US to accept civilian nuke program in Iran

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

US to accept civilian nuke program in Iran

WASHINGTON - US President Barack Obama has signaled Tehran that the Washington would accept an civilian nuclear program in Iran if Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can back up his recent claim that his nation "will never pursue nuclear weapons," the Washington Post reported Friday.

According to the report, the verbal message was sent through Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who met with Khamenei last week. A few days prior to leaving for the trip, Erdogan held a two-hour meeting with Obama on the sidelines of the nuclear security summit in Seoul, in which they discussed what the Turkish leader would tell Khamenei about the nuclear
issue.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4213414,00.html

So yeah Obama is at it again makes me wonder once again who is the occupier of the oval office really working for?

KlLLUMINATI:

So yeah Obama is at it again makes me wonder once again who is the occupier of the oval office really working for?

And what's so wrong about a country having civilian nuclear power?

I'm again wondering who you are working for. Especially calling a civilian nuclear program a "nuke" program, while you know fully well that's not what a "nuke" is.

The Iranians can have a civilian nuclear program, trouble is we dont trust them to stop there. I think Obama is once again being naive here if we take this signal at face value which may not be the way to take it.

KlLLUMINATI:
US to accept civilian nuke program in Iran

WASHINGTON - US President Barack Obama has signaled Tehran that the Washington would accept an civilian nuclear program in Iran if Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can back up his recent claim that his nation "will never pursue nuclear weapons," the Washington Post reported Friday.

WOW!

That sounds outrageously, maddeningly, contemptibly reasonable!

So yeah Obama is at it again makes me wonder once again who is the occupier of the oval office really working for?

World peace and stability, which includes Iran not having nuclear weapons?

KlLLUMINATI:

So yeah Obama is at it again makes me wonder once again who is the occupier of the oval office really working for?

Yo I'm gonna let you finish, but If he was working for someone else, who would it be?
Doesn't really get much higher then the Oval Office, I mean, Why work for a Nation when you own a bigger one?

It's not like Iran is our potential enemy or anything.... right?

Fisher321:
It's not like Iran is our potential enemy or anything.... right?

Yes, I suppose the most reasonable thing to do with our "potential enemies" would be to completely prevent all infrastructure-building within them. While we're at it, let's make sure they never make it past the stone age, and destroy everything they own that is modern. Yeesh.

Stagnant:

Fisher321:
It's not like Iran is our potential enemy or anything.... right?

Yes, I suppose the most reasonable thing to do with our "potential enemies" would be to completely prevent all infrastructure-building within them. While we're at it, let's make sure they never make it past the stone age, and destroy everything they own that is modern. Yeesh.

Sounds good to me..

Fisher321:

Stagnant:

Fisher321:
It's not like Iran is our potential enemy or anything.... right?

Yes, I suppose the most reasonable thing to do with our "potential enemies" would be to completely prevent all infrastructure-building within them. While we're at it, let's make sure they never make it past the stone age, and destroy everything they own that is modern. Yeesh.

Sounds good to me..

You know, there are two words in "potential enemy". I think you're just reading one.

Stagnant:

Fisher321:
It's not like Iran is our potential enemy or anything.... right?

Yes, I suppose the most reasonable thing to do with our "potential enemies" would be to completely prevent all infrastructure-building within them. While we're at it, let's make sure they never make it past the stone age, and destroy everything they own that is modern. Yeesh.

Actually in a geopolitical context (as opposed to an individual one), yes, any and all advantages you can gain over a potential enemy are in your interest to maintain. Iran doesn't have to become our friend by any means but if it wants to remain and enemy then we will treat Iran like an enemy.

Seekster:

Stagnant:

Fisher321:
It's not like Iran is our potential enemy or anything.... right?

Yes, I suppose the most reasonable thing to do with our "potential enemies" would be to completely prevent all infrastructure-building within them. While we're at it, let's make sure they never make it past the stone age, and destroy everything they own that is modern. Yeesh.

Actually in a geopolitical context (as opposed to an individual one), yes, any and all advantages you can gain over a potential enemy are in your interest to maintain. Iran doesn't have to become our friend by any means but if it wants to remain and enemy then we will treat Iran like an enemy.

Someone who agrees. Much thanks for the support!

Stagnant:

Fisher321:

Stagnant:

Yes, I suppose the most reasonable thing to do with our "potential enemies" would be to completely prevent all infrastructure-building within them. While we're at it, let's make sure they never make it past the stone age, and destroy everything they own that is modern. Yeesh.

Sounds good to me..

You know, there are two words in "potential enemy". I think you're just reading one.

What you don't punch someone today that might punch you tomorrow?

Well, that is going to make the Iran War slightly less likely.

We will have to see if they are actually not going to make Nukes, or be like Israel and have Nukes and not officially confirm it, although Israel only gets away with it because they are not part of the U.N. "no nuke" treaty, nor inspected by the U.N.

Not G. Ivingname:
Well, that is going to make the Iran War slightly less likely.

We will have to see if they are actually not going to make Nukes, or be like Israel and have Nukes and not officially confirm it, although Israel only gets away with it because they are not part of the U.N. "no nuke" treaty, nor inspected by the U.N.

Yes that is what I was thinking. Either this is an unbelievably naive move on the part of the Obama administration (which given that Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State and would be involved in foreign policy decisions is unlikely, no I don't like Hillary but she is competent at her job) or this is an out for Iran. In other words "you claim you want nuclear energy, go ahead, have your nuclear energy" of course the subtext is there will be hell to pay if ever there is even a hint that they are developing nuclear energy for something other than civilian use. Then again I doubt Obama has the spine for that kind of dare.

Most likely though this is just a signal trying to strengthen America's position in the upcoming Nuclear Talks. It gives the Iranians something to talk about supposedly. I don't think most people have a problem with Iran developing nuclear energy but only a fool would trust them to stop there without some kind of real guarantee.

KlLLUMINATI:
So yeah Obama is at it again makes me wonder once again who is the occupier of the oval office really working for?

He's 'given' them something they already have mate. Iran already has working nuclear facilities.

The question is what for. This way, Obama is forcing them to confess their true agenda. If it's indeed not about nuclear weapons, they'll allow inspection and show it's about nuclear power, and the ongoing hostilities get defused.

If it's about nuclear weapons, Obama just bought himself more diplomatic ammunition all over the world. "See? I offered thema way out, and they wouldn't, proving it's about nukes for them".

It's called diplomacy, and Obama is tons better at it than Bush or any other republican warmonger.

KlLLUMINATI:

Stagnant:

Fisher321:

Sounds good to me..

You know, there are two words in "potential enemy". I think you're just reading one.

What you don't punch someone today that might punch you tomorrow?

Don't make enemies when you don't need to, there are plenty of ways to get rid of a potential enemy other then crippling them. Being nice goes a surprisingly long way if you do it right.

fact of the matter is that we can't stop them. surgical strikes would be ineffective, being that they have underground bases and reinforced ones, economic sanctions won't work because India and China don't want to cooperate (and may even hurt us more when they decide to start trading oil for their own currency) and we're in no condition, political or otherwise, for a full on invasion.

so now we have to grovel, which is good. Iran never hurt us, at least not without us provoking it, and it's not like they have any means to attack our homeland anyway.

BlazeRaider:

KlLLUMINATI:

Stagnant:

You know, there are two words in "potential enemy". I think you're just reading one.

What you don't punch someone today that might punch you tomorrow?

Don't make enemies when you don't need to, there are plenty of ways to get rid of a potential enemy other then crippling them. Being nice goes a surprisingly long way if you do it right.

Iran made us their enemy, we did not make Iran our enemy. Its worth pointing that out. Being nice isnt going to get us very far with Iran.

Hammartroll:
fact of the matter is that we can't stop them. surgical strikes would be ineffective, being that they have underground bases and reinforced ones, economic sanctions won't work because India and China don't want to cooperate (and may even hurt us more when they decide to start trading oil for their own currency) and we're in no condition, political or otherwise, for a full on invasion.

so now we have to grovel, which is good. Iran never hurt us, at least not without us provoking it, and it's not like they have any means to attack our homeland anyway.

We can stop them. Iran can choose between a nuclear weapons program and a functioning economy, it cannot have both.

Also what do you mean by "so now we have to grovel, which is good."?

Seekster:

Iran made us their enemy, we did not make Iran our enemy. Its worth pointing that out.

By doing....what, exactly? What hostile action against the USA did Iran commit in order to make you their enemy?

PS: "Not shutting up and doing what we want them to" doesn't count.

We can stop them. Iran can choose between a nuclear weapons program and a functioning economy, it cannot have both.

