can you please stop calling me your friend i'm not sure what you mean by a "mullahcracy," but it sounds like more inflammatory rhetoric you forget that their program is under international inspection which is more than i can say for others that continue to proliferate and the iaea has found no evidence and they've inspected the hell out the country i'm sure your response would be to quote rummy that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence....again, this is the same sutff that was said about iraq i guess you can justify anything in your fantasy world....i apologize if i deal with reality
You don't wanna be friends? Well, no. I didn't forget that, lol. Not sure what the implications are for your point. The inspections found that there is significant previously unreported development in the Iranian program. That's why there is the current controversy. That's where the 'secret program' stuff comes from. What other countries are doing in regards to proliferation is completely irrelevant (not that you're doing more than throwing out vagaries to confuse the point). The reality is that the international community is in agreement that Iran is going beyond a civilian program. Even the few powers that don't favor harsh sanctions or military action still agree there needs to be a settlement to this issue. YOU and the Iranian PR machine are the only people claiming otherwise. As such, I think you need to step out of your self created 'reality,' my friend. I'll be sure to let you know when they come knocking on my door in the middle of the night.
hayes, the one fatal flaw in all your assertions is that there isnt any evidence, because i dont think any exists you're falling victim to the same type of propaganda that was put forth vis-a-vis Iraq....now if say there's no evidence, you reply that you dont have an iranian nuclear device or that the evidence is easy to conceal and then we just go back and forth because nobody can prove anything even though the burden of proof is on the ones making the accusation....let's take a moment to think outside the box this is a manufactured "threat" iran isnt a "danger" to anyone....they've never attacked another country in their modern history however, they've been invaded and occupied during their modern history by russia, britian, and have had their democractic government overthrown by the us and a brutal dictator installed in place of their democracy they've also been the victims of wmd during the iran-iraq war back when saddam hussein was supported by the us they've also been the victims of tremendous amounts of terrorism mainly from the mojahedin khalq organization, they had one of their presidents and prime ministers even assassinated the iranian program is also STILL under international inspection, which is more than i can say for practically all other countries look at it from iran's perspective or from an objective one, they're surrounded by us troops in iraq and afghanistan...the us has bases all around the middle east and a heavy naval presence as well in the arabian sea now if you couple this with the war mongering of washington, i think it's a safe bet to say that the iranians feel insecure iran wants what any state wants and thats security they haven't done anything illegal and have been treated quite unfairly by the us manipulating international organizations against iran all nations should be held to the same standards, you can't have one standard for iran and another for india or israel or for other nations that are members of the npt.....if all nation-states are not going to be treated fairly, then there's no point in being a member of an organization like the iaea my friend
Wow. By far your most reasonable post. Kudos. The problem with your position is that this isn't a coalition of the 'intimidated by the US.' The EU is hardly an organization you can claim kowtow's to US rhetoric. Let's just for a moment say that the Bush administration has a rationale to construct a threat out of Iran (I don't necessarily agree but let's just act as if it's a given), the EU does not. That is where your argument falls apart. Pretty much everyone involved has taken the position that the Iranian program is military as well as civilian. I don't think someone 'objective' just blows that off especially when your US coercion argument makes no sense. If you add to that the idea that the rationale you give for Iranian insecurity is the same for WHY they would have a secret military program...well there you go. As for the 'treat everyone fair' part of your post, you don't give any description of how we're treating Iran unfairly vis-a-vis India/Israel et al. Neither of those are NPT signatories. If you want to I'd be happy to address it, although I'm also not sure how it's related to this discussion.
thanks for the psuedo-compliment....i gave you one earlier if you look back on the cfr article you posted....the eu wants to "make-up" with the us over iraq and that's why there has been a convergence although with the rhetoric coming from the bush administration the eu is starting to distance themselves from the us position. if the us is worried about iran's intentions then why not negotiate with them directly like north korea? iran has offered to negotiate with the us directly, but washington has resisted iran has also offered the world including the us a stake of at least 35% in their nuclear activities i just think the us administration has a lot of contempt for iran and doesn't want diplomacy and negotiations to succeed so that they can justify another pre-emptive action btw, i've always thought all my posts were good
I think you'd have to give us some evidence of an EU move to 'make up' with the US by sacrificing Iran. That's not consistent with the EU's stance at all. As I indicated previously, the US did not want the North Korea talks to be bilateral either. There are many reasons for this - the other regional powers should be involved - in NK's case that was China, Japan, and SK. In Iran's case there has been grumbling from some Arab nations at being left 'off the table' with bilateral talks. There is also the point that bilateral talks are just another chance for Iran to draw things out, whereas with the UNSC they have to really open up. I'm not sure what that means. I don't know why they would do that. I'm not saying its impossible, but that the other powers that be also believe that Iran has a military program belies this contention. Yeah, you're not the only self delusional one on this board.
