Iran Hints at Exiting Nuclear Treaty

[ECH1969]

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hinted Monday that Iran was considering withdrawing from the worldwide Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and said he did not think the U.N. Security Council U.N. Security Council would impose sanctions on Iran.

He also renewed his criticism of Israel, calling it a "fake regime" that cannot continue to exist.

Ahmadinejad said Iran would reconsider its compliance with the treaty and membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency if they continued to be of no benefit to the country.

"What has more than 30 years of membership in the agency given us?" Ahmadinejad asked at a news conference.

http://www.newsone.ca/hinesbergjournal/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=180582

[Tempest]

1. Can't really blame them

Iran has been adhering to the treaty and has had to endure lies from the Bush administration.

The ironic part of all this is that the U.S. is a signatory to the treaty and hasn't adhered to it in years.

[INDIA]

19. Wow, great post! Can't blame Iran!!!

I'm being sarcastic. Actually I CAN blame Iran, they are complete wack job morans who are trying to start a nuclear holy war. Guess what, when the whole world is basically agreeing with the US stance on Iran, maybe they aren't really "lies from the Bush administration." They might be facts.

[Ms. Clio]

24. No, the whole world does not agree with the US stance

of trying to whip up hysteria against a country that does not even have one nuclear weapon, yet. Most especially, Russia and China, who are highly unlikely to support a Security Council resolution against Iran.

So I guess those are actually still lies, and not "facts" from the Bush Administration. Per usual and as always.

Chug-a-lug, though.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[INDIA]

30. How do I know this???

See the last fifty or so speeches from their president. Wake up to reality. They want nukes for weapons, breaking existing treaties. Oh gee, China and Russia don't want sanctions? That can't have anything to do with their substantial economic involvement in Iran. It's all about money. BTW, Sorry to characterize all Iranians in with their government and ayatollahs, That was my mistake.

[Ms. Clio]

31. As opposed to the "the last fifty or so speeches" from "our" president

the nation with THOUSANDS of nuclear warheads (as opposed to ZERO) which has been breaking existing treaties left and right, invading countries based on lies, and now you want to buy into the Bush hysteria again???

Drink up. What flavor was that again?

[INDIA]

32. I believe it was "reality" flavored

I am no fan of Bush or his administration, I have voted Dem since I turned 18. That being said, (please stop accusing me of being a freeper), you didn't answer to my statement, only offered up the typical DU response of , "well....our president sucks too!" Let's be real, the US will not launch a first strike nuclear attack. We didn't in Korea, Vietnam, against the USSR, Gulf War I and II. After keeping our cool with our arsenal during events like the Cuban Missile Crisis, I think we have proved that we are responsible with our arsenal, unlike Russia who can't keep track of theirs. Now compare that with Iran's "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" comments and you can see why the ENTIRE WORLD,(besides Russia and China), not just the US, is nervous about what will happen when they do in fact have those weapons. We should not even THINK about invading Iran, but harsh UN sanctions are quite alright with me. Anything to get them to the table.

Just because I don't question EVERYTHING as a fucking conspiracy or outright lie doesn't mean I'm drinking the kool-aid.

[Ms. Clio]

33. Yeah, yeah, yeah, talk is cheap, & not at all related to reality

Again -- we have the Iranian president making a lot of bellicose statements very similar to those that clerics and politicians around the region have been making for years -- so now why all the sudden, is it so threatening? Only because BushCo. wants to ratchet up the hysteria. Moreover, are you even aware that the Iranian president does not have nearly the power of the U.S. president? Or the previous president, Rasfanjani, who was a reformer, would have been able to accomplish his goals.

The idea that Iran seriously threatens the U.S. or Israel, which is well-equipped with its own nuclear weapons, is quite frankly ludicrous. As most military experts are well aware. Again, please provide some links to the reputable news articles or polls that indicate that THE WHOLE WORLD is nervous about Iran. Back up that statement with some actual "reality flavored" evidence.