Yeah there's no way wrecking a country's economy can come back to bite you in the ass...

Vegosiux:

Seekster:

Iran made us their enemy, we did not make Iran our enemy. Its worth pointing that out.

By doing....what, exactly? What hostile action against the USA did Iran commit in order to make you their enemy?

PS: "Not shutting up and doing what we want them to" doesn't count.

We can stop them. Iran can choose between a nuclear weapons program and a functioning economy, it cannot have both.

Yeah there's no way wrecking a country's economy can come back to bite you in the ass...

Agreed, there's an old proverb I remember: "When you strike a man, it should be at such a magnitude that you needn't worry retaliation", I like to think the west is more civilized then genocide, that leaves the option of forgoing violence and using diplomacy and politics as it was meant to be: BEFORE WAR.

Now all the U.S. needs is a leader willing to take the slow steady not-glorious route of not invading people. BUT WHO?!?!

captcha: watch me

CAPTCHA 2012!

Vegosiux:

Seekster:

Iran made us their enemy, we did not make Iran our enemy. Its worth pointing that out.

By doing....what, exactly? What hostile action against the USA did Iran commit in order to make you their enemy?

PS: "Not shutting up and doing what we want them to" doesn't count.

We can stop them. Iran can choose between a nuclear weapons program and a functioning economy, it cannot have both.

Yeah there's no way wrecking a country's economy can come back to bite you in the ass...

The Iran Hostage crisis ring any bells? That and their constant support of groups like Hezbollah and harassment of Israel. More recently their support for Shiite militias in Iraq.

"Yeah there's no way wrecking a country's economy can come back to bite you in the ass..."

Thats a chance we are probably willing to take if that is what keeps them from getting a nuclear weapon should they choose to make one.

Seekster:

BlazeRaider:

KlLLUMINATI:

What you don't punch someone today that might punch you tomorrow?

Don't make enemies when you don't need to, there are plenty of ways to get rid of a potential enemy other then crippling them. Being nice goes a surprisingly long way if you do it right.

Iran made us their enemy, we did not make Iran our enemy. Its worth pointing that out. Being nice isnt going to get us very far with Iran.

Hammartroll:
fact of the matter is that we can't stop them. surgical strikes would be ineffective, being that they have underground bases and reinforced ones, economic sanctions won't work because India and China don't want to cooperate (and may even hurt us more when they decide to start trading oil for their own currency) and we're in no condition, political or otherwise, for a full on invasion.

so now we have to grovel, which is good. Iran never hurt us, at least not without us provoking it, and it's not like they have any means to attack our homeland anyway.

We can stop them. Iran can choose between a nuclear weapons program and a functioning economy, it cannot have both.

Also what do you mean by "so now we have to grovel, which is good."?

here buddy, crash course on US/Iran relations:

China is Iran's biggest oil importer and India is second... I think the US is fourth, so it will hurt them, but not stop them.
And did you know Iranians like to wear designer cloths? The west may have put up sanctions, but Gucci is made in China, so what we're essentially doing is destroying a potential market for us while giving China more business. Sanctions simply will not work without China's, India's and probably Russia's help, which they won't, cause business is good.

Iran has no means to deliver a nuke to our shores, but what you should be worried about our dollar's world reserve status. These sanctions are putting pressure on developing nations; we're making it hard for them to do buisness with eachother, which is encouraging them to discuss a new reserve currency. Iran has threatend to stop using the dollar due to our proding and India recently said they're considering trading gold for Iran's oil.. China and Russia already trade oil between eachother without the dollar.
The dollar is hyper-inflated because countries buy huge amounts to back up their currency and trade, but if we lose world reserve status, all those stores of dollars are going to be worthless, meaning the money in your wallet will be worthless. Losing world reserve status would be worse than a nuke going off in our borders.

btw, if Iran's nukes are so dangerous, why isn't India or China scared of them? India and China has had terrorist attacks by Islamic extreamists before, shouldn't they be scared too?

EDIT-here, more on our world resever status http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-reasons-why-the-reign-of-the-dollar-as-the-world-reserve-currency-is-about-to-come-to-an-end
the sanctions makes it hard for developing nations to work with us, so they're moving away
we're actually destroying our economy by being so heavy handed in our policy

Short of war, there's not much else Obama can do.

He can always declare war later if he wants to, and he's got a nice promise to remind people of if Iran looks like breaking it.