the usa is a very emotional topic in iran and iran is a very emotional topic in the usa a lot of officials still harbor contempt for iran due to the revolution and its aftermath and that's why i said what i said about them not wanting negotiations and diplomacy to succeed so that they can justify some type of military action iran offered to allow other countries including the us to play a role in its nuclear energy progra, but washington rejected this offer iran would be receptive to bi- and multilateral talks...this is what happened during the afghanistan campaign no european official is going to publicly say that we're "sacrificing," as you put it, iran so we could repair our relationship with washington, but this is a big aspect of the european approach in relation to iran....i'm sure the european's have some genuine concerns, but they also realize that they can use this issue to seek rapprochement with the us and put the rift over iraq in the past
Again, please provide some backing for this position. Give us some evidence that the statements about the Iranian program coming from the EU are made up. IIRC, according to your standard on burdens - it is yours to show that the EU is lying to reproach with the US, not the other way around. It makes no sense. The Europeans don't have a motive to kowtow to our position on Iran. In fact they are in more danger from Iranian proliferation than we are - hence they have more motivation to stop Iran's program. The EU has suffered ANY quantifiable reprecussions from their anti-Iraq stance vis-a-vis the US. They HAVE tried to negotiate with the Iranians and been stonewalled. Hence, they - like the US - have moved the discussion to the UNSC.
This is where we differ hayes. i think anything made by the hardworking iranian engineers is an bonus. i cant believe this, but i'm gonna say this, one thing this backward mollahs done is indiginous armorment program. iranian engineers despite the hardship they face have done an unbeliveble job. but this dirty mollah's are taking credit for them.
this is my analysis and its only one factor and athere are plenty of articles that discuss this issue as well http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC16Ak01.html blazer ben please stop calling me and others names....stick to the issues and facts and be a little stronger mentally by not allowing your emotions get the best of you.....dont get hysterical maybe some of you can answer this question: why is there so much contempt for iran on this board?
I dis-like you and the likes of you who have forcefully occupied iran for the last 27 years. destroyed a great nation. you have no shame by coming here and blowing the trumpet for a bunch of uneducated backward mollahs. BTW, i never called anyone else names. dont pull things out of you're backside. you allready made enough stink with the stuff coming from you're mouth.
as i said earlier, you're a joke and you need to learn how to spell, how to properly use grammar, and a class in composition would help as well
One thing that you keep dismissing as an Iranian is that like them or not, the Mullahs in Iran have moved the country to true independence. Yes, they might not be ideal and there are lots of problems that need to be dealt with, but how can ANY truly proud Iranian who loves his country and his people claim that the Shah was anything less than a pawn for the West. I understand you prefer a secular, more progressive regime, but the Shah? Come on blazer_ben, I like you dude, but you're way off here. The Shah was not going to survive, period. The Iranian people viewed him by and large as a client for the West, and the Iranian people have a strong history of independence and pride in their nation, somebody was going to overthrow him sooner or later. It just so happened that the theocrats were more well-organized and had the grassroots support of the people to proceed with the plans. So again, I understand if you don't like the mullahs, I understand a lot of Iranians living in the West prefer a secular regime (it's a big reason why many of them left the country, and from my personal experience, the majority of Iranians I have come across here in America and elsewhere are anti-religion). However, it doesn't have to be "the Shah vs. the Mullahs", you could just say that both were/are bad and a change needs to be made. The Shah was a pawn and no better than Saddam Hussein (both were secular regimes). Just because the Mullahs are 'Islamists" doesn't make them worse. IMO, both regimes were extremists in their own rights, and some balance would probably serve the Iranian people best.
This is directed at the wrong person. in another thread, i merely pointedout that the mollahs had alot of faults without even mentioning the shah, then mr Creepyfloyd or local mollah supporter, jumped in and attacked me. his reasoning was, atleast there better then the shah. lets say for argument sake they are, does that make there crimes and destruction of iran right?... no. tell mr creepyfloyd not to compare. i wanna see a iran with no mollah or shah. get you're facts straight before attacking me.
I am not attacking you, come one man don't be so sensitive, I am merely trying to gauge you on this and see where you stand. If I misunderstood your position, I apologize, but I in agreement with you that both regimes might not be the most ideal for Iran's best interests. Just keep in mind blazer_ben that whether or not you dislike the current regime, outside intervention would prove further disastrous for the country and the people you love. If change will come about, it has to be indigenous. And whatever you might think, if I were an Iranian I would be very weary of just how noble the West's intentions are when it comes to dealing with Iran. Just my two cents...
Shah started as an Pawn, But by the late 1970's he was sticking up for iran's national interests. he created OPEC. he told the british that irans oil belongs to the people of iran. his downfall eventually was his love for his country. again, history has proven only a secular society where religion and goverment dosent mix is the ideal way to go. the future of iran will be an secular republic, where the parliment will have the final say.
I've stated before that the West should keep it's dirty hands off iran. the people inside will eventually toppole this cowards. about being indipendent, well, there giving our oil away for free just to keep themselves in power. the mollahs and there sons steal money like it's in fashion. they oil some of the biggest oilfields in the country. nobody can say or do anything about it.
Here is a guy who condones stoning of woman. he says the mollahs are pro-womans right.the only joke is you. you denied, the mollahs crimes, i provided a link which proved it. you said noone was attacked in the student uprisings, i provided an link by an eyewitness non-bias western bystander who said she saw with her own eyes people being shot by the riot police. yet you keep denying it.
