In Defense of Iran

[eyeball]

You can not show me an Israeli nuclear weapon. I can show you an American one. A Russian one.

So what?

[DogOnPorch]

So what?

Sew buttons.

[KeyStone]

"That opinion is not shared by most of those concerned and given the various times that Iran has fudged, lied, hidden and obfuscated legally required investigations, not an opinion that holds much water"

If the majority of the world believes the world to be flat, does that make it so?

Those with the loudest voices, are those that already have nuclear technology, and would like to continue to reign over other countries, with their superior military might and/or make Iran dependent on their nuclear technologies. It also makes for good politics.

"Iran has benefited tremendously from the NPT, so that argument is without merit."

How so? This is an important point, because if Iran did benefit tremendously from the NPT, then it suggests they have a debt to be repaid (a debt which consists of adhering to the NPT, and not developing weapons). If they have not benefitted from the NPT, then it would suggest that they should feel free to pull out, and pursue the same course of action as Israel.

And, are you sure you aren't thinking of the Atoms for Peach program, which took place prior to the NPT?

"Patently false"

So, you feel that they haven't disclosed everything or that they aren't allowing IAEA inspectors in?

In fact, Iran has offered to allow more stringent inspections (than other nations have to endure), including allowing representatives from other nations (other than just the UN), to see for themselves that they have nothing to hide.

We also know that despite some late disclosures, the IAEA has conducted full investigations of the sites, and has found no evidence to suggest that there is a weapons program.

"Timely disclosure is everything. What point is there to find too late that the door was unlocked?"

It's a little different when you have the threat of the US and Israel looming over you.

Perhaps if Israel was reprimanded for their attack on Osirak, things might be different.

"Israel is a red herring..."

So, it's not relevant, that the country crying the loudest over Iran's nuclear enrichment program already has nuclear weapons, nor that Iran perceives Israel as its biggest threat to security? I'm pretty sure it matters to Iran.

"Irrelevant. Israel has not received any technology by way of the NPT, Iran has."

Has Iran? Do you have a link for me? I could be wrong on this.

Israel received their technology from espionage. That's so much better.

"We are members in good standing and allow timely inspections."

My point is that we felt a need to enrich our uranium to 97% for peaceful purposes. Therefore, it is within the realm of reason that Iran wants to develop theirs to 20% for peaceful purposes.

Israel and the US aren't threatening pre-emptive action against us, either.

"I haven't heard of a plane crash in Iran that was a western built craft. They are all Russian....and are crashing as often as russian planes do. Basing their objection to get fuel from a third party because the US has sanctions is a weak argument indeed."

Again, you are missing the point. The US has put sanctions in place against Iran. They have also 'encouraged' other nations to do the same. If Iran is dependent on these countries, then they can not rely on the supply of these things. It is understandable as to why they would want to be independent from other countries for their fuel.

[eyeball]

Sew buttons.

So...you got nothing as usual if not less this time.

Edited February 16, 2010 by eyeball

[DogOnPorch]

Right. So confusion about the existence of Israeli nukes is a good sign, for...some reason, unstated; and the lack of an Iranian nuke is merely evidence of their monumental evil.

You have your opinions and I have mine. However, if you think every country on the planet should have the ability to destroy said planet, I'll be the first to state you're %&*@# nutz. Are you one of those 'fair play' types when it comes to crazy third-world dictatorships owning nuclear weapons?

[DogOnPorch]

So...you got nothing as usual if not less this time.

No...I just dislike you and see no point in wasting time on you.

[eyeball]

Are you one of those 'fair play' types when it comes to crazy third-world dictatorships owning nuclear weapons?

Speaking for myself I'm one of those fair play types who don't think super-rogues should be treated or regarded any differently than rogues.

Edited February 16, 2010 by eyeball

[DogOnPorch]

Speaking for myself I'm one of those fair play types who think super-rogues should be treated or regarded any differently than rogues.

So everyone, grab a Bomb? Go hug a terrorist.

[eyeball]

So everyone, grab a Bomb? Go hug a terrorist.

No, that's not what I said at all.

[M.Dancer]

"That opinion is not shared by most of those concerned and given the various times that Iran has fudged, lied, hidden and obfuscated legally required investigations, not an opinion that holds much water"

If the majority of the world believes the world to be flat, does that make it so?

No but stacked against your opinion, theirs has more weight.

Those with the loudest voices, are those that already have nuclear technology, and would like to continue to reign over other countries, with their superior military might and/or make Iran dependent on their nuclear technologies. It also makes for good politics.

Blah blah blah....when was the last time Russia, China, France, The UK or the USA reigned over another country by the force of their nuclear weapons.

"Iran has benefited tremendously from the NPT, so that argument is without merit."