Seekster:
The Iran Hostage crisis ring any bells?

Er, that was during the revolution that removed the US/UK appointed dictator that overthrew their last (democratic) government. Not really starting the US/Iran problems there.

Hammartroll:

Seekster:

BlazeRaider:

Don't make enemies when you don't need to, there are plenty of ways to get rid of a potential enemy other then crippling them. Being nice goes a surprisingly long way if you do it right.

Iran made us their enemy, we did not make Iran our enemy. Its worth pointing that out. Being nice isnt going to get us very far with Iran.

Hammartroll:
fact of the matter is that we can't stop them. surgical strikes would be ineffective, being that they have underground bases and reinforced ones, economic sanctions won't work because India and China don't want to cooperate (and may even hurt us more when they decide to start trading oil for their own currency) and we're in no condition, political or otherwise, for a full on invasion.

so now we have to grovel, which is good. Iran never hurt us, at least not without us provoking it, and it's not like they have any means to attack our homeland anyway.

We can stop them. Iran can choose between a nuclear weapons program and a functioning economy, it cannot have both.

Also what do you mean by "so now we have to grovel, which is good."?

here buddy, crash course on US/Iran relations:

China is Iran's biggest oil importer and India is second... I think the US is fourth, so it will hurt them, but not stop them.
And did you know Iranians like to wear designer cloths? The west may have put up sanctions, but Gucci is made in China, so what we're essentially doing is destroying a potential market for us while giving China more business. Sanctions simply will not work without China's, India's and probably Russia's help, which they won't, cause business is good.

Iran has no means to deliver a nuke to our shores, but what you should be worried about our dollar's world reserve status. These sanctions are putting pressure on developing nations; we're making it hard for them to do buisness with eachother, which is encouraging them to discuss a new reserve currency. Iran has threatend to stop using the dollar due to our proding and India recently said they're considering trading gold for Iran's oil.. China and Russia already trade oil between eachother without the dollar.
The dollar is hyper-inflated because countries buy huge amounts to back up their currency and trade, but if we lose world reserve status, all those stores of dollars are going to be worthless, meaning the money in your wallet will be worthless. Losing world reserve status would be worse than a nuke going off in our borders.

btw, if Iran's nukes are so dangerous, why isn't India or China scared of them? India and China has had terrorist attacks by Islamic extreamists before, shouldn't they be scared too?

Oh I am very familiar with the history of US-Iran relations, don't insult me by posting some video as if I don't know what I am talking about here thank you very much.

Sanctions will work. China and India cannot single-handedly support Iran's economy. Already we are seeing Iran's economy suffer from the sanctions.

I do not believe even Iran would be foolish enough to ever use a nuclear weapon because to do so would be suicidal. I am more concerned about somewhere down the road a terrorist group getting ahold of one. Besides the goal of non-proliferation is to reduce the number of nukes and the number of nations that have them.

I highly doubt sanctions on Iran are going to kill the US dollar.

Iran has openly threatened Israel which is a close ally of the United States. I wouldnt be surprised if Iran and China arent happy with the idea (both nations being members of the nuclear weapons club themselves) but Iran has not made any threats about wiping either country out. Besides as you said, China, and India have financial interest in Iran.

Also let me state this, sanctions not only can work, they have to work. If they do not then heaven help Iran.

thaluikhain:

Seekster:
The Iran Hostage crisis ring any bells?

Er, that was during the revolution that removed the US/UK appointed dictator that overthrew their last (democratic) government. Not really starting the US/Iran problems there.

That was shortly after the overthrow yes. That marked the beginning of the current phase of US-Iranian relations. We went from being close friends (at least with their government) to bitter enemies (at least with their government, the Iranian people themselves dont seem as crazy as they did decades ago, "Death to America" must have gotten old after a while).

BlazeRaider:

KlLLUMINATI:

Stagnant:

You know, there are two words in "potential enemy". I think you're just reading one.

What you don't punch someone today that might punch you tomorrow?

Don't make enemies when you don't need to, there are plenty of ways to get rid of a potential enemy other then crippling them. Being nice goes a surprisingly long way if you do it right.

I agree with you. What if we just allowed Iran to make it's nukes, dropped our sanctions, opened trade with them and made it our mission to give Iran the biggest economic boom in recent middle eastern history? Would they be so willing to start a nuclear war then?
Friendship and compromise isn't just hippy nonsense, it's the way life works.