You don't have to be a freeper to drink the Kool Aid. As to whether the U.S. will launch a first strike nuclear attack -- only time will tell.

[ConcernedCanuk]

35. " The user has disabled his/her user profile."

.
.
.

tells me all I need to know

but I will add

stating stuff like " only offered up the typical DU response "

ain't gonna get you many ears here

I disagree with much on this board,

but I don't insult, or try to put 88,000 members in the same category

think before you speak/post

thank you

[INDIA]

39. Good job Sherlock!!

Looks like you've got me all figured out!!! Next time I see a common theme on DU or a comment I disagree with, I'll be sure to sit in silent agreement instead of offering an alternative opinion. At least until I reach 1000 posts anyway. Then I guess my opininon will matter to more important and established posters like yourself. toodles!

[Ms. Clio]

44. My goodness, nobody said you couldn't have an alternative opinion

We merely asked you to back up those opinions with evidence. That is very simple and does not require 1000 posts. For example, you dramatically claimed, TWICE, that the WHOLE WORLD is quaking in fear at the notion that Iran might acquire one single nuclear weapon.

But when asked to provide proof of this patently absurd assertion, why, then, suddenly it's toodles for you.

Weak.

[INDIA]

45. Proof?

Watch what the UN does this summer. There will be your proof. Is that patently absurd?

[Ms. Clio]

46. There's not going to be a Security Council Resolution

So what will the UN do, exactly?

Oh, and I asked for proof that the WHOLE WORLD is terrorized RIGHT NOW. That was what you said, wasn't it?

[Bhaisahab]

66. What the UN does this summer

does not matter. What matters is what Bush plans to do this autumn. That's my take. Now we wait and see who has got it right. Deal?

[TheWatcher]

73. And if the UN does nothing?

[ConcernedCanuk]

65. A member's "seniority" on this board has no bearing on my responses

.
.
.

just their words.

When I find an exceptional response to one of my posts, be it negative or positive - I frequently check the profiles - even end up sometimes exchanging e-mails and ending up with friends.

You may consider looking at MY profile, and visiting one of my own websites, mostly pictures of my camping trips which is my most singular passion.

And I ain't an "important" poster by any means

Just a Concerned Canuk

if'n ya don't want to bother checking my profile -

just clik on the "eyes" right below

that'll take you to my first and most visited website

[Rex]

43. No one called you a freeper, nice try.

Site individual countries that support America invading Iran. Yeah didn't think so. I guess national sovereignty only works for you if it is a country you like. :eyes:

[INDIA]

74. How do I "site" a country?

Oh.....you mean CITE. :eyes: I never said that other countries support an invasion, just that other countries are nervous and will probably support diplomatic means, including sanctions. I assure you it will happen. If you don't believe me, look at my previous posts. I didn't edit a single thing, including SPELLING. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though.

[Ms. Clio]

81. And I keep asking you to provide one single solitary link

that supports your bafflingly wrong opinion that the "ENTIRE WORLD" (an exact quote) is terrified of Iran.

Just one.

But you just keep repeating your talking points like a robot, and thinking you score points by correcting a typo.

Do you honestly believe you are at all convincing or persuasive? Seriously?

[Rex]

84. What can india3 say? he/she obviously knows nothing about

American foreign policy.

[Ms. Clio]

85. And believes that strident opinion is an adequate substitute for facts

Otherwise known in some quarters as catapulting the propaganda.

[INDIA]

86. fine

There's Canada:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060425/holocaust_speech_060425/20060425?hub=Canada

Now Israel:

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/nmirror/mmpaper.asp?sectid=5&articleid=4252006203610656425200620369500

Ooops, Turkey too:

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20060425&hn=32447

Now Austria:

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-schuessel-seeks-eu-japan-efforts-integrate-iran-over-/2006/04/25/1604330.htm

UK Poodle Boy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5778716,00.html

And just to round it out, the UNITED NATIONS AND IAEA :(I'm aware of the questionable source,it popped up on google, but the facts are true.)

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/14125.html


Okay, those are just the articles from the last 24 hours or so. I'm sure if I looked harder I'd find about a hundred or so more examples. I don't feel like diving into a day long search over articles from the last year or so. Enjoy!!!

[Ms. Clio]

87. Now that you know how to google, perhaps you should learn how to read

The first article is not about "Canada," it's about its Bush-lite new Prime Minister, Harper, and mostly about Hamas and Israel.

STRIKE ONE

Uh, Israel's position is not in question here, and certainly does not reflect that of THE ENTIRE WORLD.

STRIKE TWO

Your third article is not about Iran at all, except this part, which is more about what the U.S. wants from Turkey, not Turkey's position:

"All we ask is that Turkey stay with us," Bryza added.

The rest of the article is about something else entirely.

Again, not THE ENTIRE WORLD.

STRIKE THREE

The article about Austria comes the closest to supporting your point, but note this:

called for closer coordination with Japan and other major countries to "integrate Iran" into U.N. talks to break the impasse.

Schuessel said the world's major powers should now concentrate on finding a diplomatic solution to the standoff, rather than eyeing sanctions, as sought by the United States, because such a move could increase tensions in the Middle East and further destabilize global oil markets.

Poodle Boy -- again, that's his job, not in question here. But that certainly does not mean most people in Britain agree with him -- probably quite the opposite.

Your final article is about Iran's apparent refusal to agree to comply with IAEA demands -- nothing in that article whatsoever about all these frightened countries clamoring to contain the dreadful global threat of Iran and its weapons of mass destruction related program activities.

Africa? Asia? Latin America? Australia? You know, the rest of THE ENTIRE WORLD?

[Zhade]

88. Nice smackdown!

Gettin' tired of these freeper assholes.

[Ms. Clio]

89. small fry, really

But seeing the exact same fear-mongering lies start up all over again like goddamned batshit crazy neocon clockwork is just so infuriating that I simply can't take it anymore.

:hi:

[Rex]

83. Say what you will, but you have no support on this thread.

Oh no I speeled something wrong! Whenever you get tired of EVERYONE laughing at you...well you know the drill. :eyes:

[TheWatcher]

70. Then stop using the same tired language that they use

"I am no fan of the Bush Administration, but"

"I've been voting Dem since I turned (Insert age here)"

And your reference to what you think is the typical DU response shows you don't read very much around here. It isn't the typical DU Response. On THIS Board, at least most of the time, we engage in intelligent, sometimes lively debate about subjects such as this. The "typical response you describe is a product I would expect from.....Somewhere else.

And the disabled profile doesn't really win you any points for transparency.

And last time I checked, no one accused you of being a Freeper.

Projection maybe?

[MadHound]

38. First of all, if they're trying to start a nuclear holy war

They're taking their sweet time about it. After all, at the rate that they're enriching uranium, it's going to take a decade or more to get a nuclear bomb.

And while I agree that their current leader is pretty wack, guess why he got put in charge. "Axis of Evil" Yep, those three words riled up the Iranian people up so much that they installed a hard core nationalist. Sad really, because before Bush labeled Iran as evil, they were actually starting to moderate many of their positions, and working with the US. But people tend to get a bit touchy about such things when they're threatened by a much larger power, especially after said power lands and keeps troops on each and every border.

And the only country that I've seen throwing around the possibility of using nukes in the next few years is the US. Perhaps we should have sanctions imposed on us?

[Tempest]

40. No one is agreeing with Bush's stance on Iran

If the whole world is agreeing with Bush's stance, how come he can't get sanctions through the U.N.?

Not even Blair agrees with Bush's stance.

You're post is wrong on many levels.

[TheWatcher]

69. Oh let him play

This is probably the thrill of his whole day.

Now he gets to go back and tell his pals about his adventures behind enemy lines.

[HuffleClaw]

48. wow, yer really off base

1. the 'whole world' isn't even close to 'basically agreeing with the US stance on Iran', quite the contrary. even blair is backing away from bush's warmongering ideas. and china and russia KNOW this smokescreen about NUKES is merely an attempt to claim the mideasts oil.

2. the bush administration has been caught lying a LOT, and not just about iraq. lying is second nature to these clowns, so why should anyone believe their NEW lies about iran?

2. 'nuclear holy war'. that is a piece of right wing propaganda echoed by rush, coulter, fox and cnn. are your aware that brazil is going about the same things as iran is, but the us is saying NOTHING? not a peep. when asked, a state department spokesperson said something like, 'well, theirs is a peaceful program.'

[TheWatcher]

68. Another lost lamb offers itself for slaughter

The whole world agrees with our stance on Iran? Is that why Russia warned us about attacking them?

Is that why George's poodle has given hints that even Britain will not go along with us in this next adventure?

Define the world, if you could.

Remove your foot from your mouth first please, so you can speak clearly

:popcorn:

[INDIA]

76. Okay, let me dig through your well thought out post.

"The whole world agrees with our stance on Iran? Is that why Russia warned us about attacking them?"

I stated in earlier posts that Russia and China are not included, mostly because they have a lot of money invested in Iran and their OIL.

Before I go on, I NEVER said that the UN is supportive of an invasion. The US stance right now is sanctions and diplomacy.

"Is that why George's poodle has given hints that even Britain will not go along with us in this next adventure?"

Blair said he wouldn't support military action, something BUSHCO is not pushing.......yet. Britain in all likelihood WILL support sanctions along with the rest of the UN minus Russia and China.

"Define the world, if you could."

Okay, how about the entire UN except two very biased countries with huge amounts of economic investment in Iran?

"Duuuuuhhhhhh"

Ooops, you didn't actually say that, you were just thinking it.

[The Straight Story]

80. Here is some links on Iran and the UN (From the UN)

http://secap480.un.org/search?q=iran+nuclear&imgGO.x=0&imgGO.y=0&ie=utf8&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client=UN_Website_English&num=10&proxystylesheet=UN_Website_English&oe=utf8

And some highlights:

China Urges Iran to be More Cooperative on Nuclear Issue

There's been reaction here at the United Nations to Iran's announcement on Tuesday that it has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a step which it says is needed to produce fuel for a nuclear energy reactor.China's Ambassador to the United Nations, Wang Guangya, who's the current president of the UN Security Council, wants the Iranians to be more cooperative with the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Security Council.

"For China we are concerned about the events and the way things are developing because according to what they announced, certainly I believe it is not in line with what is required of them by the international community, including the IAEA resolution."

Ambassador Wang says he hopes the Iranians would take note of the reaction of the international community. And he reiterated China’s belief that a diplomatic solution is still the best way to deal with the issue. He also appealed to all parties to exercise restraint, act constructively and not take action that might further aggravate the situation.

Annan Hopes Iran Comes Back to Nuclear Programme Negotiations

In The Hague, Secretary-General Kofi Annan responding to reporters questions on Iran's nuclear programme, expressed the hope that the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed ElBaradei, will be able to convince the Iranian partners to come back to the table during his current visit to Teheran.UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric says the Secretary-General hopes the Iranians will work with the international community to find a negotiated solution.

"He noted that if the Iranians intend to pursue their nuclear programme for peaceful purposes as they have said, they should be able to give the international community better assurances and work with everybody to find solutions out of this current problem. He also appealed to all to cool down on the rhetoric and not to escalate."

The UN Security Council has demanded that Iran stop all enrichment by April 28 because of suspicions that the programme, which Teheran maintains is peaceful, is designed to make nuclear weapons.

[stepnw1f]

71. You Watch Too Much Fox Spin

and you have no clue of what you are talking about here... IRAN IS NOT A THREAT,unless of course you listen to right wing propaganda then you may also believe there is a war on Christmas too, and that liberals eat baby fetuses....

[HuffleClaw]

47. i concur

why should they be subject to bushco. diplomatic games, when bushco. has abrogated about a dozen treaties itself?

[MrPrax]

2. Nope...can't blame them

While his comments on Israel are distasteful, the point that is usually not made clear to us, but to the Middle East, is that if Iran's potential nuclear program is ON THE TABLE, when why not Israel?

Not to defend this jerk, but in all honesty, if Israel is NOT called to a table to reveal, inspect and certify it's nuclear facilities, then what kind of 'country' do you call Israel, if it has a privileged status not recognized by anyone else? Protectorate? City-State? Social Experiment? It doesn't really act like a country...so

[stray cat]

3. Iran is a fake regime that cannot continue to exist

Wouldn't that statement make you want to make sure you could defend yourself? Isreal has not threated to destroy its neighbors - although it could've done it years ago. I'm not sure I would have the same confidence in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Al Queda since a similar case could be make for them deserving nuclear weapons.

[Tempest]

41. It would be distasteful, if he really said it

Read his entire statement, not just the snippets from the conservative controlled media.

He said Israel would destroy itself from within.

[jseankil]

4. Iranian president says Israel cannot continue to exist. 4/24/2006

In wide-ranging remarks, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday that Israel was an artificial state that could not continue to exist.

"Some 60 years has passed since the end of World War II, why should the people of Germany and Palestine pay now for a war in which the current generation was not involved," Ahmadinejad told a press conference.

"We say that this fake regime cannot not logically continue to live," he said.

The Iranian president has long campaigned against Israel, saying last October that Israel should be "wiped off the map." He has said Europe should find a home for Israelis, who should not live on Palestinian land.

"Open the doors and let the Jews go back to their own countries," the president said Monday.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/708832.html

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Guess he just wanted to clear up any misconceptions. n/t

[Haole Girl]

6. Ever wonder if the rhetoric really picks up, or if our gov't just

wants us to think so. Guess we are supposed to have in increased hatred for Iran now? Sort of like we were supposed to for Russia in the cold war? I get so tired of being told who or whom to hate and when. Can't they give this a rest?

[jseankil]

7. Huh? Govt. is telling this guy to say this stuff so we hate them? /nm

nm

[Bandit]

9. You personally heard him say these things?

:shrug: Do you believe every single thing the MSM says? They also said Saddam was going to nuke America...

[Tempest]

42. The American translations of his speeches have been proven wrong

The Arabic translations are much different.

What he has been saying is that Israel will rot and destroy itself from within.

[Haole Girl]

34. That's not what I said...n/t

[Pavulon]

10. This is a separate topic

This should not be a sub thread. He stated that the jews should go back to where they came from and that israel can not continue to exist.

This shit for brains is stoking the fire. His bluffs and loud mouth are going to get lots of people dead.

He has no means to carry this out but can spark a war that will end up with his country destroyed.

[phusion]

11. no, actually...

the only person who is going to spark a war in this whole fiasco is the Loser in Chief that sits in the White House.

[Pavulon]

12. Wrong

If Israel is threatened they can and will use force to cripple Iran. If iran strikes us in response the 60% of the US military that is doing nothing will be brought to bear. The NATO treaty will be invoked.

Make no mistake, Iran will be attacked by Europe and Russia will have a hand if they start a regional war. Egypt has no interest in a nuclear Iran or regional war. Iran will be carved up and crushed using tactics from the second world war. That does not include winning hearts and minds. It includes killing cities and displacing millions of people.

This idiot is playing fast and loose in a zero sum game.

His quote is threatening the existence of a nation. There is no way to spin that.

edit spelling

[phusion]

17. So are you volunteering for the war with Iran? n/t

[Pavulon]

20. You mean re-enlist

nope. Been there done that. HET in wonderful Yugoslavia. The people were nice enough not to shoot me, thankfully.
Not advocating war. Only wish their idiot president would shut the fuck up.

[Zynx]

18. Israel's ability to strike Iran without US complicity is virtually nil.

They could launch some nukes, but I'd say that's rather extremely unlikely. Israel doesn't have the operational reach or throw weight to significantly hurt Iran otherwise, and probably can't hit them at all unless we let them fly over Iraq.

So it's still very much in the US' court.

[Pavulon]

21. They have tactical

air. That is it. Long range F-15s. They probably could not run an open war. But I am no expert on their military.

[Minstrel Boy]

23. His threatening quotes are all in translation and often out of context

Please consider this:

Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?

[0007]

92. There are some good comments in that link.

I suggest interested persons go and read.

[daleo]

26. If the U.S. assists Israel in the attack, would the NATO treaty apply?

The NATO treaty is predicated on self-defense. It seems doubtful that Israel could pull this off an attack on Iran without U.S. support (logistics/communications, flyover of Iraqi airspace, use of U.S. manufactured weaponry, etc). Should Iran attack U.S. forces in Iraq after an Israeli attack, I don't know that most NATO countries would want to get involved.

It might well lead to the breakup of NATO.

[Pavulon]

37. Correct

I do not think we would help Israel in an attack.

[Minstrel Boy]

8. amazing what gets left out

I just viewed an online Russian English-language report on the press conference, and the lead item was Ahmadinejad's renouncing nuclear weapons as contrary to Islam.

[MrPrax]

13. No kidding...

I saw that as well as English commentary.

Something that is left out always, is the fact the Top Cleric in the country has declared 'nuclear weapons' a blasphemy and a sin for Muslims and that healthy little debate in Islam has gone unnoticed for decades.

How come we never hear any of the American Top Clergy coming out so strongly? ;-)

[Pavulon]

14. Because

Al-Takeyya is not accepted in christianity. Al-Takeyya meaning acceptable lying, in time of war or to further Islam.

Just saying because some mullah says something does not make it so.

[Demeter]

15. As We Well Know From Watching Dubya In Action

sauce for the goose, and all

[Pavulon]

16. Comment was addressed to clergy

Bush is obviously a lying sack of shit.

Even though he is a lying sack of shit I will not ignore one country threatening the existence of another.

[MrPrax]

22. Bull!!

The Doctrine of Wide Mental Reservation

"...Those who hear them may understand them in a sense which is not true, but their self-deception may be permitted by the speaker for a good reason. If there is no good reason to the contrary, veracity requires all to speak frankly and openly in such a way as to be understood by those who are addressed. A sin is committed if mental reservations are used without just cause, or in cases when the questioner has a right to the naked truth.

The Doctrine of Strict Mental Reservation

"...This theory became known as the doctrine of strict mental reservation, to distinguish it from wide mental reservation with which we have thus far been occupied. In the strict mental reservation the speaker mentally adds some qualification to the words which he utters, and the words together with the mental qualification make a true assertion in accordance with fact. On the other hand, in a wide mental reservation, the qualification comes from the ambiguity of the words themselves, or from the circumstances of time, place, or person in which they are uttered."

Catholic Encyclopedia

[Pavulon]

25. 1235

That is about the mentality we are dealing with in Iran.

Just because they say they do not want weapons does not make it so. Does this justify war? no. Further investigation, yes!

If I am wrong on the lying point fine, the point is not to disparage Islam but to point out that just because some body in a fancy hat (from any religion) says something in the name of god does not make it so.

[MrPrax]

28. Does this justify war? no. Further investigation, Yes!

and last time I looked the UN did have an inspection team appointed to do that and there was an international agreement in place to provide the framework...

You got schooled, but you still want to smear...?
1235?
Ref to what? The Year? Yeah a lot of religious doctrine in use today can be traced back to the 13th century...Kabbala for instance.

Well if that's the case, then they are more advanced than some Israelis who STILL have the 'mentality' of King David?

[Pavulon]

36. You owned me, read your own post

The UN team has been ejected. Iran has been sent to the security council by that team. Sanctions are about to be put in place.

You still fail to address the MAIN point. I do not believe that Iran, which has billions of gallons in proven oil reserves, is developing highly enriched uranium (found by IAEA) to run reactors. Reactors don't use 90% enriched uranium. There is only one use for 90% or better uranium.

I don't give a shit what god they worship. It is not relevant. I concede that. The facts are that they are not complying with the NPT, so they should reject it or face sanctions.

You don't know jack about schooling shit. If your read what you posted you wouldn't be asking me to explain your post.

[Ghost Dog]

29. Try this source (Financial Times):

Iran’s president dismisses fears of Mideast crisis
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1210d7d0-d3b7-11da-b2f3-0000779e2340.html

<snip>

“There is no inflammation in the region,” Mr Ahmadi-Nejad said on Monday. “Tension exists among those who create a problem for themselves...and then don’t know how to solve it. Why do you stand against Iran...and then shout about a crisis?”

He also said Iran had no need for talks with the US over Iraq now a government was being formed in Baghdad, but it was unclear whether this reversed Iran’s previous openness to such talks or was verbal jousting with US officials, who have increasingly dismissed the possibility as unlikely.

But not all prominent Iranians share Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s calm as international pressure grows and the UN deadline looms.

Responding to reports the US is considering military strikes, Sherin Ebadi, human rights lawyer and 2003 Nobel peace prize winner, was reported on Monday by IRNA to have said in Paris that Iranians “would sacrifice ourselves to the last drop of our blood...if the foot of one American soldier stepped into our country”.

/more...

[ECH1969]

49. Iran President: U.N. Lacks Guts To Impose Sanctions

The IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, has accused Iran of failing to answer all questions about its nuclear program and reported the country to the Security Council for noncompliance with its demands.

"Those who speak about sanctions would be damaged more" than Iran, he told a news conference. "But no particular event will happen, don't worry."

The Iranian president has long campaigned against Israel, saying in October that the Jewish state should be "wiped off the map."

Ahmadinejad often gives long, rambling speeches but Monday was one of the rare occasions when he allowed foreign journalists to question him. He seemed to enjoy the encounter, joking and bantering with reporters.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1883441&page=1

[ShortnFiery]

50. He's testing our Chimperor ...

And * will give the Iranian People his "Divine Strake" just to get even with a mouth piece.

[gordianot]

51. As stupid as Bush is, this guy comes close.

The perfect recipe for disaster.

[Brooklyn Michael]

52. Hey, why not?

....if acting bugshit crazy while joking around with reporters got Bush re-elected, why shouldn't it work for his crazy ass?

[PetraPooh]

53. I hate to say it, but I'm enjoying the fact that there are a few

out there not afraid to say, "na na nana naaaa" to the pushy folks in the west. From everything I read we, the US of A, are defying the IAEA and non-proliferation treaty in more ways and more times than Iran, and no one is sanctioning us.

[Sinti]

54. Are we sure this dude isn't some Manchurian candidate working for *

It seems like he's working awfully hard to make himself look bad. Daring the U.N., essentially, to sanction him. Declaring that another sovereign nation, near and dear to many in the West, should be "wiped off the map." I thought it was strange when they elected him over the more reasonable, and moderate guy, considering that Iran had a large, young, and growingly progressive population who wasn't too happy with their repression in the days before the election.

Maybe I just need to put down the espresso.

:tinfoilhat:

[pinto]

55. Bush and Ahmadinejad - what a tag team for world peace.

Poor old Calvin Coolidge is rolling over in his grave.

[Sinti]

56. He was part of the hostage taking revolution over there

and I understand Poppy met with those folks and had them hold the hostages until after Rayguns was in office, and they were cooperative...

