IranianPride

Of course an article by a right wing Jewish Zionist can't possibly be biased... Of course you'll accept at face value, an article by a guy who's made a career out of writing books about how every one from IBM, to the Arabs to Iran was an anti-semite. No it isn't, no one except you and Edwin Black thinks that Iran has a nazi past. You're a racist idiot.

You're still not making any sense. You're just coming across as an angry schoolkid that has an irrational hatred for Iranians. Racism is a serious sickness. Your evidence for these ridiculous claims is a single article by a right wing Jewish Zionist, Edwin Black, that has absolutely no sourcing. None of the mainstream encyclopedias confirm Edwin Black's claims. Here's an article that refutes his propaganda article: http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/iran-hist...s-irans-history So far all you've revealed is your racist bias against Iranians, not any logical arguments. LOL, you and ridiculous posts. This is another compelling reason to discount the rationale for US policy on repressing Iran when there are such openly racist individuals among the constituency wishing malice towards Iranians and pushing for these policies.

Iran wasn't pro Nazi. It was neutral. When did they entertain Nazi delegations? When did they ponder the possibility of allowing Nazi troops on their soil? The historical record doesn't back up your claims.

And the US was doing business with Nazi Germany after 1933. No one thought the camps were death camps until the end of the war.

No one knew about the concentration camps in 39-41. The Soviet Union on the other was an accomplished mass killer by 39, yet the US sent it the equivalent of $150 billion worth of today's dollars during the war. This was a regime that had starved 5 million Ukrainians to death in 1932-33, yet the US and UK embraced it within open arms, and even praised it in their press. Your ridiculous attacks on Iran only reveal your own intolerance and prejudice.

The Shah wasn't 'pro-German', as in pro-Nazi during the war. Iran offered no war support to any party in WWII, and it declared itself neutral during the war. I agree with that.

History doesn't disagree. No where does the historical account say he was pro-Nazi. Iran was invaded to secure the oil fields, and a supply line to the USSR. The invasion was a strategic consideration bereft of any regard for the sovereign rights of Iran. I'm simply disagreeing with your explanation of why they invaded. How is foreign domination funny?

JerrySeinfeld, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MonthlyRocketHits.svg Rockets being fired from Gaza had almost stopped completely until the November 4th Israeli attack that killed seven Hamas members

It's only clear to any one brainwashed by the ideology created by the Israel lobby and other assorted racists. Like I was saying.

He was not pro-Nazi. He was simply not an enemy of the Nazis, he was neutral. To equate that with being pro-Nazi is a lie. That's irrelevant, we're discussing Reza Shah and why they invaded. It was only because of oil and the war, and the Shah's insistence on neutrality, not for any other manufactured reason. That's another argument. You probably think Mossadeq was wrong without knowing how the original oil concessions were brought about by a weak Iranian monarchy dominated by the British. I simply pointed out 1953 because the US Embassy was where the coup was orchestrated from.

^ The US embassy seizure was done by a group of students, during a revolution, it was not a nationally coordinated initiative to invade another nation for territorial expansion, like Saddam's invasion of Iran. The 1979 embassy seizure must be viewed in its historical context where Iran's democratic leader in 1953 was over-thrown in a CIA-orchestrated coup (using mullahs and the monarchy) organized out of the US embassy. This is nonsense, Reza Shah was not pro-Nazi, he was simply trying to play the foreign powers against each other to attempt to keep Iran independent. The Anglo-Soviet invasion was waged so that England and the Soviet Union could secure Iran's oil fields, and instate a leader who they could control and rely on during world war 2. It had nothing to do with the west trusting or not trusting Iran, but with control of Iran. Your revisionist account of history is flawed.

This is absolutely remarkable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MonthlyRocketHits.svg Rockets being fired from Gaza had almost stopped completely until the November 4th Israeli attack that killed seven Hamas members.

My point about him being the president was a side-point, a PS, not a counter-argument. As far as whether he's nuts, my point is that if there are nuts guiding the Christian Right/Israel lobby wing of the Republican party, and they seem to be able to use nuclear technology responsibly, then there's no reason Iran can't.

Wild Bill can't stand Arabs speaking up and having a voice. His extremism is over-flowing.

This doesn't matter to Israel's cheerleaders. It's never Israel's fault. Israel can do no wrong, and Hamas is pure evil. All the deaths are Hamas' fault, etc. They're just like the extremists on the Hamas side, except they have 200 nuclear bombs and the support of western politicians.