Hammartroll:

BlazeRaider:

KlLLUMINATI:

What you don't punch someone today that might punch you tomorrow?

Don't make enemies when you don't need to, there are plenty of ways to get rid of a potential enemy other then crippling them. Being nice goes a surprisingly long way if you do it right.

I agree with you. What if we just allowed Iran to make it's nukes, dropped our sanctions, opened trade with them and made it our mission to give Iran the biggest economic boom in recent middle eastern history? Would they be so willing to start a nuclear war then?
Friendship and compromise isn't just hippy nonsense, it's the way life works.

Its not how geopolitics works though. Besides there is nothing to compromise on, Iran isnt going to be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, that is all there is to it. No room for compromise at all there.

Also the fear isnt that Iran will start a nuclear war. Any territorial power would have to suicidal to actually use a nuclear weapon themselves. No the fear is that someday an Iranian nuke might end up in the hands of some terrorist organization. Yes the chance is small but its not impossible and we want it to be impossible for terrorists to ever get their hands on an Iranian nuke and the best way to make sure of that is to ensure that there never is an Iranian nuke.

hey Seekster, you know that whole Travon Martin case going around right now? you know how it was just revealed that the audio tape portraying Zimmerman as a racist was actually edited to make him sound like a racist and that in the real tape he dosn't seem racist at all? (this is truth if you don't know it already)

Well, this is because the media lies. They twist stories for what ever benefit it may have for them, usually just for more views. But I want you to also know that propaganda is alive and well in our modern world.

Iran never threatened Isreal.

When you talk about them threatening Isreal, I assume you talk about the infamous "wipe them off the map" comment thing, where we see Ahmadinejad giving a speech with no sub-titles, with the anchorman telling us what he's saying.

Well, he didn't say he wanted to wipe them off the map. His actual quote, in place of the false one, was: "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
In other words, he dosn't like the current rulers of Isreal, kinda like Rush Limbaugh saying he dosn't like the "Obama regime".

Here's a good video I found real fast, there's a lot of them, but this one explains it very professionally:

Now I don't like Ahmadinejad, he's a fundamentalist ruling a theocracy and the people of Iran would benefit from him being replaced by a more liberal leader, but he's not the genocidal maniac we portray him as. We can work with him if we allow ourselves to.

Hammartroll:

hey Seekster, you know that whole Travon Martin case going around right now? you know how it was just revealed that the audio tape portraying Zimmerman as a racist was actually edited to make him sound like a racist and that in the real tape he dosn't seem racist at all? (this is truth if you don't know it already)

Well, this is because the media lies. They twist stories for what ever benefit it may have for them, usually just for more views. But I want you to also know that propaganda is alive and well in our modern world.

Iran never threatened Isreal.

When you talk about them threatening Isreal, I assume you talk about the infamous "wipe them off the map" comment thing, where we see Ahmadinejad giving a speech with no sub-titles, with the anchorman telling us what he's saying.

Well, he didn't say he wanted to wipe them off the map. His actual quote, in place of the false one, was: "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
In other words, he dosn't like the current rulers of Isreal, kinda like Rush Limbaugh saying he dosn't like the "Obama regime".

Here's a good video I found real fast, there's a lot of them, but this one explains it very professionally:

Now I don't like Ahmadinejad, he's a fundamentalist ruling a theocracy and the people of Iran would benefit from him being replaced by a more liberal leader, but he's not the genocidal maniac we portray him as. We can work with him if we allow ourselves to.

Fine Ill give you that one, and yes I already knew that the "wipe them off the map" bit may have been a mistranslation. There are still plenty to choose from:

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

And that is just with Ahmadinejad. Btw I linked the wiki because it is comprehensive you can find links to all the stories there.

We cannot work with Ahmadinejad, heck the Ayatollah can barely work with the guy. Fortunately Ahmadinejad's term in office will be up soon so we will get someone else to deal with (I dont think he can run for another term).

Don't kid yourself, Ahmadenijad and the rest of the Iranian leadership have a problem with Israel (which they refer to as the "Zionist Entity"), not just with the current regime.

Seekster:

Hammartroll:

hey Seekster, you know that whole Travon Martin case going around right now? you know how it was just revealed that the audio tape portraying Zimmerman as a racist was actually edited to make him sound like a racist and that in the real tape he dosn't seem racist at all? (this is truth if you don't know it already)

Well, this is because the media lies. They twist stories for what ever benefit it may have for them, usually just for more views. But I want you to also know that propaganda is alive and well in our modern world.

