Iran: very close to the nuclear power!!!
what u think about that?
what u think about that?
Iran: very close to the nuclear power!!!
| nerox wrote: |
| Iran: very close to the nuclear power!!!
what u think about that? |
I'm not very well educated on the subject but what makes Iran any different to other countries that already have nuclear weapons, like the US and the UK (where I live)?
There shouldn't be one rule for western society and another for eastern but thats my humble opinion.
| wumingsden wrote: |
| There shouldn't be one rule for western society and another for eastern but thats my humble opinion. |
The problem is not that it is not a western country, but that they are at the same time trying to make an atomic bomb; which they are capable of throwing on Israel, one of their neighbours or Europe.
And if they have an atomic bomb, all of their neighbours would like/will try to have one too.
| Bondings wrote: | ||
The problem is not that it is not a western country, but that they are at the same time trying to make an atomic bomb; which they are capable of throwing on Israel, one of their neighbours or Europe. |
Really ? So the problem is only their intent and not who they are ? Hmmm..
So, by the same logic, the UK has actually made an atomic bomb and is capable of throwing it on anyone it likes via missile or plane. Does this mean that the UK is a problem and does it imply that all our neighbours will want one too ? Methinks that wumingsden's position is a bit more consistent...
@Bikerman, what if they would be able to launch it to the UK within 45 minutes of being ordered to do so?
(And if they have an atomic bomb, all of their neighbours would like/will try to have one too.)
personnaly i think that iran wants a nuk weapon for protect it self from israelien military force, y iran doesn't have the right to have an atomic bomb, and israel has already nuk missils??!!! so iranians feels that those nuks r a big traigh for them so they have to protecte them selfs
personnaly i think that iran wants a nuk weapon for protect it self from israelien military force, y iran doesn't have the right to have an atomic bomb, and israel has already nuk missils??!!! so iranians feels that those nuks r a big traigh for them so they have to protecte them selfs
| wumingsden wrote: | ||
I'm not very well educated on the subject but what makes Iran any different to other countries that already have nuclear weapons, like the US and the UK (where I live)? There shouldn't be one rule for western society and another for eastern but thats my humble opinion. |
If Iran weren't so hostile, (i.e. Iran REPEATEDLY saying it is giong to wipe Israel from the map) there wouldn't be such a problem. But the idiots in charge over there want nukes to spread their ****ing jihad against Western Civilization. Sorry, but **** that shit.
| Bondings wrote: |
| @Bikerman, what if they would be able to launch it to the UK within 45 minutes of being ordered to do so? |
Ahh..we've heard that one before haven't we....last time it was Iraq and the dodgy dossier....The UK can certainly launch a nuke within 45 mins against pretty much anyone...Saddam could launch a roman candle against anyone within a 50 yard radius, and even then there would be a 50% chance of it missing....
It's all hugely hypocritical I'm afraid. The western powers try to justify their possession of WMD in many ways - all of them essentially dodgy.
1. The cold-war 'deterrence' justification
It is argued that Nuclear weapons are the reason that the USSR and US did not go to war against each other and that without nukes the world could have been devastated by constant war. Sounds plausible. There are major problems with this argument however which are explored in the following links. Even if one accepts tha argument, though, how does this justify the current policy and practice of nuclear powers ? Who is being deterred by a huge US nuclear stockpile ? Can't be terrorists because conventional wisdom is that when they have nukes they will use them. Surely, according to the doctrine of deterrence the sensible action would be to either give nukes to all states and let them deterr each other, or abolish them entirely. Deterrence does not work as a justification when one state possesses the vast majority of the weapon in question. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Despite this the US maintains around 6000 nuclear warheads and plans to modernise the stock indefinitely. Why ?
http://www.pugwash.org/reports/nw/nw13c.htm
http://www.gsinstitute.org/archives/000071.shtml
http://www.counterpunch.org/krieger07092003.html
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/ethics/issues/scientific/rotblat_ethical-dimensions-deterrence.htm
http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity/b0018.htm
1. The Democratic defence
We are democracies and democracies never attack each other...
This is the most powerful of the arguments presented. It is not literally true - WW1, but there is some evidence that democracies tend to less violence when dealing with other democracies. It does not, however, either excuse or explain the agression of democracies against non-democracies. The argment is too complex to cover in detail but there is an excellent academic consideration of this issue here :
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
2. The Winston Churchil gambit
We are stable countries and have no reason to threaten others....
This is just baloney. A cursory glance over history shows the extent of the baloney.
3. The appeal to common sense
Any fair person would know that the US (or UK) simple do not behave like that....
This is also baloney. The UK has a bloody and violent history as does the US, Both have been guilty of genocide on at least one occasion and monumental violence and killing on many more.
4. The historical perspective
We have had these weapons for a long time and not used them...
One could quickly point out that nuclear weapons have been used 'in anger' only once in history....The argument is logically meaningless since there is no basis for comparison
5. The regional stability defence
Europe and the west are stable regions with no incentive to deploy WMD
Well, apart from being wrong this is a weak argument since it relies on factors external to the states to justify those states possessing WMD. It is wrong, of course, as Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Turkey/Greece/Cyprus easily demonstrate. One also wonders how those who advance this argument can ignore so blatantly the fact that Russia and the west fought a 40 yr cold war on European soil...
All these arguments are dubious or downright wrong. Can anyone provide a sensible justification and rationale for the present maintenance and proposed upgrading of nuclear weapons by states such as the UK, US and France ?
Regards
Chris
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
All these arguments are dubious or downright wrong. Can anyone provide a sensible justification and rationale for the present maintenance and proposed upgrading of nuclear weapons by states such as the UK, US and France ? Regards Chris |
That's easy.
and
and
but mostly because of this turd...