How so? This is an important point, because if Iran did benefit tremendously from the NPT, then it suggests they have a debt to be repaid (a debt which consists of adhering to the NPT, and not developing weapons). If they have not benefitted from the NPT, then it would suggest that they should feel free to pull out, and pursue the same course of action as Israel.

That is correct, even the last point. There are mechanisms for withdrawing from the treaty. The advantages of the NPT are technology transfers as well as mundane stuff like mediciine and fertilizer...

And, are you sure you aren't thinking of the Atoms for Peach program, which took place prior to the NPT?

Yes

"Patently false"

So, you feel that they haven't disclosed everything or that they aren't allowing IAEA inspectors in?

In fact, Iran has offered to allow more stringent inspections (than other nations have to endure), including allowing representatives from other nations (other than just the UN), to see for themselves that they have nothing to hide.

We also know that despite some late disclosures, the IAEA has conducted full investigations of the sites, and has found no evidence to suggest that there is a weapons program.

False again

Iran is a party to the NPT, but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[15]

In June 2009, the IAEA reported that Iran had not “cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues ... which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program

Since Iran's uranium enrichment program at Natanz—and its continuing work on a heavy water reactor at Arak that would be ideal for plutonium production—began secretly years before in conjunction with the very weaponization work the NIE discussed and for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons, many observers find Iran's continued development of fissile material production capabilities distinctly worrying. Particularly because fissile material availability has long been understood to be the principal obstacle to nuclear weapons development and the primary "pacing element" for a weapons program, the fact that Iran has reportedly suspended weaponization work may not mean very much.[60]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran

"Timely disclosure is everything. What point is there to find too late that the door was unlocked?"

It's a little different when you have the threat of the US and Israel looming over you.

Perhaps if Israel was reprimanded for their attack on Osirak, things might be different.

The threat is there because of the Iranian threat. Remove the Iranian threat and there is no US or Israeli threat. Israel is you remember was reprimanded. The US condemned the attack as well as the UN. In hindsight though, after the Kurdish extermination campaigns, After Iraq hiring Gerald Bull to build his atomic super gun, it seemed like a good idea.

"Israel is a red herring..."

So, it's not relevant, that the country crying the loudest over Iran's nuclear enrichment program already has nuclear weapons, nor that Iran perceives Israel as its biggest threat to security? I'm pretty sure it matters to Iran.

You have proof they have N weapons? You would be the only one. I'm not saying the don't, but they sure haven't bragged about it.

"Irrelevant. Israel has not received any technology by way of the NPT, Iran has."

Has Iran? Do you have a link for me? I could be wrong on this.

Israel received their technology from espionage. That's so much better.

It's all part of the IEAE NPT membership package...they include the legal transfer of technology, equipment etc.

"We are members in good standing and allow timely inspections."

My point is that we felt a need to enrich our uranium to 97% for peaceful purposes. Therefore, it is within the realm of reason that Iran wants to develop theirs to 20% for peaceful purposes.

Israel and the US aren't threatening pre-emptive action against us, either.

Ho hum...

"I haven't heard of a plane crash in Iran that was a western built craft. They are all Russian....and are crashing as often as russian planes do. Basing their objection to get fuel from a third party because the US has sanctions is a weak argument indeed."

Again, you are missing the point. The US has put sanctions in place against Iran. They have also 'encouraged' other nations to do the same. If Iran is dependent on these countries, then they can not rely on the supply of these things. It is understandable as to why they would want to be independent from other countries for their fuel.

That is a pale excuse.

[bloodyminded]

No, that's not what I said at all.

It's not as if he's trying to have a serious discussion with you.

Perhaps if you preface all your posts with "Home of the Brave," or "Palestinians are evil," he will take you seriously.

[DogOnPorch]

It's not as if he's trying to have a serious discussion with you.

Perhaps if you preface all your posts with "Home of the Brave," or "Palestinians are evil," he will take you seriously.

I rarely if ever take terrorist supporting America haters seriously. Maybe you do out of your sense of fair play. Maybe that also makes you a terrorist supporting America hater. I'm not sure. Time will tell.

[DogOnPorch]

Ho hum...

Even Russia went...

'Hey dudes. It's pretty hard even for us to pretend you have a peaceful nuclear program if you pull this 20% crap.'

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/02/16/iran-nuclear-clinton.html

[eyeball]

...there is no US threat...In hindsight though, after the Kurdish extermination campaigns...

Jesus H Christ...how blindingly Freudian is that?

[bloodyminded]

I rarely if ever take terrorist supporting America haters seriously. Maybe you do out of your sense of fair play. Maybe that also makes you a terrorist supporting America hater. I'm not sure. Time will tell.

