the reason, I asked why your provided no link was a simple one. As you only copy and pasted part of the story, and I would have liked to have read the whole thing, and had to go looking for it myself.

Also, no need to make this personal, but you seem to have a habit of doing that.

anymore

wes wrote: »

Oh please, you are the one making the accusation, and as such you need to show the proof.

Also, here is US intelligence report from a couple of years ago:
U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

Once again, you claims have no basis in fact. Show me some evidence of a Nuclear program, and get back to me. Everyone knows that the US government are full of crap in regards to Iran, they have shown no proof of any weapons program, and considering the last time they made such claims that turned out to be wrong. It is then perefectly reasonable to find any claims about nuclear weapons programs from the US to be highly questionable.



Well, the reason, I asked why your provided no link was a simple one. As you only copy and pasted part of the story, and I would have liked to have read the whole thing, and had to go looking for it myself.

Also, no need to make this personal, but you seem to have a habit of doing that.

Well you have produced the evidence and the evidence proves conclusively that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. thank you.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.
Skip to next paragraph .House Response


[URL="javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/12/03/world/03cnd-iran.ready.html', '03cnd_iran_ready', 'width=670,height=530,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')"]Enlarge This Image[/URL]
[URL="javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/12/03/world/03cnd-iran.ready.html', '03cnd_iran_ready', 'width=670,height=530,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')"] [/URL]Abedin Taherkenareh/European Pressphoto Agency
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran delivering a speech in April at the nuclear plant in Natanz in observance of National Nuclear Day.



The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.
The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”

The date was Dec 2006 and in intelligence terms that is very, very old news indeed. The program had apparently been in suspension or was operating at a low level at that time. But without any doubt whtasoever Iran had a nuclear weapons program and it is clear it still does. What is not clear is how much progress has been made on it since.
As I said, thank you for the proof.
I also note that you accepth the bona fides of the US intelligence community - very generous of you !

wes

anymore wrote: »

Well you have produced the evidence and the evidence proves conclusively that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. thank you.

The date was Dec 2006 and in intelligence terms that is very, very old news indeed. The program had apparently been in suspension or was operating at a low level at that time. But without any doubt whtasoever Iran had a nuclear weapons program and it is clear it still does. What is not clear is how much progress has been made on it since.
As I said, thank you for the proof.
I also note that you accepth the bona fides of the US intelligence community - very generous of you !

Wow, just wow. You post that article that complete shows you to be wrong, and still state that some how you are right? Read your own article. There is no nuclear program, it was gotten rid of in 2003.

Iran has no nuclear weapons program, and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to prove it existence. Your own link show it doesn't exist any more. So when you state there is no doubt, that statement is simple factually incorrect.

Just, because you state something does not make it true. You need to prove it, and you have yet to do so, and have in fact posted links that disprove your own claims, and yet bizarrely claim they prove you right. The US inteligence estimate directly contradicts your claims, and they haven't come out since then with any evidence of a nuclear program, as there simply isn't one.

Dannyboy83

wes wrote: »

Wow, just wow. You post that article that complete shows you to be wrong, and still state that some how you are right? Read your own article. There is no nuclear program, it was gotten rid of in 2003.

From reading that article, that doesn't appear to be correct.

There is a nuclear weapons program, but it is frozen.
A frozen nuclear weapons program does not equal no nuclear weapons program.

North Korea also froze their missile and nuclear programs before reopening them.

Iran has no nuclear weapons program, and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to prove it existence. Your own link show it doesn't exist any more. So when you state there is no doubt, that statement is simple factually incorrect.

Was it not shown at some stage in 2009 that Iran had a secret nuclear facility which they had been hiding in an underground facility?

I agree this doesn't necessarily mean they have a nuclear weapons program in progress right now, but why hide your nuclear facilities?
Why not do it above board?
It doesn't imbue one with confidence.

I don't know enough about the issue to comment further unfortunately.

anymore

wes wrote: »

Wow, just wow. You post that article that complete shows you to be wrong, and still state that some how you are right? Read your own article. There is no nuclear program, it was gotten rid of in 2003.

Iran has no nuclear weapons program, and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to prove it existence. Your own link show it doesn't exist any more. So when you state there is no doubt, that statement is simple factually incorrect.

Just, because you state something does not make it true. You need to prove it, and you have yet to do so, and have in fact posted links that disprove your own claims, and yet bizarrely claim they prove you right. The US inteligence estimate directly contradicts your claims, and they haven't come out since then with any evidence of a nuclear program, as there simply isn't one.

What is it you dont understand about a programme being in suspension or operatingat a reduced level ? And what is it you dont understand about intelligence briefings that are three and a half years old ? That in intelligence terms is history !
Here is part of a statement from Defence Secretary Robert Gates in advance of this weeks nuclear summit in Washington.
."We're doing everything we can to try and keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons," Gates said, adding that there probably would be another Security Council resolution with tougher sanctions on Iran.
He called such a resolution important on its own and as a legal platform for others to take their own steps.
"At the end of the day, Iran has to decide that not having nuclear weapons is a better defense strategy than having them," Gates said.


Why are the major nations including Russia and China discussing possible sanctions on Iran to persuade it not continue withs nuclear arms ambitions ?

A report from the Hindu Times on the subject:
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article394772.ece

Iran is “not yet... nuclear capable,” admitted Robert Gates, Secretary of Defence, in a media interview released on Monday. Speaking during a pre-recorded interview on the NBC program “Meet the Press,” Mr. Gates said that Iran’s present position was as dangerous as it being a nuclear state given the ambiguities of differentiating between the degree to which nuclear weapons development was achieved in that country.
Alluding that it may not be clear exactly how far Iran has gone with its alleged nuclear weapons programme, he said, “If their policy is to go to the threshold but not assemble a nuclear weapon, how do you tell that they have not assembled? So it becomes a serious verification question, and I do not actually know how you would verify that,” he argued.
During the interview Secretary of State Hillary Clinton however avoided a direct question on whether Iran was nuclear capable or not. In response she said, “That's an issue upon which intelligence services still differ. But our goal is to prevent them from having nuclear weapons.”

For your benefit, I have underlined the sections which I am sure you will want to focus most upon.
To be of further assistance the terms of interest are " alleged" and " intelligence services still differ".

The final three paragraphs from the Hindu Times article are:
From the comments of Mr. Gates and Ms. Clinton it would appear that the Obama administration is convinced that a key goal for the U.S. is to halt any progress in Iran’s nuclear weapons development plans. Mr. Gates argued that the U.S. would probably… get another UN Security Council resolution passed. This would also serve as a legal platform for organizations like the European Union and individual countries to take even more stringent actions against Iran.
Ms. Clinton explicitly favoured the turning the tide of diplomatic pressure against Iran through the UN Security Council. She said, a Security Council resolution would send a “really powerful message”, and Iran has been “beating down the doors of every country in the world “ to try to avoid a Security Council resolution.
However, she said, due to the U.S.’s strategic patience and willingness to keep on this issue, other countries were realising that Iran had failed to cooperate and were in fact responsible for shutting the door.

As to Iran's ambitions for Israel, watch the vid below where it is confirmed once again that Iran's intention is to wipe Israel off the map.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_veD-nosxso&feature=related

BluePlanet

Just because the US says something, does not make it true.
WMD in Iraq anyone?
They continually make allegations about Iran but produce zero evidence.

wes

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

From reading that article, that doesn't appear to be correct.

There is a nuclear weapons program, but it is frozen.
A frozen nuclear weapons program does not equal no nuclear weapons program.

North Korea also froze their missile and nuclear programs before reopening them.


Was it not shown at some stage in 2009 that Iran had a secret nuclear facility which they had been hiding in an underground facility?

I agree this doesn't necessarily mean they have a nuclear weapons program in progress right now, but why hide your nuclear facilities?
Why not do it above board?
It doesn't imbue one with confidence.

I don't know enough about the issue to comment further unfortunately.

The facility in question isn't a secret anymore. The IAEA is now aware of the facility.

Also, I should have said no active Nuclear Weapons program. Still, they are not developing any weapons, and the US government is claiming that they are moving closer to Nuclear weapons, which is puzzling when there own intelligence says there have no active program.

wes

anymore wrote: »

What is it you dont understand about a programme being in suspension or operatingat a reduced level ? And what is it you dont understand about intelligence briefings that are three and a half years old ? That in intelligence terms is history !

The program was frozen. How can a frozen program produce a weapon exactly? You have made claims you can't back up plain and simple. Show me an active Iranian weapons program and get back to me. Also, regarding the intelligence, yes it is 3 years old, but the more recent national security estimates haven't made any claims about a active weapons program.

anymore wrote: »

Here is part of a statement from Defence Secretary Robert Gates in advance of this weeks nuclear summit in Washington.
."We're doing everything we can to try and keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons," Gates said, adding that there probably would be another Security Council resolution with tougher sanctions on Iran.
He called such a resolution important on its own and as a legal platform for others to take their own steps.
"At the end of the day, Iran has to decide that not having nuclear weapons is a better defense strategy than having them," Gates said.

So? The US has made WMD claims before with no proof. This is no different.

anymore wrote: »

Why are the major nations including Russia and China discussing possible sanctions on Iran to persuade it not continue withs nuclear arms ambitions ?

Both those countries have made sure those sanctions have been heavily watered down. They aren't as concered as you claim them to be.

anymore wrote: »

A report from the Hindu Times on the subject:
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article394772.ece

Iran is “not yet... nuclear capable,” admitted Robert Gates, Secretary of Defence, in a media interview released on Monday. Speaking during a pre-recorded interview on the NBC program “Meet the Press,” Mr. Gates said that Iran’s present position was as dangerous as it being a nuclear state given the ambiguities of differentiating between the degree to which nuclear weapons development was achieved in that country.
Alluding that it may not be clear exactly how far Iran has gone with its alleged nuclear weapons programme, he said, “If their policy is to go to the threshold but not assemble a nuclear weapon, how do you tell that they have not assembled? So it becomes a serious verification question, and I do not actually know how you would verify that,” he argued.
During the interview Secretary of State Hillary Clinton however avoided a direct question on whether Iran was nuclear capable or not. In response she said, “That's an issue upon which intelligence services still differ. But our goal is to prevent them from having nuclear weapons.”

Again no evidence of a active weapons program.

anymore wrote: »

For your benefit, I have underlined the sections which I am sure you will want to focus most upon.
To be of further assistance the terms of interest are " alleged" and " intelligence services still differ".

Great, so no evidence of active program again.

anymore wrote: »

The final three paragraphs from the Hindu Times article are:
From the comments of Mr. Gates and Ms. Clinton it would appear that the Obama administration is convinced that a key goal for the U.S. is to halt any progress in Iran’s nuclear weapons development plans. Mr. Gates argued that the U.S. would probably… get another UN Security Council resolution passed. This would also serve as a legal platform for organizations like the European Union and individual countries to take even more stringent actions against Iran.
Ms. Clinton explicitly favoured the turning the tide of diplomatic pressure against Iran through the UN Security Council. She said, a Security Council resolution would send a “really powerful message”, and Iran has been “beating down the doors of every country in the world “ to try to avoid a Security Council resolution.
However, she said, due to the U.S.’s strategic patience and willingness to keep on this issue, other countries were realising that Iran had failed to cooperate and were in fact responsible for shutting the door.

Again, no evidence of a active program. Please get back to me when you have some. Otherwise, its the typical US nonsense, they have no proof of anything as per usual. We all remember Iraq, and the crap they pulled. They will need a ton of evidence to convince people. So, the best you can provide is a interview, were they claim there is a difference of opinion from there own intelligence agencies, which is not the same as proof of a active program, and considering the US reputation in regard to WMD, I will need a lot more than a difference of opinion between agencies, as proof of a program. In fact if the US didn't have the rep it had in this regard, I would still see a difference of opinion as of very little value in proving the existence of an active WMD program, which the US has yet to prove.

anymore wrote: »

As to Iran's ambitions for Israel, watch the vid below where it is confirmed once again that Iran's intention is to wipe Israel off the map.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_veD-nosxso&feature=related

You never confirmed anything to begin with. Again, wanting regime change is no worse than what the US does all the time. All the stuff you have posted, has confirmed he wants rid of the regime. Also, the President of Iran can't launch a war, only the Supereme Leader can, and he certainly doesn't represent all aspects of the Iranian regime either. So, what he says carries no weight, seeing as he can't implement anything.

anymore

Wonderful, truly wonderful !:D:D
You produce old US intelligence reports in support of your claims and now you are ridiculing US intelligence as being unreliable ! Wes it is not my birthday; stop giving me gifts like that - you are supposed to be arguing against me and not assisting me !

wes

anymore wrote: »

Wonderful, truly wonderful !:D:D
You produce old US intelligence reports in support of your claims and now you are ridiculing US intelligence as being unreliable ! Wes it is not my birthday; stop giving me gifts like that - you are supposed to be arguing against me and not assisting me !

Again, show me some proof, any of a active Iranian nuclear weapons program. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to prove is existence. So get back to me when you have some.

Also, I never ridiculed US intelligence at all, just stating that I would need to see a lot more evidence than what you provided, which was actually no evidence. You really need to stop the straw man argument at this point.

Again, I am sure US inteligence is more than capable of find an Iranian weapons program, but US politicans are more than willing to lie about the evidence they have, or exagerate it. There is a huge difference between government mouth pieces say was found, and what there agencies actually find, as we saw with Iraq war.

So, once again, where is the evidence of active Iranian nuclear weapons program. Still waiting for it!

BluePlanet

I think you're wasting your time Wes.
For TeamAmerica posters, burden of proof lies only with the "other" side.

conorhal

eoin5 wrote: »

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?

Well, lets see. Hands up who thinks nuclear proliferation is a good thing... anybody? Anybody?

1) No? Well there's your answer. In my opinion, and the opinion of the vast majority of right thinking people, yet another nuclear nation with weapons of mass destruction would constitute a massive step backward, not forward for the prospects of peace in the Middle East or a nuclear free world. I can see no positive to ANY nation holding a nuclear joker card.

2) The defense argument you proffer however is just stupid. First of all, who exactly in this age of asymetric warfare do they require nuclear weapons to defend themselves from?
Their old enemy Iraq is a basket case and Israel won't be nuking anybody that isn't threatening to nuke or invade them.
Iran are in fact in the most powerful military and strategic position they've been in for decades, with the fewest credible enemies. They have no need of a nuclear deterrent, a desire for one sure, but no need.

3) Nukes make Iran more, not less, likely to suffer a military intervention. Iran's dogged pursuit of nuclear arms has exponentially increased their risk of a military misadventure. Just look at where playing hide and seek with weapons inspectors landed Sadam Hussein. Are the mad mullah's prepared for that sort of a game of high stakes chicken? Or it's potential consequences?

4) Iran have never been shy about supporting terrorism and terrorist groups. They are a fascist regime. They are ruled by islamist ideologues with no care or consequence for their own people and.. well I could go on (and on), but the gist of what I'm saying is that they are exactly to kind of people that you don't want with their finger on the button.

Why is it that the only people to defend Iran's position seem to be ideological lefties and unreformed commies? Are they that eager to shiv 'the great satan' that they will crawl into bed with the same facists that, as soon as the Revolution was over, threw every left wing activist in Iran into prison as thanks for their help in ousting the Shah?
If the Islamic reveloution has any valuable lessons for the left to learn, surely it's that your enemy's, enemy is not your friend, they are merely your temporary ally that will stab you in the back at the first opportunity... probably leaving you nostalgic for your enemy

nacho libre

i see there has been no mention of the political structure in Iran and the ayatollah's position on nuclear weapons both would be highly revelant to this discussion.
still why let pertinent details get in the way of bias:eek:

BluePlanet

conorhal wrote: »

1) another nuclear nation with weapons of mass destruction would constitute a massive step backward, not forward for the prospects of peace in the Middle East or a nuclear free world. I can see no positive to ANY nation holding a nuclear joker card.

The nuclear deterrant has worked well for those countries that have them.
Therefore, others will so aspire. You can't really blame them.
Tell you what, you get those countries currently stockpiling that particular brand of WMD to rid of their own, and we can use that reality as an actual dis-incentive. You know, instead of just using threats and economic isolation.

2) The defense argument you proffer however is just stupid. First of all, who exactly in this age of asymetric warfare do they require nuclear weapons to defend themselves from? Iran are in fact in the most powerful military and strategic position they've been in for decades, with the fewest credible enemies.

Well that's an easy one to answer.
Those countries in the gunsights of a war-mongering USA that's who.
Duh!
USA is a credible threat to Iran, so too Israel.

3) Nukes make Iran more, not less, likely to suffer a military intervention. Iran's dogged pursuit of nuclear arms has exponentially increased their risk of a military misadventure.

It's worked well for N.Korea and Pakistan you'd have to admit.

4) Iran have never been shy about supporting terrorism and terrorist groups..

Redherring. One man's terrorist is another ones Freedom Fighter. You making a self-serving and ultimately meaningless statement.
Nevertheless it has nothing to do with nuclear arms.

Highly Salami

nacho libre wrote: »

i see there has been no mention of the political structure in Iran and the ayatollah's position on nuclear weapons both would be highly revelant to this discussion.

True, Ayatollah Khameni is the true force behind Iran's push for nuclear weapons.

The Saint

Highly Salami wrote: »

True, Ayatollah Khameni is the true force behind Iran's push for nuclear weapons.

Hasn't he issued a Fatwa against the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons?

He also stated in Febuary that:

"Iran will not get emotional in its response to these nonsensical statements, because we have often said that our religious tenets and beliefs consider these kinds of weapons of mass destruction to be symbols of genocide and are, therefore, forbidden and considered to be haram (religiously banned)"

"This is why we do not believe in atomic bombs and weapons and do not seek them."

Not saying it means much, just saying.

anymore

[QUOTE=

BluePlanet;65369494]The nuclear deterrant has worked well for those countries that have them.
.It's worked well for N.Korea and Pakistan you'd have to admit.

It hasnt worked so well for the hundreds of pakistani men, women and children who have been blown to bits by British and US incursions into pakistan on the guise of necessary intervention to prevent terrorists getting access to Pakistan's nukes. But the little people dont actually count in the eyes of the upper echelons of all the armies, militias, contries and vested interest gropus in the middle and far east.
Nr Koreas nukes didnt stop the reporterted famine there either. But then again, only the ' little people' died.
.

wes

anymore wrote: »

It hasnt worked so well for the hundreds of pakistani men, women and children who have been blown to bits by British and US incursions into pakistan on the guise of necessary intervention to prevent terrorists getting access to Pakistan's nukes.

The US is running there drone attacks from Pakistani military bases. There are actually no incursions, seeing as the drone attacks originate from Pakistan itself:

Google Earth reveals secret history of US base in Pakistan

For the US to operate in such a fashion, from within Pakistan, they clearly have permission from the government. Still doesn't make the drone strike right or anything, but the Pakistani government is very much allowing them to take place, all the while condemning them in public.