Iran never threatened Isreal.

When you talk about them threatening Isreal, I assume you talk about the infamous "wipe them off the map" comment thing, where we see Ahmadinejad giving a speech with no sub-titles, with the anchorman telling us what he's saying.

Well, he didn't say he wanted to wipe them off the map. His actual quote, in place of the false one, was: "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
In other words, he dosn't like the current rulers of Isreal, kinda like Rush Limbaugh saying he dosn't like the "Obama regime".

Now I don't like Ahmadinejad, he's a fundamentalist ruling a theocracy and the people of Iran would benefit from him being replaced by a more liberal leader, but he's not the genocidal maniac we portray him as. We can work with him if we allow ourselves to.

Fine Ill give you that one, and yes I already knew that the "wipe them off the map" bit may have been a mistranslation. There are still plenty to choose from:

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

And that is just with Ahmadinejad. Btw I linked the wiki because it is comprehensive you can find links to all the stories there.

We cannot work with Ahmadinejad, heck the Ayatollah can barely work with the guy. Fortunately Ahmadinejad's term in office will be up soon so we will get someone else to deal with (I dont think he can run for another term).

Don't kid yourself, Ahmadenijad and the rest of the Iranian leadership have a problem with Israel (which they refer to as the "Zionist Entity"), not just with the current regime.

the holocaust denial is pretty insane. It's simply a losing arguement being that he's never offered any evidence to support his claim in all the time he's been railing on it, in the face of practically undeniable proof it did happen.

But it still makes no sense for him to want to nuke Isreal. A single nuke in Isreal would cause fallout all throughout the nation, thus harming the Palestinians he's so concerned about (and his main concern when talking about the holocaust actually) and where would he nuke? Jerusalem? It's the holy land and he wants the Palestinians to inherit it, not atomize it.

This is why I brought up the miss-quote, because without that quote the whole arguement for him wanting to nuke Isreal falls apart. We needed to make him look like a crazed madman to sell the idea that he was dangerous, so we did... and it worked, propaganda works. That quote was a long time ago and most people still believe it.

And Zionist is actually the right term, it was the name of the political movement around world war 1 for jews to relocate in Palestine, they called themselves Zionists. And from what I gather, Ahmadinejad dosn't hate jews in general, but he seems to think there's a jewish conspiracy among Isreal's ruling class which, I don't know; I don't endorse the idea, but there's definately a lot of people that would agree.

BlazeRaider:

KlLLUMINATI:

Stagnant:

You know, there are two words in "potential enemy". I think you're just reading one.

What you don't punch someone today that might punch you tomorrow?

Don't make enemies when you don't need to, there are plenty of ways to get rid of a potential enemy other then crippling them. Being nice goes a surprisingly long way if you do it right.

They are driven by religious beliefs everything about America they hate.

Hammartroll:

Seekster:

Hammartroll:

hey Seekster, you know that whole Travon Martin case going around right now? you know how it was just revealed that the audio tape portraying Zimmerman as a racist was actually edited to make him sound like a racist and that in the real tape he dosn't seem racist at all? (this is truth if you don't know it already)

Well, this is because the media lies. They twist stories for what ever benefit it may have for them, usually just for more views. But I want you to also know that propaganda is alive and well in our modern world.

Iran never threatened Isreal.

When you talk about them threatening Isreal, I assume you talk about the infamous "wipe them off the map" comment thing, where we see Ahmadinejad giving a speech with no sub-titles, with the anchorman telling us what he's saying.

Well, he didn't say he wanted to wipe them off the map. His actual quote, in place of the false one, was: "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
In other words, he dosn't like the current rulers of Isreal, kinda like Rush Limbaugh saying he dosn't like the "Obama regime".

Now I don't like Ahmadinejad, he's a fundamentalist ruling a theocracy and the people of Iran would benefit from him being replaced by a more liberal leader, but he's not the genocidal maniac we portray him as. We can work with him if we allow ourselves to.

Fine Ill give you that one, and yes I already knew that the "wipe them off the map" bit may have been a mistranslation. There are still plenty to choose from:

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

And that is just with Ahmadinejad. Btw I linked the wiki because it is comprehensive you can find links to all the stories there.