I don't know mate, did you hear that Iran can't be trusted in the latest 'pray for Armagaddon' Evangelical conference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/...n_b_103161.html Pastor Hagee is big with the US political elite: http://mnweekly.ru/world/20071206/55295032.html Praying for Armageddon We want you to recognize that Iran is a clear and present danger to the United States of America and Israel. And... that it's time for our country to consider a military pre-emptive strike against Iran if they will not yield to diplomacy," says Pastor John Hagee, a popular television preacher and head of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), an organization that he founded in February 2006. That was said, of all places, on the steps of the Capitol during a Christian Zionist summit in July 2007. Among some 4,500 listeners, there were prominent representatives of the U.S. ruling elite: on the Republican side, presidential candidate John McCain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former Republican House majority leader Tom DeLay; among the Democrats, Senator Joseph Lieberman was in attendance. Israel was represented at the rally by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. PS, it's the president, not the prime minister in Iran. Dancer, I think before we worry about Iran, we should worry about how a nation with 2nd century AD tribal notions of God giving them the land has 200 thermonuclear warheads. A nation that has tens of thousands of sayanim in the western world doing God knows what for their tribal ideology.

Iran has NOT violated the NPT and has no nuclear weapons program. "Iran has no nuclear weapons program" http://slashnews.co.uk/index.php?id=708 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed that Iran is not developing any nuclear weapons program and that the issue of Iran’s nuclear file must be resolved diplomatically to avoid going through a similar bitter experience like Iraq, Al Asharq al-Awsat reported on Saturday. “Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally don’t rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing which could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives,” ElBaradei said. When asked about the IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program that is expected to be issued next month, ElBaradei told the daily, “We have actually started compiling the report and it will be ready at the specified time before the Board of Governors meeting. So far, nothing new has surfaced, and we still call on Iran to help resolve the outstanding issues. In order to resolve the problem we have asked them to suspend the enrichment of uranium as a confidence-building measure, and we are still negotiating.” ElBaradei noted that it was too early to consider referring Iran’s nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council. Worst-case scenario He, moreover, stated that referring Iran’s nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council for violating the provisions of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would be the worst-case scenario. “We hope we will not have to adopt obligatory measures (about Iran) and also prefer not to make judgments about Iran withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” he told the paper. “Our findings in Iraq proved that the agency was right because we didn’t find anything which indicated the presence of nuclear weapons in Iraq. “If we want to take a lesson from Iraq, we should not rush before all realities are clarified, and this is what we want to do about Iran.” In September 18, the IAEA adopted a tough resolution demanding Iran to halt its all enrichment-related activities. The IAEA Board is set to meet again on November 25. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/2...an-nuclear.html New findings by the U.N. atomic agency appear to strengthen Iran's claim it has not enriched uranium domestically and weaken U.S. arguments that the country is hiding a nuclear weapons program, diplomats said Tuesday. The diplomats, who are familiar with Iran's nuclear dossier, told The Associated Press that the International Atomic Energy Agency has established that at least some enriched particles found in Iran originated in Pakistan. The origin of hundreds of other samples has not been established. Still, the findings bolster Tehran's assertion that all such traces were inadvertently imported on "contaminated" equipment it bought on the black market. Iran's energy consumption growth is outpacing its oil production growth. If production were to remain the same as today, Iran's domestic consumption would outgrow its production by 2010, meaning no more oil available for export, and for a country sorely dependant on oil exports for money, complete economic disaster. [/b] Iran's energy consumption is exploding (7-8% a year), it needs more energy production: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_Iran Iran is building significant new generation capacity -- both thermal and hydroelectric -- with the goal of adding 30 GW over the next ten years (Iran estimates that it may need 90 GW of power generating capacity by 2020). Currently, the largest hydropower projects are the 3,000-megawatt (MW) Karun 3 plant, the 2,000-MW Godar-e Landar facility, and a 1,000-MW station in Upper Gorvand. New thermal projects include two 1,040-MW combined cycle plants in the South, an 1,100-MW combined cycle plant at Arak, and a 1,000-MW facility in Bandar Abbas. In May 2004, a 494-MW, gas-fired power plant was inaugurated in Abadan. Also in May 2004, a large wind power plant at Binaloud in Khorasan province began to come online, with Iran hoping to increase wind power capacity to 60 MW by the end of 2004. In June 2004, Iran's first geothermal plant, in the northwestern province of Ardebil, came online, with an initial power generating capacity of 2 MW (expandable to 100 MW). While there is no ceiling in its future potential need for energy, there is a ceiling on oil production. Iran's population is young and growing fast. The median age in Iran is 20, and it's forecast it's population will grow from nearly 70 million to over 105 million by 2050. Unless you forget, oil is a non-renewable resource, and Iran needs to save as much as it can as it relies almost exclusively on oil for export revenue. Here is the official Iranian view on the nuclear crisis issue: http://www.iran-embassy.dk/fa/political/nu...r%20program.pdf An Unnecessary Crisis - Setting the Record