Ok...did you know that Haiti's Emmanuel Constant, the notorious terrorist (responsible for so many deaths that he makes Hamas look like Gandhi) is alive and free in NY City? Or that Haiti has demanded his extradition twice--the second time directly after Bush said that harboring terrorists makes a country as guilty as the terrorist themselves?

And the US has refused?

So, had they the means, would you support Haiti's attack on the United States?

Now, I know you're not an America-hater. On the contrary, you're an idolator.

But are you a terrorist supporter?

Why don't you support Haiti's right to attack the United States...since they refuse to hand over a terrorist (and a convicted one, by the way, making their case stronger than our own against bin Laden); or, at least, you must support their right to attack Constant's apartment building, taking out some innocent American civlians in the process, Israeli-style?

If not...why not?

{edit: it appears Constant is now in prison, I believe on charges of fraud and rape. So I'm compelled to alter my question: would Haiti have been within its rights to attack the US prior to 2008?)

And of course, there's good old Orlando Bosch, also a protected terrorist.

Edited February 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

Like it or not, it's all a big game. With winners, losers and those that need to be taken out. One can try the Kumbaya route, but, the planet actually runs according to Darwinian fitness and some shark will eat one's hippy azz before too long.

Now, I know you're not an America-hater. On the contrary, you're an idolator.

My family lives on both sides of the 49th. So does my wife's family.

Re: Emmanuel Constant. I believe it was Bill Clinton himself that stopped INS from deporting the fellow as it would make his cloak-n-dagger involvement re: the CIA apparent. So who was supporting this former death-squadie? Sounds like Bill Cliton more than America as a whole. The average American would use this POS as a skeet target.

Edited February 16, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[bloodyminded]

Re: Emmanuel Constant. I believe it was Bill Clinton himself that stopped INS from deporting the fellow as it would make his cloak-n-dagger involvement re: the CIA apparent. So who was supporting this former death-squadie? Sounds like Bill Cliton more than America as a whole. The average American would use this POS as a skeet target.

So what? Clinton and bush. Same with Orlando Bosch. Bush, then Clinton, then Bush, now Obama.

I think you';re right about the "average American," which seems to be beside the point.

I'm asking, in the spirit of the "terrorist supporters" indictment that you throw around so promiscuously, if the nations victimized by terrorists, who were (and are) protected by the USA, have the right (under the American-stated guidelines, mind you) to attack the United States.

And if not, why not?

Edited February 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

So what? Clinton and bush. Same with Orlando Bosch. Bush, then Clinton, then Bush, now Obama.

I think you';re right about the "average American," which seems to be beside the point.

I'm asking if the nations victimized by terrorists, who were (and are) protected by the USA, has the right (under the American-stated guidelines, mind you) to attack the United States.

And if not, why not?

They can certainly try. But they'll also have to face the consequences; don't you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD89Z0_Rav8

Edited February 16, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[bloodyminded]

They can certainly try. But they'll also have to face the consequenses, don't you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD89Z0_Rav8

Fuck sakes. I said "if they had the means," which clearly they don't.

You're sidestepping. I asked if you think they have the right.

[bloodyminded]

You're stepping dangerously close to being a terrorist supporter.

[DogOnPorch]

Fuck sakes. I said "if they had the means," which clearly they don't.

You're sidestepping. I asked if you think they have the right.

They can certainly try.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAnOtWm5OrM

[bush_cheney2004]

So what? Clinton and bush. Same with Orlando Bosch. Bush, then Clinton, then Bush, now Obama.

...don't forget PM Martin and that all expenses paid trip for Aristide.

I think you';re right about the "average American," which seems to be beside the point.

The average American includes Haitians.

I'm asking, in the spirit of the "terrorist supporters" indictment that you throw around so promiscuously, if the nations victimized by terrorists, who were (and are) protected by the USA, have the right (under the American-stated guidelines, mind you) to attack the United States.

Of course they do...and have.....but they have an even bigger right to common sense. Would you welcome rocket attacks on Hamilton from Caledonia....or Detroit?

[eyeball]

You're stepping dangerously close to being a terrorist supporter.

He's been doing a really sloppy two-step around the fact he is one ever since I've known him.

[bloodyminded]

...don't forget PM Martin and that all expenses paid trip for Aristide.

If this helps you, sure. It's not an argument against what I've said.

Of course they do...and have.....but they have an even bigger right to common sense. Would you welcome rocket attacks on Hamilton from Caledonia....or Detroit?

No...I would think a Haitian attack on the US is a bad idea for all kinds of reasons.

but there is no principled difference between that and what the West has been doing.

the fatc is, you would object to a Haitian attack; and you support an American attack.

Fine for us; not for them.

Moral relativism. Good job.

Edited February 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

He's been doing a really sloppy two-step around the fact he is one ever since I've known him.

Says the America hater.