Iran enriches uranium to 20% - Page 5

I don't see an answer to this posted. Sammi, why was Ahmadinejad quoting this person?

Not believing and not understanding are two separate issues. I am pretty sure I understand a lot more about the Bible than you do, coming from a perspective of not assuming it's the literal word of an unsubstantiated deity. I don't have that sort of bias working against me to look at it with a critical, evenhanded eye.

/Reality Holy shit, Iran is about to go nuclear and destablize entire regions of the world.

/BRReasoning Yes, but the person stating that reality might believe in some myths so that part about Iran and bombs can't be true. Gwaaaaarrrr!!!!!

Hmmm... a culture who has not got past the ancient concept of holy war, getting the most fearsome weapon known to mankind. Not a very nice proposition.

I don't think Obama should stay neutral in this and leave it up to Israel, actually a very small country, to do something about it. He should do something himself.

He has made a deal with the Russians to reduce nukes, and that's good, but doing that while letting Iran get them, and North Korea keep producing them, is overall a negative on balance.

Sometimes, sometimes not.


It's not a pissing contest, BR. In fact, you'll notice that I rarely if ever support my arguments with scripture, so that point is irrelevant.


Your bias is that you think Christians cannot be critical and evenhanded. I don't think all of the the bible is literal either. I don't even believe all of it is the word of God. History tells us that it has been altered by man (sections deleted, mostly). Either way, unless we're discussing scripture/faith itself, I don't use it to make my political or other arguments often if ever.



Agreed. It's more than that, too. As I've stated, there is powerful and somewhat hidden element in the Iranian leadership that believes the 12th Imam can only be revealed through Armageddon. And this is the regime that is likely pursuing nuclear weapons. People claim that Iran is a "rational actor" and would not attack Israel or the U.S. as a result for fear of being obliterated. It apparently hasn't occurred to them that Iran's real leadership may want exactly that.


I agree in principle. To be fair, we are turning up the heat in sanctions, which is good. He's not out in public talking about it much though, which is a major flaw. That said, we need a credible military threat if Iran does not respond to sanctions (which obviously they have not).


I'm not sure it is. Any progress has been negotiated out of weakness and apparently, in secrecy.


Probably true.

I don't know any details of the negotiations, I just remember the newspaper headlines about the reductions.

The reason I think nuke reduction is good, is not because I'm against nukes, It's because I believe US conventional forces are so superior to anything else out there, that in a world with no nukes the US would be even more top-dog than it is today. But of course it's impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, so in reality you probably want to get a good modern stock of nukes.

Obama does to Iran what, if anyone did to the US would surely be called an act of war worthy of a military response.

 

 

And the US government continues to show its hypocrisy has no limits.

 

Wishful thinking on the world not having nukes.  We need a nuclear deterrent.  And remember, US conventional forces are superior technologically and technically (training, combat, etc), but not numerically.  Not by far.  

 

 

 

I don't know how I feel about it.  On one hand, I agree that if the tables were turned, we'd flip out.  On the other, Iran is not the United States.  It is a rogue, radical theocracy that poses a direct threat to the US and its allies.  Diplomacy is clearly not working.  Cyber attacks can slow and possibly even halt their progress with little to no risk of life.  It would be great if we could just leave them alone and hope they do the same, but this isn't how the world works.  I'd rather see cyber attacks than an actual war.  

 

It's interesting to me that you (and others) make this claim of Iran not being on the same moral playing field as the US and yet the moral foundation or a person, family, business or nation lies in its actions. On this count it seems that US is taking actual actions against presumed actions or presumed threats of actions. It has propagandized Iran and convinced many people of their alleged direct threat to the US and their instability and continues to demand they end any attempt to have the same weapons of deterrent and defense as those surrounding them (including the US, Israel, Pakistan and India) have.

 

 

 

You say that like the US (and Israel) aren't doing everything possible to avoid even trying that approach.

 

You say that like almost everything the US is doing in relation to Iran wouldn't be considered an aggressive act of war if someone was doing it to us.

 

You say that like if someone made the same demands of the US as we make of Iran it wouldn't be greeted with endless howls of outrage among politicians both left and right, the talk show pundits and on barstools across the country.

 

You claim moral superiority, but as I said moral character (good or bad) is judged by our actual actions. And by the actions of the US government, it is starting to look like a hypocritical, smug, arrogant, self-righteous bully (both domestically and internationally mind you.)

 

It should be noted that leaving someone alone and being vigilant and watchful in defense are not mutually exclusive stances.

 

 

 

I'd rather see the US government not use money it has stolen from me to launch unprovoked attacks on other people and nations. But that train has already left the station...multiple times now. Preemptive attack is the new doctrine of the US government.

Edited by MJ1970 - 6/2/12 at 12:05pm

Iranians Protest Sanctions’ Impoverishing Effects

Everyone knows the effects of sanctions. Some examples:

 

The US has held sanctions against Cuba for over half a century. The "targeted" government is still much in place, and the Cuban people suffer.

The US (and allied nations) had sanctions against Iraq for 12 years after the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein's government remained in power, while the Iraqi people suffered (hundreds of thousands of kids died)

The US (and allied nations) have sanctions against Iran. The government remains in place, its senior officials unaffected, while the people of Iran suffer.

The UN have sanctions in place against North Korea. Their government remains in place, and the people of North Korea live in abject poverty.

 

Do sanctions work? If the object is to maintain the status of "rogue" governments, while sticking it to the ordinary people of those nations, then sanctions work a treat. Does Obama and company know this? Course they do.

 

And yet, interestingly, there are always constant calls for reducing trade with foreign countries (e.g., with the middle east for oil, with China for anything, etc.) apparently unaware that this has the effect of imposing economic sanctions on ourselves.

 

Reducing the need for oil (and coal, natural gas etc) would be a good thing for everyone, everywhere. Burning stuff to make electricity seems very "stone age", but when there'e no will on the part of the powers-that-be to develop something sensible, renewable and non-polluting, then nothing's going to change until the issue is forced, and by then it will possibly be too late. Maybe it's already too late.

 

Re. China etc... we do tend to cherrypick the totalitarian regimes to either support, turn a blind eye, or stomp on. The biggest act of "shooting ourselves in the foot economically", or effectively imposing sanctions against ourselves, was the transformation of the US from a manufacturing powerhouse, to a service economy, and both major political parties are equally guilty - which figures, since both major political parties are the two sides of the same coin.

 

And yet...while it seems stone age, it really isn't. It never seems to occur to folks that the alternative energy sources it not as much a matter of "will" but of both economics and physics.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

Sammi, you should really know better than this.

 

The public rationale for sanctions is usually to punish a rogue regime. In truth, sanctions are expected to turn segments of a populace against a regime in power, which makes it easier to make allies among opposition groups vying for power.

 

It's true that's the theory but, in practice, it rarely seems to work out this way.

Hey look! The sanctions are working. Just like in Cuba. And Iraq. And... And... And...

 

Fucking morons.

What would you do?

 

Open free trade relations with Iran.

And this would effect their nuclear program how?

 

Do you think we really need another country with this type of weaponry?

 

I have no idea.

 

 

 

Are you implying that Iran has nuclear weapons?

It certainly seems like they're working toward this ability.

 

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html

 

Once they reach a certain point it seems like all they would require is the will to do so. And we all know how volatile that region is.

 

And maybe all is not what it seems. Even so, I don't think anyone should have nuclear weapons. However, if Iran feels they need to defend themselves against the aggressors surrounding and threatening them, I guess it's ok.

US: Iran not on verge of nuclear weapon

 

 

 

In light of these facts, the only conclusion I can draw is that the U.S. government and its allies are intentionally trying to provoke Iran into an armed conflict by imposing economic sanctions.

Did you know...

 

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, huge crowds attended candlelit vigils in Iran, and 60,000 spectators observed a minute's silence at Tehran football stadium.

 

Yes, I posted this a few times in other threads.

 

This news was published outside of the United States - notice that your link is Time Europe? This story was well and truly ignored in the US media, on account of it being contrary to  the negative profiling of certain Muslim nations by the neocon thugs who filled key positions in the 2001 Bush Administration.

Israel is (again) trying to meddle with American politics by asking Obama to create a line with Iran.  

 

Why are there so many war mongers out there hiding behind cloaks of religion?

 

Warmongering or not, I don't think Israel is really hiding behind religion. It's a small state, surrounded by neighbors of varying degrees of hostility (perceived or actual), continuing to feel nervous and using whatever influence it has to further its security. You can't blame them for trying.

According to Patrick Clawson, the head of WINES (Washington Institute for Near East Studies), to start a war against Iran will require a false flag attack, in order to get public and congressional approval. WINES is a highly influential neocon/Israeli lobby... (how many of these are there in DC???). The WINES was founded by Martin Indyk, an academic and deputy of research for the  American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

 

What variety of false flag attack will be required to get the US public enraged and reactionary enough to forget rationality and get gung-ho, as we did en masse after 9/11? Clawson suggests a few past examples in the extract above. What kind of time frame might Clawson be suggesting?