Straight about Iran’s Nuclear Program ByThe Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations -New York Published: November 2005 In a region already suffering from upheaval and uncertainty, a crisis is being manufactured in which there will be no winners. Worse yet, the hysteria about the dangers of an alleged Iran nuclear weapon program rest solely and intentionally on misperceptions and outright lies. In the avalanche of anti-Iran media commentaries, conspicuously absent is any reference to important facts, coupled with a twisted representation of the developments over the past 25 years. Before the international community is lead to another “crisis of choice”, it is imperative that the public knows all the facts and is empowered to make an informed and sober decision about an impending catastrophe. *** 2. Nuclear Technology OR Nuclear Weapons? A vicious cycle of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program and attempts by Iran to circumvent them through concealment and black market acquisitions have fueled mutual suspicions. In this self-perpetuating atmosphere, the conclusion is already drawn that Iran’s declared peaceful nuclear program is just a cover for developing atomic weapons. But this conclusion is based on two erroneous assumptions, which have been repeated often enough to become conventional wisdom. 2.1- Iran Needs Nuclear Energy 2.1.1. Nuclear Energy for an Oil-Rich Country The first is that Iran has vast oil and gas resources and therefore does not need nuclear energy. Although it is true that Iran is rich in oil and gas, these resources are finite and, given the pace of Iran's economic development, they will be depleted within two to five decades. With a territory of 1,648,000 km2 and a population of about 70 million, projected to be more than 105 million in 2050, Iran has no choice but to seek access to more diversified and secure sources of energy. Availability of electricity to 46,000 villages now, compared to 4400 twenty five years ago, just as an example, demonstrates the fast growing demand for more energy. And the youthfulness of the Iranian population, with around 70% under 30, doesn’t allow complacency when it comes to energy policy. To satisfy such growing demands, Iran can’t rely exclusively on fossil energy. Since Iranian national economy is still dependant on oil revenue, it can’t allow the ever increasing domestic demand affect the oil revenues from the oil export. 2.1.2. US Support for Iranian Nuclear Program Iran’s quest for nuclear energy picked momentum following a study in 1974 carried out by the prestigious US-based Stanford Research Institute, which predicted Iran’s need for nuclear energy and recommended the building of nuclear plants capable of generating 20,000 megawatts of electricity before 1994. Now, 30 years later, Iran aims at reaching that level by 2020, which may save Iran 190 million barrels of crude oil or $10 billion per year in today’s prices. Therefore, Iran’s nuclear program is neither ambitious nor economically unjustifiable. Diversification — including the development of nuclear energy — is the only sound and responsible energy strategy for Iran. Even the US State Department was convinced of this in 1978 when it stated in a memo that the U.S. was encouraged by Iran's efforts to expand its non-oil energy base and was hopeful that the U.S.-Iran Nuclear Energy Agreement would be concluded soon and that U.S. companies would be able to play a role in Iran's nuclear energy projects. 2.1.3. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Producing fuel for its nuclear power plants is an integral part of Iran’s nuclear energy policy. While domestic production of fuel for this number of nuclear power plants makesperfect economic sense, Iran’s decision should not be judged solely on economic grounds. Having been a victim of a pattern of deprivation from peaceful nuclear material and technology, Iran cannot solely rely on procurement of fuel from outside sources. Such dependence would in effect hold Iran’s multi-billion dollar investment in power plants hostage to the political whims of suppliers in a tightly controlled market. Furthermore, it is self evident that the time-consuming efforts to gain the necessary technology and develop the capability for fuel production must proceed simultaneously with the acquisition and construction of nuclear power plants. Otherwise constructed plans may become obsolete in case of denial of fuel without a contingency capacity to produce it domestically. 2.2. Iran Does Not Need Nuclear Weapons for Its Security The second false assumption is that because Iran is surrounded by nuclear weapons in all directions — the U.S., Russia, Pakistan and Israel — any sound Iranian strategists must be seeking to develop a nuclear deterrent capability for Iran as well. It is true that Iran has neighbors with abundant nuclear weapons, but this does not mean that Iran must follow suit. In fact, the predominant view among Iranian decision-makers is that development, acquisition or possession of nuclear weapons would only undermine Iranian security. Viable security for Iran can be attained only through inclusion and regional and global engagement. Iran’s history is the perfect illustration of its geo-strategic outlook. Over the past 250 years, Iran has not waged a single war of aggression against its neighbors, nor has it initiated any hostilities. Iran today is the strongest country in its immediate neighborhood. It does not need nuclear weapons to protect its regional interests. In fact, to augment Iranian influence in the region, it has been necessary for Iran to win the confidence of its neighbors, who have historically been concerned with size andpower disparities. On the other hand, Iran, with its current state of technological development and military capability, cannot reasonably rely on nuclear deterrence against its adversaries in the international arena or in the wider region of the Middle East. Moreover, such an unrealistic option would be prohibitively expensive, draining the limited economic resources of the country. In sum, a costly nuclear-weapon option would reduce Iran's regional influence and increase its global vulnerabilities without providing any credible deterrence. There is also a fundamental ideological objection to weapons of mass destruction, including a religious decree issued by the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran prohibiting the development, stockpiling or use of nuclear weapons.