We cannot work with Ahmadinejad, heck the Ayatollah can barely work with the guy. Fortunately Ahmadinejad's term in office will be up soon so we will get someone else to deal with (I dont think he can run for another term).

Don't kid yourself, Ahmadenijad and the rest of the Iranian leadership have a problem with Israel (which they refer to as the "Zionist Entity"), not just with the current regime.

the holocaust denial is pretty insane. It's simply a losing arguement being that he's never offered any evidence to support his claim in all the time he's been railing on it, in the face of practically undeniable proof it did happen.

But it still makes no sense for him to want to nuke Isreal. A single nuke in Isreal would cause fallout all throughout the nation, thus harming the Palestinians he's so concerned about (and his main concern when talking about the holocaust actually) and where would he nuke? Jerusalem? It's the holy land and he wants the Palestinians to inherit it, not atomize it.

This is why I brought up the miss-quote, because without that quote the whole arguement for him wanting to nuke Isreal falls apart. We needed to make him look like a crazed madman to sell the idea that he was dangerous, so we did... and it worked, propaganda works. That quote was a long time ago and most people still believe it.

And Zionist is actually the right term, it was the name of the political movement around world war 1 for jews to relocate in Palestine, they called themselves Zionists. And from what I gather, Ahmadinejad dosn't hate jews in general, but he seems to think there's a jewish conspiracy among Isreal's ruling class which, I don't know; I don't endorse the idea, but there's definately a lot of people that would agree.

Again I don't think Iran is dumb enough to try and nuke Israel just as right now Iran isnt the one firing rockets at Israel. The main concern is that just as the Iranians are providing weapons for terrorists groups now. If they had a nuke small enough to be transported in say a truck all it would take is one rash action and a terrorist organization could use an Iranian nuke to kill tens of thousands of people. Even if that scenario is unlikely I would rather it be impossible than just unlikely.

I never made the argument that he wants to Nuke Israel. No territorial nation is going to nuke anybody because to do so is suicide.

I don't know what you are basing your information on Ahmadinejad on but its clear he and the Iranian leadership in general have made themselves the sworn enemies of Israel, not just the current government but of the nation of Israel which they refuse to recognize anyway.

Are people missing the key bit in Obama's statement? That he'll accept it if the Supreme Ruler of Iran himself can prove they won't use it for the purposes of WMDs?

In other words this won't go anywhere; Iran will be insulted that they're being asked to prove that they won't blow up things with Nukes, and Obama won't back down.

Hammartroll:
But it still makes no sense for him to want to nuke Isreal. A single nuke in Isreal would cause fallout all throughout the nation, thus harming the Palestinians he's so concerned about (and his main concern when talking about the holocaust actually) and where would he nuke? Jerusalem? It's the holy land and he wants the Palestinians to inherit it, not atomize it.

You don't get much fallout from an airburst (which is how you target cities/things in cities) and a single small device sin't going to destroy the city.

That pales into comparison with the other reasons for not doing it, though.

Somethings that need clearing up for our right wing forum peeps.

First of all Ahmadinejad is not a leader of Iran. He is pretty low on the ladder, like a dozen people before him low. The position of President in Iran is just a figurehead.

Second of all, so what if you let them have a civilian nuclear industry. You cannot suddenly turn a civilian nuclear industry into a nuclear weapon. It does not work like that. The facilities for a civilian nuclear industry simply cannot be used to create nuclear weapons. You cannot get a nuclear bomb out of a nuclear power station or a nuclear medicinal facility. The scale of enrichment of nuclear fuel for civilian purposes compared to weapons purposes cannot be compared.

In this day and age of spiffy spy satellites it is pretty much impossible to have a nuclear weapons program and not have it spotted. The size of the facilities, the resources required, you can spot them a mile away...well actually several hundred miles away.

It is not like anyone is going to just let Iran have a civilian nuclear industry and take their word for it, they would keep a pretty close eye on them.

pyrate:
You cannot suddenly turn a civilian nuclear industry into a nuclear weapon. It does not work like that. The facilities for a civilian nuclear industry simply cannot be used to create nuclear weapons. You cannot get a nuclear bomb out of a nuclear power station or a nuclear medicinal facility. The scale of enrichment of nuclear fuel for civilian purposes compared to weapons purposes cannot be compared.

This. It's a matter of science, not political science. The fact that American media has continued to push the "secret nuke" is less than exemplary of our journalistic standards.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked