Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lets cut to the chase here with Iran

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 07:38 AM
Original message
Lets cut to the chase here with Iran
Edited on Wed Sep-20-06 07:44 AM by NNN0LHI
The leaders of Iran would be crazy if they didn't covet nuclear weapons.

We are currently occupying just about every country surrounding Iran while while stealing their natural resources as fast as we can steal them and killing anyone who gets in our way in the process.

If they don't acquire a credible nuclear deterrent we will be coming to steal their oil and gas too in a jiffy. And we will torture and/or kill any Iranian man, woman or child who gets in our way while doing this.

The people in Iran know this. They aren't idiots. They are pragmatists.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. And their leader is a lot smarter than ours.
Why is it okay with bush if India and Pakistan have nukes? North Korea? The French? Sure, they would like a nuclear deterrent, but so far have insisted their nuke program is for energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. If I was Iran I would do exactly as they are, wouldn't most people
its a known fact that this cabal will say and do anything to advance their cause whatever that is, cause it sure isn't for me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crazy Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. It's amazing how the only nation to use nuclear weapons on civilians....
Edited on Wed Sep-20-06 07:50 AM by DaveTheWave
...in the entire known history of the world is the most condemning of everyone else?

To put it simply, Iran knows that its oil resources aren't going to last forever and rather than piss them all away and leaving future generations screwed, they're developing alternative energy sources to make a vital part and majority of their nation's economy last longer. The real intelligence experts all agree that if Iran was really trying to develop nuclear technology for weapons rather than for peaceful purposes they wouldn't be building nuclear power plants and they wouldn't be so open about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'll cut to the chase.
The bush administration and others (maybe in both parties) want regime change in Iran. They will use deception in order to get public support. Then they will act. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. I agree with you
But it ain't going to be easy.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freedom_from_Chains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
5. Countries that we oppose, which we generally do when they don't
do things our way, feel they need nuclear weapons so that we don't use ours on them. A big part of the reason a lot of the world hates us these days is because they are terrified of us. And with someone like George in charge I would be terrified too if I was them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
6. I'm not crazy about Iran having nukes
But say we didn't have that technology, and nuclear N. Korea invaded Canada and Mexico. How fast do you think we'd be scrambling to build a bomb?

No, I don't like the idea of a nuclearized Iran. But I sure do understand if they want that deterrent. Not everyone in the world views us as a force for good. Not everyone trusts us. Those fears have spread exponentially since Bush** came to power and started "spreading freedom". Iran is surrounded by US troops.

With Bush**'s track record, who wouldn't feel uneasy about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I don't like the idea of a nuclearized anybody
Edited on Wed Sep-20-06 07:57 AM by NNN0LHI
But we have to deal with reality here. Countries do have them. Hell, we have tens of thousands of them. And we are never going to get rid of them.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. No, you're right
This moment was always going to come. Particularly when we're selling the technology to erstwhile friends whose cages we rattle later on.

Pakistan worries me far more than Iran. We know how precarious their government is, and who waits in the wings for an opportune moment to seize power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
9. They know
the spin only works with sheeple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oncall247 Donating Member (73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
11. Careful or you will be accused of supporting the enemy.
Armstrong Williams is having an anxiety attack over the President of Iran. Where does this man Armstrong come from?

One question I would like to have cleared up by someone is just where and when did the Abi (can't locate correct spelling of his name right now) say the holocaust didn't happen and where and when did he say Israel should be wiped off the map. What did he really say and are there any links to these statements. Judging from his demeanor with Brian Williams and from the content of his speech at the UN, I would be very surprised if this man were stupid enough to make such statements. Of course, there is always the possibility that some remarks were partially quoted or taken out of context and just repeated over and over again by the US media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oncall247 Donating Member (73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Thanks to the poster who sent me this on the translation of Iran's Pres.
remarks about the holocausst the Israel.

"According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."<1>

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:

his regime that is occupying Qods must be eliminated from the pages of history.<9>

On 20 February 2006, Irans foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel wiped off the map, saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said. <10><11><12>

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away." Bronner stated: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."<2> For the translation on Mr Ahmadinejad's website, see <3>.

On June 15, 2006 Guardian columnist and foreign correspondant Jonathan Steele cites several Persian speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map". Concluding that "The Iranian president is undeniably an opponent of Zionism or, if you prefer the phrase, the Zionist regime. But so are substantial numbers of Israeli citizens, Jews as well as Arabs.... e should not demonise Ahmadinejad on those grounds alone."<13>"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
12. Amerikan arrogance is the greatest threat to world peace today
Edited on Wed Sep-20-06 08:22 AM by wuushew
I would say true peace can only be arrived at between parties of equals. Nuclear weapons are the great equalizers in the world. The bomb has with us since 1945 and each time one of our "enemies" got the bomb we ratcheted down our jingoism accordingly, like when Russian went nuclear in 1949 or Red China ten years later.

A nuclear exchange among minor powers would undoubtedly kill millions, but is the risk adjusted number of dead greater than those made possible by constant imperial intervention in the non-western world? I would say no.

Does it really matter which nations have nuclear capability anyway? A full nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States would end human life on Earth so before everybody buys the farm at least they should be able to feel proud about their country's scientific and technical abilities.





:nuke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
13. They are not "pragmatists".
They are fanatics, just like ours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Who are we to judge their culture?
As long as the actions of other people don't directly harm us I fail to see why we should care or spend effort to reform/coerce other countries.

Their current "fanaticism" is just more blow back stemming from Amerikan interference in Iranian affairs 1953-1979.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-20-06 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. The same could be said of America.
Thats a two way street.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 12th 2021, 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC