Time to kick Iran

[Gurdur]

...So what is your opinion

That you should pipe down.

[Tailgater]

Oh God. Hezbollah and Hamas are attacking the US. :rolleyes:
Now I get it... :boggled:

No, you don't get it. All these groups are agressive in foreign interventions which you claim Iran is totally clean of. Roll your eyes all you want. That is a small list of groups that does Irans bidding so Iran can sit back and look like they have no involvement. The fourth group in the list is one that has killed allies in the war that they claim to want to help resolve. If they really wanted to help, they would put a leash on these groups and help curb the killings. But thats too easy. Better to fund and supply these groups to drag out the violence (yes, America started Iraq, no need for comments) since the US takes all the heat for any body count, then demonize the war in public so useful idiots like you can gobble it up.

[Oliver]

Iran is militarily weak without nukes, and so most of the interventions they started (and it's been a large number) have been through terrorist proxies. Why you think this is really preferable is beyond me. Furthermore, there's an implicit assumption here that interventions are always and necessarily an evil, and so there's no need to examine the context of those interventions or the likely consequences of alternatives. Quite convenient, that.


Well, I think Iran recognizes that their military is weak without
nuclear weapons. But you may understand that Israels nuclear
weapons pose a threat to non-nuclear states, don't you?

So what's the solution? Either everyone says "WMD's suck" or
everyone should be allowed to have them.

To say they will Nuke Israel is pretty naive - because Iran knows
that this means that Iran would be nuked as well. So what's your
point? That Iran loves to destroy themselves by nuking Israel?

Are you that naive?

Oh, the irony of saying that about a country that still uses stoning as a form of execution for adulterers. It's not just a metaphor, you know.


So what? The US still uses execution. We don't. Does that mean
that the US are a bunch of Neanderthals? ... No, it doesn't.

"everyone else"? Who ever said anything about "everyone else"? When complaining about a lack of logic from an opponent, it helps if you actually talk about what they actually said.


Here you go:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/09/12/sot.ahmadinegad.itn.itn

So? What did he say that is hunting you in your nightmares?

Sounds alot like you're scared for Europe, and you want to appease the radicals so they don't hurt you.


Blödsinn! I care more about peace than forcing ones world-view upon
others. This means that I understand both sides of the story while
others still whine about: "But me, me, me"....

Of course not. Germany has never stuck its neck out for anyone else, I'm not about to expect them to change that now.



Nice fallacy. You may have noticed that todays Germany is trying
to solve problems peacefully - especially because it's history and
what they learned from it. So yes - they're trying to find peaceful
solutions concerning their Muslim citizens and partners, but also
are friendly towards Israel.

Because if they had to decide - I doubt that Jewish interests would
overrule the Muslim citizens interests, don't you agree?

[Oliver]

No, you don't get it. All these groups are agressive in foreign interventions which you claim Iran is totally clean of. Roll your eyes all you want. That is a small list of groups that does Irans bidding so Iran can sit back and look like they have no involvement. The fourth group in the list is one that has killed allies in the war that they claim to want to help resolve. If they really wanted to help, they would put a leash on these groups and help curb the killings. But thats too easy. Better to fund and supply these groups to drag out the violence (yes, America started Iraq, no need for comments) since the US takes all the heat for any body count, then demonize the war in public so useful idiots like you can gobble it up.


So? What is the Threat for the US concerning Hamas and Hezbollah???
Feel free to point your fallacy out...

[Tailgater]

So? What is the Threat for the US concerning Hamas and Hezbollah???
Feel free to point your fallacy out...

You stated Iran was not involved in agressive foreign interventions. They intervene by supporting groups with Iranian interests (something you routinely condemn the US for) in other countries. I only responded to that point while including support for a group that killed Americans and allies. Feel free to quote me where I said otherwise.

....without quoting someone else as before.

[Tailgater]

double post.

[Ziggurat]

Well, I think Iran recognizes that their military is weak without
nuclear weapons. But you may understand that Israels nuclear
weapons pose a threat to non-nuclear states, don't you?

And do you have any clue as to why sometimes having a threat can be a good thing?

So what's the solution? Either everyone says "WMD's suck" or
everyone should be allowed to have them.

No, Oliver, those aren't the only options. It really is possible to distinguish between states. And we can say WMD's suck all we want to, they aren't going to go away completely. Existing nuclear powers will not disarm, and further proliferation will increase the likelihood for disaster. That is the reality we face.

To say they will Nuke Israel is pretty naive - because Iran knows
that this means that Iran would be nuked as well. So what's your point? That Iran loves to destroy themselves by nuking Israel?

Are you that naive?

Well, considering the magnitude of the consequences if it happened, I'm actually not comfortably confident that they would not do so. But that simply isn't the only threat that their posession of nukes would create. Having nuclear weapons means they can scale up their support for terrorism dramatically without having to worry about retaliation. And since you haven't even considered that issue, I'd say you are the one who is naive.

So what? The US still uses execution. We don't. Does that mean
that the US are a bunch of Neanderthals? ... No, it doesn't.

So you're saying stoning is no different than other forms of execution. Sorry, but that's moral relativism at its most pathetic.

Blödsinn! I care more about peace than forcing ones world-view upon
others.

You can "care" all you want to. But Germany isn't actually doing anything to make it happen.

Nice fallacy. You may have noticed that todays Germany is trying
to solve problems peacefully

In other words, they're trying to find a solution which doesn't cost them anything.

- especially because it's history and what they learned from it.

You seem to have learned the wrong lesson. Instead of learning that there are right and wrong reasons and ways to use force, you learned that one should never use force at all. But that's not the lesson of WWII at all. IIRC, you once said something to the effect that one can't use force to topple dictatorships and install democracy. But that's exactly what WWII demonstrates you can and must do, at least in some cases.

Because if they had to decide - I doubt that Jewish interests would
overrule the Muslim citizens interests, don't you agree?

Yes, they probably wouldn't. Why you're touting that is beyond me, though, because the reason they wouldn't has nothing to do with the correctness of either side and everything to do with which side you're more scared of.

[Oliver]

And do you have any clue as to why sometimes having a threat can be a good thing?

No, Oliver, those aren't the only options. It really is possible to distinguish between states. And we can say WMD's suck all we want to, they aren't going to go away completely. Existing nuclear powers will not disarm, and further proliferation will increase the likelihood for disaster. That is the reality we face.

Well, considering the magnitude of the consequences if it happened, I'm actually not comfortably confident that they would not do so. But that simply isn't the only threat that their posession of nukes would create. Having nuclear weapons means they can scale up their support for terrorism dramatically without having to worry about retaliation. And since you haven't even considered that issue, I'd say you are the one who is naive.

So you're saying stoning is no different than other forms of execution. Sorry, but that's moral relativism at its most pathetic.

You can "care" all you want to. But Germany isn't actually doing anything to make it happen.

In other words, they're trying to find a solution which doesn't cost them anything.

You seem to have learned the wrong lesson. Instead of learning that there are right and wrong reasons and ways to use force, you learned that one should never use force at all. But that's not the lesson of WWII at all. IIRC, you once said something to the effect that one can't use force to topple dictatorships and install democracy. But that's exactly what WWII demonstrates you can and must do, at least in some cases.

Yes, they probably wouldn't. Why you're touting that is beyond me, though, because the reason they wouldn't has nothing to do with the correctness of either side and everything to do with which side you're more scared of.


Having a threat may be a good thing from time to time, I agree.
Anyway: Having NO threat and pretending otherwise will result in chaos.

And I agree concerning WMD's. But I don't agree to claim "Our WMD's are
good - and your WMD's are bad" - because people on the "bad" side wont
understand such a stupid remark, would they? :boggled:

So? Israel has estimated 250 to 300 WMD's - and Iran is a threat once
they have one louse WMD???????? Oh, wait - they're even a threat once
they think about anything nuclear.... :boggled:

Stoning and execution is a matter of moral standards. That's it, nothing
we're supposed to attack in foreign countries. And yes - I thing kosher
food is gruesome and "Neanderthalic" as well. I see no reason to attack
other countries because of that - do you?

That's not true - Germany started several diplomatic missions to find
a non-violent solution. In fact they are opposed to put more pressure
on Iran. And because of that - the US claims it has no other solution
than a military one ... Yeah, sure...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Fox_US_makes_Iran_bombing_plan_0912.html

No, the lesson isn't "Never use force" - the lesson is: If there is a threat,
than we shall react. Not "If there is no threat, there might be a threat
nevertheless". That's how the US is handling it. Crying "Wolf!" instead
telling the truth...

[Ziggurat]

And I agree concerning WMD's. But I don't agree to claim "Our WMD's are good - and your WMD's are bad" - because people on the "bad" side wont understand such a stupid remark, would they? :boggled:

This isn't about "understanding". It's about interests. We could give up our nukes, demand that they never obtain any, and they'd understand our position perfectly. But that would do absolutely no good in dissuading them from getting nukes - why on earth would it? Understanding is not the problem here.

So? Israel has estimated 250 to 300 WMD's - and Iran is a threat once they have one louse WMD???????? Oh, wait - they're even a threat once they think about anything nuclear.... :boggled:

Once again, I see you are refusing to make distinctions between different states. To paraphrase Pauli, that's not even naive.

Stoning and execution is a matter of moral standards. That's it, nothing we're supposed to attack in foreign countries.

Did I say it was a reason to attack? No, I don't recall doing anything of the sort. Did I even say we should attack Iran? No, I have not.

That's not true - Germany started several diplomatic missions to find
a non-violent solution.

I didn't say they weren't trying, I said they weren't doing anything to solve the problem. Their missions have not accomplished anything, so my claim stands.

In fact they are opposed to put more pressure on Iran.

Of course they are. Because lord knows, the less pressure we put on them, the more likely they are to give up trying to get what they want.

[dsm]

To say they will Nuke Israel is pretty naive - because Iran knows
that this means that Iran would be nuked as well. So what's your
point? That Iran loves to destroy themselves by nuking Israel?


Martyrs for Allah...? :eek:

[Oliver]

Martyrs for Allah...? :eek:


Actually .... No ... "Creationists for President!" ... :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

Diplomacy means that no party will get what they want.

What compromises do you think the US and Iran should make, Oliver?

[Correa Neto]

"They could, they should, they would, they shmoufwd."
Welcome to La La Land.

If they do - fine, let's stop it. But unless they are nasty - we
don't say they will probably be nasty. You also don't imprison
black people just because "The could pose a threat", would you?
Wow, that was a poor analogy coupled with a fallacious Godwininian-like argument if I ever saw one...

Welcome to the Fallacious Godwinland...

How would you react to an individual (regardless of his/hers ethnical/cultural group) that openly threats to harm you?

[Matteo Martini]

This isn't about "understanding". It's about interests. We could give up our nukes, demand that they never obtain any, and they'd understand our position perfectly. But that would do absolutely no good in dissuading them from getting nukes - why on earth would it? Understanding is not the problem here.


You mean..
If America ( and Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, .. ) had no nukes, this would do no good in dissuading them from having nukes?
I think it would take off a sound excuse many countries ( including Iran ) have to think about acquiring nukes.
If Isreal have them, Iranians think, why not us?
And, they may not be 100% wrong..

[dudalb]

Sounds alot like you're scared for Europe, and you want to appease the radicals so they don't hurt you. Don't worry, I'm sure the alligator will eat you last.

I have to agree,sadly.And Oliver is not the only European who thinks that way.
I am convinced a desire to appease the Islamic Radicals is behind a lot of the Anti Israeli attitude that is so widespread in Europe...and the recent rise in General Anti Semetism as well.
And once again the fact that Israel is surrounded by countries who have sworn to destroy her seems to pass some people by.

[Matteo Martini]

I have to agree,sadly.And Oliver is not the only European who thinks that way.
I am convinced a desire to appease the Islamic Radicals is behind a lot of the Anti Israeli attitude that is so widespread in Europe...and the recent rise in General Anti Semetism as well.
And once again the fact that Israel is surrounded by countries who have sworn to destroy her seems to pass some people by.

I am an European and I have traveled around Europe quite extensively in the past.
I can tell you you are dead wrong.
There is no way Europeans have " desire to appease the Islamic Radicals ", your idea are just mis-conceptions based on stereoptypes.

[Ziggurat]

You mean..
If America ( and Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, .. ) had no nukes, this would do no good in dissuading them from having nukes?

Of course not. How could you possibly fool yourself into believing it would be otherwise? Because the mullahs care about fairness?

I think it would take off a sound excuse many countries ( including Iran ) have to think about acquiring nukes.

Dictatorships don't need excuses to do what they want to do. All they need is ability.

[Matteo Martini]

Of course not. How could you possibly fool yourself into believing it would be otherwise? Because the mullahs care about fairness?

Dictatorships don't need excuses to do what they want to do. All they need is ability.

Wait a second.
DO you think that it is fair for America to have nukes and, say, Mexico to have none?

[Ziggurat]

Wait a second.
DO you think that it is fair for America to have nukes and, say, Mexico to have none?

That question has no relationship to your previous question, or to my response to that question. Until you come to grips with my previous response (either conceeding the point or stating the basis on which you object to it), I'm not interested in changing the topic.

[Ion]

Forgive me my obtuse ignorance, but...

Isn't it a standard part of jobs of strategists and millitary folks to probe possible threats (even if theoretical) and make plans on how to act if the situation requires?

So, USA has a plan to bomb Iran. So what?...
The problem is that with Iraq, U.S. showed itself to have no credibility, but to be a Fascist power.

So the situation in Iran shouldn't be trusted to U.S..

The situation in Iran should be trusted to U.N. and I.E.A.E. (which ironically U.S. tried again to tamper with six months ago, shades of how U.S. manipulated data about Iraq).
The point is not if Iraq was or not a potential threat...

The point is if Iran is or not a threat. The way I see it, for USA interests,...
That's the problem: "...for USA interests..."...

[Matteo Martini]

That question has no relationship to your previous question, or to my response to that question. Until you come to grips with my previous response (either conceeding the point or stating the basis on which you object to it), I'm not interested in changing the topic.

It has relationship.
You are just stubbornly not even trying to address the topic from my point of view.

I wrote:

You mean..
If America ( and Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, .. ) had no nukes, this would do no good in dissuading them [ Iranians, and you can add all the other nations which are seeking nukes ] from having nukes?

You wrote:

Of course not. How could you possibly fool yourself into believing it would be otherwise? Because the mullahs care about fairness?

Dictatorships don't need excuses to do what they want to do. All they need is ability.

I replied:

Wait a second.
DO you think that it is fair for America to have nukes and, say, Mexico [ or Iran, or Venezuela ] to have none?

My point is pretty clear.
Why the US and Russia and China yes, and Iran, Mexico, Brazil, no?

[RandFan]

I speak for everyone outside the US and Israel if I say that no one wants another Iraq.Sure, you bet. Right, EVERYONE... sheesh.

I don't speak for everyone but I'm quite certain many people outside of the US don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

[Matteo Martini]

Sure, you bet. Right, EVERYONE... sheesh.

I don't speak for everyone but I'm quite certain many people outside of the US don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Agreed.
100%
Even at the cost of bombing Natanz.

[Ziggurat]

It has relationship.
You are just stubbornly not even trying to address the topic from my point of view.

No, Matteo. I "see" your point of view quite clearly. The problem is that your point of view doesn't actually have anything to do with whether or not Iran will actually get nukes.

My point is pretty clear.
Why the US and Russia and China yes, and Iran, Mexico, Brazil, no?

And I've given you an answer before. If all you want is a justification to wave around, all you need is the NPT: Iran, Mexico, and Brazil promised not to get nukes. If you're concerned about what actually motivates countries like Iran, then our posession of nukes is irrelevant. Iran's desire for nukes will not diminish in any way if we, or even all the nuclear powers, got rid of ours. That is the reality of the situation, and it is something your "point of view" still hasn't addressed in any way, shape or form.

[Oliver]

If Isreal have them, Iranians think, why not us?
And, they may not be 100% wrong..


Exactly. Either the western moral ideology is:

A. Same freedoms for all
B. More freedoms to us (I call this the Jamestown-Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States))

You can't have it both ways. Either being opposed to weapons of
Mass Destruction - or oppressing others for having them as well.
The latter one creates tensions - the first one reduces tensions.

And we don't even know if Iran has the intention to build nuclear
weapons. We just declare this to be true. (see Jamestown Fallacy)

If Bush wouldn't be the coward that he is - he would personally
visit Iran to at least try to settle the oppositions. But that would
make little nuclear Israel cry, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

In other words, Oliver, you have no problem with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Is that correct?

[RandFan]

You can't have it both ways. Either being opposed to weapons of Mass Destruction - or oppressing others for having them as well. The latter one creates tensions - the first one reduces tensions. Naive and simplistic. BS.

And we don't even know if Iran has the intention to build nuclear weapons. We just declare this to be true. (see Jamestown Fallacy)

Iran has vast oil reserves.
Other nations have offered to provide Iran the nuclear fuel with the promise that if the fuel is ever withheld Iran can make it themselves without outside interference.Why does Iran refuse nuclear fuel from the outside?

If Bush wouldn't be the coward that he is - he would personally visit Iran to at least try to settle the oppositions. But that would make little nuclear Israel cry, wouldn't it? :rolleyes::rolleyes: :confused: :eek: :eye-poppi :boggled:

If you weren't the weenie that you are you wouldn't engage in silly and spurious rhetoric.

[Oliver]

In other words, Oliver, you have no problem with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Is that correct?


Where did they do that? :confused:

[RandFan]

Where did they do that? :confused::rolleyes: :confused: :eek: :boggled: :eye-poppi :covereyes

The word "Acquiring" isn't a past tense in this context.

[Oliver]

:rolleyes: :confused: :eek: :boggled: :eye-poppi :covereyes

The word "Acquiring" isn't a past tense in this context.


So his question was nothing but Woo? :confused:

[Ziggurat]

Where did they do that? :confused:

Do you or do you not think it's OK for Iran to get nuclear weapons?

[Oliver]

Do you or do you not think it's OK for Iran to get nuclear weapons?


Yes, I think it would be fair to allow them the same rights as
Israel and the US has. Or are you trying to tell me that Israel
would be worried about Iran getting "wiped off the map"?

And no: Iran didn't publicly state to be interested in producing
nuclear weapons. So? paranoid Truther much?

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I think it would be fair to allow them the same rights as Israel and the US has.

That's what I thought. In effect, you consider democracies and dictatorships to be equivalent. Good to know.

You know, the obsession with fairness as the ultimate (and in your case apparently the only) virtue is something most people grow out of by age 14.

And no: Iran didn't publicly state to be interested in producing nuclear weapons. So? paranoid Truther much?

What stunning lack of logic you display, as well as dazzling historical ignorance. Why on earth would you expect a country engaged in a clandestine nuclear weapons program to announce their intention to build nuclear weapons? Are you honestly trying to say that a lack of any such statement indicates that they are not trying to build nukes? That would be quite absurd. Saddam never said publicly, prior to the first gulf war, that he was trying to get nuclear weapons. But we know that he was, he confessed to as much, and we confiscated much of the program. Libya, similarly, never announced their intentions in that regard either, until they decided to give up their program. Neither Pakistan nor India announced their intention to develop nuclear weapons at all, they merely demonstrated to the world that they had already done so.

Oh, and Israel? Not only have they never announced publicly that they have or intend to get nuclear weapons, they've never even tested them. If you want to play the super-skeptic game, on what grounds can you conclude that Israel even has nuclear weapons?

[Oliver]

That's what I thought. In effect, you consider democracies and dictatorships to be equivalent. Good to know.

You know, the obsession with fairness as the ultimate (and in your case apparently the only) virtue is something most people grow out of by age 14.

What stunning lack of logic you display, as well as dazzling historical ignorance. Why on earth would you expect a country engaged in a clandestine nuclear weapons program to announce their intention to build nuclear weapons? Are you honestly trying to say that a lack of any such statement indicates that they are not trying to build nukes? That would be quite absurd. Saddam never said publicly, prior to the first gulf war, that he was trying to get nuclear weapons. But we know that he was, he confessed to as much, and we confiscated much of the program. Libya, similarly, never announced their intentions in that regard either, until they decided to give up their program. Neither Pakistan nor India announced their intention to develop nuclear weapons at all, they merely demonstrated to the world that they had already done so.