So as long as there are people like that that are trying to get nukes, you can forget about Western Civilization getting rid of theirs.
the reality is that israel refuse the existing of a nuclear force in the midle east coz they want to be the stongest contry of the region,(i.e: israel attacked the iraqi nuclear energy reactor (who was built for civile matters in the 80th), i think that israel is more hostile than iran.
| nerox wrote: |
| the reality is that israel refuse the existing of a nuclear force in the midle east coz they want to be the stongest contry of the region,(i.e: israel attacked the iraqi nuclear energy reactor (who was built for civile matters in the 80th), i think that israel is more hostile than iran. |
No, the reality is, as I said, if so many Radical Islamic Muslims didn't want Israel, Democracy Christianity and Western Civilization "wiped off the map", there wouldn't be a problem. So don't blame Israel and the rest of US for wanting to survive.
that was a somet against zionisme, u know what's zionisme it's the nazi in a jewish way that's zionisme.
what u call that???
thatsn't remind u the nazi philosophy??
why they kill kids too? r the new nazists planing a new holocaust but against arabs this time???
what u call that???
thatsn't remind u the nazi philosophy??
why they kill kids too? r the new nazists planing a new holocaust but against arabs this time???
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
|
So as long as there are people like that that are trying to get nukes, you can forget about Western Civilization getting rid of theirs. |
Thank god US cultural leaders and public figures are reasonable folks eh ?
“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.”
(talking about the 9/11 widows)
she also said:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." "Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."
"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'"
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
"I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision."*
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."
"The New York Times and Washington Post are both infested with homosexuals themselves. Just about every person down there is a homosexual or lesbian."
"All Latins are volatile people. Hence, I was not surprised at the volatile reaction."
"Your tax dollars are being used to pay for grade-school classes that teach our children that cannibalism, wife-swapping and murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior."
"Homosexuals are weak, morally sick wretches."
"Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free."
"There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The "negroes" of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours."
"Rail as they will about 'discrimination,' women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism."
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
"Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the ten Commandments. No apologies."
"I don't think Christians should use birth control. You consummate your marriage as often as you like – and if you have babies, you have babies."
"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed."*
"There is going to be war, [and Christians may be called to] take up the sword to overthrow the tyrannical regime that oppresses them."
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
"If you commit a crime, you're guilty."*
"There is only one way to get rid of nuclear weapons... use them"
“George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States, he as appointed by God.”
Phew...Thank goodness for US common sense and moderation.
Chris.
I got your common sense and moderation right here...
Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon delivered in Tehran by Ahmad Khatami, member of the Iranian Assembly of Experts. The sermon aired on Channel 1, Iranian TV on October 27, 2006.
Following are excerpts from an address delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on Jaam-e Jam 1 TV on October 20, 2006:
Following are excerpts from an address delivered by Palestinian Minister of Interior Said Saim on Iranian TV, which aired on October 12, 2006:
Following are excerpts from an Iranian TV report on Disney’s “Pirates of the Caribbean,” which aired on the Iranian news Channel (IRINN) on July 27, 2006:
Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon by Iranian Guardian Council Secretary Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, which aired on Channel 1, Iranian TV, on September 1, 2006.
Following are excerpts from a speech delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on Iranian News Channel (IRINN) on August 15, 2006:
The list goes on and on and on and on.... But wait, that's just talk. Radical Islamic Muslims are big on action too.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=114259
Female Teacher Shot to Death by Religion of Peace...
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003361.html
A Love Story to Make You Shiver
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/world/16024317.htm
Sudan Turns Up the Heat on African Children...
http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L17778795
Survivors Tell of Janjaweed Slaughter...
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003366.html
The Religion of Peace at Work in the Philippines...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1949484,00.html
Kidnap Victims Murdered, Bakery Workers Gunned Down in Iraq...
And this is all recent stuff. And again, the list goes on and on and on and on.
Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon delivered in Tehran by Ahmad Khatami, member of the Iranian Assembly of Experts. The sermon aired on Channel 1, Iranian TV on October 27, 2006.
| Quote: |
|
Ahmad Khatami After suffering a bitter defeat at the beginning of the Islamic Revolution, when it presented this revolution as a danger to the neighboring countries in the region, they are trying to spread that same satanic rumor again. The American secretary of state came to the region to spread these satanic [rumors]. She wants to say to our neighboring countries: “Iran constitutes a threat, as you saw in Lebanon.” The events [in Lebanon] were indeed supported by Iran, but Iran did not give Hizbullah any weapons. Allah be praised, they have managed things themselves. The [Americans] intimidate the neighboring countries. |
Following are excerpts from an address delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on Jaam-e Jam 1 TV on October 20, 2006:
| Quote: |
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Our proposal is as follows: Since you brought [this regime] over there, you yourselves pick it up, by the arms and legs, and remove it from there. This will make the peoples of the region improve their attitude toward you. These will be the first steps to a long-lasting friendship with the peoples of the region. This will be to your advantage.[…] In the recent war in Lebanon, you saw with your own eyes that the whole world was against you. Even in Argentina, where the Zionists devise conspiracies, generate strife, and put pressure on the Argentinean administration, the people took to the streets. […] This [Zionist] regime is on the verge of death, and we advise you to start thinking about your long-term interests and long term relations with the peoples of the region. At the end of the day, these are all ultimatums. No-one should complain tomorrow. The things are stated clearly. […] What is this Security Council anyway? The whole world knows that America and England are the enemies of the Iranian nation. |
Following are excerpts from an address delivered by Palestinian Minister of Interior Said Saim on Iranian TV, which aired on October 12, 2006:
| Quote: |
| Host: If Mahmoud Abbas – in light of the authorities given to him – works toward dissolving the Palestinian government and parliament, thus dealing a final blow to Hamas, how will Hamas respond?