Definitely time to put down the espresso, and pick up the bong... if only this were Amsterdam :sigh:

[Doctor_J]

57. Maybe if WE had been a little tougher on Smirk,

all these foreign heads of state wouldn't have to be. We might as well face the fact that he's run amok for 7 years, and that we were unable to restrain him, thus leaving our job to the rest of the world.

[Sterling]

58. Maybe if we had bombed the shit out of Iran in the 70's

and actually became energy self sufficient things would be different. Sorry but this war needs to happen. Sooner than later.

Face it in a few years Hillary will be in office and Iran will still be run by a bunch of fundie lunatics. Will you still enjoy the fact Iran is "sticking up to us"?

[Pavulon]

59. Most people here

have no idea about Beirut, what happened and who did what.

Interestingly the french bombed the revolutionary guard, they have been reminding Iran that they are a nuclear nation recently. Wonder why?

[Doctor_J]

61. No, I would prefer getting the world on our side

and forcing Iran's collective hand that way. this war doesn't HAVE to happen. I despise the fact that we've gotten to the point where every tinhorn feels like he can flip us off. This is what happens when our leader goes out of his way to make enemies. The fact that the people of Texas were taken in by the swaggering, illiterate faux-cowboy is mildly amusing and not particularly threatening. The fact that the US was similarly bamboozled is depressing and dangerous. If we'd elected an actual statesman to the WH in either 2000 or 2004 we woudn't be on the brink of nuke-u-lar war.

[daleo]

60. I see no reference to him saying the UN "lacks guts" in the article

The headline writer seems to have thrown that in, for propaganda purposes I suppose. It makes it seems like he is challenging Bush with schoolyard language, but I don't see any such language quoted in the article.

[Rex]

62. Great, two Bush idiots. One has the bomb and the other wants it

or might have it. This is a powder keg just waiting for a spark. :scared:

[Jersey Ginny]

63. Yes, and both hate the UN. Very similar lunatics. n/t

[gulliver]

64. Dang that Clinton!

Almost six and a half years after he left office, and look what he did in Iran!

[Massachusetts]

67. Iran Hints at Exiting Nuclear Treaty

This is like watching an accident on the Expressway in SLOW motion!

You can't stop it, but you know what the outcome is going to be.

Ain't life a bitch sometimes?

[stepnw1f]

72. IRAN IS NOT A THREAT

Stop feeding into the right wing trap.

NOBODY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE OR CREATE NUKES. Until that is law, nobody has the right to tell anybody else what they can and cannot have.

[bdamomma]

75. the US is biggest threat to everyone right now

just a question, if the Iranian president is such a lunatic why isn't Israel saying anything about all these insults.

[stepnw1f]

77. good catch

I'm not even sure it's him saying this crap. For all we know, it's pre-paid propaganda by the Bush White House. They have been caught already spreading paid propaganda, so why should anybody believe anything they say to us, including the mainstream media.

[fugwb]

78. all fear and division......during the reagan period cold war...

the US had the capability to destroy launch sites in Russia before they would even be able to fire a nuclear missle at us, and that was over 20 years ago...this is just more fear and division compliments of BushCo. truth is Ahmadinejihad has very little internal support. I know one thing for sure...if any Iranian children die from a US bomb or bullet, forget about ever having an ally in the mid-east, ever. The people of Iran are actually the US' best friend in the mideast right now. Arianna got it right this morning: war or force is not the answer to the mideast. Money, diplomacy, influence is the only way the US can accomplish peace in the mid-east. start acting human again people sheeesh.

[stepnw1f]

79. Interesting

I have read about Buisness interests between Iran and US companies such as Haliburton. If only half the people knew the truth.

[Ms. Clio]

82. Yes, it is a sickening aspect of American Orientalism

The notion that all "those people" understand is brute force and the naked sword.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

91. Israel is saying a lot about it.

Only not with the moronic bellicosity of the US administration.

[salin]

90. I would agree, but it seems as if the leader

is itching to provoke and give more ammo to the neocons. Odd game he is playing.