Oh, and Israel? Not only have they never announced publicly that they have or intend to get nuclear weapons, they've never even tested them. If you want to play the super-skeptic game, on what grounds can you conclude that Israel even has nuclear weapons?


So what? We all know what happened to Saddams reactor, don't we?
So if Israel is paranoid again as a result of it's own politics, they surely
will destroy Iran's nuclear plant as well, won't they?

What the heck is this Americas problem?

It isn't. No matter how much Propaganda we hear...

[Matteo Martini]

And I've given you an answer before. If all you want is a justification to wave around, all you need is the NPT: Iran, Mexico, and Brazil promised not to get nukes. If you're concerned about what actually motivates countries like Iran, then our posession of nukes is irrelevant. Iran's desire for nukes will not diminish in any way if we, or even all the nuclear powers, got rid of ours. That is the reality of the situation, and it is something your "point of view" still hasn't addressed in any way, shape or form.

I have asked a precise question ( even underlined ).
You failed to address my point.
My point is pretty clear.
Why the US and Russia and China yes, and Iran, Mexico, Brazil, no?
I did not speak about the NPT.
I have asked:
Why some countries are allowed to have nukes and other do not?
My point is pretty clear.
I hope you, someday, will like to address my point

[Matteo Martini]

That's what I thought. In effect, you consider democracies and dictatorships to be equivalent. Good to know.


So, why is China ( a dictatorship ) allowed to own nuclear weapons, and Bush does not contest this right, while Iran ( not precisely a dictatorship ) is not allowed to hav nuclear power, even if they stated clearly they are not intentioned to get nukes?
I hope in a clear answer from your side, which addresses my point.

[Oliver]

So, why is China ( a dictatorship ) allowed to own nuclear weapons?


Ouch!!! :boxedin:

[Matteo Martini]

Ouch!!! :boxedin:

BTW
I do not agree that Iran should have nuclear capability..

[Ziggurat]

So, why is China ( a dictatorship ) allowed to own nuclear weapons, and Bush does not contest this right,

Two reasons, both of which should be obvious. First off, China already had nukes when the NPT was signed, and so is considered a nuclear power by that treaty. Iran, which is still bound by that treaty, was not a nuclear power when it signed on, and promised not to acquire nuclear weapons. You seem to consistently want to ignore this. There is an explicit legal framework, which Iran agreed to, which does not permit it to aquire nukes but does allow China to have nukes.

There's also a rather obvious and unavoidable practical issue involved. It's not possibly to prevent China from getting nukes, since they already have them. Preventing the acquisition of nukes is easier to do than removing nukes which already exist, as you should well know. And there's also the issue of what cost you're willing to bear to get what you want. Frankly, I would very much like it if China didn't have nukes. But I'm not willing to do what it would take to remove those nukes from China: namely, go to war with China, possibly resulting in the use of those nukes against American forces or our allies. The cost is simply too high. Practical considerations like that matter, Matteo.

while Iran ( not precisely a dictatorship ) is not allowed to hav nuclear power, even if they stated clearly they are not intentioned to get nukes?

I am at a loss as to why you keep refering to Iran's public pronouncements on the issue, as if that really revealed any information. They can state whatever the hell they like to, but they've been caught repeatedly lying about their nuclear program.

[Oliver]

BTW
I do not agree that Iran should have nuclear capability..


Neither do I - as long that no one has nuclear WMD's. But at the
same time, I see no good explanation why a country having them
can in any way say: "Nah, you not". That's a no-brainer.

And I doubt that Israel is willing to get rid of even ONE of their
nuclear warheads - while simultaneously whining about any middle-
eastern nuclear facilities because ...

Nuclear reactor = "WMD! ISRAELIHIROSHIMA! OMG! MUSHROOMCLOUDS! ENDOFISRAEL! OMG!!!"

[Pardalis]

*sigh*

[Ziggurat]

Why the US and Russia and China yes, and Iran, Mexico, Brazil, no?
I did not speak about the NPT.

The fact that you didn't speak about the NPT yourself is irrelevant. It's part of my answer to your question. You're apparently more clueless than I thought, because the connection should have been obvious. But since you need it spelled out for you, I will do so. Signing the NPT was voluntary. Countries which wanted nukes didn't have to sign on. And a few countries didn't - they were legally free to pursue nuclear weapons. But those who did sign as non-nuclear powers made a binding promise not to acquire nukes. That promise is what should prevent those countries from acquiring nukes. Funny how quickly you appeal to international law when you want to constrain American action, but how readily you not only abandon but in fact deny it in other cases.

[Oliver]

*sigh*


Why? Did you read the "Al Qaida strategy"-Thread?:

Poll: Al Qaida 9/11-Strategists Won (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86978) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86978) (http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86978) 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86978&page=2))
Oliver (11th July 2007)

[Ziggurat]

So what? We all know what happened to Saddams reactor, don't we?

Indeed we do. And so do the Iranians. Their nuclear program does not suffer the same single-point vulnerability that Saddam's early nuclear weapons effort suffered from. I fact, you reveal your ignorance yet again: even Saddam's subsequent efforts (experimenting with enrichment as well as with plutonium recovery from spent fuel rods) didn't suffer the same single-point vulnerability.

So if Israel is paranoid again as a result of it's own politics, they surely will destroy Iran's nuclear plant as well, won't they?

You've really got no clue, do you?

The Osiraq reactor was capable of turning unenriched uranium (U238) into plutonium, which can then be chemically separated to form the heart of a plutonium-based bomb. Iran is pursuing uranium enrichment capabilities, which will allow them to separate out U235 from U238. This will make it possible to acquire the necessary fissile material without the use of a nuclear reactor. Uranium enrichment facilities are not like reactors. They can be (and in Iran's case, they are) split among many different locations and burried deep underground, to prevent easy elimination by air. So no, it really isn't a sure thing at all that Israel can halt the whole thing whenever they want to.

[Oliver]

Indeed we do. And so do the Iranians. Their nuclear program does not suffer the same single-point vulnerability that Saddam's early nuclear weapons effort suffered from. I fact, you reveal your ignorance yet again: even Saddam's subsequent efforts (experimenting with enrichment as well as with plutonium recovery from spent fuel rods) didn't suffer the same single-point vulnerability.

You've really got no clue, do you?

The Osiraq reactor was capable of turning unenriched uranium (U238) into plutonium, which can then be chemically separated to form the heart of a plutonium-based bomb. Iran is pursuing uranium enrichment capabilities, which will allow them to separate out U235 from U238. This will make it possible to acquire the necessary fissile material without the use of a nuclear reactor. Uranium enrichment facilities are not like reactors. They can be (and in Iran's case, they are) split among many different locations and burried deep underground, to prevent easy elimination by air. So no, it really isn't a sure thing at all that Israel can halt the whole thing whenever they want to.


I have a clue - I understand your point - I understand Israels point.
But I don't understand the US-Point - and I also don't understand
how a country can have the cheekiness to say: "Our WMD's are
good - yours are bad".

So let me ask: Was it the right and wise way how Israel started off
with their plan to declare "independence" and the State of Israel in
the first place?

And why is Iran a threat to America - if Israel has nothing to do with
the US-Point of View?

Maybe you understand why I try to understand the Lobbies role in the
whole mess by now, don't you? - In your neutral Opinion...

[Matteo Martini]

The fact that you didn't speak about the NPT yourself is irrelevant. It's part of my answer to your question. You're apparently more clueless than I thought, because the connection should have been obvious. But since you need it spelled out for you, I will do so. Signing the NPT was voluntary. Countries which wanted nukes didn't have to sign on. And a few countries didn't - they were legally free to pursue nuclear weapons. But those who did sign as non-nuclear powers made a binding promise not to acquire nukes. That promise is what should prevent those countries from acquiring nukes.

You keep on talking about the NPT, when I keep intentionally avoinding talking about it.
Since it seems we can not have a discussion unless we talk about the NPT, please, I re-formulate my question as follows:
Why the NPT alloes some countries ( the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China ) to have nuclear weapons, but prevents others to have them?
If the above question is too difficult, I can re-rephrase it again:
Why some countries are allowed, under the NPT, to keep a ( big ) nuclear arsenal, while others are not?


Funny how quickly you appeal to international law when you want to constrain American action, but how readily you not only abandon but in fact deny it in other cases.

I do not want ( nor I can!! ) constrain American action.
In fact, I was speaking in general, I did not even mention America in my last posts..
Getting nervous??

[Oliver]

I do not want ( nor I can!! ) constrain American action.
In fact, I was speaking in general, I did not even mention America in my last posts..
Getting nervous??


You're an "America Hater", I guess. Get used to it. There is no other
way to describe your un-patriotic criticism towards US-Politics. :p

But kidding aside: What do you personally think about the presidential
debates in which candidates state that "Iran is an intolerable threat!" ?

Do you believe that?

[Ziggurat]

You keep on talking about the NPT, when I keep intentionally avoinding talking about it.

You can avoid talking about it all you want to, but it answers the question you kept asking, so don't get mad at me because you don't like the answer.

Why the NPT alloes some countries ( the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China ) to have nuclear weapons, but prevents others to have them?

Because those countries were already nuclear powers when the treaty was signed, and because there was a realization that while countries which didn't yet have nuclear weapons might agree not to aquire nuclear weapons in the future, those which had already acquired them were not going to give them up. It's as simple as that, and needs no further justification. Countries which did not have them but wanted to be able to get them had the option of not signing the treaty. And several countries took that option. Iran is not one of them. There is also a process by which countries can withdraw from the treaty, but Iran has not opted for that either (in contrast, North Korea has).

[Matteo Martini]

Two reasons, both of which should be obvious. First off, China already had nukes when the NPT was signed, and so is considered a nuclear power by that treaty.

Excellent.
Then your point is:
" if you have been quick enough to get nukes before the NPT was signed, it is OK to have nukes, if you have ben to slow, just your problem "
BTW
I read that the NPT also imposes a ( vague ) obligation on all NPT signatories to move in the general direction of nuclear and total disarmament.
Are Russia, America and China disarming?




Iran, which is still bound by that treaty, was not a nuclear power when it signed on, and promised not to acquire nuclear weapons. You seem to consistently want to ignore this. There is an explicit legal framework, which Iran agreed to, which does not permit it to aquire nukes but does allow China to have nukes.

I never denied that there is a legal framework.
But, as we have seen in many many examples, at UN level, not always legality = justice
I am talking about fairness here


There's also a rather obvious and unavoidable practical issue involved. It's not possibly to prevent China from getting nukes, since they already have them.

It is not possible to dismantle nukes?
Why?


Preventing the acquisition of nukes is easier to do than removing nukes which already exist, as you should well know.

I do not.
Why is dismantling nukes difficult?


And there's also the issue of what cost you're willing to bear to get what you want. Frankly, I would very much like it if China didn't have nukes. But I'm not willing to do what it would take to remove those nukes from China: namely, go to war with China, possibly resulting in the use of those nukes against American forces or our allies. The cost is simply too high. Practical considerations like that matter, Matteo.


I am not talking about this.
I never said that China should be forced to dismantle nuclear arsenal


I am at a loss as to why you keep refering to Iran's public pronouncements on the issue, as if that really revealed any information. They can state whatever the hell they like to, but they've been caught repeatedly lying about their nuclear program.

Only once, as far as I know.
And, not not under the current administration.

In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet with its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[25] After nearly two years of diplomatic efforts led by France, Germany and the UK, in September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement, not the NPT itself.

P.S.
As far as I know, el Baradei is well under pressure from Bush:

ElBaradei had strongly questioned the U.S. rationale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq from the time of the 2002 Iraq disarmament crisis, when he, along with Hans Blix, led a team of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, seeking evidence that Saddam Hussein had revived his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. used several diplomatic channels in an attempt to remove ElBaradei's from his position as IAEA director, but however despite months of extensive behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts, the U.S. was not able to identify a sufficient number of other countries willing to support ElBaradei's ouster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei

[Matteo Martini]

You can avoid talking about it all you want to, but it answers the question you kept asking, so don't get mad at me because you don't like the answer.


Replied below


Because those countries were already nuclear powers when the treaty was signed, and because there was a realization that while countries which didn't yet have nuclear weapons might agree not to aquire nuclear weapons in the future, those which had already acquired them were not going to give them up. It's as simple as that, and needs no further justification.

It does, as I do not think it is fair that, some countries should be allowed to keep their nukes, while others should not be allowed to develop their own.
BTW, one of the three pillars of the NPT is also disarmement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Second_pillar:_disarmament
Are China, Russia, England, US, France, .. disarming?


Countries which did not have them but wanted to be able to get them had the option of not signing the treaty. And several countries took that option. Iran is not one of them. There is also a process by which countries can withdraw from the treaty, but Iran has not opted for that either (in contrast, North Korea has).

So, would you be OK with Iran getting nukes, if tomorrow they withdraw from the NPT?

[Matteo Martini]

You're an "America Hater", I guess. Get used to it. There is no other
way to describe your un-patriotic criticism towards US-Politics. :p


I can not be un-patriotic in criticizing the US, as I am not American :)


But kidding aside: What do you personally think about the presidential
debates in which candidates state that "Iran is an intolerable threat!" ?

Do you believe that?

Yes.
I do believe Iran should not get nuclear capabilities, at this time.
But, they should be allowed to have in the future ( nuclear power, not nukes ) when they have become a real democracy, and a lot less religious fanatics than now.
My point was different, I was arguing why the big boys still have nukes, not why Iran does not.

[Matteo Martini]

Neither do I - as long that no one has nuclear WMD's. But at the
same time, I see no good explanation why a country having them
can in any way say: "Nah, you not". That's a no-brainer.

And I doubt that Israel is willing to get rid of even ONE of their
nuclear warheads - while simultaneously whining about any middle-
eastern nuclear facilities because ...

Nuclear reactor = "WMD! ISRAELIHIROSHIMA! OMG! MUSHROOMCLOUDS! ENDOFISRAEL! OMG!!!"

Well, I must say that I do not feel really unconfortable with Israel ( and the US, and France, and the UK ) having nukes, but I would, to say the least, if Iran gets them.
My point is that Israel having nukes has no use in deterring Iran ( for example ) acquiring their own, on the contrary, it could be useful for Iranian internal propaganda ( " look, the Jews have nukes, we have to get them too!! " )

[RandFan]

So his question was nothing but Woo? :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :eek: :eye-poppi :boggled: :covereyes

Since Iran is in the process of being able to enrich nuclear fuel it would be appropriate to say they are acquiring.

Your question simply didn't make sense. I wouldn't call it woo but be my guest.

[Ziggurat]

Excellent.
Then your point is:
" if you have been quick enough to get nukes before the NPT was signed, it is OK to have nukes, if you have ben to slow, just your problem "

"Just your problem"? No. It means that you can either sign the NPT as a non-nuclear power, or not sign it. Nobody was forced to sign the NPT.

BTW
I read that the NPT also imposes a ( vague ) obligation on all NPT signatories to move in the general direction of nuclear and total disarmament.
Are Russia, America and China disarming?

I don't know about China's arsenal, but both Russia and the US's arsenals are down considerably from their peaks.

I never denied that there is a legal framework.
But, as we have seen in many many examples, at UN level, not always legality = justice
I am talking about fairness here

Fairness and justice aren't the same thing either. It's "fair" if you are made as miserable as someone else is, but it's not justice.

It is not possible to dismantle nukes?

Maybe you need to look up the definition of the word "prevent", but dismantling nukes that already exist isn't the same thing as preventing nukes from existing in the first place.

I do not.
Why is dismantling nukes difficult?

It's very difficult to dismantle nukes owned by another country, because nukes are small and easy to hide, which essentially mean you can't do it without their consent unless you conquer them. Nuclear weapons programs however, are large, complex, require significant infrastructure support, and can be attacked without conquering the nation in question.

I never said that China should be forced to dismantle nuclear arsenal

If you're not willing to force a country to stop doing something, then there's absolutely no sense in which you can possibly say they should or should not be "allowed" to do it. There is no "allowed" unless you have the ability to deny. Therefore, the question of whether or not China should be allowed to have nukes is meaningless unless you're willing to talk about whether or not to force them. All you can talk about is whether or not you want them to.

Only once, as far as I know.
And, not not under the current administration.

The buck stops at Khatamei, not at Ahmadinejad.

As far as I know, el Baradei is well under pressure from Bush:

As well he should be. He's been doing a crappy job.

ElBaradei had strongly questioned the U.S. rationale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq

That's nice, but it's also beyond the scope of his job, so I have no idea why you think it's relevant here.

[Ziggurat]

It does, as I do not think it is fair that, some countries should be allowed to keep their nukes, while others should not be allowed to develop their own.

That only applies to countries which agreed not to get them. And why on earth is fairness (something that has never and probably will never really exist in international relationships) more important to you than questions of security and stability? The NPT wasn't intended to be fair, it was intended to try to keep nuclear war from breaking out. That to me is a far more preferable goal, but perhaps you don't feel the same way.

So, would you be OK with Iran getting nukes, if tomorrow they withdraw from the NPT?

Withdrawl requires notification ahead of time, so tomorrow doesn't work. Would I be OK with it? Well, they'd be legally entitled to withdraw from the treaty. But their withdrawl doesn't have to be consequence-free either. Sanctions, for example, are a perfectly acceptable response to a withdrawl from the NPT. Beyond that, it's no longer simply a legal question.

[Luciana]

It does, as I do not think it is fair that, some countries should be allowed to keep their nukes, while others should not be allowed to develop their own.


You're hardly alone in that belief. The truth of the matter is that the NPT creates two classes of "citizens": some that will have their nuclear plans closely inspected, and that might suffer international pressure, pestering and reprimands for dreaming of building a nuclear weapon and b) those who already have nukes, therefore are allowed a free reign, because for all practical purposes, who will pressure them into anything? And yes, the commitment to disarmament is entirely useless, and there are no regular inspections or goals to be met.

So it follows that the vast majority of the signers of the NPT kept their promises not to pursue the building of nuclear weapons; however, none of the 5 nations who already had nukes demonstrated a clear intent to decrease their arsenals to a lower point than 1968s, at least not that anyone could be sure about, as they keep their nukes as State secrets.

As usual, the law is optional to the powerful.

[Matteo Martini]

That only applies to countries which agreed not to get them. And why on earth is fairness (something that has never and probably will never really exist in international relationships) more important to you than questions of security and stability?

This question reveals a lot about your mentality


The NPT wasn't intended to be fair, it was intended to try to keep nuclear war from breaking out. That to me is a far more preferable goal, but perhaps you don't feel the same way.


What you do not get is, to prevent a nuclear war, you need the cooperation of many nations, which will cooperate, if they think that the cooperation is based on fairness.
Too difficult to get?


Withdrawl requires notification ahead of time, so tomorrow doesn't work.

Pedantic.
Tomorrow was not to be intended literally


Would I be OK with it? Well, they'd be legally entitled to withdraw from the treaty. But their withdrawl doesn't have to be consequence-free either. Sanctions, for example, are a perfectly acceptable response to a withdrawl from the NPT. Beyond that, it's no longer simply a legal question.

So, why Iran has to face sanctions if they are still abiding to the NPT and do not have nules, while India is a big friend of the US, and has no sanctions, even if they did not sign the NPT and have nukes?

[Matteo Martini]

You're hardly alone in that belief.

Oh Luciana, what a pleasure!!
We had a discussion together about 2 years ago..


The truth of the matter is that the NPT creates two classes of "citizens": some that will have their nuclear plans closely inspected, and that might suffer international pressure, pestering and reprimands for dreaming of building a nuclear weapon and b) those who already have nukes, therefore are allowed a free reign, because for all practical purposes, who will pressure them into anything? And yes, the commitment to disarmament is entirely useless, and there are no regular inspections or goals to be met.


Agreed.


So it follows that the vast majority of the signers of the NPT kept their promises not to pursue the building of nuclear weapons; however, none of the 5 nations who already had nukes demonstrated a clear intent to decrease their arsenals to a lower point than 1968s, at least not that anyone could be sure about, as they keep their nukes as State secrets.


Agreed.


As usual, the law is optional to the powerful.

Dramatically close to the truth.

[Matteo Martini]

"Just your problem"? No. It means that you can either sign the NPT as a non-nuclear power, or not sign it. Nobody was forced to sign the NPT.


Almost.
You can face sanctions if you do not.


I don't know about China's arsenal, but both Russia and the US's arsenals are down considerably from their peaks.


???????????????????????????????????

Country Warheads active/total* Year of first test
Five nuclear weapons states from the NPT
United States 5,735 / 9,960[3] 1945 ("Trinity")
Soviet Union (now Russia) 5,830 / 16,000[4] 1949 ("RDS-1")
United Kingdom 200[5] 1952 ("Hurricane")
France 350[6] 1960 ("Gerboise Bleue")
China 130[7] 1964 ("596")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

What was their arsenal during the peak, I am worried to ask..



Fairness and justice aren't the same thing either. It's "fair" if you are made as miserable as someone else is, but it's not justice.


Yawn..


Maybe you need to look up the definition of the word "prevent", but dismantling nukes that already exist isn't the same thing as preventing nukes from existing in the first place.


Not my question.
I wrote:
" It is not possible to dismantle nukes? "


It's very difficult to dismantle nukes owned by another country, because nukes are small and easy to hide, which essentially mean you can't do it without their consent unless you conquer them. Nuclear weapons programs however, are large, complex, require significant infrastructure support, and can be attacked without conquering the nation in question.


Really?
Looks like an excuse, to me.


If you're not willing to force a country to stop doing something, then there's absolutely no sense in which you can possibly say they should or should not be "allowed" to do it. There is no "allowed" unless you have the ability to deny. Therefore, the question of whether or not China should be allowed to have nukes is meaningless unless you're willing to talk about whether or not to force them. All you can talk about is whether or not you want them to.


Completely missing my point.
I was speaking about a voluntary agreement between the few countries which have nukes, to dismantle them.


The buck stops at Khatamei, not at Ahmadinejad.


Debatable.


As well he should be. He's been doing a crappy job.


As he is not serving well America` s interests?


That's nice, but it's also beyond the scope of his job, so I have no idea why you think it's relevant here.

Just to point out that he was " pushed " by Bush, as also Kofi Annan was.

[Ziggurat]

This question reveals a lot about your mentality

Indeed. It indicates I'm no longer a spoiled little child who cannot accept the limitations of reality. Even your concept of what constitutes fairness is juvenile. Why on earth does fairness require treating dictatorships and democracies the same?

What you do not get is, to prevent a nuclear war, you need the cooperation of many nations,

Not really. It wasn't cooperation but self-interest which prevented the US and the USSR from engaging in nuclear war.

which will cooperate, if they think that the cooperation is based on fairness.
Too difficult to get?

Damn, are you clueless. Iran is our enemy. They chose that role. And as long as they are our enemy, fairness is never going to be relevant to whether or not they cooperate.

So, why Iran has to face sanctions if they are still abiding to the NPT

They have violated IAEA rules. That is grounds for sanctions, regardless of whether or not they get nuclear weapons.

while India is a big friend of the US, and has no sanctions, even if they did not sign the NPT and have nukes?

We had the option of imposing sanctions in response to either situation. So, too, does Germany, Japan, Italy, France, etc. That we choose not to do what we could have done in this case depended upon the particular circumstances. Our friendliness with India and enmity with Iran is hardly the only feature which differentiates them.

[Ziggurat]

Almost.
You can face sanctions if you do not.

You can. But Pakistan and India did just fine abstaining.

Not my question.
I wrote:
" It is not possible to dismantle nukes? "

Yes, but you wrote that in response to me saying it wasn't possible to prevent China from getting nukes. Again, don't blame me for your writing problems.

Really?
Looks like an excuse, to me.

And yet, strangely, you didn't contest a single point I made there.

I was speaking about a voluntary agreement between the few countries which have nukes, to dismantle them.

As already pointed out to you, there is absolutely no reason China would ever agree to do that, which makes that a completely useless hypothetical. Furthermore, as already stated and what should be obvious, our own disarmament would not reduce the incentive for non-nuclear powers to obtain nuclear weapons. In fact, it would increase the incentive. Until the disarmament crowd comes to grip with that reality and figures out how to deal with it (which they haven't, since they won't even acknowledge it), then it will only make things worse if they get their way. It may be an unintended consequence, but it's still what the consequence would be.

Debatable.

By people who have no clue about how Iran's government works, sure.

As he is not serving well America` s interests?

No, as he's doing a terrible job at ensuring compliance with IAEA regulations.

[Matteo Martini]

Indeed. It indicates I'm no longer a spoiled little child who cannot accept the limitations of reality. Even your concept of what constitutes fairness is juvenile.

Is hoping for a nuke-free world " childish "?


Why on earth does fairness require treating dictatorships and democracies the same?


For the 100th time.
Is China a democracy?


Not really. It wasn't cooperation but self-interest which prevented the US and the USSR from engaging in nuclear war.


That worked out as the nations involved were only two.


Damn, are you clueless. Iran is our enemy. They chose that role.

They declared unilaterally war to the US?
When?
Also, we were not speaking about Iran only, you were taling about " how to prevent a nuclear war ".
Not only Iran is the problem..


And as long as they are our enemy, fairness is never going to be relevant to whether or not they cooperate.


There is no war between the US and Iran, AFAIK


They have violated IAEA rules. That is grounds for sanctions, regardless of whether or not they get nuclear weapons.


But not the NPT.
Also, they get inspected continuously.
Why are not the US and Russia inspected by the IAEA?


We had the option of imposing sanctions in response to either situation. So, too, does Germany, Japan, Italy, France, etc.

So, why you did not impose sanctions on India?


That we choose not to do what we could have done in this case depended upon the particular circumstances. Our friendliness with India and enmity with Iran is hardly the only feature which differentiates them.

Be more specific..

[Matteo Martini]

You can. But Pakistan and India did just fine abstaining.


Why?
Does it have anything to do with their ( at least, India ) being friends of the US?


Yes, but you wrote that in response to me saying it wasn't possible to prevent China from getting nukes. Again, don't blame me for your writing problems.


Playing with words.
You wrote it is not possible to prevent China from getting nukes.
I said, OK, but, nukes can also be dismantled.


And yet, strangely, you didn't contest a single point I made there.


You claimed:
" It's very difficult to dismantle nukes owned by another country, because nukes are small and easy to hide, which essentially mean you can't do it without their consent unless you conquer them. "
I contest this point.
I ask for evidence.


As already pointed out to you, there is absolutely no reason China would ever agree to do that, which makes that a completely useless hypothetical.

Did you ask them?


Furthermore, as already stated and what should be obvious, our own disarmament would not reduce the incentive for non-nuclear powers to obtain nuclear weapons.

Evidence?
Is that only your unsupported opinion or what?


In fact, it would increase the incentive. Until the disarmament crowd comes to grip with that reality and figures out how to deal with it (which they haven't, since they won't even acknowledge it), then it will only make things worse if they get their way. It may be an unintended consequence, but it's still what the consequence would be.


Evidence for this claims?
Are these opinions?


By people who have no clue about how Iran's government works, sure.


Yawn..


No, as he's doing a terrible job at ensuring compliance with IAEA regulations.

Who said that?
Please, quote this.

[RandFan]

Not offered as proof of anything but some inteligent opinions about Iran that bring a fresh air to the discussion.

3LvLmyeOjTQ

[Oliver]

Yes.
I do believe Iran should not get nuclear capabilities, at this time.
But, they should be allowed to have in the future ( nuclear power, not nukes ) when they have become a real democracy, and a lot less religious fanatics than now.
My point was different, I was arguing why the big boys still have nukes, not why Iran does not.


But how do you know that they are planning to have nuclear
weapons? And what if all sides would agree that they are allowed
to have nuclear power as long UN-inspectors are able to have
access to their nuclear facilities?

Do you know what happened to Iraq's nuclear plant? :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak
YHr5FuBdo-g

[RandFan]

But how do you know that they are planning to have nuclear weapons? You are (a) dishonest or (b) not reading what others are writing (c) not capable of figuring out what is being said.

One more time.

Iran is setting on large resources of energy they are in no real need of nuclear energy.
Other nations have offered to provide Iran nuclear fuel for their power plants.
There is no reason for Iran to refuse this offer.
Unless they want to make nuclear weapons.So, go ahead and ignore the evidence, again.

[Ion]

Oliver,

you are speaking not only for most outside U.S., but you are speaking also for people like me in U.S..

[RandFan]

Oliver,

you are speaking not only for most outside U.S., but you are speaking also for people like me in U.S..

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."

Welcome to the jungle Ion.

BTW, aren't you glad that I'm one of the few that doesn't have you on ignore?

[Correa Neto]

The problem is that with Iraq, U.S. showed itself to have no credibility, but to be a Fascist power.

So the situation in Iran shouldn't be trusted to U.S..

The situation in Iran should be trusted to U.N. and I.E.A.E. (which ironically U.S. tried again to tamper with six months ago, shades of how U.S. manipulated data about Iraq).

That's the problem: "...for USA interests..."...
In case you haven't noticed, I am merely arguing that the "OMG, USA has plans to bom Iran" line is... Well, a storm in a botlle of water.

Its not a symptom of fascism or any other "isms".

As for having nukes or not... Well, there is the possibility of a nuke from Iranian or [add country suspect of being involved with terrorist group here] being handled to someone who could smuggle and detonate it in to a Western city. If the weapons were to be used for millitary purposes only (hopefully deterrence), even thought I try, I can't find a reasonable argument against it.

For example, if a South American country gets a nuke, its not unreasonable that we in Brazil would also want to have some (specially if its government is potentially hostile), just in case.

Sad, yes, but that's how things are. I would love to see a world without nukes, but it is as unrealistic as a world without armies...

[RandFan]

In case you haven't noticed, I am merely arguing that the "OMG, USA has plans to bom Iran" line is... Well, a storm in a botlle of water.

Its not a symptom of fascism or any other "isms".

As for having nukes or not... Well, there is the possibility of a nuke from Iranian or [add country suspect of being involved with terrorist group here] being handled to someone who could smuggle and detonate it in to a Western city. If the weapons were to be used for millitary purposes only (hopefully deterrence), even thought I try, I can't find a reasonable argument against it.

For example, if a South American country gets a nuke, its not unreasonable that we in Brazil would also want to have some (specially if its government is potentially hostile), just in case.

Sad, yes, but that's how things are. I would love to see a world without nukes, but it is as unrealistic as a world without armies...In case you hadn't noticed, Ion doesn't care. His hatred for America, his ego and his iron clad certainty that his world view is the only correct one are the only things he cares about.

[Correa Neto]

You are (a) dishonest or (b) not reading what others are writing (c) not capable of figuring out what is being said.

One more time.

Iran is setting on large resources of energy they are in no real need of nuclear energy.
Other nations have offered to provide Iran nuclear fuel for their power plants.
There is no reason for Iran to refuse this offer.
Unless they want to make nuclear weapons.So, go ahead and ignore the evidence, again.
Here's when I start annoying people at my left and at my right...
Right now Iran has no need for "nucular" power. But oilfields won't last forever. The sooner a country develops its own indigenous energy generation technologies, the better it will be for it. Otherwise, it will need to buy power plants or energy from someone else at a great price.

But the other reasons you provided are pieces of evidence that something other than just an investiment in a technology for generation of electricity via nuclear power plants may be going on.

[RandFan]

Here's when I start annoying people at my left and at my right...
Right now Iran has no need for "nucular" power. But oilfields won't last forever. The sooner a country develops its own indigenous energy generation technologies, the better it will be for it. Otherwise, it will need to buy power plants or energy from someone else at a great price.

But the other reasons you provided are pieces of evidence that something other than just an investiment in a technology for generation of electricity via nuclear power plants may be going on.My veiws are not sacred. Please feel free to question any or all of my premises. If Oliver would simply demonstrate an ability to even acknowledge an argument I wouldn't get on his case.

All I can say Correa is, thanks. You have a valid point.

[Matteo Martini]

Right now Iran has no need for "nucular" power.

I have read some where that Iran imports 40% of its gasoline ( link: http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/pegah-is-free/#comment-70429 ).
I do not know how this could be possible, though..

[RandFan]

I have read some where that Iran imports 40% of its gasoline ( link: http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/pegah-is-free/#comment-70429 ).
I do not know how this could be possible, though.. Iran's refinery infrastructure and capacity has been falling for some time. No new refineries have come on line for decades. Iran exports oil and imports gas. I'm not quite sure why this is.

[Matteo Martini]

But how do you know that they are planning to have nuclear
weapons? And what if all sides would agree that they are allowed
to have nuclear power as long UN-inspectors are able to have
access to their nuclear facilities?



No leader who says in public that another nation should be " wiped off the map ", should be allowed to have nukes.

[Matteo Martini]

Iran is setting on large resources of energy they are in no real need of nuclear energy.

This may not be 100% true.

Energy : Iran needs nuclear power

Second, Iran's present electrical requirements are far larger than had been predicted. With an annual growth of 6 percent to 8 percent in demand for electricity and a population estimated to reach 100 million by 2025, Iran cannot possibly rely exclusively on oil and gas. The aging oil industry, denied substantial foreign investment largely because of American sanctions, has not been able even to reach the pre-revolution production level of 5.5 million barrels per day. Of Iran's 60 major oil fields, 57 need major repairs, upgrading and repressurizing, which would require $40 billion over 15 years. Iran's current production level of 3.5 million barrels per day is increasingly geared toward domestic consumption, which has grown by more than 280 percent since 1979. If this trend continues, Iran will become a net oil importer by 2010, a catastrophe for a country that relies on oil for 80 percent of its foreign currency and 45 percent of its annual budget

http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/10/14/edsahimi_ed3_.php

[Matteo Martini]

Iran's refinery infrastructure and capacity has been falling for some time. No new refineries have come on line for decades. Iran exports oil and imports gas. I'm not quite sure why this is.

American ( and European ) sanctions?

[RandFan]

American ( and European ) sanctions?That was my guess but I really don't know.

[Correa Neto]

Foreign sanctions, poor management policies, market reasons, etc. Or maybe all the above.

Its not uncommon for third-world nations to export raw materials such as iron ore and import goods such as steel or cars made with them...

[Matteo Martini]

Anyway, then we see that, after all, Iran may have some good reason to pursue a nuclear program..

[Correa Neto]

For electrical power generation?

Yes. Every single country has.

Nuclear generators to power ships and subs?
A much more complex subject, but I think every single country, in principle, has the right.

But a nuclear warhead program is a completely different situation. When there is the danger of a device being used in a non-millitary situation, the answer is no.

[Matteo Martini]

For electrical power generation?

Yes. Every single country has.

Nuclear generators to power ships and subs?
A much more complex subject, but I think every single country, in principle, has the right.

But a nuclear warhead program is a completely different situation. When there is the danger of a device being used in a non-millitary situation, the answer is no.

They claim they want nuclear power for electric power generation.

[Correa Neto]

Do you feel this is enough?

[Ziggurat]

Is hoping for a nuke-free world " childish "?

No. What's childish is to not recognize the real-world constraints under which we opperate which prevent that from happening.

For the 100th time.
Is China a democracy?

Of course not. That has never been in dispute, and I've already talked about the issue of China and nuclear weapons. You are adding nothing to the diuscussion, and have not addressed the points I raised in regards to China last time I talked about it, so why are you bringing it up again? You tell me how to get China to disarm, and we'll talk. Otherwise, you've got no point.

That worked out as the nations involved were only two.

That's not true, there were several nuclear powers during the cold war, even if divided into essentially two camps. But in any case, this is why it's important to limit nuclear weapons from spreading to other countries: we CANNOT depend on cooperation to prevent nuclear war, we can ONLY depend upon self-interest (the only motive which has ever been reliable in predicting a nation's actions), and those calculations and balances become exponentially harder the more players enter the game. Once again, fairness is not what we should be aiming for. Fairness can get us all killed.

They declared unilaterally war to the US?
When?

Did I say war? No, I said enmity. War requires enmity, but enmity does not require war. Do not attribute to me a position I did not express. But in case you're curious, their enmity with us started in 1979.

There is no war between the US and Iran, AFAIK

I never said there was.

But not the NPT.

No, actually, we don't know that. We don't have clear-cut evidence of a violation of the NPT yet, only IAEA regulations. But IAEA regulations are there to try to prevent violations of the NPT. It is reasonable to suspect that the reason for IAEA regulation violations is so that they will be able to violate the NPT by getting nuclear weapons.

Also, they get inspected continuously.

Under certain definitions of "continuously".

Why are not the US and Russia inspected by the IAEA?

Oh, but they are. The IAEA does not monitor our actual nuclear weapons programs (what would be the point? To ensure that we haven't disarmed in secret?), but they DO monitor our civilian nuclear industry.

Be more specific..

One is an enemy dictatorship and one is an allied democracy. I consider those differences to be rather significant, and warranting of different treatment by the US.

You claimed:
" It's very difficult to dismantle nukes owned by another country, because nukes are small and easy to hide, which essentially mean you can't do it without their consent unless you conquer them. "
I contest this point.
I ask for evidence.

A nuclear weapon can fit inside a van. They aren't big, they can be dispersed, and you can put them just about anywhere you want. A nuclear weapons program, by contrast, cannot be so hidden.

Did you ask them?

Of course not - just as you haven't asked China if they would. I don't need to. All I need to do is consider what their interests are. China considers itself as a potential enemy of the United States. It is militarily weak compared to the US, and so would lose badly in any war it fought with us. Their defensive strategy relies largely on making war costly enough that we would not ever choose to go to war with them, even knowing we would win. The only way to do that right now is with nuclear weapons. That is their only method for getting anything close to military parity with us. Our relative superiority in conventional military power is so overwhelming that they would be at a GREATER disadvantage if both China and the US were to give up nuclear weapons. So why on earth would they EVER give them up? Because they're nice? Don't make me laugh.

Evidence?
Is that only your unsupported opinion or what?

No, it's an obvious consequence of self-interest and power. Relative power matters. Aqcuiring nukes would create far more relative power for a small country if we had no nuclear arsenal than if we maintain the one we have. Therefore the incentive to get them goes up if we disarm. It's simple game-theory analysis. I note that why you seem incredulous about this simple statement, you don't actually have any counter-argument for why it's wrong.

[Ziggurat]

They claim they want nuclear power for electric power generation.

In which case, why not let Russia handle the fuel processing for them? That offer has been extended to Iran, but refused.

[Ion]

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."

Welcome to the jungle Ion.

BTW, aren't you glad that I'm one of the few that doesn't have you on ignore?
Alan Greenspan, a five time chairman of Federal Reserve, is quoted from his new book in today's The San Diego Union Tribune that the ...war in Iraq is primarily for oil....

So you supported the war in Iraq which was for oil, flip flop, and lecture me about righteousness...

Hypocrisy at work.

[Ion]

In case you haven't noticed, I am merely arguing that the "OMG, USA has plans to bom Iran" line is... Well, a storm in a botlle of water.

Its not a symptom of fascism or any other "isms".
...

With the history of U.S., U.S. should be banned from earth for a number of years.

It is reported that the 2012 Olympic Games were awarded to London and Paris was a runner up, while New York finished last, exactly because of this history that U.S. carries in the world.

[RandFan]

Alan Greenspan, a five time chairman of Federal Reserve, is quoted from his new book in today's The San Diego Union Tribune that the ...war in Iraq is primarily for oil....

So you supported the war in Iraq which was for oil, flip flop, and lecture me about righteousness...

Hypocrisy at work.Greenspan is certainly entitled to an opinion. Of course, isn't he an American and an idiot like all the rest?

So, you never answered the question, why am I one of the only ones that will respond to you? Do you ever wonder why so many have you on ignore?

[Ion]

Greenspan is certainly entitled to an opinion. Of course, isn't he an American and an idiot like all the rest?

So, you never answered the question, why am I one of the only ones that will respond to you? Do you ever wonder why so many have you on ignore?
Greenspan has a front sit to see Bush's drive for war.

As for you responding to me, you are the only right winger chickenhawk left here with teeth.

I will pull them out:

to me, a good right winger is a right winger who bows to left wingers.

[Darth Rotor]

Greenspan has a front sit to see Bush's drive for war.
Oh, was he a cabinet officer?
to me, a good right winger is a right winger who bows to left wingers.[/QUOTE]
No such thing. Thanks for playing, and please, clean up after your public, mental masturbation. You are making a mess of the place.

DR

[RandFan]

Greenspan has a front sit to see Bush's drive for war.

As for you responding to me, you are the only right winger chickenhawk left here with teeth.

I will pull them out:

to me, a good right winger is a right winger who bows to left wingers.

I'm currently campaigning for Obama.
I'm for gay rights including the right to marry (many Democrats are opposed).
I'm for the legalization of marijuana and the end of the drug war.
I'm for the legalization of prostitution.
I'm for the increase in minimum wage.
I support national health care.
I support a womans right to choose.
I'm for the separation of church and state.
I think religion is bunk (there is no god).If that makes me a right winger then I guess that I'm a right winger.

[Matteo Martini]

I'm currently campaigning for Obama.
I'm for gay rights including the right to marry (many Democrats are opposed).
I'm for the legalization of marijuana and the end of the drug war.
I'm for the legalization of prostitution.
I'm for the increase in minimum wage.
I support national health care.
I support a womans right to choose.
I'm for the separation of church and state.
I think religion is bunk (there is no god).


Agreed, let` s say, 85%-90%..

[Matteo Martini]

In which case, why not let Russia handle the fuel processing for them? That offer has been extended to Iran, but refused.

They said that the proposal of letting Russia handle the uranium enrichness process was not detailed and not specified at all.
This was news about 1 year ago, and I am going by memory

[Matteo Martini]

No. What's childish is to not recognize the real-world constraints under which we opperate which prevent that from happening.


Which is the constraint that prevents George W. ( as well as Putin ), to go in front of the UN and say " we are in favour of making a plan for all countries for getting rid of nukes "?


Of course not. That has never been in dispute, and I've already talked about the issue of China and nuclear weapons. You are adding nothing to the diuscussion, and have not addressed the points I raised in regards to China last time I talked about it, so why are you bringing it up again? You tell me how to get China to disarm, and we'll talk. Otherwise, you've got no point.


You were asking:
Why on earth does fairness require treating dictatorships ( Iran ) and democracies ( the US, .. )the same?
I pointed out that China is a dictatorship too


That's not true, there were several nuclear powers during the cold war, even if divided into essentially two camps.


You did not speak about Cold War.
You wrote:
" Not really. It wasn't cooperation but self-interest which prevented the US and the USSR from engaging in nuclear war. "
I replied:
" That worked out as the nations involved were only two "


But in any case, this is why it's important to limit nuclear weapons from spreading to other countries: we CANNOT depend on cooperation to prevent nuclear war, we can ONLY depend upon self-interest (the only motive which has ever been reliable in predicting a nation's actions), and those calculations and balances become exponentially harder the more players enter the game. Once again, fairness is not what we should be aiming for. Fairness can get us all killed.


So, how does self-interest prevent 200 countries in the world from acquiring nukes?


Did I say war? No, I said enmity. War requires enmity, but enmity does not require war. Do not attribute to me a position I did not express. But in case you're curious, their enmity with us started in 1979.


You wrote that Iran chose the role of enemy.
That is disputable.
1979 is about 30 years ago.
Quite a long time to remember a bad fact, uh?
Ahmadinejad was 23 at that time..


I never said there was.


You are right.
But you wrote:
" And as long as they are our enemy, fairness is never going to be relevant to whether or not they cooperate. "
You need fairness to have Russia, India and China to cooperate with you to isolate Iran


No, actually, we don't know that. We don't have clear-cut evidence of a violation of the NPT yet, only IAEA regulations. But IAEA regulations are there to try to prevent violations of the NPT. It is reasonable to suspect that the reason for IAEA regulation violations is so that they will be able to violate the NPT by getting nuclear weapons.


So, you are making a lot of assumptions, they are violating the IAEA regulations, in order to later violate the NPT.
What about the US and Russia?
Do they allow inspections by the IAEA in their arsenals?


Under certain definitions of "continuously".


..


Oh, but they are. The IAEA does not monitor our actual nuclear weapons programs (what would be the point? To ensure that we haven't disarmed in secret?), but they DO monitor our civilian nuclear industry.


So, the IAEA is not monitoring your nuclear weapons program, but, is monitoring continuously the Iranian civil program in order to be 100% sure that they do not do what you have already done, acquire nukes, and, even in this situation, you are not happy


One is an enemy dictatorship and one is an allied democracy. I consider those differences to be rather significant, and warranting of different treatment by the US.


The allied democracy did not sign the NPT and has nukes
The enemy dictatorship signed the NPT and has no nukes.
Being friends or not to the US matters..


A nuclear weapon can fit inside a van. They aren't big, they can be dispersed, and you can put them just about anywhere you want. A nuclear weapons program, by contrast, cannot be so hidden.


What about missiles, can they be hidden too?


Of course not - just as you haven't asked China if they would. I don't need to. All I need to do is consider what their interests are. China considers itself as a potential enemy of the United States.

WHAAAAAATTTTTTTT?


It is militarily weak compared to the US, and so would lose badly in any war it fought with us. Their defensive strategy relies largely on making war costly enough that we would not ever choose to go to war with them, even knowing we would win. The only way to do that right now is with nuclear weapons. That is their only method for getting anything close to military parity with us. Our relative superiority in conventional military power is so overwhelming that they would be at a GREATER disadvantage if both China and the US were to give up nuclear weapons. So why on earth would they EVER give them up? Because they're nice? Don't make me laugh.


So, since you have done by your self in your room this mental tirade, you do not know know anything about the Chinese` s intentions..


No, it's an obvious consequence of self-interest and power. Relative power matters. Aqcuiring nukes would create far more relative power for a small country if we had no nuclear arsenal than if we maintain the one we have. Therefore the incentive to get them goes up if we disarm. It's simple game-theory analysis. I note that why you seem incredulous about this simple statement, you don't actually have any counter-argument for why it's wrong.

I beg you to note, that mental trips can not be a substitute of evidence..

[Oliver]

The latest news about "kicking Iran's ass":

Russia 'worried' by Iran war risk (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7000549.stm)

Iran scorns French warning of war (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6998602.stm) - 16h 4m ago
France warning of war with Iran (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6997935.stm) - 1d ago News - Middle East - French foreign minister in Iran (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_155000/155795.stm)

News - Middle East - In quotes: Reaction to Iran sanctions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6206777.stm)

[Matteo Martini]

Russia 'worried' by Iran war risk

Not only Russia..

China also condemned Kouchner's weekend remarks.

"We believe the best option is to peacefully resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations, which is in the common interests of the international community," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said at a briefing.

"We do not approve of easily resorting to threatening use of force in international affairs," Jiang said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1877362220070918?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=2

[NoZed Avenger]

If Russia and China hadn't worked so hard to water down economic sanctions, delay UN action, and actively work against those sanctions in place (re: Russia sending banned items to Iran for its nuclear program), then maybe diplomacy would have a better chance of actually working.

They really need to be lecturing themselves at this point.

[Oliver]

Not only Russia..

China also condemned Kouchner's weekend remarks.

"We believe the best option is to peacefully resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations, which is in the common interests of the international community," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said at a briefing.

"We do not approve of easily resorting to threatening use of force in international affairs," Jiang said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1877362220070918?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=2

If Russia and China hadn't worked so hard to water down economic sanctions, delay UN action, and actively work against those sanctions in place (re: Russia sending banned items to Iran for its nuclear program), then maybe diplomacy would have a better chance of actually working.

They really need to be lecturing themselves at this point.


Sorry, but whatever China or France says - it's the current White House
that is going after Iran without actually going to Iran. That's not even
dishonest in terms of diplomacy - I call it straightway cowardice and
biased according to what I heard so far in terms of contradicting
diplomatic efforts.

Added:

b9T-XzeFuYk
Jc1fU2iAvgs
se5ClwnyCzw

[Correa Neto]

With the history of U.S., U.S. should be banned from earth for a number of years.

...snip...
Oh, great... You know, I could write
With the history of [add country name here], [add country name here] should be banned from earth for a number of years.

Not much countries would be left in the world after this "rapture"...

[Ziggurat]

Which is the constraint that prevents George W. ( as well as Putin ), to go in front of the UN and say " we are in favour of making a plan for all countries for getting rid of nukes "?

Congress, obviously. He could say that, but without Congress backing him up, he couldn't actually disarm, and nobody would believe him anyways. But in any case, why the hell should he do that? It's a futile, useless gesture, since other nuclear powers are not going to give up their nukes even if we give up ours. I have no idea why you're attracted to this sort of empty posturing, but I prefer to do without it.

You did not speak about Cold War.
You wrote:
" Not really. It wasn't cooperation but self-interest which prevented the US and the USSR from engaging in nuclear war. "

What the hell do you think relations between the US and the USSR, particularly the nuclear standoff, was called? That WAS the cold war. The fact that I didn't say the name doesn't change anything.

So, how does self-interest prevent 200 countries in the world from acquiring nukes?

Good question. And it's not the same answer for every country. But I can tell you one thing that ISN'T the answer: fairness. Fairness has got nothing to do with it. The NPT wasn't fair from the beginning, and countries still signed on. And for the most part, they abided by it too.

You wrote that Iran chose the role of enemy.
That is disputable.

Not if you've been paying attention. "Death to America" is not the chant of a country indifferent to us.


You are right.
But you wrote:
" And as long as they are our enemy, fairness is never going to be relevant to whether or not they cooperate. "
You need fairness to have Russia, India and China to cooperate with you to isolate Iran

No, you most certainly DON'T need fairness. The three countries you mention are already nuclear powers. The unfairness of the NPT is a benefit to them, not a hindrance. The LAST thing they're interested in is fairness. What we need to get their cooperation is an alignment of their self-interest with ours. And fairness plays no role in that. If something is fair but detrimental to their interests, they will oppose it. If it is unfair but in their interests, they will support it.

What about the US and Russia?
Do they allow inspections by the IAEA in their arsenals?

Like I already said, what would be the point? To make sure we haven't disarmed in secret?

So, the IAEA is not monitoring your nuclear weapons program, but, is monitoring continuously the Iranian civil program in order to be 100% sure that they do not do what you have already done, acquire nukes, and, even in this situation, you are not happy

Oh, but they aren't 100% sure, and in fact they cannot be 100% sure. Are you aware that the IAEA has never, in its entire history, discovered a clandestine nuclear weapons program? Never. And it's not because none have ever existed. Before the first gulf war, the IAEA gave Saddam a clean bill of health. It wasn't until after the war that we discovered his nuke program, which was pretty advanced. Likewise the IAEA was saying only a few years ago that Libya didn't have a nuclear weapons program either, but they admitted to it after having a shipment of parts seized. So yes, when Iran violates IAEA rules, damned straight I'm not happy. Why are you?

The allied democracy did not sign the NPT and has nukes
The enemy dictatorship signed the NPT and has no nukes.
Being friends or not to the US matters..

Of course it matters in how we treat them. Why on earth wouldn't it? What country on earth doesn't treat allies better than enemies? And being a democracy or not matters quite a bit too.

What about missiles, can they be hidden too?

Missiles are larger, it's harder to hide them, but it can be and has been done (or do you forget your military history?). The mobility is as much a critical part as the size, and a uranium enrichment facility or a nuclear reactor for plutonium production are not mobile objects.

WHAAAAAATTTTTTTT?

Feign outrage all you want to, but notably absent from your response is any argument. China is a potential enemy of the US - not an actual enemy at the moment, but most definitely a potential one. They know that, we know that, the whole bloody world knows that. Hopefully we will not be, but China and the US are both preparing for the possibility. Military expenditures as well as training exercises by both countries make that quite plain.

I beg you to note, that mental trips can not be a substitute of evidence..

That's funny, since you've presented absolutely no evidence for why fairness matters at all in the decision-making process of China. Hell, you haven't even presented an argument for why it might be. When you're done fantasizing about the way you wish the world was, and decide to stop blaming the US for the fact that reality doesn't live up to your dreams, maybe we can have a useful discussion. But so far, you've presented absolutely no counterargument.

[Ziggurat]

Alan Greenspan, a five time chairman of Federal Reserve, is quoted from his new book in today's The San Diego Union Tribune that the ...war in Iraq is primarily for oil....

Not exactly.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg18sep18,0,3784.column?coll=la-home-commentary
Greenspan claims that the quote was taken out of context. Greenspan called the Post -- Bob Woodward, no less -- to say that, in fact, he didn't think the White House was motivated by oil. Rather, he was. A Post story Monday explained that Greenspan had long favored Saddam Hussein's ouster because the Iraqi dictator was a threat to the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's oil passes every day. Hussein could have sent the price of oil way past $100 a barrel, which would have inflicted chaos on the global economy.

[Gurdur]

....Not if you've been paying attention. "Death to America" is not the chant of a country indifferent to us.....


No such thing as bad publicity? At least if they hate us they still care about us?

[NoZed Avenger]

Sorry, but whatever China or France says - it's the current White House
that is going after Iran without actually going to Iran. That's not even
dishonest in terms of diplomacy - I call it straightway cowardice and
biased according to what I heard so far in terms of contradicting
diplomatic efforts.


This is all but incoherent.

[Oliver]

This is all but incoherent.


Inasmuch? You really think that the WMD-Hype was coherent??? :boggled:

[Ziggurat]

Sorry, but whatever China or France says - it's the current White House
that is going after Iran without actually going to Iran. That's not even
dishonest in terms of diplomacy - I call it straightway cowardice and
biased according to what I heard so far in terms of contradicting
diplomatic efforts.

This makes absolutely no sense. Going to Iran might be useful if the current problems were the result of some lack of understanding. But there's absolutely no reason to think that they are, and you've presented no argument to that effect. If the two parties already understand each other, why would face-to-face meetings change anything? They wouldn't. Iran isn't suffering from an inability to convey its message to us.

[Oliver]

This makes absolutely no sense. Going to Iran might be useful if the current problems were the result of some lack of understanding. But there's absolutely no reason to think that they are, and you've presented no argument to that effect. If the two parties already understand each other, why would face-to-face meetings change anything? They wouldn't. Iran isn't suffering from an inability to convey its message to us.


First of all: You remember the Drumbeating concerning Iraq - so you
may understand why I am skeptical of any similar "War-Drumming".

My second point is:

- Iran says that it wants nuclear energy - not nuclear weapons.
- Iran has no nuclear reactor nor nuclear weapons
- Iran is no threat to the US whatsoever

However - Israel could argue that Iran is a threat to them - and
from what I heard so far coming from the US-Media: They are
talking on behalf pro-Israeli interests - not talking about US-Interests.
Because if this would be a US-National Security-Issue - they wouldn't
put even more oil into the already burning fire in the Middle-East.

It's a political charade - and I'm convinced that you know that as well.

[Ziggurat]

First of all: You remember the Drumbeating concerning Iraq - so you
may understand why I am skeptical of any similar "War-Drumming".

That's nice. But it's got nothing to do with whether or not we should send somebody to Iran. We can send somebody and still go to war, and we could not send somebody and find some other alternative. You have presented no argument for there being a connection.

My second point is:

- Iran says that it wants nuclear energy - not nuclear weapons.

So? Saddam claimed the same thing prior to the first gulf war, and that was proven to be false. He was caught with more than one nuclear weapons program.

- Iran has no nuclear reactor nor nuclear weapons

You don't need a nuclear reactor to make nuclear weapons, and the issue isn't simply whether Iran has nuclear weapons, but whether or not they are in the process of getting nuclear weapons. Iran is pursuing uranium enrichment capabilities (and no, that part is not in dispute). Uranium enrichment capability would allow them to produce the fissile material for a bomb without having a nuclear reactor. No nuclear reactor is needed, which makes this statement quite irrelevant.

- Iran is no threat to the US whatsoever

This is simply false. Iran is a threat, and has killed Americans on a number of occasions. You can argue all you want to about how big a threat they are, and what kind of response that threat does or doesn't warrant (and there's plenty of room for disagreement on those points), but you're simply wrong to say that they are no threat whatsoever.

It's a political charade - and I'm convinced that you know that as well.

:rolleyes: Get your facts straight and maybe we can talk some more. But right now, all you've done is demonstrated your cluelessness on the topic.

[Oliver]

That's nice. But it's got nothing to do with whether or not we should send somebody to Iran. We can send somebody and still go to war, and we could not send somebody and find some other alternative. You have presented no argument for there being a connection.

So? Saddam claimed the same thing prior to the first gulf war, and that was proven to be false. He was caught with more than one nuclear weapons program.

You don't need a nuclear reactor to make nuclear weapons, and the issue isn't simply whether Iran has nuclear weapons, but whether or not they are in the process of getting nuclear weapons. Iran is pursuing uranium enrichment capabilities (and no, that part is not in dispute). Uranium enrichment capability would allow them to produce the fissile material for a bomb without having a nuclear reactor. No nuclear reactor is needed, which makes this statement quite irrelevant.

This is simply false. Iran is a threat, and has killed Americans on a number of occasions. You can argue all you want to about how big a threat they are, and what kind of response that threat does or doesn't warrant (and there's plenty of room for disagreement on those points), but you're simply wrong to say that they are no threat whatsoever.

:rolleyes: Get your facts straight and maybe we can talk some more. But right now, all you've done is demonstrated your cluelessness on the topic.



Are you playing dumb or patriotic?

- Iran says that it wants nuclear energy - not nuclear weapons.
- Iran has no nuclear reactor nor nuclear weapons
- Iran is no threat to the US whatsoever

Your point and especially: evidence besides Woo?

[Ziggurat]

Are you playing dumb or patriotic?

I see that all you can do is repeat yourself, unable to actually address any of the points I raised. For example, are you even aware that a nuclear reactor is not required to make nuclear weapons? Because you sure don't act like it.

[Oliver]

I see that all you can do is repeat yourself, unable to actually address any of the points I raised. For example, are you even aware that a nuclear reactor is not required to make nuclear weapons? Because you sure don't act like it.


No. My point is: What if the Iranians are right and their sole
intention is to have a nuclear reactor and nothing else?

[Ziggurat]

No. My point is: What if the Iranians are right and their sole intention is to have a nuclear reactor and nothing else?

Then their violation of IAEA rules would be strange indeed. And if that is all they want, then they should be willing to let Russia handle the fuel processing for those reactors (something that Russia has already offered).

I'm not advocating just bombing them right now, but their past and continuing behavior is a serious problem, they haven't earned anyone's trust regarding what their true intentions are, it would be a serious problem if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, and it may not be possible to prevent them from getting nukes with just diplomacy.

[Correa Neto]

A comment:

If a country really wants nuclear energy, it makes sense to develop indigenous technology for nuclear fuel processing plants. Its economically sound to buy unprocessed U ore (or mine it) and enrich it at your own facilities. I guess also that potentially there would be less problems on the transportation of fuel rods inside a country than between countries. Not to mention that the country will not depend on foreign companies and nations.

According to this source (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/mines.htm) Iran has enough uranium reserves to feed its planned power plants. For how long and the future expansion capabilities are open questions. So Iran can potentially accomplish the whole proccesses involved in nuclear power generation by itself, from ore extraction to power distribution.

Yes, they could accept Russia's offering, sending their ore to be processed there or buying fuel that was mined and processed at Russia. But they would still be relying on an external supply, subject to foreign political and economic interests.

It makes sense to obtain the technology to process uranium ore to the point of reaching the grade needed for nuclear generator power plants, regardless if we like it or not.

This put, the key questions, in my opinion, should be:
Is the current Iranian government being sincere when it says their nuclear program(s) is (are) for energy generation only?
Can the current Iranian government be trusted?

ETA:
Please note that when I say "energy generation" I am not talking about explosive devices, but electrical power generation...

[Matteo Martini]

Then their violation of IAEA rules would be strange indeed. And if that is all they want, then they should be willing to let Russia handle the fuel processing for those reactors (something that Russia has already offered).

They said that the plan was flawed and not clear enough.
It did not offer guarantees.
AFAIR.
Here is an interesting piece:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1167908,00.html


I'm not advocating just bombing them right now, but their past and continuing behavior is a serious problem, they haven't earned anyone's trust regarding what their true intentions are, it would be a serious problem if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, and it may not be possible to prevent them from getting nukes with just diplomacy.

Saeidi denies that Iran kept its facilities at Natanz secret, as claimed in 2003 by the Bush administration. He says there was no legal necessity to notify the IAEA before nuclear material had entered the plant. "Natanz is a very large factory. You cannot hide it. It wasn't secret."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1854628,00.html

[Ion]

Oh, was he a cabinet officer?
to me, a good right winger is a right winger who bows to left wingers.
No such thing. Thanks for playing, and please, clean up after your public, mental ion. You are making a mess of the place.

DR
Greenspan wasn't a cabinet officer.

This doesn't let you off the hook, no matter how hard you try:

if you want rose colors I give you rose colors, if you want green colors I give you green, if you want yellow I give you yellow, etc..

Each color is a different party in U.S., but from all colors it is pointed the same thing, the war was for oil.

Greenspan is only one color, your kin of Republican Libertarian who saw Bush at play.

To answer you excuse for cabinet officers and not let you off the hook with this excuse, Paul O'Neill was a cabinet officer -the only color that you pretend to accept here, but that's your attempt at cop out-.
O'Neill was the U.S. Treasurer from 2001 until 2003.
In The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind, O'Neill was in a meeting in December 2000 where Bush and his cabinet talked about how -not why- to attack Iraq.
WMDs and 'liberation' came up as cover up.
January 2001, Cheney studied plans of oil wells in Iraq, showing his primary interest.
So Bush's link between 9/11 and Iraq is a cover up for Bush attacking Iraq.

For me, a right winger like you is good to lick toilets, Basement Girl.

[Gurdur]

I dreamt I dwelt in marble halls,
Where everything that creeps or crawls
Went wibble wobble up the walls.

[RandFan]

No. My point is: What if the Iranians are right and their sole intention is to have a nuclear reactor and nothing else?Why won't they accept nuclear fuel from other sources?

[gtc]

Don't bother trying to convince Oliver that Iran actually poses a threat to Israel or the US. He has been shown the evidence numerous times but still repeats his claim.

[RandFan]

Don't bother trying to convince Oliver that Iran actually poses a threat to Israel or the US. He has been shown the evidence numerous times but still repeats his claim.Ever have one of those open sores that you know will go away sooner if you don't pick at it?

Oliver is my open sore.

[Oliver]

Don't bother trying to convince Oliver that Iran actually poses a threat to Israel or the US. He has been shown the evidence numerous times but still repeats his claim.


No. There is no threat for the United States unless you argue that
Israel is the fifty-first state of the US. Period. Everything else is
"SaddamWMDMushroomcloudOMG!AlQaidaDoomsday"-Propaganda.

But you surely aren't so dumb to fall for this propaganda again,
are you?

[RandFan]

No. There is no threat for the United States unless you argue that
Israel is the fifty-first state of the US. Period. Everything else is
"SaddamWMDMushroomcloudOMG!AlQaidaDoomsday"-Propaganda.

But you surely aren't so dumb to fall for this propaganda again,
are you? What does this even mean?

[Ion]

Don't bother trying to convince Oliver that Iran actually poses a threat to Israel or the US...
You mean the world belongs to U.S.' and Israel's interests?

[Darth Rotor]

Greenspan wasn't a cabinet officer.

*The usual rubbish follows*
That's OK, Ion, better men than you have killed people to ensure you can talk your crap. Wallow in it while you can.

One of the traditions of BBS discussions and internet forums is nitpicking to get the facts straight. I note that you are careless with facts, so you are a prime candidate for a fact based nitpick.

As you were.

DR

[Ion]

No technical argument here:
That's OK, Ion, better men than you have killed people to ensure you can talk your crap...Usual rubbish follows...
DR
But the Basement Girl has plenty of feelings, American feelings.

Of the 'caliber' of "...better men than you have killed people to ensure..." seen 'at work' in the U.S. lies for war in Iraq...

[Ion]

Pathetic try, Rat:
Not exactly.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg18sep18,0,3784.column?coll=la-home-commentary
Greenspan is as coward as any American:

he gives a honest blow, then he takes two steps back with "Er, hmm, ugh, not really...".

Historically he will remain recorded as:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/...881340375.html


"...The US went to war in Iraq motivated largely by oil, former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan says in a memoir to be released today.
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," he writes.
Mr Greenspan's book The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World also criticises President George Bush for not responsibly handling the nation's spending and racking up big budget deficits..."

Greenspan's:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

must be out of context per Rat.

[Ion]

Good punch, Oliver:

...
But I don't understand the US-Point - and I also don't understand
how a country can have the cheekiness to say: "Our WMDs are
good - yours are bad".
...

[Oliver]

Good punch, Oliver:


Well, it wasn't meant to be a punch - it's simply the way
I see the world living between both nutty extremists ... :p

[RandFan]

Well, it wasn't meant to be a punch - it's simply the way I see the world living between both nutty extremists ... :pAnd loving one more than the other.

[Oliver]

And loving one more than the other.


Blödsinn. If the Iranians were as radical as America - according
to both countries histories, I would be discussing in an Iranian
Forum right now. But since they are no threat anyway...

[RandFan]

Blödsinn. If the Iranians were as radical as America - according to both countries histories, I would be discussing in an Iranian
Forum right now. But since they are no threat anyway...?

No freedom of press.
No freedom of speech.
Limited redress.
Limited rights for women.
Oppression.What are you talking about? What do you mean according to both contries histories? Iran never promised freedoms so who cares?

[Oliver]

?
No freedom of press.
No freedom of speech.
Limited redress.
Limited rights for women.
Oppression.What are you talking about? What do you mean according to both contries histories? Iran never promised freedoms so who cares?



Death row
Limited Freedom of Speech
Limited access to democratic decisions
Creationism
Prohibition of clothing
Prohibition of slogans on T-Shirts
Prohibition of Sexual Freedoms
and on and on and on ...

What's your point? Where is the threat to you and fellow Americans?
Right - you fail to name it... :boggled:

[gtc]

Death row


Have you read this article about the death penalty in Germany?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/03/AR2005060301450.html

[Oliver]

Have you read this article about the death penalty in Germany?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/03/AR2005060301450.html


I did. What's your point - does the German constitution name the Iranian
Threat? Or are you derailing the points being made - and therefore derailing
the Threads intention as well? :confused:

[Oliver]

Anyway:

Iran's President is about to visit Ground Zero:

U.S. May Escort Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero
Talks Underway After Iranian Requests a Visit


http://www.nysun.com/article/63004?page_no=1

[Matteo Martini]

Iran's President is about to visit Ground Zero:


I thought he had been denied..

[Oliver]

I thought he had been denied..


I completely missed the story of his visit ... Where did you
get the news that is was denied - and what do you mean? :

Was his whole visit rejected - or the visit at Ground Zero?

[Matteo Martini]

I completely missed the story of his visit ... Where did you
get the news that is was denied - and what do you mean? :

Was his whole visit rejected - or the visit at Ground Zero?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTBkUeUe44Ys&refer=home

New York Police Deny Ahmadinejad Ground Zero Visit (Update1)

By Henry Goldman

Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The New York Police Department rejected a request by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit the lower Manhattan site where al Qaeda terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

[Oliver]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTBkUeUe44Ys&refer=home

New York Police Deny Ahmadinejad Ground Zero Visit (Update1)

By Henry Goldman

Sept. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The New York Police Department rejected a request by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit the lower Manhattan site where al Qaeda terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.


Thank you, Matteo - I just saw it on CNN.com as well:
Iran's leader banned from ground zero (http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/09/19/ahmadinejad.ground.zero/index.html)


Ridiculous, isn't it? :boggled:

[Oliver]

"The controversial, outspoken president wanted to "pay his respects."
Source: http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/09/19/ahmadinejad.ground.zero/index.html

Oh my ... what a crime! :boggled:

[Pardalis]

Ahmadinejad is a 9/11 Denier so I guess it's only logical.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0510-21.htm

September Eleventh was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren't those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8512

Tehran, Iran, Sep. 06 – The Supreme Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps accused the Bush Administration and the Israeli security service Mossad of ordering the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, DC.

[Oliver]

Ahmadinejad is a 9/11 Denier so I guess it's only logical.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0510-21.htm

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8512


So what? :confused: Maybe this is the chance for him to understand
the tragedy. There is no reason to whine about his visit at GZ,
even if his visit isn't about "pay his respects."

Your point? ...

[Pardalis]

Your point? ...


I think it's pretty clear.

[Oliver]

I think it's pretty clear.


No, it isn't. Since Ahmadinejad had nothing to do with 9/11.
Your point? ...

[Pardalis]

Zalmay Khalilzad said it best: the site should not be "used as a photo op."


And since your friend Ahmadinejad is a 9/11 Denier... you read between the lines.

[Oliver]

Zalmay Khalilzad said it best:


And since your friend Ahmadinejad is a 9/11 Denier... you read between the lines.


So you say he shouldn't even get the chance to withdraw his
statement about 9/11? :confused:

Wow. That's even more ignorant than everything I heard so far...

[Pardalis]

So you say he shouldn't even get the chance to withdraw his statement about 9/11? :confused:

Do you have any inkling that he would do such a thing? Man, you are really willing to bend over backwards for him.

You really should take up gymnastics. Leotard would look good on you. :p

[Oliver]

Do you have any inkling that he would do such a thing? Man, you are really willing to bend over backwards for him.


That's not my point.

My point is:
A: Bush is a Liar
B. Ahmadinejad may be a Liar

In your world, the witch Ahmadinejad is guilty already. And Bush
is the more preferable player to you - even if he's a proven Liar... :boggled::rolleyes:

Skeptics in here would call this being "Woo".

[Pardalis]

My point is:
A: Bush is a Liar
B. Ahmadinejad may be a Liar

You crack me up Oliver. :D

[Oliver]

You crack me up Oliver. :D


I wasn't kidding. You have no evidence to back up your
fears against Ahmadinejad - while I have very convincing
reasons to distrust Bush and his team ....

The point is that you don't have convincing facts against
Ahmadinejad - besides speeches that are nothing but speeches.

That's why I suspect that you're Witch-Hunting rather than
using facts to build your opinions. No kidding here.

[RandFan]

Death row
Limited Freedom of Speech
Limited access to democratic decisions
Creationism
Prohibition of clothing
Prohibition of slogans on T-Shirts
Prohibition of Sexual Freedoms
and on and on and on ...

What's your point? Where is the threat to you and fellow Americans?
Right - you fail to name it... :boggled::confused: :rolleyes: :eek: :boggled: :eye-poppi :covereyes


? This is why it is difficult to take you serious Oliver.


What the hell does death row have to do with the discussion?
Limited free speech? How limited? George Bush is an idiot. I can print flayers and put them on cars. I can put up signs I can say anything I damn well please. There are TV shows and radio shows and newspapers, etc., etc.. HOW LIMITED?
Creationism is illegal in schools. Are you suggesting outlawing religion?
What prohibition of clothing?
What prohibition of slogans on T-Shirts?
What prohibition of sexual freedoms?We are not perfect but we are NO where near Iran. You are being absolutely ridiculous and hyperbolic and focusing on a few anecdotes that have been overturned. The best point you have is gays don't have the right to marry but that is BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS! I sure as hell don't want it.

So are you for Democracy or anti-Democracy?

Oliver, you really are making yourself look silly.

[RandFan]

New York Police Deny Ahmadinejad Ground Zero Visit (Update1) :cheerleader4


Ahmadinejad has shown zero respect for those who have died due to 9/11. He mocks them with a publicity stunt.

He really makes me sick.

[RandFan]

Thank you, Matteo - I just saw it on CNN.com as well:
Iran's leader banned from ground zero (http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/09/19/ahmadinejad.ground.zero/index.html)


Ridiculous, isn't it? :boggled: :eek: :rolleyes: :confused: :boggled: :eye-poppi :covereyes

Why? Till the day I day I won't understand your pathology toward America.

[Oliver]

:eek: :rolleyes: :confused: :boggled: :eye-poppi :covereyes

Why? Till the day I day I won't understand your pathology toward America.


That's easy. While Iran is a bunch of radical, religious, fanatic Neanderthals,
I don't accept this kind of Woo from Western, modern, freedom-loving
Americans as well.

Your point? ....

[RandFan]

Ahmadinejad is spending millions to kill Americans and this ass wants to come here for a publicity stunt and Oliver can't figure out why that might be a problem for Americans.

CNN.com: Military official: Iranian millions funding insurgency (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.iran/index.html)

You figure out that law Oliver? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

[Pardalis]

I wasn't kidding. You have no evidence to back up your
fears against Ahmadinejad - while I have very convincing
reasons to distrust Bush and his team ....

The point is that you don't have convincing facts against
Ahmadinejad - besides speeches that are nothing but speeches.

That's why I suspect that you're Witch-Hunting rather than
using facts to build your opinions. No kidding here.

In this particular instance, we were talking about why Ahmadinejad wasn't allowed to visit Ground Zero. I gave you my opinion, and you don't like it. OK.

Now I know where this is heading so I respectfully bow out (http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Bugs_Bunny/ltbb_069.wav).

[RandFan]

That's easy. While Iran is a bunch of radical, religious, fanatic Neanderthals,
I don't accept this kind of Woo from Western, modern, freedom-loving
Americans as well.

Your point? ....

You've demonstrated NO woo that is comprable to the crap Iran's government bestows on its people.

That's dishonest.

Asserting something isn't proof of a damn thing.

[Gurdur]

Blödsinn. If the Iranians were as radical as America - according to both countries histories, I would be discussing in an Iranian
Forum right now. But since they are no threat anyway...

I would say something about the utter stupidity of this viewpoint, except I kinda swore never to do so again. Tough choice when handed something like this.

The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was, «Why is a raven like a writing-desk?»

[Oliver]

Ahmadinejad is spending millions to kill Americans and this ass wants to come here for a publicity stunt and Oliver can't figure out why that might be a problem for Americans.

CNN.com: Military official: Iranian millions funding insurgency (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.iran/index.html)

You figure out that law Oliver? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?


Yeah, he's spending hundreds of billions, invading countries, starting
covert ops all around the world and destroying the world we know...
Don't forget to hang up your socks on December, 24. Santa himself
will put some presents in there ... :boggled:

[Matteo Martini]

Ahmadinejad is spending millions to kill Americans and this ass wants to come here for a publicity stunt and Oliver can't figure out why that might be a problem for Americans.

CNN.com: Military official: Iranian millions funding insurgency (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.iran/index.html)

You figure out that law Oliver? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Is there any solid evidence, for " Ahmadinejad is spending millions to kill Americans ", other than the word of an anonymous Shiite Muslim militia?

[Oliver]

Is there any solid evidence, for " Ahmadinejad is spending millions to kill Americans ", other than the word of an anonymous Shiite Muslim militia?


Yes, the Government said so. And we all know how brave
and patriotic lemmings are as soon "socialism, communism,
terrorism, Korea, Khrushchev, Castro, Saddam ..." are/is
being propagated as a national threat... :rolleyes:


ETA: *Shudder*Shudder*Shudder*Shudder*Shudder* http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110746f207526099f.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/sleep002.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/sleep006.gif

[Pardalis]

I think one of your windows is open Oliver. (just kidding)

[RandFan]

Yeah, he's spending hundreds of billions, invading countries, starting
covert ops all around the world and destroying the world we know...
Don't forget to hang up your socks on December, 24. Santa himself
will put some presents in there ... :boggled: :boggled: :confused: :rolleyes: :eek: :covereyes :eye-poppi

What? Could you stop behaving the child. I'm not interested in your immature rhetoric.

Do you have something a bit more grown up?

[RandFan]

Is there any solid evidence, for " Ahmadinejad is spending millions to kill Americans ", other than the word of an anonymous Shiite Muslim militia?Good point. CNN is known for poor journalism.

The origin of the weapons was easy to discern because of Iranian markings on it, he said. Because Iran maintains tight control over armaments, he said, shipment of the weapons into Iraq had to involve "elements associated with the Iranian government."

ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: Iraq Weapons -- Made in Iran? (http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1692347)

Google, there's a lot of stories on this.

Ahmadinejad has made no secret that he wants America to leave and he wants control.

Ahmadinejad has said in the past that Tehran would fill any power vacuum left by a withdrawal of coalition forces in Iraq. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/12/ahmadinejad.itn/index.html)

[RandFan]

Yes, the Government said so. And we all know how brave
and patriotic lemmings are as soon "socialism, communism,
terrorism, Korea, Khrushchev, Castro, Saddam ..." are/is
being propagated as a national threat... :rolleyes: deleted

[RandFan]

Oliver, could you grow up and stop with the rhetorical arguments?

[Matteo Martini]

Good point. CNN is known for poor journalism.


??


ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: Iraq Weapons -- Made in Iran? (http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1692347)

Google, there's a lot of stories on this.

Ahmadinejad has made no secret that he wants America to leave and he wants control.

Ahmadinejad has said in the past that Tehran would fill any power vacuum left by a withdrawal of coalition forces in Iraq. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/12/ahmadinejad.itn/index.html)

" Wants Control " is not precisely what is written in the article..

The Islamic republic could help improve conditions in Iraq, but first coalition forces must leave, he said.

"We can help solve many problems in Iraq. We can help secure Iraq. We can help the attackers leave Iraq if the American government and British government correct themselves." he said.

[RandFan]

?? ??

" Wants Control " is not precisely what is written in the article.. You think he is being nice when he says that he is going to fill a power vacuum?

The Islamic republic could help improve conditions in Iraq, but first coalition forces must leave, he said. Yes, and didn't Iran have a war with Iraq?

"We can help solve many problems in Iraq. We can help secure Iraq. We can help the attackers leave Iraq if the American government and British government correct themselves." he said.Sure, and wouldn't this security and filling of vacuum not increase the power of Iran?

I don't think any experts see Iran taking control of Iraq as a good thing. America would desperatly like to get out and Iran wants in. Hmmmm.....

[RandFan]

"Iran can demonstrate its seriousness about concern with regard to terrorism by taking concrete actions," such as dropping support for Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and suspending their uranium enrichment program, Khalilzad said.

You know, sometimes I really wish we would get rid of the UN and then we wouldn't have to sponsor aholes like Chavez and Ahmadinejad to come to America. Aholes like Chavez on American soil attacking America. Would any American diplomat go to Iran or Venezuela and offend their leaders? And Ahmadinejad who support terrorism against the US and he gets to come here and mock us.

I'm sure there are people in their country that don't like them, would that be ok?

[RandFan]

Oliver,

I can't take you seriously. I've tried. I really have. But you've made no effort whatsover to think critically or to try and be skeptical about your own views.

I'm tired of you. You don't have really have anything to offer. You engage primarily in rhetoric.

I'm going to put you on ignore.

[plumjam]

You know, sometimes I really wish we would get rid of the UN and then we wouldn't have to sponsor aholes like Chavez and Ahmadinejad to come to America. Aholes like Chavez on American soil attacking America. Would any American diplomat go to Iran or Venezuela and offend their leaders? And Ahmadinejad who support terrorism against the US and he gets to come here and mock us.

I'm sure there are people in their country that don't like them, would that be ok?

I agree. It's quite rude for foreign leaders to speak their minds while at the UN.

There is an important qualitative difference at work here. When Iranian or Venezuelan officials attend the UN and criticise the USA it's just words.
But when USA officials visit Iran or Venezuela they're usually more interested in acts than words.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501i.asp

[RandFan]

I agree. It's quite rude for foreign leaders to speak their minds while at the UN. This is just ridiculous. Calling Bush satan does nothing to further anything. It doesn't help anything. What is the UN for? Divisiveness?

That's what I don't get.

There is an important qualitative difference at work here. When Iranian or Venezuelan officials attend the UN and criticize the USA it's just words. Oh, well, that's all. Then get rid of the UN.

THANK YOU!!!!!

Tu Quoque argument snipped.

[plumjam]

This is just ridiculous. Calling Bush satan does nothing to further anything. It doesn't help anything. What is the UN for? Divisiveness?

That's what I don't get.

Oh, well, that's all. Then get rid of the UN.

THANK YOU!!!!!

Tu Quoque argument snipped.

I just read you on another thread saying you're one of few people in the US who truly stands up for free speech. Yet here you are arguing that in a forum of such vital importance as the United Nations, visiting diplomats should censor what they have to say about the USA.
Fine, let's just disband the UN then.

In case you forget it isn't just unidirectional. Remember Reagan's "Evil Empire", and Bush's "Axis of Evil".

[RandFan]

I just read you on another thread saying you're one of few people in the US who truly stands up for free speech. Yet here you are arguing that in a forum of such vital importance as the United Nations, visiting diplomats should censor what they have to say about the USA. I'm expressing frustration and engaging in hyperbole. I'm expressing my anger at a couple of idiots and the one sided problem of everyone coming here to **** on us.

BTW, I regularly welcome foreigners here to this forum to criticize America. I don't mind it. I just don't like having to pay for the platform for idiots to criticize America. We don't do that in their country.

In case you forget it isn't just unidirectional. Remember Reagan's "Evil Empire", and Bush's "Axis of Evil".Wait, wait, Regan went to the Soviet Union and while he was there he called them an Evil Empire? Really? I didn't know that. Do you have a link? I think Bush used the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric in America, right?

[Flo]

I'm expressing frustration and engaging in hyperbole. I'm expressing my anger at a couple of idiots and the one sided problem of everyone coming here to **** on us.

BTW, I regularly welcome foreigners here to this forum to criticize America. I don't mind it. I just don't like having to pay for the platform for idiots to criticize America. We don't do that in their country.

Errr, I'm afraid I've witnessed several instances of "you" (or more adequately a number of your compatriots, some of them high level officials) doing that on a regular basis. It needs to be viewed for what it means: Americans are humans too, and there's a relatively constant proportion of humans who aren't very bright ... ;)

As for the UN, it has its warts, they need to be corrected, but I'm positive there's a need for an open tribune at world's level, which means of course that, among useful exchanges of ideas and points of views, we have to hear (if not listen to) some insane rantings from unsavory people at times.

[plumjam]

I'm expressing frustration and engaging in hyperbole. I'm expressing my anger at a couple of idiots and the one sided problem of everyone coming here to **** on us.

BTW, I regularly welcome foreigners here to this forum to criticize America. I don't mind it. I just don't like having to pay for the platform for idiots to criticize America. We don't do that in their country.

Wait, wait, Regan went to the Soviet Union and while he was there he called them an Evil Empire? Really? I didn't know that. Do you have a link? I think Bush used the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric in America, right?

The UN has to be situated somewhere. Technically speaking they aren't actually criticising the USA from within the USA:

"The United Nations headquarters was built on an 18 acre site in New York City purchased with a donation to the UN by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. in 1946 [7]. Although it is in New York City, the land occupied by the United Nations headquarters is international territory."

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN

Granted, that may be rather a pedantic point on my behalf.
But the wider point is that these diplomats aren't coming to the USA with the express purpose of criticising the USA from within. They are going to the UN General Assembly in order to participate in meetings, express arguments etc..

Maybe a solution would be to move it to some little island somewhere.
I think it was agreed to put it in the USA after WWII because it was important it be in a place not vulnerable to any foreseeable invasion. Plus much of the rest of the world was on its knees.

[Flo]

The UN has to be situated somewhere. Technically speaking they aren't actually criticising the USA from within the USA:

"The United Nations headquarters was built on an 18 acre site in New York City purchased with a donation to the UN by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. in 1946 [7]. Although it is in New York City, the land occupied by the United Nations headquarters is international territory."

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN

Granted, that may be rather a pedantic point on my behalf.
But the wider point is that these diplomats aren't coming to the USA with the express purpose of criticising the USA from within. They are going to the UN General Assembly in order to participate in meetings, express arguments etc..

I'm afraid you're wrong there. People like Ahmadinejad or Chavez do enjoy going "to the USA" with the express purpose of being seen criticizing the USA from within. They are very likely ignorant of, or know the people they are staging their PR demonstration for are ignorant of the exact statute of those 18 acres, and will therefore be viewed as "brave martyrs fighting for the world's freedom from inside the lion's den".

[plumjam]

I'm afraid you're wrong there. People like Ahmadinejad or Chavez do enjoy going "to the USA" with the express purpose of being seen criticizing the USA from within. They are very likely ignorant of, or know the people they are staging their PR demonstration for are ignorant of the exact statute of those 18 acres, and will therefore be viewed as "brave martyrs fighting for the world's freedom from inside the lion's den".

I see. You're a mind reader, are you?
If you were the 10 times democratically elected Chavez and the USA had organised a failed coup against you, would you be saying nice things about the USA when you were at the UN?
If you were the democratically elected Ahmadinejad, whose two neighbours were recently invaded by the USA, and the USA was clearly looking for a pretext to attack you, would you be saying nice things about the USA while at the UN?

I think if you didn't raise your grievances you'd be lacking a pair.

[Flo]

I see. You're a mind reader, are you?
If you were the 10 times democratically elected Chavez and the USA had organised a failed coup against you, would you be saying nice things about the USA when you were at the UN?
If you were the democratically elected Ahmadinejad, whose two neighbours were recently invaded by the USA, and the USA was clearly looking for a pretext to attack you, would you be saying nice things about the USA while at the UN?

I think if you didn't raise your grievances you'd be lacking a pair.

I don't need to read mind, I read and listen* to what people say, and both those idiots have actually boasted on several occasions to their constituents about having "a pair" and thus daring to defy America on its own soil.

I don't mind political leaders saying nasty things about the USA on occasion (I supported Chirac in his opposition to follow on the war in Iraq, for example), I object about taking seriously clowns like Ahmadinejad and Chavez who are making a big circus of pointing to American defects while using their elected position to deny basic freedoms to their own compatriots and/or threatening their own neighbors.





* in their native language, and in the case of Ahmadinejad, I get it translated by people I have every reasons to trust, i.e. Iranians I work with.

[plumjam]

I don't need to read mind, I read and listen* to what people say, and both those idiots have actually boasted on several occasions to their constituents about having "a pair" and thus daring to defy America on its own soil.

I don't mind political leaders saying nasty things about the USA on occasion (I supported Chirac in his opposition to follow on the war in Iraq, for example), I object about taking seriously clowns like Ahmadinejad and Chavez who are making a big circus of pointing to American defects while using their elected position to deny basic freedoms to their own compatriots and/or threatening their own neighbors.


* in their native language, and in the case of Ahmadinejad, I get it translated by people I have every reasons to trust, i.e. Iranians I work with.

Well I guess in your world powerful nations should be allowed to try to remove democratically elected heads of state and threaten war against weaker nations. And when those weaker nations go to the UN General Assembly they should keep quiet about it in order, presumably, to avoid hurting people's sensibilities.

[Flo]

Well I guess in your world powerful nations should be allowed to try to remove democratically elected heads of state and threaten war against weaker nations. And when those weaker nations go to the UN General Assembly they should keep quiet about it in order, presumably, to avoid hurting people's sensibilities.


You shouldn't use a slice of bacon to clean a cristal ball, it gets all fuzzy and interferes with your mind-reading ... because your guess about my world is far, far, from anything approaching reality.

[plumjam]

You shouldn't use a slice of bacon to clean a cristal ball, it gets all fuzzy and interferes with your mind-reading ... because your guess about my world is far, far, from anything approaching reality.

Ok. Maybe you can tell us what Chavez and Ahmedinejad should and shouldn't be allowed to say in UN meetings.

[Flo]

Ok. Maybe you can tell us what Chavez and Ahmedinejad should and shouldn't be allowed to say in UN meetings.


Where did I say they should ask for permission to say anything ? I consider both as clowns and hypocrites (and dangerous ones at that), but I'm all for them to prove it publicly to the whole thinking world.

However, in my book, politicians should refrain from words and actions devoid of any substance that only aim at pleasing the sheep at home, but of course my book is a work of fiction. :D

[plumjam]

Where did I say they should ask for permission to say anything ? I consider both as clowns and hypocrites (and dangerous ones at that), but I'm all for them to prove it publicly to the whole thinking world.

However, in my book, politicians should refrain from words and actions devoid of any substance that only aim at pleasing the sheep at home, but of course my book is a work of fiction. :D

Fair enough.
Personally I don't see either of them as dangerous, as neither are itching for war.
Isn't most of what politicians worldwide say devoid of substance and only aiming to please sheep? ;)

[Flo]

Fair enough.
Personally I don't see either of them as dangerous, as neither are itching for war.

Then I suggest you seriously study what they are saying and doing inside their own countries. They are both dangerous for their own people, and Ahmadinejad for the neighbors too. The fact that American policy is blamable in some areas doesn't absolve other governments from their wrongdoings.


Isn't most of what politicians worldwide say devoid of substance and only aiming to please sheep? ;)

Told you, my book is fiction.

[plumjam]

Then I suggest you seriously study what they are saying and doing inside their own countries. They are both dangerous for their own people, and Ahmadinejad for the neighbors too. The fact that American policy is blamable in some areas doesn't absolve other governments from their wrongdoings.


Nothing that either of them are supposedly doing in their own countries is anywhere near as dangerous for their own people as would be a successful US engineered coup in Venezuela, or a US invasion of Iran.
This is why they complain about the US. And good luck to them for doing so.

[Flo]

Nothing that either of them are supposedly doing in their own countries is anywhere near as dangerous for their own power as would be a successful US engineered coup in Venezuela, or a US invasion of Iran.
This is why they complain about the US. And good luck to them for doing so.


Fixed that for you.

ETA: nothing both are doing is only "supposed" either.

[plumjam]

Fixed that for you.

ETA: nothing both are doing is only "supposed" either.

Given that Chavez has been elected 10 times I don't think he has anything to worry about from the people of Venezuela in regard to losing power. His only concern would be a US engineered coup. Are you in favour of such coups?

Maybe you can tell me what Chavez has been doing against his own people.

Ahmedinejad was elected by the people too. There are probably human rights abuses going on there.
A great deal many less than are going on in their neighbours, Afghanistan and Iraq.

[yairhol]

Hi, It'll be impossible for me to read all that's been said in this thread so if anyone can summarize a little of what's been said so far.

Is anyone saying Iran should keep on going towards nuclear weapon?

Regards,
Yair

[Flo]

Given that Chavez has been elected 10 times I don't think he has anything to worry about from the people of Venezuela in regard to losing power. His only concern would be a US engineered coup. Are you in favour of such coups?

Maybe you can tell me what Chavez has been doing against his own people.

Ahmedinejad was elected by the people too. There are probably human rights abuses going on there.
A great deal many less than are going on in their neighbours, Afghanistan and Iraq.

At this point, I suggest you look it up yourself ... unless of course you want to pull an Oliver and pretend that what you don't see doesn't exist, and that anyone opposing the USA is by definition virtuous.

BTW, Mugabe, Omar Bongo, and quite a number of odious dictators all around the world have been elected several times, with scores in the high 90%. I suppose it automatically means their people love them and would never, ever, think about replacing them :rolleyes:

[plumjam]

At this point, I suggest you look it up yourself ... unless of course you want to pull an Oliver and pretend that what you don't see doesn't exist, and that anyone opposing the USA is by definition virtuous.

BTW, Mugabe, Omar Bongo, and quite a number of odious dictators all around the world have been elected several times, with scores in the high 90%. I suppose it automatically means their people love them and would never, ever, think about replacing them :rolleyes:

Ducked out of that one, huh?

What has Chavez been doing against his own people?

[marksman]

Given that Chavez has been elected 10 times
Where do you get that number from?
1: 1994: Elected President of Venezuela for the first time
2: 2000: Chavez re-elected
3: 2004: Chavez defeats recall referendum
4: 2006: Won re-election
As far as I can tell, those are all of the elections held to determine if Chavez should be President. What were the six other elections?

I don't think he has anything to worry about from the people of Venezuela in regard to losing power.
Not at the moment. Politics can be fickle though. If he doesn't improve the welfare of the poor, which are the mainstay of his popularity, to coincide with the way the standard of living has been increasing amongst Venezuela's neighbors, he could get in trouble.

His only concern would be a US engineered coup. Are you in favour of such coups?
Well, he could theoretically also face a military coup. When Chavez engineered his own failed military coup in 1992, he only had support of 10% of the military (if that much) and he ended up in prison for a year. After that, he concentrated on political grass roots support. The rank and file military doesn't have a lot of love for him, though he has managed to replace most of the upper echelons of the military with supporters. Of course, that's all speculative. Given how well he suppressed the prior coup attempt against him, nobody -- including America -- appears to be considering another one.

And for the record, I don't support coup attempts.

Ahmedinejad was elected by the people too. There are probably human rights abuses going on there.
Probably? You mean, you don't know?
At any rate, he was elected only in the most nominal sense. The candidates for nomination are all pre-selected by the Council of Guardians, a council of fundamentalist Shi'a clerics. When Ahmedinejad ran (and won), the Council approved only six candidates or the 90 who applied. All applicants who were considered reformers or independents were rejected. Because of the outcry, the Council relented and allowed two nominal reformers on the ballot.

There were three "Conservative candidates", including Ahmedinejad. There were three "Reform" candidates -- all but one of whom had been Conservative Party candidates previously, and a "Trans-Party" candidate who was also most recently a Conservative Party candidate.

Ahmedinejad got only 19.7% of the vote on the first round of voting, and beat Rafsanjani (the Trans-Party candidate) on the second round. One of the "Reform" candidates was only 2 points behind Ahmedinejad on the first round, but was excluded form the second round, leaving a choice between Rafsanjani and Ahmedinejad, two members of the Establishment.

In the end, it wasn't much more of a choice than an ice cream parlor that lets you pick between vanilla, french vanilla and lite vanilla.

A great deal many less than are going on in their neighbours, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ah, the tu quoque. Is there no leader for whom it cannot serve as apologetic?

[Pardalis]

Death row
Limited Freedom of Speech
Limited access to democratic decisions
Creationism
Prohibition of clothing
Prohibition of slogans on T-Shirts
Prohibition of Sexual Freedoms
And on and on and on ...

Replace "Creationism" with "Sharia" and you've got Iran.

[Flo]

Ducked out of that one, huh?

What has Chavez been doing against his own people?

What Marksman wrote, plus http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83294

[marksman]

Replace "Creationism" with "Sharia" and you've got Iran.

To be fair, creationism is part of Sharia. It's just Islamic creationism.

[Flo]

Replace "Creationism" with "Sharia" and you've got Iran.


and also "death row" with "public hangings for drug and alcohol consumption, (supposed) adultery, sex out of wedlock, etc."

[plumjam]

[QUOTE]Where do you get that number from?
1: 1994: Elected President of Venezuela for the first time
2: 2000: Chavez re-elected
3: 2004: Chavez defeats recall referendum
4: 2006: Won re-election
As far as I can tell, those are all of the elections held to determine if Chavez should be President. What were the six other elections?

Yes, not all were Presidential elections. Some were party elections and referenda on the direction of government and changes to the constitution. The 1994 one and these
http://www.electionguide.org/search-results.php?type=&country=231&search_year=any&submitted=1&submit.x=30&submit.y=13&submit=Search
make 10
Still a pretty impressive record, and verified internationally:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3571350.stm

Probably? You mean, you don't know?
At any rate, he was elected only in the most nominal sense. The candidates for nomination are all pre-selected by the Council of Guardians, a council of fundamentalist Shi'a clerics. When Ahmedinejad ran (and won), the Council approved only six candidates or the 90 who applied. All applicants who were considered reformers or independents were rejected. Because of the outcry, the Council relented and allowed two nominal reformers on the ballot.

There were three "Conservative candidates", including Ahmedinejad. There were three "Reform" candidates -- all but one of whom had been Conservative Party candidates previously, and a "Trans-Party" candidate who was also most recently a Conservative Party candidate.

Ahmedinejad got only 19.7% of the vote on the first round of voting, and beat Rafsanjani (the Trans-Party candidate) on the second round. One of the "Reform" candidates was only 2 points behind Ahmedinejad on the first round, but was excluded form the second round, leaving a choice between Rafsanjani and Ahmedinejad, two members of the Establishment.

In the end, it wasn't much more of a choice than an ice cream parlor that lets you pick between vanilla, french vanilla and lite vanilla.

Each country has its own system which is going to vary according to culture, history etc..
The important point is that outsiders don't feel they have an automatic right to meddle in a nation's internal politics. I could criticise the US system for elections being bought by big business, and too many successful representatives being from a privileged class of families (Bushs, Clintons, Kennedys).
But I'd never do that ;) Because it's up to US citizens whether they want that or not.

Ah, the tu quoque. Is there no leader for whom it cannot serve as apologetic?
My point was relevant in the context it was used.

[plumjam]

What Marksman wrote, plus http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83294

very poor

[Darth Rotor]

Is there any solid evidence, for " Ahmadinejad is spending millions to kill Americans ", other than the word of an anonymous Shiite Muslim militia?
Yes, one data point being that today, or yesterday, an Iranian agent was arrested in Iraq.

FWIW

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93889

If you'd like more data points, search for the poster BeAChooser. In one of our disagreements ( I disagreed with his opinion that the US ought to attack Iran soon) he cited a variety of sources that showed Iran to be materially involved in keeping the violence in Iraq going for their own ends.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

:cheerleader4


Ahmadinejad has shown zero respect for those who have died due to 9/11. He mocks them with a publicity stunt.

He really makes me sick.

Rand, at the risk of pissing off you and a number of other folks, I will engage in some out of the box thinking.

I appreciate the NYPD's reluctance to waste time on a security detail for Mahmoud. I feel, however, that the decision misses a chance at a PR win, but it would have to be handled cleverly to be so achieved. Given the clumsiness of this administration's rhetoric and PR game, perhaps it's too complex for their playbook.

What I'd like to see is Mahmoud, with a detail of 4 of his own Secret Service guys and two interpreters, and at most two NYPD cops in company, allowed to arrive at GZ to pay his respects.

I'd like to see our very own Gravy there to meet him, and as many of the 9-11 widows as can be arranged. Add about thirty Firefighters as a Greek Chorus, and let the fun begin. :D

If he has the balls to accept those conditions, he ought to be allowed a chance to actually pay his respects. Showing that kind of tolerance and open handedness to him, even though he's been a bit of a jerk lately, could be a play at getting a bit more high ground after his sad display of trash mouth last time he was in town. Kill him with kindness.

The mayor and NYPD can't see the forest for the trees, I think, but I do appreciate the depths of feeling involved and how that colors their view, not to mention the potential for a riot if enough people with an attitude decide to show up and make a scene. That too would be entertaining, in a George Carlinesque way, but now my sick sense of humor is in play.

No risk, no reward.

DR

[marksman]

Yes, not all were Presidential elections.
So he wasn't actually elected 10 times, was he?

Some were party elections
None of the elections listed were "party elections"

and referenda on the direction of government and changes to the constitution.
Well, on that basis, Bush can claim to be elected as many times as his legislative agenda has passed congress, which would number in the dozens!

Try to be accurate. When you claim that a guy who has been in office 12 years was elected 10 times -- meaning he ran for election almost every year! -- you look pretty silly, and it begins to look like you're willing to play loose with the facts to make cheap political points.

Chavez was elected three times and he successfully fought off an attempt to recall him. That's a solid record. You don't need to embellish it by pretending legislative referenda are in fact Presidential elections.

Each country has its own system which is going to vary according to culture, history etc..The important point is that outsiders don't feel they have an automatic right to meddle in a nation's internal politics.
No, the point is that calling Ahmedinejad "elected" is like calling Khruschev elected because he was chosen by a vote of members of the Communist Party, even though there wasn't really much of a choice at all.

Ahmedinejad was selected not by the people, but by the Council of Guardians, six Shi'a clerics, who chose a handful of nearly identical candidates and then let people vote for one of them. As I said, it's like going into an ice cream shop and being given a choice between vanilla and french vanilla. Wouldn't it be disingenuous to say you had a fair choice?

My point was relevant in the context it was used.
What point? Someone criticized Ahmedinejad's Iran for civil rights violations and you countered with examples of civil rights violations in Afghanistan and Iraq. You committed the tu quoque fallacy and I called you on it.

[marksman]

I appreciate the NYPD's reluctance to waste time on a security detail for Mahmoud. I feel, however, that the decision misses a chance at a PR win, but it would have to be handled cleverly to be so achieved. Given the clumsiness of this administration's rhetoric and PR game, perhaps it's too complex for their playbook.

What I'd like to see is Mahmoud, with a detail of 4 of his own Secret Service guys and two interpreters, and at most two NYPD cops in company, allowed to arrive at GZ to pay his respects.

I'd like to see our very own Gravy there to meet him, and as many of the 9-11 widows as can be arranged. Add about thirty Firefighters as a Greek Chorus, and let the fun begin. :D
All that would happen is Ahmedinejad would get to look sympathetic by making nice with the 9/11 widows. If they start to confront him, he'd act the victim. It will look like the Americans are beating up on him, or worse, blame the Administration for trying to tie Iran to 9/11 the way they tried to tie Iraq to 9/11.

Then he'd go to the UN and claim that he was defending those poor widows who were lied to by their government by confronting the person who was truly behind the plot: Bush. It would have been Chavez' UN stump speech on steroids.

The only PR win would have been Ahmedinejad.

not to mention the potential for a riot if enough people with an attitude decide to show up and make a scene. That too would be entertaining, in a George Carlinesque way, but now my sick sense of humor is in play.
Yeah, but it wouldn't reflect well on New York or America.

[Darth Rotor]

All that would happen is Ahmedinejad would get to look sympathetic by making nice with the 9/11 widows. If they start to confront him, he'd act the victim. It will look like the Americans are beating up on him, or worse, blame the Administration for trying to tie Iran to 9/11 the way they tried to tie Iraq to 9/11.

Then he'd go to the UN and claim that he was defending those poor widows who were lied to by their government by confronting the person who was truly behind the plot: Bush. It would have been Chavez' UN stump speech on steroids.

The only PR win would have been Ahmedinejad.


Yeah, but it wouldn't reflect well on New York or America.
Where did I mention any access available to the media? ;) I just want to see Gravy give Mahmoud some "I Love NYC anti-CT" love. Call me selfish, if you like.

Your points on the risks of playing into his hand are noted, and part of why I pointed out the need to handle it cleverly. Again, may not be in the playbook.

DR

[marksman]

Where did I mention any access available to the media? ;) I just want to see Gravy give Mahmoud some "I Love NYC anti-CT" love. Call me selfish, if you like.
I'd love to see that too. I just know how it would play in the media, whom you couldn't keep out of Grund Zero if Ahmedinejad was there. Heck, Ahmedinejad would probably bring his own crew along.

[Farscape]

(An Aside) I apologize for the length of my first post. Also as a newbie I am not allowed to post links but do have them available.;)

Don't bother trying to convince Oliver that Iran actually poses a threat to Israel or the US. He has been shown the evidence numerous times but still repeats his claim.



Posted by Oliver in response. No. There is no threat for the United States unless you argue that
Israel is the fifty-first state of the US. Period. Everything else is
"SaddamWMDMushroomcloudOMG!AlQaidaDoomsday"-Propaganda.

But you surely aren't so dumb to fall for this propaganda again,
are you?

Yes I am.


Iran aids Syria's CW programme

24 October 2005
Iran aids Syria's CW programme

By Robin Hughes JDW Middle East Editor
London

With the release of the UN International Independent Investigation Commission interim report on 20 October into the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri increasing international pressure on Syria, a diplomatic source has said that Damascus is nevertheless pursuing what they describe as "an innovative chemical warfare [CW] programme in co-operation with Iran".

The essence of this co-operation, the source told JDW, "is Tehran's contractual commitment, made to Syria a few months ago, to provide Iranian CW technical assistance to facilitate Syria's CW programme".

Utilising this assistance, they said, Syria hopes to reach an independent production capability of precursors for producing CW agents, which it has so far been unable to achieve.

According to the source, Iran will assist Syria in the planning, establishment and pilot operation of about four or five facilities throughout Syria for the production of precursors for VX and Sarin nerve agents and mustard blister agent.

"This project is unprecedented and millions of US dollars have been allocated to implement it," the source said.

"The project includes building major facilities, including advanced equipment to produce tens to hundreds of tonnes of CW precursors per year that are sufficient for CW industrial manufacturing pilot production."


Iran a country ruled by peace lovers holding hands with the Syrians another misunderstood peace loving nation.


Dozens died in Syria-Iran missile test'

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in Jane's Defence Weekly, which reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

Syrian and Iranian Presidents, Bashar Assad, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, listen to national anthems at the Ash-Shaeb presidential palace in Damascus, Thursday.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.

Reports of the accident were circulated at the time; however, no details were released by the Syrian government, and there were no hints of an Iranian connection.
(snip)

Who pose no threat to the United States or its allies.



Zionist regime's allies to receive response on World Qods Day
Tehran, Sept 19, IRNA

Iran-US-Spokesman
[b]Supporters of the Zionist regime will receive their response during the world Qods Day's rallies, government spokesman, Gholam-Hossein Elham, said Wednesday.

The spokesman made the remarks during his weekly press conference while commenting on the current visit to the occupied Palestine of the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Qods Day is held each year on the last Friday of Muslims fasting month of Ramadan after it was nominated by the late Founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini, as a day to voice the protest of the Islamic Ummah against the Zionists.

The day falls on October 12 this year.

"The US loses all opportunities to cooperate with regional and other world states by trying to support a regime (the Zionist regime) which is now at its weakest political and social position," Elham said.

He warned that Washington's insistence on its wrong policies and arrogant approaches would have no result "but further political disgrace" for itself.

Referring to the approaching World Qods Day, the spokesman stressed, "Supporters of the Zionist regime will definitely receive the final response for their support on that day."


Oliver please forgive me if I (like Monica) choose not to swallow.

Have a blessed day, ya heah!

Edited to remove extra unquote.

[Gurdur]

(An Aside) I apologize for the length of my first post. Also as a newbie I am not allowed to post links but do have them available.;)


Your first post? And you used it HERE in this thread?
:boggled:

Well, a very big welcome to you, Farscape, but if I may so humbly suggest, masochism as a way of life is just so over-rated.
;)

[plumjam]

So he wasn't actually elected 10 times, was he?

[QUOTE]None of the elections listed were "party elections"
Well, on that basis, Bush can claim to be elected as many times as his legislative agenda has passed congress, which would number in the dozens!
Try to be accurate. When you claim that a guy who has been in office 12 years was elected 10 times -- meaning he ran for election almost every year! -- you look pretty silly, and it begins to look like you're willing to play loose with the facts to make cheap political points.
Chavez was elected three times and he successfully fought off an attempt to recall him. That's a solid record. You don't need to embellish it by pretending legislative referenda are in fact Presidential elections.

You're right, my mistake :)

No, the point is that calling Ahmedinejad "elected" is like calling Khruschev elected because he was chosen by a vote of members of the Communist Party, even though there wasn't really much of a choice at all.

Ahmedinejad was selected not by the people, but by the Council of Guardians, six Shi'a clerics, who chose a handful of nearly identical candidates and then let people vote for one of them. As I said, it's like going into an ice cream shop and being given a choice between vanilla and french vanilla. Wouldn't it be disingenuous to say you had a fair choice?

I feel a similar way about politics here in the UK. Instead of a choice of 6 candidates it's a choice between 2 candidates.
The policies of these 2 candidates typically disagree on very little that's of any importance. Their policies typically favour big business, globalisation, and capitalist consumerism.. at the expense of the ordinary lower class person.
The media portrays these 2 candidates as of some significant difference, when this is not the case.
In effect I am living in a one party state, with an illusion of choice.
This goes for many other so-called democracies. It's no wonder that fewer and fewer people bother to vote.

So my point is that we aren't really in any position to criticise other forms of fairly balloted democratic systems.


What point? Someone criticized Ahmedinejad's Iran for civil rights violations and you countered with examples of civil rights violations in Afghanistan and Iraq. You committed the tu quoque fallacy and I called you on it. My point was that Iran has some abuse of human rights, but not nearly as bad as the abuses in its neighbours under US rule. It was valid to use this because the poster had been objecting to the fact that the Iranian leader criticises the USA at the UN... and she was saying that he shouldn't do this because the Iranian leader (I assume) perpetrates human rights abuses in his own nation.

[marksman]

You're right, my mistake :)
No problem. It's very rare to see people on this forum admit when they erred and to so with grace. That speaks very well of you.

I feel a similar way about politics here in the UK. Instead of a choice of 6 candidates it's a choice between 2 candidates.
Yes, everybody in a democracy feels their choices are constrained. But if you actually look at the process of picking candidates in Iran, you'll see how illusory the whole thing is.

In fact, even the six-member council is constrained because the country is in fact led by the Supreme Leader (the grand Ayatollah). In Ahmedinejad's election, the Supreme Leader got the council to change the ballot by writing a letter. And this was remarkable since the council didn't seem to have the authority to change the ballot. They simply did it because the Supreme Leader told them to.

Imagine the Queen telling the Labor and Conservative parties to change their candidates. As dissatisfied as you may be with the political process in the UK, it is much much worse in Iran.

In effect I am living in a one party state, with an illusion of choice.
I'm sorry that you feel that way. I've lived in a one-party state and I've been to England. The difference is huge.

So my point is that we aren't really in any position to criticise other forms of fairly balloted democratic systems.
I don't understand this argument at all and you're not the first to make it. Do we not have faculties of reason? Do we not have minds capable of rational analysis? Why does the fact that we live in an imperfect society mean we cannot criticize other peoples' imperfect societies?

I also note that you don't have any problem criticizing Western nations with which you disagree. (Nor should you.) Why should Iran be treated differently?

My point was that Iran has some abuse of human rights, but not nearly as bad as the abuses in its neighbours under US rule.
Right. That's a tu quoque.

It was valid to use this because the poster had been objecting to the fact that the Iranian leader criticises the USA at the UN... and she was saying that he shouldn't do this because the Iranian leader (I assume) perpetrates human rights abuses in his own nation.
I didn't get that from her post at all. As you rightly point out, that was an assumption on your part. Perhaps you could have asked her to clarify the point. If that's what her argument was, you could rightly chastise her for committing a tu quoque fallacy. No need to counter her tu quoque with one of your own. That doesn't help anybody.

[plumjam]

In fact, even the six-member council is constrained because the country is in fact led by the Supreme Leader (the grand Ayatollah). In Ahmedinejad's election, the Supreme Leader got the council to change the ballot by writing a letter. And this was remarkable since the council didn't seem to have the authority to change the ballot. They simply did it because the Supreme Leader told them to.

Imagine the Queen telling the Labor and Conservative parties to change their candidates. As dissatisfied as you may be with the political process in the UK, it is much much worse in Iran.

I don't understand this argument at all and you're not the first to make it. Do we not have faculties of reason? Do we not have minds capable of rational analysis? Why does the fact that we live in an imperfect society mean we cannot criticize other peoples' imperfect societies?

I also note that you don't have any problem criticizing Western nations with which you disagree. (Nor should you.) Why should Iran be treated differently?

Well, with Iran it's a bit different because it sees itself as more a theocracy than a democracy.. so how can we apply the same kind of standard?
It doesn't come from the tradition of western liberal democracy. For all I know most people in Iran are happy to have a Grand Ayatollah in place at the head of society, due to the highly religious nature of their culture. How many people go to Iran and actually ask people which system they would prefer?

You could compare it to the Vatican .. a state with a religious head, and its own traditional forms of choice and decision making. No one advocates that we force the Vatican to introduce our particular form of liberal democracy.

This is why I am more reluctant to criticise a society like Iran than societies modelled more like my own.
Also, it's true that sometimes when people criticise the societies of other nations, they're doing it not because they're concerned about the people in that society. They just want to appear concerned in order to strengthen their 'justification' for effecting a coup or an invasion of that country. That's happening a lot at the moment with Iran. And it's bogus.

[Darth Rotor]

I feel a similar way about politics here in the UK. Instead of a choice of 6 candidates it's a choice between 2 candidates. The policies of these 2 candidates typically disagree on very little that's of any importance. Their policies typically favour big business, globalisation, and capitalist consumerism.. at the expense of the ordinary lower class person. The media portrays these 2 candidates as of some significant difference, when this is not the case. In effect I am living in a one party state, with an illusion of choice. This goes for many other so-called democracies. It's no wonder that fewer and fewer people bother to vote.
You might be surprised at how many Americans agree with this general assessment.
So my point is that we aren't really in any position to criticise other forms of fairly balloted democratic systems.
Can you list a few of these fairly balloted democratic systems one ought not to criticize? I, for one, think the Italians do a bang up job.
My point was that Iran has some abuse of human rights, but not nearly as bad as the abuses in its neighbours under US rule.
Who is under US rule in the PG? Iraq is at present under barely effective rule of any sort, being in a bit of a civil war, though the Kurds seem to be making strong progress at stabilization.

Who else did you have in mind?
It was valid to use this because the poster had been objecting to the fact that the Iranian leader criticises the USA at the UN... and she was saying that he shouldn't do this because the Iranian leader (I assume) perpetrates human rights abuses in his own nation.
Ah. He's free to be a hypocrite if he likes, which he did. Whether or not it influences his political fortunes remains to be seen.

DR

[marksman]

Well, with Iran it's a bit different because it sees itself as more a theocracy than a democracy.. so how can we apply the same kind of standard?
That way lies madness. Why apply the same standards of behavior on the United States, a Constitutional Republic with a bicameral legislature, as we do on England, a parliamentary democracy with a hereditary monarch?

The answer of course is that most of us don't think standards of behavior are subjective. If you really believe all ethical behavior is subjective, on what grounds can you criticize anybody? America's invasion oof Iraq is simply Americans acting like Americans. Who are you to judge? Hutu and Tutsi committing genocide in Africa? Those goofy Africans! Who's to say they even mind all the genocide? Adhering to a subjective standard of judgment makes it impossible to judge anybody.

You could compare it to the Vatican
Okay. Let's do that.

Vatican City is about 44 hectares in size, the smallest independent nation in the world. It has 821 subjects as of July 2007. Almost all of these subjects are Catholic clergymen and members of the Swiss Guard. Most of these people have dual citizenship with their nation of origin, and thus are able to vote in those elections (assuming their nation of origin allows elections). Anybody can relinquish their Vatican citizenship at any time, and if they have no other citizenship, are automatically Italian citizens with the right to vote in Italian elections. As far as I can tell, the Holy See operates more as an organization within Italy than as a governmental body, as pertains to the control it has over its citizens. All the citizens are employees of the Church and are within walking distance of Rome. Vatican citizens have a full panoply of civil rights, including free speech and are allowed to criticize even the Pontiff. The worst that might happen is being fired from the Church and having to find a job elsewhere in Rome.

In comparison, Iran is 164,800,000 hectares in size, the 18th largest country in the world. It has more than 70 million citizens as of 2006. Iran recognizes no dual citizenship. Iran does not have free elections as all candidates are vetted by the Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians comprised of clergy. Iran's vast population cannot move freely to other nations, are almost entirely native to the nation. Ciriticism of the Council of Guardians and the Supreme Leader is considered blasphemous and is criminal in nature, for which one could receive fines, imprisonment or corporal punishment, even the death penalty. Iran's media is highly censored, though mostly for blasphemy and criticism of the clergy, not criticism of the President.

Yes, comparing the Holy See to Iran is enlightening. Iran does not compare well to the Holy See.

No one advocates that we force the Vatican to introduce our particular form of liberal democracy.
Because it would be silly. The Vatican's only residents are its employees, who are free to leave at any time, most of whom participate in elections in their country of origin.

They just want to appear concerned in order to strengthen their 'justification' for effecting a coup or an invasion of that country.
Here on the skeptics forum, claims of being able to divine what is going on in the minds of those with whom you disagree is greeted with, well, skepticism. You won't find many people persuaded by such arguments.

I for one do not criticize Iran because I want an invasion. In fact, I recently stated flat out in multiple threads that I oppose coups and I don't want anybody invading Iran. I criticize Iran because it is worthy of criticism.

In threads about other nations, by the way, I criticize those nations -- the UK, US, Venezuela, China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, just to name a few. I don't want you to think it's all about Iran.

[Farscape]

Your first post? And you used it HERE in this thread?
:boggled:

Well, a very big welcome to you, Farscape, but if I may so humbly suggest, masochism as a way of life is just so over-rated.
;)

Gurdur,

Yes a small streak of masochism does run through me. I needed some sort of anomaly in my personally to keep my high self esteem in check.:D

Thank you for the gracious welcome. Unfortunately, time constraints leave me little opportunity to post, however, I have always looked forward to the limited time I am able to spend here.;)

[RandFan]

The UN has to be situated somewhere. Technically speaking they aren't actually criticizing the USA from within the USA: Meh...

To be intellectually honest, America likely garners some degree of good will for hosting the UN. I'm guessing folks much smarter than I when it comes to foreign relations would simply say I haven't a clue.

My point is one of exasperation and frustration.

A little diplomacy and decorum would be nice but should any of us really expect that from someone like Chavez?

Nah, I didn't think so either.

Ok, so no one expects Chavez to act like a human being. It would be nice if the some of the folks who fancy themselves fair would take Chavez to task for his lack of diplomacy.

[RandFan]

Rand, at the risk of pissing off you and a number of other folks, I will engage in some out of the box thinking.

I appreciate the NYPD's reluctance to waste time on a security detail for Mahmoud. I feel, however, that the decision misses a chance at a PR win, but it would have to be handled cleverly to be so achieved. Given the clumsiness of this administration's rhetoric and PR game, perhaps it's too complex for their playbook.

What I'd like to see is Mahmoud, with a detail of 4 of his own Secret Service guys and two interpreters, and at most two NYPD cops in company, allowed to arrive at GZ to pay his respects.

I'd like to see our very own Gravy there to meet him, and as many of the 9-11 widows as can be arranged. Add about thirty Firefighters as a Greek Chorus, and let the fun begin. :D

If he has the balls to accept those conditions, he ought to be allowed a chance to actually pay his respects. Showing that kind of tolerance and open handedness to him, even though he's been a bit of a jerk lately, could be a play at getting a bit more high ground after his sad display of trash mouth last time he was in town. Kill him with kindness.

The mayor and NYPD can't see the forest for the trees, I think, but I do appreciate the depths of feeling involved and how that colors their view, not to mention the potential for a riot if enough people with an attitude decide to show up and make a scene. That too would be entertaining, in a George Carlinesque way, but now my sick sense of humor is in play.

No risk, no reward.

DR Darth,

I'm sorry I come across as easily pissed off. I'm really not. I understand the frustration that people have with America. This Iraq mess rightfully has people upset.

I have had a short fuse of late. I'll try and do better.

That said, I like your idea. :)

[Matteo Martini]

Meh...

To be intellectually honest, America likely garners some degree of good will for hosting the UN. I'm guessing folks much smarter than I when it comes to foreign relations would simply say I haven't a clue.

My point is one of exasperation and frustration.

A little diplomacy and decorum would be nice but should any of us really expect that from someone like Chavez?

Nah, I didn't think so either.

Ok, so no one expects Chavez to act like a human being. It would be nice if the some of the folks who fancy themselves fair would take Chavez to task for his lack of diplomacy.

Come on..
Give Chavez a break..
He has not started any war, so far..

[Darth Rotor]

Darth,

I'm sorry I come across as easily pissed off. I'm really not. I understand the frustration that people have with America. This Iraq mess rightfully has people upset.

I have had a short fuse of late. I'll try and do better.

That said, I like your idea. :)
I was thinking of taking up a collection for "Baseball bats for Gravy" in case my idea is adopted.

Buy American, Louisville Slugger. :)

DR

[Matteo Martini]

In threads about other nations, by the way, I criticize those nations -- the UK, US, Venezuela, China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, just to name a few. I don't want you to think it's all about Iran.

You forgot Russia ( Putin`s policy ), France ( for having a foreign minister who spoke for war against Iran ), Japan ( for having PMs still visiting the Yasukuni shrine ), North Korea ( obvious reasons ), India and Pakistan ( for being at war since about 50 years ago ), Iraq ( for having a government which is uncapable of ending a war ), Australia, Poland and Denmark ( for being part of the 2003 invasion of Iraq ), ..

I think you can leave out Barbados and the Antigues

:)

[marksman]

You forgot...
Yes, Matteo, that's why I wrote "just to name a few". But far be it from you to not aim your rhetorical gun at me, and shoot yourself in the foot just to find it's already lodged firmly in your mouth.

-marksman, mangling metaphors since 1981!

[Oliver]

Come on..
Give Chavez a break..
He has not started any war, so far..


But that's the point in US-Foreign Politics. It doesn't matter
if a foreign country may start a war - or ever did start one.
The Point always has been:


Administration: "They are our Enemies now. Period!".
Press: "But..."
Administration: "WMDSEvilMushroomcloudsCommunismEndofWorldDoomsday! !!".
Press: "okay... :boxedin: "

Or as my new Hero Pat Condell (http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell) would put it:
ASqJAT1W3r0

[Oliver]

I didn't watch the full speech of Ahmadinejad yet - but I doubt
that he somehow manages to portray any threat to the US.

From what I see, it's all about Israel - and people all over the
world know this as well. It's not about an actual threat since
there is no evidence for Iran trying to get Nuclear Weapons.

There is no evidence for that.

Rather it's solely about painting Ahmadinejad as being the new
Saddam. I really hope the American People will not fall for these
Lies again. And concerning Israel - I hope that they will not finally
be the victims of this propaganda inasmuch that the world will
turn their backs towards Israels interests...

That could be the beginning of the end of Israel...

[Oliver]

Moved over from the "Should Ahmadinejad be allowed to speak (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2994353#post2994353)
at Columbia University? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2994353#post2994353)" -thread...

... yet.

Again with the Oliver logic where someone who wants to kill you isn't a threat to you until after he's killed you.

Anyway, do go to the other thread.


BS. He and his military are no threat for the US, Israel or Europe.
There is no evidence for the contrary - even the NSC, NSA, CIA
doesn't have such evidence.

You're making this threat up. That's nice and pretty much the
same garbage like in case of Saddam. But nobody with a brain
will believe this crap anymore. And this is dangerous for Israel's
interests - not an advantage in any way. Don't you understand
that?

[Pardalis]

Rather it's solely about painting Ahmadinejad as being the new Saddam. I really hope the American People will not fall for these Lies again.

If only you weren't so dismissive of Ahmadinejad's own propaganda (in fact you're falling for it), you might have a point.

[jsiv]

Moved over from the "Should Ahmadinejad be allowed to speak (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2994353#post2994353)at Columbia University? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2994353#post2994353)" -thread...


Could you please move to THE RIGHT THREAD (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2993582#post2993582) where I've already commented on pretty much the same thing.


Thanks.

[Oliver]

If only you wouldn't be so dismissive of Ahmadinejad's own propaganda (in fact you're falling for it), you might have a point.


See? That's the difference between you, me and Truthers.
I fall for evidence - you seem to connect the dots in a
way which is based on emotions, not of facts.

And don't get me wrong, Goury. I like you, but your fears
are ungrounded.

The real threat would be if the Muslim world would turn into
a holy war to protect their Islam. And you seem to put oil
into this fire instead trying extinguishing it.

Do you know what I mean?


ETA:

Could you please move to THE RIGHT THREAD (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2993582#post2993582) where I've already commented on pretty much the same thing.


Thanks.


This is the thread about Iran, nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad, etc.
The other thread came later and is about a CT rather than the current
supposedly "crisis"...

[Pardalis]

See? That's the difference between you, me and Truthers. I fall for evidence - you seem to connect the dots in a way which is based on emotions, not of facts.

We are both guilty being emotional about this subject (that thread you started about Bush and Hitler for example).

You've been given time and time again facts that Iran is not being forthright about its nuclear program, and you have been given multiple times quotes from Ahmadinejad calling for the destruction of Israel. You just don't want to acknowledge those facts.

Iran may be not an immediate nuclear threat to Israel, but it is using rhetoric which is worrisome.

The real threat would be if the Muslim world would turn into a holy war to protect their Islam.Nobody is attacking Islam. Islam is far from being threatened by western civilization, nobody has called for a war against it. In fact, Islam is more threatened by its own inner divisions.

[Tailgater]

This is the thread about Iran, nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad, etc.
The other thread came later and is about a CT rather than the current
supposedly "crisis"...

I don't think there is a "crisis", but I do believe he dodged or lied during every question today. At the same time, you were already posting a defense for him in the thread, when you hadn't even watched it all.

[Oliver]

We are both guilty being emotional about this subject (that thread you started about Bush and Hitler for example).

You've been given time and time again facts that Iran is not being forthright about its nuclear program, and you have been given multiple times quotes from Ahmadinejad calling for the destruction of Israel. You just don't want to acknowledge those facts.

Iran may be not an immediate nuclear threat to Israel, but it is using rhetoric which is worrisome.

Nobody is attacking Islam. Islam is far from being threatened by western civilization, nobody has called for a war against it. In fact, Islam is more threatened by its own inner divisions.


You don't understand that: Even if nobody is calling for attacking
Islam - it could be interpreted this way. Want an example?

Osama Bin Laden (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html)

There is no evidence for a nuclear warheads program. It doesn't
matter what Ahmadinejad says. Let me repeat it:

It doesn't matter what Ahmadinejad says!

Unless, of course - there is evidence. And no, there is no such.

[derail]

Concerning "Bush - Hitler": I wondered if Americans would even
acknowledge if their democracy would vanish over night. The
Patriot Act being introduced literally "over night" - and voted for
without even reading it would've concerned me. But it's always
a pleasure to see how naive the reactions in here are.

Democracy in the US (Not reading Bills they pass) :
q1HAyV8fUcY

[/end of derail]

[jsiv]

This is the thread about Iran, nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad, etc.
The other thread came later and is about a CT rather than the current
supposedly "crisis"...

CHRIST

I politely asked you in the CU/Ahmadinejad thread if you'd like to comment on some related posts I made in another thread, and instead you decide to go to a third thread, making the whole thing pointless.

I don't know why you have to be so difficult, but fine, I will duplicate them:


Are you aware that the Iranian government was displaying banners reading "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" at the big military parade they held the other day?

They most definitively are trying to start a war of sorts against Israel, the US, and the West by trying to drive everyone in the region against us (as well as sponsoring terrorism.) Iran needs to tone down the rhetoric if it's going to be possible to have rational negotiations with them.

Oh no! Banners!! I'm so scared!!!! :rolleyes:

So what?


So their desire is to see Israel gone, dead, wiped from existence. This isn't even something they deny. In fact, Ahmadinejad continually reminds people of it. It's a stated goal of his. It's not a great secret.

Note that this is not saying that they want to "kill all the Jews." No, they simply want the State of Israel to be dissolved and the people relocated somewhere else, preferably outside of the Middle East.


How do we respond to words and protests? I say we need to not respond at all. Rattling our sabers back at them plays right into their hands.


They aren't content with just empty words and protests though. They do whatever they can to drive others to engage in physical attacks against us (meaning Israel and any western presence in the region.)


If they want to "start a war" by driving Israel or America to launch an unprovoked preemptive strike, then we've again played into their hands.


Their wish is probably not to start a war that involves Iran itself, but rather to get everyone in the region to make us feel so unwelcome that we pack up and leave, giving them a greater opportunity to become a dominating force in the middle east -- without any fighting on their own land. Warfare by proxy.

The problem though, Ellison, is where do you draw the line? When does it cease to be an "unprovoked preemptive strike?" Take Israel. Iran has been shown to be behind attacks on Israel, both indirectly through supporting terrorist groups, and directly through members of the Iranian Guard operating in countries like Lebanon. If you have indisputable evidence of this taking place, would striking back at Iran really be preemptive or unprovoked?

What if Iran decides to increase their activities in the future, after they've obtained even more advanced weaponry, including nuclear warheads? What do you do then? Striking back has just become a lot more risky. This is probably the reason Iran wants nuclear weapons, not because they intend to attack anyone with them "first." They want free reigns to do whatever they want, without the risk of any major repercussions.

That's how I see it, anyway.

The whole thing is a big mess, and I fear that it's inevitably going to escalate beyond the point of no return. It's sad to watch.

[Oliver]

I don't think there is a "crisis", but I do believe he dodged or lied during every question today. At the same time, you were already posting a defense for him in the thread, when you hadn't even watched it all.


I don't have to since Iran is no threat to the US.
Your point ... ? --- "But, but, but...!!!"

"But" what?

[Oliver]

CHRIST

I politely asked you in the CU/Ahmadinejad thread if you'd like to comment on some related posts I made in another thread, and instead you decide to go to a third thread, making the whole thing pointless.

I don't know why you have to be so difficult, but fine, I will duplicate them:


What's your question? I don't care who said what or did what.
As long there is no real threat to anyone, I simply don't support
the same row of lies that led to the Iraq Mess.

If you have evidence for a threat - other than words, feel free
to post them.

Until then, you're spouting Woo. And this place may be the wrong
one to try to advocate Woo, don't you think? :confused:

[jsiv]

What's your question? I don't care who said what or did what.
As long there is no real threat to anyone, I simply don't support
the same row of lies that led to the Iraq Mess.

If you have evidence for a threat - other than words, feel free
to post them.

Until then, you're spouting Woo. And this place may be the wrong
one to try to advocate Woo, don't you think? :confused:


Thanks for not actually reading anything I wrote. There is no "woo," and there are infact several questions there.

[Pardalis]

You don't understand that: Even if nobody is calling for attacking Islam - it could be interpreted this way. Want an example?

Osama Bin Laden (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html)

Osama Bin Laden is a lunatic.

It doesn't matter what Ahmadinejad says.It doesn't matter what he says, but whatever Bush says you criticize... Why the double standard?

[Darth Rotor]

It doesn't matter what he says, but whatever Bush says you criticize... Why the double standard?
Oliver does not speak Farsi.
By the way, Osama Bin Laden is not a lunatic. He is a very sane leader of a group of people whose aim is to use any means necessary to bring about a change. I'd not take his rhetoric any more seriously as an analysis of mental capacity than I'd take most political rhetoric. He pushes particular buttons for a reason: to elicit a particular response.

DR

[Oliver]

Thanks for not actually reading anything I wrote. There is no "woo," and there are infact several questions there.


"The problem though, Ellison, is where do you draw the line? "

Easy. Draw the line between facts and fiction.

"If you have indisputable evidence of this taking place, would striking back at Iran really be preemptive or unprovoked?"

If ... Welcome to a skeptics forum.

"What if Iran decides to increase their activities in the future, after they've obtained even more advanced weaponry, including nuclear warheads?"

If ...

"So their desire is to see Israel gone, dead, wiped from existence. This isn't even something they deny. In fact, Ahmadinejad continually reminds people of it. It's a stated goal of his. It's not a great secret."

See? Woo.
Unless, of course - you have evidence for any ongoing nuclear
warhead program. And to clear this up: You don't:

In July (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July) 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to allow inspectors to visit its Arak nuclear plant, and by August 2007 a plan for monitoring the Natanz uranium enrichment plant will have been finalised. [27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-11)

In August (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August) 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to a plan to resolve key questions regarding its past nuclear activities. The IAEA described this as a "significant step forward". [28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-12)

In September (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September) 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) the IAEA announced it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use. While the IAEA has been unable to verify some "important aspects" regarding the nature and scope of Iran's nuclear work, the agency and Iranian officials agreed on a plan to resolve all outstanding issues, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-13)


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#IAEA




Please stop spewing non-rational fear mongering, Jsiv.
It's a Skeptics Forum - not a Woo-Forum... Thanks.

[Darth Rotor]

[B] Please stop spewing non-rational fear mongering, Jsiv.
Please stop channeling Shanek on a bad day, Oliver. Shouting on the internet is hardly necessary in this discussion.

jsiv disagreeing with you != fear mongering.

Since you have shown that you'll buy Mahmoud's line of BS, you are in danger of getting the woo sticker attached to your handle.

Not good.

DR

[Pardalis]

By the way, Osama Bin Laden is not a lunatic. He is a very sane leader of a group of people whose aim is to use any means necessary to bring about a change.

I know he's not insane, I tend to use "lunatic" to refer to people who have deluded themselves to this extent.

Like Alex Jones, I don't think he's insane, but he sure is a lunatic in my book.

[Darth Rotor]

I know he's not insane, I tend to use "lunatic" to refer to people who have deluded themselves to this extent.

Like Alex Jones, I don't think he's insane, but he sure is a lunatic in my book.

I'd use "charlatan" and "snake oil salesman" before I'd use lunatic, though moonbat does spring to mind. :)

DR

[Oliver]

Please stop channeling Shanek on a bad day, Oliver. Shouting on the internet is hardly necessary in this discussion.

jsiv disagreeing with you != fear mongering.

Since you have shown that you'll buy Mahmoud's line of BS, you are in danger of getting the woo sticker attached to your handle.

Not good.

DR


I believe as much in Mahmoud as I believe in republican fear-mongering.
But all of this doesn't matter.

Evidence, please. :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

Oliver, what do you think of this video?

VZIp0BIRUJs

See at about 04:30, the soldiers make formations which look like missiles, aiming at the star of David and the US.

I don't know when it was taken, but you can see Iran's top Ayatollah attending.

I know this is not evidence of anything, but don't you find it troublesome?

[Oliver]

Oliver, what do you think of this video?

VZIp0BIRUJs

See at about 04:30, the soldiers make formations which look like missiles, aiming at the star of David and the US.

I don't know when it was taken, but you can see Iran's top Ayatollah attending.

I know this is not evidence of anything, but don't you find it troublesome?


Quite frankly, Goury - to me it sounds like:

"Did you see that??? : http://www.rawcuisine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/bush-sign2.jpg

Bush is worshiping Satan!!!OMG!!!1!!ELEVEN!!!11!!!!1!!"

Your arguments are on the same level. And I apologize
for being the one who has to point this out for you.

There is no evidence for the Threat in your imagination. The
real threat is that the Al-Qaida's/Qutb's-Message is gaining speed
all over the Muslim world. That's the real threat. Not what Israel
wants to make us believe.

Where are your skeptical skills, Goury? :confused:
Don't you care about evidence anymore? :(

[Pardalis]

Link doesn't work

[Oliver]

Link doesn't work


Strange. It (http://www.rawcuisine.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/bush-sign2.jpg) works for me.
Try this similar one: http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/-/a/bush_rockon.jpg

[Pardalis]

So Ayatollah Khamenei attends a military show which shows clearly missiles aiming and striking the star of David, and you equate this to some silly freeze frame of George Bush?

I see you don't want to have a serious conversation.

[Oliver]

So Ayatollah Khamenei attends a military show which shows clearly missiles aiming and striking the star of David, and you equate this to some silly freeze frame of George Bush?

I see you don't want to have a serious conversation.


No. I'm trying to get to a serious discussion. Not wooing all day long.

Fact is:

In July (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July) 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to allow inspectors to visit its Arak nuclear plant, and by August 2007 a plan for monitoring the Natanz uranium enrichment plant will have been finalised. [27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-11)

In August (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August) 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to a plan to resolve key questions regarding its past nuclear activities. The IAEA described this as a "significant step forward". [28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-12)

In September (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September) 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) the IAEA announced it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use. While the IAEA has been unable to verify some "important aspects" regarding the nature and scope of Iran's nuclear work, the agency and Iranian officials agreed on a plan to resolve all outstanding issues, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-13)


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_an...s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#IAEA)truction #IAEA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#IAEA)





And Goury's counter-evidence is .... :confused:

[marksman]

A freeze frame of George Bush giving the traditional symbol for a football team, that other interpret as a Stanic symbol.

So, it appears Oliver's argument is that while the image of missiles aiming and striking the star of David is considered a direct threat to harm Israel to many of us,. in reality, this symbol has an innocent meaning which is.....

.....

um... Oliver, care to step in an explain what the non-threatening meaning of that image is?

[Pardalis]

And Goury's counter-evidence is .... :confused:


I've never said they had nuclear warheads, I'm just saying their rhetoric is worrisome.

[Oliver]

I've never said they had nuclear warheads, I'm just saying their rhetoric is worrisome.


Argh. :boggled: So is the republican rhetoric.

But the difference is: Iran is talking about being open for diplomatics
while the republicans are War-Mongering.

So? What do you personally prefer: War-mongering or diplomatics?
And if you're for diplomatics, why are you siding with republican propaganda? :boggled:

[Darth Rotor]

I believe as much in Mahmoud as I believe in republican fear-mongering.
But all of this doesn't matter.

Evidence, please. :rolleyes:
You last 500 posts on the JREF forums.

Oliver is a practitioner of woo.

I rest my case.

DR

[Pardalis]

And if you're for diplomatics, why are you siding with republican propaganda? :boggled:

Both sides are guilty of playing deaf.

[Oliver]

You last 500 posts on the JREF forums.

Oliver is a practitioner of woo.

I rest my case.

DR


Wrong.

There is no counter-evidence regarding this one:

In July (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July) 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to allow inspectors to visit its Arak nuclear plant, and by August 2007 a plan for monitoring the Natanz uranium enrichment plant will have been finalised. [27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-11)

In August (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August) 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to a plan to resolve key questions regarding its past nuclear activities. The IAEA described this as a "significant step forward". [28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-12)

In September (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September) 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) the IAEA announced it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use. While the IAEA has been unable to verify some "important aspects" regarding the nature and scope of Iran's nuclear work, the agency and Iranian officials agreed on a plan to resolve all outstanding issues, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#_note-13)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_an...s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#IAEA)truction #IAEA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#IAEA)





Everthing else is woo since the controversy is about Nuclear Weapons... :rolleyes:

[Oliver]

Both sides are guilty of playing deaf.


To me it sounds like the republicans are even more deaf since
they have no problem with lies:

1YZizrtgi7Q
kB9aFir1Yi4
wL2Z5elxXdo
nKw2_Np3gcc

So what's your solution? And if I may ask - what's the real
threat-scenario in your mind?

[jsiv]

"The problem though, Ellison, is where do you draw the line? "

Easy. Draw the line between facts and fiction.


I don't get it. Are you saying Iran has never done anything intended to harm Israel? The question was how far you feel Iran would have to go before a country like Israel could be justified in fighting back.


"If you have indisputable evidence of this taking place, would striking back at Iran really be preemptive or unprovoked?"

If ... Welcome to a skeptics forum.

"What if Iran decides to increase their activities in the future, after they've obtained even more advanced weaponry, including nuclear warheads?"

If ...


At the risk of violating Judge Judy's copyright, "If ..." is not an answer.

Why won't you answer? Why do you keep sidestepping?


"So their desire is to see Israel gone, dead, wiped from existence. This isn't even something they deny. In fact, Ahmadinejad continually reminds people of it. It's a stated goal of his. It's not a great secret."

See? Woo.

Unless, of course - you have evidence for any ongoing nuclear
warhead program. And to clear this up: You don't:


Explain what's "woo" about it.

Also, this does not follow. Nowhere in the paragraph you quoted do I say anything about Iran currently having a nuke factory. Nor does it in any way imply that Iran is planning on ridding the world of Israel by nuking them. Infact, later in the post I gave my opinion on what tactic they prefer and why they might have an interest in developing nuclear weapons.

Since, sadly, everything seems to indicate that Iran is going to increase its efforts in the future rather than the opposite, it would be in Israel's best interest to destroy any nuclear weapons before they're ready to be used. Such a strike would hardly be unprovoked, as Iran have made their intentions very clear -- both through actions and rhetoric.

Otherwise, if things get completely out of hand in the future and Israel is left with no choice but to fight back against Iran, matters would be severely complicated by the presence of nuclear weapons. It would put them at a severe disadvantage.

Do you get what I'm saying?


Please stop spewing non-rational fear mongering, Jsiv.
It's a Skeptics Forum - not a Woo-Forum... Thanks.


I have no idea why you feel I'm "spewing non-rational fear mongering," I really don't. I'm simply trying to have a discussion.