Freedom of speech and making threats against a nation are two separate issues. Let’s get that clear, plus don’t argue for the sake of arguing. I implied that threats such as these may lead to bombings; however I never stated they SHOULD be bombed. (Well atleast that is what i was trying to say ) In an unstable part of the world such as the Middle East threats such as those can and should be taken seriously. If Israel says it’s going to wipe out Saudi Arabia for supporting Hamas, you think the Muslim world will/should sit and say “freedom of speech”? There would be an uproar.
Oh that's brilliant. So, a hypothetical, a leader of one nation says to another 'we're going to nuke you tomorrow', CreepyFloyd will argue that no action should be taken because of 'freedom of speech'? Do you even understand the meaning of 'freedom of speech'...what it relates to and why it's important for civilians? WTH does that have to do w/ what national leaders say?
this is why iran's feels threatened and rightfully so: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49709 the nuclear program is just a pretext for the bush administration and the neo-con chicken hawks the question i have is how did Cheney's daughter become the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and head of the Iran-Syrian Operations group? what expertise does she have in relation to those two countries? talk about cronyism and patronage
Referring to Germany or my ancestral lands? Yes, been to Germany and some of my (other) ancestral lands. Why, are you Germnan?
why have you decided to selectively quote me and not look at all my posts holistically....the senario (iran saying they would nuke a nation) that you just proposed is preposterous for reasons which i've already gone over btw, remember that according to seymour hersh, the us has plans to use nukes against iran, but you conveniently failed to mention that ultimately, iran already has the technical and scientific knowledge to master the full nuclear process, "bombing them," will only set the program back and cause them to withdraw from the iaea and remove the inspectors, which is not in the interest of genuined long term stability for anyone hopefully cooler heads on all sides will prevail
Yeah yeah Bush and Cheney suck, but you can't stick this one on them. Iran's pusuit of urnaium enrichment predates the Bush presidency by a number of years. I also get a distinct impression that Bush/Cheney do not have much influence w/ the IAEA, yet what was the vote in Feb to send it to the Security Council, 27-3? Any way you look at it, Iran is essentially isolated on this issue. Many of the people who dislike Bush agree w/ him on this (although prob not the solution).
i agree with most of what u said, but under the npt every nation has the right to fully master the entire nuclear process, including uranium enrichment, which has been iran's position all along...they even conducted a voluntary suspension of all uranium enrichment activites for a period of two years, which didnt get them anywhere...i think that europe is using the iranian nuclear issue to heal the wounds that were created over iraq or at least avoid another political/diplomatic confrontaion with the US....see: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0cfd2c90-1980-11da-804e-00000e2511c8.html i dont see why we're concentrating so much on ahmadinejad's words, he doesnt even have that much power in the iranian political system (it's probably because he's telling opponents of iran what they wanna hear)...we should also spend just as much time looking at the words of other iranian officials. iran's program is under international inspection, iran doesn't have a history of agression, iran has also shown a willingness to even suspend enrichment activites again for another two years, and they've shown that they are willing to negotiate even with the us directly....see: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php https://registration.ft.com/registr...s/s/76a939b6-c5bc-11da-b675-0000779e2340.html http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB07Ak01.html in my view, this is again a manufactured "threat" and iran is being treated unfairly
Go to some countries with U.S bases in em. South Korea for example...had a friend go teach english there, and man those kids just hated anyone who came from the U.S. Actually before my friend even started teaching he was told to tell everyone he was Canadian. (Don't you think countries are threatened with U.S bases located all over the world?) Anyway, I'm not one that knows a lot about gloabl politics, hell i would call myself uneducated in that field. I come here actually to learn about politics ... though i've noticed everyone has an agenda in here.
Actually iran's nucelear program goes way back to Shah's era. the germans and the french helped iran to build busher.the world could have trusted the shah with an nucelear bomb. the mollahs however are another story.
So, which is it, Creepy? Can you make up your mind? Iran is a "democracy," but their "elected" President, "doesn't even have that much power in the iranian political system." How so? Who does? Their parliament? The one which had large numbers of reform candidates "disqualified" before the elections, so they couldn't have influence? Who has the power? Golly, it wouldn't be the theocratic regime that has the power, would it? And you've said repeatedly that, "iran doesn't have a history of agression," "if you examine iranian actions and not their words, "iran is a rational actor that does what is in its best interest just like any other state, which makes their behavior predictable.... " and. "they've never attacked another nation in their modern history." It's strange, but I would have sworn that Iran invaded and occupied the sovereign territory of the United States, an act of war, and it was in modern times. Do you know when that was? Iran is a "rational actor?" Right, and I'm really Bill Gates. Really!! Keep D&D Civil.
well you've demonstrated your ignorance of the iranian political system, but so have many others everything i've said is based on the facts....of you're upset, then your problem isnt with me, its with the facts we've already had a thorough discussion of iran and its political institutions in other threads....i'll just say this anybody who has a leadership position in the iranian system is elected....ali khamenei is the chief of state and mahmoud ahmadinejad is the head of government funny how you didnt even respond to or discuss the articles i posted and it's also funny how you say keep d&d civil, but your responses betray that....nice piece of rhetoric
Thanks for the links. You realize that the actions of North Korea and Pakistan have a large influence on how the West deals with Iran? It's suspected ties to terrorism over the past 40 years also comes into play. I don't want a war with Iran, but facillitating the pathway to a nuclear arsenal is out of the question. I hope you'll agree to that as well. Well, the world back then trusted Israel and Saddam with the bomb too. The Israelis didn't trust Iraq that much... I doubt in today's climate that any Arab nation would be allowed to reach nuclear ascendency. US's allies like Jordan or Egypt would probably get blanket assurances that we'd mop up any mess while receiving a firm message not to get nukes.
Despite my obvious distain for the current adminstration in iran, i believe that it is our obvious rights to posses nuclear technology. our young engineers who have no real effection for the mollahs are doing this for the love of there country. BTW, Invisible fan, iran is not an arab nation. we are an persian nation. our roots are arian and not arab.
blazer_ben, Slip of the tongue... I just don't think any Muslim nation in that region, like Turkey or Iran, would be permitted to have nukes right now. Ironically, the most possible candidate that could happen would be Saudi Arabia.
Turkey is an avid ally of isreal. i can see the isrealies trusting them. plus there army controls there goverment and society. the turks are not fanatics. they would only use it as a self-defense detterent. saudi arabia? noway. if there goverment falls, you can bet an alqaeda regim will grab the power. there population are highly fanaticale anti-american and western whabbis.
my point is that iran hasnt done anything illegal and has gone out of their way to compromise....under the npt all nations are allowed to fully master the entire nuclear process/cycle.....thus, as balzer ben articulated, iran has the same rights to this as anybody else
Turkey has its own issues to deal with and there's no way in hell they would be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Most of us forget that they've been in a virtual stalemate with Greece over the future of Cyprus. Turkish nationals still control about a 1/4 of Cyprus and Turkey is still the only country that recognizes that portion as an independent nation and has repeatedly asserted that it will defend Turks in Cyprus with all available military means at its disposal. Turkish-Greek relations are absolutely attrocious and I doubt that it will get much better anytime soon. As for the Middle East, Turkey still is incredibly jumbled in terms of public opinion. Istanbul and a little bit of Western Turkey is predominately European in identity. The area is much more liberal and conforms much more with the stereotypical European region. Eastern Turkey on the other hand can be fiercely conservative to the point where it rivals that of other conservative Middle Eastern countries. While, the military by and large runs the country and will institute a coup if necessary, that level of instability is what brings fear to the eyes of most nations. A country unstable enough to where the military has to overthrow governments in order to maintain a secular identity is not ready, nor should it, possess nuclear weapons. Considering the UN IAEA, which earlier had repeatedly refused American demands to refer Iran to the security council, actually did that with a vote of something like 27-3 shows that many aren't convinced that Iran is doing this exclusively for "peaceful" purposes. Maybe you're in the minority on this one but you're in a really small minority considering almost every country in the world has called out Iran on this one. This isn't like Iraq where countries had questions about the intelligence presented by the Bush Administration. Even countries like Russia and China which have long backed countries like Iran have chimed in and demanded greater levels of transparency.
^still they havent done anything illegal and their program is under international inspection....the international community did disagree about iraq, but all their intelligence agencies believed iraq had wmd, thus, they've been wrong before and i dont think they're as united as you think iran, as the previous articles i posted indicate, has been willing to negotiate and compromise time and time again even with the us directly