[…] Minister Said Siam: We are bound by the law. It will not be easy for the Hamas movement and for the government, which was elected in free and fair parliamentary elections, if this government is dissolved after six months. We consider this to be a coup against Palestinian legitimacy. […] None of the American governments has ever stood beside the Palestinian people or the Arab and Islamic nation. The American government has always been totally biased toward Israel, but George Bush’s bias is even more obvious, and he has proven himself to be more Jewish than the Jews. He is hostile towards Islam and the Muslims. He reminds us of the Crusades against Islam and the Muslims. He has declared this more than once. Ultimately, this superpower will not remain strong. This is the law of nature: The strong grows weak, and the weak grows strong. But through this American policy, he establishes the hostility towards the American people. […] Israel is the spoiled son of America, and it has been planted in the region for the strategic goals of America and Europe, in the heart of the Arab and Muslim world. In addition, the Zionist lobby controls decision-making in America, and they are the ones who control the policy making, and who intervene to determine the success or failure of the presidents. Therefore, all the political and financial resources in America are channeled to the defense of Israel in the region. But this will not last for a long time. […] It is the policy of President Bush and the American government that is killing the Americans, and leading many people to extremism in ideology and in action. He does not learn from history or experience. Ultimately, it is the American people that pays the price. |
Following are excerpts from an Iranian TV report on Disney’s “Pirates of the Caribbean,” which aired on the Iranian news Channel (IRINN) on July 27, 2006:
| Quote: |
|
…Zionism is not restricted to the capitalistic weapons companies, such as Lockheed and the banks that support it. Cinema is considered another, subtle, weapon in the hands of those who support this corrupt ideology. In Hollywood, Disney is the manufacturer of this weapon, and the “Pirates of the Caribbean” is its newest ammunition. |
Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon by Iranian Guardian Council Secretary Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, which aired on Channel 1, Iranian TV, on September 1, 2006.
| Quote: |
| Ahmad Jannati: The Muslims should learn that they too can stand up to the enemy. As Hassan Nasrallah said, Israel is weaker than a spider web. This is based on the Koran, according to which their plots and schemes are weaker than a spider web. This goes for America as well. It too is weaker than a spider web. But it requires real men… If the Islamic countries act like Hizbullah, and stand up to America like men, America will be humiliated, just like Israel. |
Following are excerpts from a speech delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on Iranian News Channel (IRINN) on August 15, 2006:
| Quote: |
| Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: When they talk about a “New Middle East,” they mean a Middle East that is held captive by America, England, and the Zionist regime. When they talk about a “New Middle East,” they do not mean progress, development, independence, or freedom for the countries [of the region]. They oppose independence, freedom, and progress. Look at Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, and other places. I say to them: The peoples of the region have awakened. It so happens that our peoples are also calling for a New Middle East. The Middle East that our peoples want is a free Middle East, which is not under the control of America and England.
[…] Those who were involved in planning this barbaric attack, those who supported this barbaric attack, and those who prevented the cease-fire are accomplices in the crimes of the Zionist regime, and must be placed on trial. To be more specific, America and England purport to support human rights, freedom, and democracy. When a cat’s leg is run over by a municipal vehicle in some city, they hold a mourning ceremony. But they had the audacity to postpone the cease-fire for at least three weeks. They explicitly declared that the Zionist regime should be allowed to crush the resistance, and to occupy the land, and that [only] then would there be a cease-fire. I want to declare loud and clear, so that the whole world will hear: These two countries are not worthy of being members of the Security Council. […] If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender. |
The list goes on and on and on and on.... But wait, that's just talk. Radical Islamic Muslims are big on action too.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=114259
Female Teacher Shot to Death by Religion of Peace...
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003361.html
A Love Story to Make You Shiver
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/world/16024317.htm
Sudan Turns Up the Heat on African Children...
http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L17778795
Survivors Tell of Janjaweed Slaughter...
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003366.html
The Religion of Peace at Work in the Philippines...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1949484,00.html
Kidnap Victims Murdered, Bakery Workers Gunned Down in Iraq...
And this is all recent stuff. And again, the list goes on and on and on and on.
yh i think that usa don't wanna a new midle east whiche enjoy the freedom and peace coz usa is protecting her interests by controling the governments of the region, so i think that a part of what the iranian president said is right!
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||
Really ? So the problem is only their intent and not who they are ? Hmmm.. So, by the same logic, the UK has actually made an atomic bomb and is capable of throwing it on anyone it likes via missile or plane. Does this mean that the UK is a problem and does it imply that all our neighbours will want one too ? Methinks that wumingsden's position is a bit more consistent... |
No because the UK isn't ran by a madman. This guy doesn't think the holocaust happen. He has no interest in talking with Isreal on any level. He'd both them off the map the moment he get's a bomb.
That's why I don't think he's close. If he was, Isreal would have blew up their testing sites. To slow them down.
Let me give you a friendly piece of advice. I have no existing position to defend, no political or religious point to make at all in this debate. My role is simply to occasionally point out the double standards , hypocrisy and wooly thinking that frequently appears here.
I am an atheistic peace loving science fan who thinks all religions are suspect and all world leaders double so.
You may be fooled by those with a more 'focused' and partial agenda into accepting as fact things which are patently false, and frequently ridiculous.
This is a case in point.
Earlier I posted some of the offensive tripe that US political and social leaders come out with. That was not to proove that the US is an evil empire full of right wing bigots. (Like all states it has it's share of cranks and offensive bigots). My intent was to point out that you should try and retain both balance and perspective when considering these issues. Despite what some post and say here, the situation is much more complex and less black and white than is often portrayed. I haven't got the time, energy or inclination to counter every progpogandist posting I see here with a balancing counter example. I am simply urging people to think before buying into s partial, inaccurate and simplistic view of reality.
Now, would Khatami wipe Israel off the map at first chance ? No, of course not. Once again you need to think past the propoganda and partial reporting that is normal.
First and most crucial - Israel already has an estimated 200-400 nuclear war-heads and the missile delivery systems to go with them. This is not even denied anymore. Iran would be committing mass suicide if it launched a WMD attack on Israel.
Second, his reported comments about wiping Israel off the map were aimed at a local audience who wanted to hear such rhetoric. It's similar to the offensive rubbish that Bush spouts to veteran meetings and the like. Does Bush's statements on Christianity that I posted earlier (unconstitutional, untrue and offensive though they are) mean that he is planning to deport all non christians from the US or put them into internment ? Of course not. It was rhetoric aimed at a particular audience to achieve a particular effect. You should treat many of Khatami's reported outbursts in the same manner.
Finally let's consicer a couple of things that you might not have heard or read about in the media.
Ahmad Khatami, in 2003, approached the US and offered to accept peace with Israel and cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders. The US turned him down.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/iran/general/2006/0524irancontradiction.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727_pf.html
Did you read or hear about it in the media ? I bet not!
Did you see or hear any coverage of his speech last May when he stated that Jews should be "safe in Iran" and that "all religious minorities should be protected, as they always have been "? This is not just rhetoric either - there are around 35,000 Jews living in Iran at the moment and there no reported problems. Their synagogues and religious ceremonies are respected, there are no reports of racial/political discrimination, violence or even unfair treatment. Is this not at odds with your portayal of the Jew-hating madman?
Did you see the pictures taken at Pope John Paul II's funeral in April 2005 where Khatami was seated close to Israeli President Moshe Katsav? Katsav himself says that he shook Khatami's hand and the two had a brief conversation about Iran. I bet you didn't.
I'm not supporting him or even defending him, simply pointing out that your picture of him is what certain people woould like to be believed and is based on partial reporting, even more partial failure to report and deliberate misinterpretation of context.
Regards
Chris
I am an atheistic peace loving science fan who thinks all religions are suspect and all world leaders double so.
You may be fooled by those with a more 'focused' and partial agenda into accepting as fact things which are patently false, and frequently ridiculous.
This is a case in point.
Earlier I posted some of the offensive tripe that US political and social leaders come out with. That was not to proove that the US is an evil empire full of right wing bigots. (Like all states it has it's share of cranks and offensive bigots). My intent was to point out that you should try and retain both balance and perspective when considering these issues. Despite what some post and say here, the situation is much more complex and less black and white than is often portrayed. I haven't got the time, energy or inclination to counter every progpogandist posting I see here with a balancing counter example. I am simply urging people to think before buying into s partial, inaccurate and simplistic view of reality.
Now, would Khatami wipe Israel off the map at first chance ? No, of course not. Once again you need to think past the propoganda and partial reporting that is normal.
First and most crucial - Israel already has an estimated 200-400 nuclear war-heads and the missile delivery systems to go with them. This is not even denied anymore. Iran would be committing mass suicide if it launched a WMD attack on Israel.
Second, his reported comments about wiping Israel off the map were aimed at a local audience who wanted to hear such rhetoric. It's similar to the offensive rubbish that Bush spouts to veteran meetings and the like. Does Bush's statements on Christianity that I posted earlier (unconstitutional, untrue and offensive though they are) mean that he is planning to deport all non christians from the US or put them into internment ? Of course not. It was rhetoric aimed at a particular audience to achieve a particular effect. You should treat many of Khatami's reported outbursts in the same manner.
Finally let's consicer a couple of things that you might not have heard or read about in the media.
Ahmad Khatami, in 2003, approached the US and offered to accept peace with Israel and cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders. The US turned him down.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/iran/general/2006/0524irancontradiction.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727_pf.html
Did you read or hear about it in the media ? I bet not!
Did you see or hear any coverage of his speech last May when he stated that Jews should be "safe in Iran" and that "all religious minorities should be protected, as they always have been "? This is not just rhetoric either - there are around 35,000 Jews living in Iran at the moment and there no reported problems. Their synagogues and religious ceremonies are respected, there are no reports of racial/political discrimination, violence or even unfair treatment. Is this not at odds with your portayal of the Jew-hating madman?
Did you see the pictures taken at Pope John Paul II's funeral in April 2005 where Khatami was seated close to Israeli President Moshe Katsav? Katsav himself says that he shook Khatami's hand and the two had a brief conversation about Iran. I bet you didn't.
I'm not supporting him or even defending him, simply pointing out that your picture of him is what certain people woould like to be believed and is based on partial reporting, even more partial failure to report and deliberate misinterpretation of context.
Regards
Chris
The question should be put in this way, what shall we be afraid of, a responsible country with atom weapon? or a irresponsible country without atom weapon but with normal weapons?
Of course the worst situation is a irresponsible country with atom weapon. However atom weapon is not the point, but irresponsible does!
I do think Iran is no harm to the world and could be responsible for his own words and behavior.
But i do not believe all the countries with atom weapons care about the responsiblity of Iran, but they fear another country will get into the world affairs.
Of course the worst situation is a irresponsible country with atom weapon. However atom weapon is not the point, but irresponsible does!
I do think Iran is no harm to the world and could be responsible for his own words and behavior.
But i do not believe all the countries with atom weapons care about the responsiblity of Iran, but they fear another country will get into the world affairs.
| cloudship wrote: |
| The question should be put in this way, what shall we be afraid of, a responsible country with atom weapon? or a irresponsible country without atom weapon but with normal weapons? |
Can a country be responsible or irresponsible ? How does that work then ?
C
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
Ahh..we've heard that one before haven't we....last time it was Iraq and the dodgy dossier....The UK can certainly launch a nuke within 45 mins against pretty much anyone...Saddam could launch a roman candle against anyone within a 50 yard radius, and even then there would be a 50% chance of it missing.... |
I was actually referring to Blairs infamous 45-minute claim.
I dont like it... at all!
But on the other hand I dont like that America thinks they own the world and have the right to have nuclear weapons... I think no country should have them. Either that or everyone should be alloved (yay, the end of the world)
But on the other hand I dont like that America thinks they own the world and have the right to have nuclear weapons... I think no country should have them. Either that or everyone should be alloved (yay, the end of the world)
lol yh right no one should have the nuk weapens!! y usa have the right to have them and other nations doeasn't has the right?! that's not fair
| nerox wrote: |
| lol yh right no one should have the nuk weapens!! y usa have the right to have them and other nations doeasn't has the right?! that's not fair |
u are right any nation should have right to nuclear plants to give energi to their people but every nation doesnt need it, and iran doesnt need it either they are just doing it to get more power in the middle east and to scare israel. I belive ALL nations should remove thier nuclera weapons and plants because they arent very good in the long term they creat radio active stuff and as we see now war...
*edit* almost forgot to write this.
well iran is doing this to provoce other nations or even try to scare them but USA has no right to play world police in the middle east nither does any other country nations should mind their own buissnen a bit more, many nations has alot of problems in the country like medical care issuse and ppl who doesnt have work but still they go to war and makes the situation even worse. Usa is saying that they will attack iran if they dont stop making nuclear weapons, they will make another irak with iran, can someone tell me this has the american people gained anything from the attack on irak? anything??
just my 2 cents
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I'm not supporting him or even defending him, simply pointing out that your picture of him is what certain people woould like to be believed and is based on partial reporting, even more partial failure to report and deliberate misinterpretation of context.
|
My picture of him came from HIS words and HIS actions. Unless there's a stunt double up there at podiums and on TV saying that crap, and funding/running the Hesbollah. Or perhaps all the transaltions I've read/watched/heard are fakes.
| Quote: |
| My picture of him came from HIS words and HIS actions. Unless there's a stunt double up there at podiums and on TV saying that crap, and funding/running the Hesbollah. Or perhaps all the transaltions I've read/watched/heard are fakes. |
i think that a big part of what najad said is real, for exemple he said that israeliens r cruel and nazists no one of u can say the opposite, this summer the world have seen the moste cruel war in the 21th centry, israelien kills every one even kids and women!! so how u explain that?? israel is a terrorist country! that's all what i can say.
Come now Bikerman, this is not a double standard.
One society is committed to propagating their own power by any means including oppressing their own people.
The other society is committed to the propagation of civilized society where ever it will grow. This is the key after all. For any of us to truly be free, all of us must.
One society is committed to propagating their own power by any means including oppressing their own people.
The other society is committed to the propagation of civilized society where ever it will grow. This is the key after all. For any of us to truly be free, all of us must.
It's simple - the UK is responsible, Iraq is unstable. There needs to be some sort of restriction, some sort of regulation of nuclear weapons - do you want everyone who wants one to have one? My guess would be no.
In an effort to actually decrease the amount of nuclear weapons, we are trying to stop anyone who has potential nuclear aspirations.
In an effort to actually decrease the amount of nuclear weapons, we are trying to stop anyone who has potential nuclear aspirations.
| Quote: |
| In an effort to actually decrease the amount of nuclear weapons, we are trying to stop anyone who has potential nuclear aspirations. |
nice that sounds very logical but i have a note about that,
why israel has the right to have nuclear weapons and develope them??? if what u said was true so usa should stop israel! but usa have a double politicies one for israel and the other one for islamo & arabic countries!
| nerox wrote: | ||
nice that sounds very logical but i have a note about that, why israel has the right to have nuclear weapons and develope them??? if what u said was true so usa should stop israel! but usa have a double politicies one for israel and the other one for islamo & arabic countries! |
Same reason Pakistan and India have them?
The five main countries who have nuclear weapons - France, UK, Russia, US and China have them for historical reasons. They're not particularly Western countries - but they are the victors of WW2. They are basically the countries who managed to get them before the NPT - the treaty which bans the spread of nuclear weapons was signed/ratified in 1969/1970.
Pakistan, India and Israel all never signed the treaty. Neither did Cuba incidentally. North Korea signed but then withdrew (the only country to get around IAEA inspections). South Africa developed nuclear weapons, and then gave them up, and of course the ex-Soviet republics also agreed to give up their nuclear weapons to Moscow.
But to come back to the original question - no, Iran is a long way from nuclear weapons. They recently said that they were near completion of the peaceful nuclear fuel cycle, which is not the same as producing a nuclear weapon. What that means is that they will soon be able to take spent uranium fuel rods, reprocess them, and then reuse them again for power.
Pakistan, India and Israel all never signed the treaty. Neither did Cuba incidentally. North Korea signed but then withdrew (the only country to get around IAEA inspections). South Africa developed nuclear weapons, and then gave them up, and of course the ex-Soviet republics also agreed to give up their nuclear weapons to Moscow.
But to come back to the original question - no, Iran is a long way from nuclear weapons. They recently said that they were near completion of the peaceful nuclear fuel cycle, which is not the same as producing a nuclear weapon. What that means is that they will soon be able to take spent uranium fuel rods, reprocess them, and then reuse them again for power.
| Quote: |
| Same reason Pakistan and India have them? |
so to stop iran usa should make thhe midle east clean of nuclear weapons so israel MUSTGIVE UP first their nuks whiche were utilised to terrorise the arabs countries then we can talk about a midle east clean of nuks.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Come now Bikerman, this is not a double standard.
One society is committed to propagating their own power by any means including oppressing their own people. The other society is committed to the propagation of civilized society where ever it will grow. This is the key after all. For any of us to truly be free, all of us must. |
I don't accept these as valid premises. Iran has not shown itself to be expansionist or colonial in outlook to my knowledge. The US is committed to the maintenance of stability far more than to any propogation of 'civilisation' and it's idea of civilised countries is largely based on whether they do what they are told, allow market access to US corporate interests and stay clear of any socialist type government or alliances..
Freedom is not something which can be imposed - this is surely basic to the very concept. The US has intervened in aound 70 countries since WWII and in many of these the intervention has been directed against perfectly civilised and popular governments where it suited US interests.
Regards
Chris
| nerox wrote: | ||
so to stop iran usa should make thhe midle east clean of nuclear weapons so israel MUSTGIVE UP first their nuks whiche were utilised to terrorise the arabs countries then we can talk about a midle east clean of nuks. |
Israel is using nukes to terrorize the arabs??
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Iran has not shown itself to be expansionist or colonial in outlook to my knowledge. |
Um, WHAT!?!?!
I just peed myself...
What about jihad, and the return of the 12th iman?
Dang, dude, you're in serious denial if you think Iran doesn't want to spread it's version of Islam world wide by any means necessary, preferrably via the apocalypse.
Bikerman, have you ever listened to the Iranian Pres talk about Western Civilization, his destiny, his ambitions?
If so, how can you sit here with a straight face and say that? If not, go listen to just a couple before you say that.
Wow. Just wow.
nopaniers, you might be interested in THIS little tidbit...
I don't expect you to reply. As this pretty much blows a huge gaping hole in your assessment of the availability of Iran to get nukes. Especially considering you seem to believe the Iranian President is not a nuclear threat.
Sorry, I really have got to stop interjecting facts into this discussion. It might mean we actually have to take action against Iran, and some parties are opposed to that come hell or high water. Call me petty, but if they prevail in this debate I hope they are the recipients of the first vaporization.
| Quote: |
| In conclusion, separated plutonium-- whether weapon grade or
reactor grade-- poses a similar danger of misuse in nuclear weapons and must be provided similar physical protection, control, and accountancy. This has been recognized by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from its beginning-- all plutonium (except Pu-238 of isotopic purity greater than 80%) is regarded as equally hazardous from the point of view of diversion to nuclear weaponry. |
I don't expect you to reply. As this pretty much blows a huge gaping hole in your assessment of the availability of Iran to get nukes. Especially considering you seem to believe the Iranian President is not a nuclear threat.
Sorry, I really have got to stop interjecting facts into this discussion. It might mean we actually have to take action against Iran, and some parties are opposed to that come hell or high water. Call me petty, but if they prevail in this debate I hope they are the recipients of the first vaporization.
| Quote: |
| Israel is using nukes to terrorize the arabs?? Laughing Laughing Laughing |
yh israel is terrorising her neighbours, in lebanon was they used missils with uranium (mini nuks) against the population. so what u call that?? isn't terrore?! use ur mind even for 1min and u gonna now the reality, but i don't think u gonna do that
| nerox wrote: | ||
yh israel is terrorising her neighbours, in lebanon was they used missils with uranium (mini nuks) against the population. so what u call that?? isn't terrore?! use ur mind even for 1min and u gonna now the reality, but i don't think u gonna do that |
Sorry friend. I'll have to see some links. Never heard of Isreal using nukes.
| Quote: |
Sorry friend. I'll have to see some links. Never heard of Isreal using nukes.  |
yh israel used missils with uranium, see ur links and u gonna find the reality and find the real terrorists in the midle east! make sure that ur not on the wrong links lol
| nerox wrote: | ||
yh israel used missils with uranium, see ur links and u gonna find the reality and find the real terrorists in the midle east! make sure that ur not on the wrong links lol |
I'm not the one claiming Israel used nukes. Either you post up some proof, or stop the rhetoric. I'm pretty sure CNN would have widely reported about it if they had.
Besides, I don't think Israel signed the NPT.
here the proof:
and here we can see how it's cruel! i think that all that is enough to proov that israel is the only terrorist stat in the midleast.
| Quote: |
| "Israel is now using poison gas and depleted uranium shells on towns in the south of Lebanon. Residents of the small village of Kasarshoba became violently ill, experiencing severe vomiting, after the Israelis hit the village with poison gas. In other cases, underground shelters in southern Lebanon were hit by Israeli depleted uranium shells. Our sources also report that the entire southern suburbs of southern Beirut, with a population of 800,000, have been totally depopulated. Israel has targeted thousands of civilian homes for destruction.
Source: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/" |
and here we can see how it's cruel! i think that all that is enough to proov that israel is the only terrorist stat in the midleast.
LoL! Depleted uranium?
That's not a nuclear bomb.
Silly boy.
Lies and deciept are very un-becoming.
That's not a nuclear bomb.
Silly boy.
| Quote: |
| israel is the only terrorist stat in the midleast |
Lies and deciept are very un-becoming. that's what i said:>>>>
i didn't said nuclear missils i said missils with uranium, blind boy! read more carefuly before reacting.
so the israelis have used the nuclear technology to attack the population of liban in a cruel way as we can c.
i belive that israel is a terrorist country!
and i have no commant about "silly boy" israelis r always insulting when the don't know what to say so it will be idiot to commant on such things try to be more civilized
| Quote: |
| yh israel is terrorising her neighbours, in lebanon was they used MISSILS WITH URANIUM (MINI NUKS) against the population. |
i didn't said nuclear missils i said missils with uranium, blind boy! read more carefuly before reacting.
so the israelis have used the nuclear technology to attack the population of liban in a cruel way as we can c.
i belive that israel is a terrorist country!
and i have no commant about "silly boy" israelis r always insulting when the don't know what to say so it will be idiot to commant on such things
try to be more civilized | nerox wrote: | ||
that's what i said:>>>>
i didn't said nuclear missils i said missils with uranium, blind boy! read more carefuly before reacting. so the israelis have used the nuclear technology to attack the population of liban in a cruel way as we can c. i belive that israel is a terrorist country! and i have no commant about "silly boy" israelis r always insulting when the don't know what to say so it will be idiot to commant on such things try to be more civilized |
You said MINI NUKES.
pffffff ur making the conversation boring, hey if u have nothing to say just shut up it will be better
| nerox wrote: |
| pffffff ur making the conversation boring, hey if u have nothing to say just shut up it will be better |
LoL!!!
You try to make it like israel is nuking people, you can't do it so you tell ME to shut up?
Hey, if you have nothing TRUE to say, just shut up it will be better.
| nerox wrote: |
| Iran: very close to the nuclear power!!!
what u think about that? |
@nerox,
Iran has nuclear plants and nuclear power! We can't stop it...
And North-Korea has it too!
We can't avoid it.....!
The U.S.A. can't stop everting, and the is no oil in North-Korea so, they won't attack Korea!
| Quote: |
| You try to make it like israel is nuking people, you can't do it so you tell ME to shut up?
|
LOOOOOOOOL i gove u proofs but israelien r not smart enough to understand simple things as i c, and plz don't copy my words plz.
| Quote: |
| Iran has nuclear plants and nuclear power! We can't stop it...
And North-Korea has it too! We can't avoid it.....! The U.S.A. can't stop everting, and the is no oil in North-Korea so, they won't attack Korea! |
i agree with u,
[/code]Wolfie, we can avoid it, and have successfully been avoiding it for the thirty-seven years or so - without resorting to the type of military action you're talking about. The IAEA have a incredibly difficult job, but they have done it extremely well.
S3ndK3ys, why fearmonger without any basis? Yes, plutonium can be used to produce weapons, but considering the Iranian experiments were on uranium, not plutonium it's not really relevant. Of course, many other non-nuclear weapons countries do enrich plutonium (Brasil for example). As your article points out, the IAEA carefully and successfully monitored these experiments and materials, and have done for many decades now.
Iran's recent enrichment experiments aren't on plutonium, they're enriching uranium. Reactor-grade uranium cannot be used for nuclear weapons. Specifically they took UF4 (uranium tetra-flouride) in two small centrifuge facilities and tried to enrich it. According to Iran, the experiment was a success. U235 is the isotope of uranium which is fissile, but that isotope only makes up 1% of uranium naturally. Most uranium is U238, which quenches any reaction. For a nuclear power you need around 5% U235 enrichment. For a nuclear weapon you need around 90% enrichment, for which you require several thousand centrifuges - more and more reliable than anything Iran currently has. And then there's the IAEA monitoring and verification... At worst, Iran is many years from a nuclear weapon.
Iran has a legal right to peaceful uses of nuclear power, and in fact, the nuclear powers have a duty to help develop their nuclear technology for peaceful purposes:
S3ndK3ys, why fearmonger without any basis? Yes, plutonium can be used to produce weapons, but considering the Iranian experiments were on uranium, not plutonium it's not really relevant. Of course, many other non-nuclear weapons countries do enrich plutonium (Brasil for example). As your article points out, the IAEA carefully and successfully monitored these experiments and materials, and have done for many decades now.
Iran's recent enrichment experiments aren't on plutonium, they're enriching uranium. Reactor-grade uranium cannot be used for nuclear weapons. Specifically they took UF4 (uranium tetra-flouride) in two small centrifuge facilities and tried to enrich it. According to Iran, the experiment was a success. U235 is the isotope of uranium which is fissile, but that isotope only makes up 1% of uranium naturally. Most uranium is U238, which quenches any reaction. For a nuclear power you need around 5% U235 enrichment. For a nuclear weapon you need around 90% enrichment, for which you require several thousand centrifuges - more and more reliable than anything Iran currently has. And then there's the IAEA monitoring and verification... At worst, Iran is many years from a nuclear weapon.
Iran has a legal right to peaceful uses of nuclear power, and in fact, the nuclear powers have a duty to help develop their nuclear technology for peaceful purposes:
| NPT, Article IV wrote: |
| 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.
2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world. |
no...i think we are misjudge iran nuclear power development..why another country can build it and iran can't?
The same reason felons don’t get to buy machine guns genius.
Hey nerox, your really discrediting your kind. I’m glad to see S3nd K3ys got some fun out of it though. Depleted uranium is used because it is an extremely dense and heavy metal, great for punching holes in armor. So, if they used these weapons it was against something really tough and not simple populous, as you did express.
That was a good one.
Get real though buddy. You can disagree with US actions all you want, especially errors seen through hind sight. However, you can’t claim basic US motivations and values are anything but progressive to world freedom, and general civilization, and still be logical or reasonable.
IMPOSING freedom….. ohhhh yeah
Hey nerox, your really discrediting your kind. I’m glad to see S3nd K3ys got some fun out of it though. Depleted uranium is used because it is an extremely dense and heavy metal, great for punching holes in armor. So, if they used these weapons it was against something really tough and not simple populous, as you did express.
| bickerman wrote: |
| Freedom is not something which can be imposed - this is surely basic to the very concept. |
That was a good one.
Get real though buddy. You can disagree with US actions all you want, especially errors seen through hind sight. However, you can’t claim basic US motivations and values are anything but progressive to world freedom, and general civilization, and still be logical or reasonable.
IMPOSING freedom….. ohhhh yeah
| nopaniers wrote: |
|
S3ndK3ys, why fearmonger without any basis? Yes, plutonium can be used to produce weapons, but considering the Iranian experiments were on uranium, not plutonium it's not really relevant. Of course, many other non-nuclear weapons countries do enrich plutonium (Brasil for example). |
Just interjecting a quick comment. Iran is building a heavy water production facility and associated heavy water nuclear power plant, thus plutonium is at least a near future issue if not an immediate one.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/arakconstruction.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/arak.htm
I'm not sure what Iran's excuse is for desiring a heavy water plant when a light water plant is just as efficient at providing electrical power, which is the sole reason they claim to be doing nuclear research in the first place.
And you're right, nopaniers, we do have an obligation to help Iran develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. But I believe we have a greater obligation to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
Iran has stonewalled at every turn. They will not allow their fuel to be reprocessed outside of their country and want an indigenous ability and knowledge to do so. Even if we offered to reprocess all of their spent fuel rods and provide them with new cores as necessary at no cost to them, I guarantee you they would reject it the offer.
If all they want is electrical power, Russia has offered to take care of their reprocessing needs and they turned it down.
I'm sure the Iranian government's argument is that they don't want to be at the mercy of another power when it comes to providing fuel for their plants.
But those arguments are neither here nor there when it comes to a heavy water plant. Can someone offer a logical hypothesis as to why they need one?
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Iran is building a heavy water production facility and associated heavy water nuclear power plant, thus plutonium is at least a near future issue if not an immediate one. |
The expected completion date of the Arak reactor is 2009 (although according to the IAEA's reports it is behind schedule), so it's not immediate. Plutonium is formed in all types of nuclear reactors, not just heavy water reactors.
| Quote: |
| I'm not sure what Iran's excuse is for desiring a heavy water plant when a light water plant is just as efficient at providing electrical power. |
There are many legitimate reasons to choose heavy water reactors - similar to those used in Canada. One key advantage is that they can operate on much less enriched uranium, which is probably a key concern of Iran considering they are under pressure not to enrich uranium at all. Heavy water reactors can use many different types of fuel - not just enriched uranium 235. They also have some safety features, and the ability to replace the fuel without shutting down the entire power plant. Countries like Argentina, Romania, Canada and South Korea have all chosen similar heavy water designs.
| ©Wolfie wrote: | ||
@nerox, Iran has nuclear plants and nuclear power! We can't stop it... And North-Korea has it too! We can't avoid it.....! The U.S.A. can't stop everting, and the is no oil in North-Korea so, they won't attack Korea! |
The US isn't attacking North Korea because it has a million man army poised to strike South Korea and the, is it 28k or 38k, troops the US has stationed there would be in serious trouble. That and the fact that Kim Jong-il has a total disregard for the internatinal community doesn't help.
Just a little side note: the US doesn't have a whole lot respect for the international community either. For example in 2002 the US imposed a 30% steel tariff that lasted for 20 months, and was only retracted when the UN threatened trade sanctions. CNN Article And the clamour to have Defense Secretary Rumsfeld convicted of War Crimes in German Courts. MSNBC Article
Oh, one more fun Article
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
|
Get real though buddy. You can disagree with US actions all you want, especially errors seen through hind sight. However, you can’t claim basic US motivations and values are anything but progressive to world freedom, and general civilization, and still be logical or reasonable. |
Well I do maintain exactly that. Whether it is reasonable or logical is something I cannot judge - it seems so to me.
If one considers the major US interventions over the last few decades we have :Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan
Which of these would you say have progressed world freedom and general civilisation?
Chris.
I saw this article tonight in the Sunday-Times:
Revealed: Israel Plans Nuclear Strike on Iran
I've said before that I expect U.S. military action against Iran either during the current administration or the next for the primary reason to prevent Israel from taking unilateral action. If this leak is official, it may be an attempt by Israel to further "spur" the U.S. to attack Iran just to keep Israel from doing so.
Whether you agree with Israel or not, they believe themselves to be threatened with genocide and will respond accordingly.
Respectfully,
M
Revealed: Israel Plans Nuclear Strike on Iran
I've said before that I expect U.S. military action against Iran either during the current administration or the next for the primary reason to prevent Israel from taking unilateral action. If this leak is official, it may be an attempt by Israel to further "spur" the U.S. to attack Iran just to keep Israel from doing so.
Whether you agree with Israel or not, they believe themselves to be threatened with genocide and will respond accordingly.
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
Whether you agree with Israel or not, they believe themselves to be threatened with genocide and will respond accordingly. |
I really don't believe that they do (by 'they' I mean the administration and establishment rather than 'normal' members of the public). As has been repeatedly pointed out, the Israelis already have several hundred nuclear warheads and the idea of Iran launching a nuclear attack (if and when it develops the means) on a nuclear Israel is just silly. The Iranians are not suicidal and it's not a difficult analysis...
Regards
Chris
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
I really don't believe that they do (by 'they' I mean the administration and establishment rather than 'normal' members of the public). As has been repeatedly pointed out, the Israelis already have several hundred nuclear warheads and the idea of Iran launching a nuclear attack (if and when it develops the means) on a nuclear Israel is just silly. The Iranians are not suicidal and it's not a difficult analysis... Regards Chris |
I've never been to Israel and don't know any Israelis, so I'm only assuming that the fear of genocide runs deep because of past history.
Although I'm sure Israeli forces are probably planning contingency plans against Iran, I doubt the veracity of the report only in that I doubt the Israeli Air Force capable of carrying out a strike against Iran unless it is a one way mission.
Thus if the leak was official, as I indicated it was probably a diplomatic move.
Respectfully,
M
In democracy everyone is entitled to an opinion on any subject. But there are people who will do us a general favor if they just keep their aberrant ideas for themselves.
One example: "Iranians are not suicidal"
1. It's common knowledge that a great majority of any people or nation are not suicidal (yes, Japanese included!).
2. For his information, THERE IS an Iranian official list of people willing to become kamikaze against the Americans and THEY ARE TRAINED accordingly. There are thousands of them. I saw myself (on TV) a few of them professing their death wish.
3. In WW2 many Japanese military commanders wanted to fight till last man (as they did on a few islands). Japan surrendered only when the emperor stepped in and overruled them. => There are mad, paranoid, etc rulers willing to even destroy their people.
4. Read all the declarations of the Iranian president and judge him yourself. Is he mad or not?
Peace and a nuke-free world!
One example: "Iranians are not suicidal"
1. It's common knowledge that a great majority of any people or nation are not suicidal (yes, Japanese included!).
2. For his information, THERE IS an Iranian official list of people willing to become kamikaze against the Americans and THEY ARE TRAINED accordingly. There are thousands of them. I saw myself (on TV) a few of them professing their death wish.
3. In WW2 many Japanese military commanders wanted to fight till last man (as they did on a few islands). Japan surrendered only when the emperor stepped in and overruled them. => There are mad, paranoid, etc rulers willing to even destroy their people.
4. Read all the declarations of the Iranian president and judge him yourself. Is he mad or not?
Peace and a nuke-free world!
| smarter wrote: |
| In democracy everyone is entitled to an opinion on any subject. But there are people who will do us a general favor if they just keep their aberrant ideas for themselves. |
It's a messageboard, therefore designed to discuss ideas, even if you think them abberant (which is itself subjective)
| Quote: |
|
One example: "Iranians are not suicidal" |
If you read the full paragraph you will see that I started by qualifying what I meant by the word Iranians very specifically.
| Quote: |
|
1. It's common knowledge that a great majority of any people or nation are not suicidal (yes, Japanese included!). |
| Quote: |
|
2. For his information, THERE IS an Iranian official list of people willing to become kamikaze against the Americans and THEY ARE TRAINED accordingly. There are thousands of them. I saw myself (on TV) a few of them professing their death wish. |
| Quote: |
| 3. In WW2 many Japanese military commanders wanted to fight till last man (as they did on a few islands). Japan surrendered only when the emperor stepped in and overruled them. => There are mad, paranoid, etc rulers willing to even destroy their people.
|
| Quote: |
|
4. Read all the declarations of the Iranian president and judge him yourself. Is he mad or not? Peace and a nuke-free world! |
I have read a lot of them...I suggest you do the same.
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/
Chris
 |