UN Referral Will Not Stop Nuclear Program

[secondboy]

TEHRAN, Jan. 14--President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday Iran would not back down over the nuclear program even if ordered to do so by the UN Security Council.

Addressing domestic and foreign reporters at a press conference, the president said, “Even if the Security Council becomes involved, it will not help resolve the issue. We are not interested in going down this path, but if some people insist on depriving the Iranian people of their rights, they should know that such a thing will not happen.“

Ahmadinejad further said the atomic bomb presents a violent image of countries producing them, ISNA reported.

“If we were to manage the world, we would even dismantle the missile system. We believe in dialogue and not nuclear weapons. When Israel’s foundations are shaken by a question, then we do not need the atomic bomb. Today rationality and wisdom prevail in the world,“ he said.

Explaining his recent comment on the holocaust of Jews during World War II being a myth and the illegitimacy of the state of Israel, he said, “I raised two questions, to which I have not yet received specific answers. The first question was: Where did the people committing crimes in Palestine come from? É The second question was whether the West believes the holocaust actually took place É If they (the westerners) are responsible for this situation, then they should compensate for it. Why should others pay the price for their deeds?“

In relation to the latest developments regarding Iran’s nuclear issue, he said, “Those who believe they have more rights than other nations when they have more chemical warfare are badly mistaken. Based on the regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), all member-states have the right to gain access to peaceful nuclear technology and no pretexts can prevent them from doing so. Those who themselves have nuclear weapons claim to confront nuclear weapons.“

The chief executive stressed that although they have carried out unprecedented inspections of Iranian nuclear sites and found no traces of nuclear weapons in Iran, they want to monopolize nuclear energy and then sell it to other countries at high costs.

“Now they are telling us that suspension of uranium enrichment operations should be permanent and that we should build trust with them. But our stance is that for two and a half years we tried to build up trust and it is now the turn of the West to build trust. We do not trust their integrity. They do not have the right to oppose our nuclear research. Isn’t this attitude reminiscent of the medieval ages?“ he asked.

Ahmadinejad maintained that the country should move towards advancement and being an exemplary Islamic society.

http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2476/html/

[Argus]

I suspect some well-plaed Israely bombs will put a stop to it before too long.

[Riverwind]

I suspect some well-plaed Israely bombs will put a stop to it before too long.

It appears that Iran has the world by the balls and is not afraid to squeeze. Today the Iranian gov't quite bluntly reminded Europe and the US what would happen if the 4th largest oil producer stopped shipping oil. Also, I am not sure whether cruise missile attacks at an active nuclear facility are even an option. Seems to me that the potential for radiation contamination is way too high.

I don't see a lot of options here.

[cybercoma]

I suspect some well-plaed Israely bombs will put a stop to it before too long.

It appears that Iran has the world by the balls and is not afraid to squeeze. Today the Iranian gov't quite bluntly reminded Europe and the US what would happen if the 4th largest oil producer stopped shipping oil. Also, I am not sure whether cruise missile attacks at an active nuclear facility are even an option. Seems to me that the potential for radiation contamination is way too high.

I don't see a lot of options here.

of course, now that the United States controls Afghanistan and Iraq they have Iran surrounded.

[Riverwind]

of course, now that the United States controls Afghanistan and Iraq they have Iran surrounded.

Yeah right. They US does not have the cash, troops or polictical will to launch another invasion. And that does not even factor in the political repercussions in the Muslim world.

The US has set the standard that 'might makes right' and should not be surprised that Muslim countries feel that nuclear weapons should not be restricted to a few Christian countries. If the US wanted to convince countries like Iran that they don't need nulcear weapons then the US should not have invaded Iraq.

[Black Dog]

of course, now that the United States controls Afghanistan and Iraq they have Iran surrounded.

"Controls" is a bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you say?

[Argus]

of course, now that the United States controls Afghanistan and Iraq they have Iran surrounded.

Yeah right. They US does not have the cash, troops or polictical will to launch another invasion. And that does not even factor in the political repercussions in the Muslim world.

I shouldn't think invasion is necessary. Just a number of bombing missions. The US is getting rather good at blowing the crap out of stuff from long distance, too, using those predator drones. Fly them all into

Iran and blow up their facilities.

The US has set the standard that 'might makes right' and should not be surprised that Muslim countries feel that nuclear weapons should not be restricted to a few Christian countries. If the US wanted to convince countries like Iran that they don't need nulcear weapons then the US should not have invaded Iraq.

Do you seriously think that Iran would have abandoned its efforts to develop nuclear weapons if only the US had not invaded Iraq? Do you really think their efforts, which pre-date even the first Iraq war, have anything to do with the United States?

Iran is not just any country. It is a particular, special case which cannot be permitted to have nuclear weapons under any circusmtances. If invasions or bombing missions are necessary to preclude their posession of nucelar weapons, so be it.

[Black Dog]

I shouldn't think invasion is necessary. Just a number of bombing missions. The US is getting rather good at blowing the crap out of stuff from long distance, too, using those predator drones. Fly them all into

Iran and blow up their facilities.

You mean "families", not "facilities", right?

An air campaign would seem to be the obvious choice (even if the rhetoric is sounding mighty familiar to what we heard in the build up to the Iraq war). I wonder, though, what any aggression against Iran would mean for Iraq, given the prominence and popularity of the Iranian-alied Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Certainly, the U.S. is already angling to give the Sunnis more clout in hopes of curbing the insurgency: I wonder if an attack on Iran wouldn't be taken as a sign to Shi'ite Iraqis that the U.S. is turning against them. But then, perhaps I'm overstating the power of sectarian loyalty: these are two countries that spent the better part of a decade trying to wipe each other out.

[Black Dog]

Good article here on why there's been precious little action on Iran:

Blame the neo-cons for Iran stand-off

The Iraq fiasco has demonstrated the limitations of American power in the Middle East, for all the world to see. If the neo-cons had only bothered to make serious plans for the reconstruction of the country, Tehran might now take Western sabre-rattling rather more seriously.

The bit about Iran and oil is also worth noting. In the event of an attack on their nuclear facilities, Iran could turn off the taps to the west.

[Argus]

Good article here on why there's been precious little action on Iran:

Blame the neo-cons for Iran stand-off

The Iraq fiasco has demonstrated the limitations of American power in the Middle East, for all the world to see. If the neo-cons had only bothered to make serious plans for the reconstruction of the country, Tehran might now take Western sabre-rattling rather more seriously.

The bit about Iran and oil is also worth noting. In the event of an attack on their nuclear facilities, Iran could turn off the taps to the west.

It really doesn't matter. The risk of what could happen if Iran got nukes is simply too horrible. Almost anything, including a sharp spike in oil prices, would be preferable. How long could it last, anyway? They have nothing else to sell but sand, and they are not self-sufficient in anything, including food.

[Black Dog]

It really doesn't matter. The risk of what could happen if Iran got nukes is simply too horrible. Almost anything, including a sharp spike in oil prices, would be preferable. How long could it last, anyway? They have nothing else to sell but sand, and they are not self-sufficient in anything, including food.

Just out of curosity, why is Iran's possession of nukes so much more intolerable than, say, Pakistan, a far more unstable regime and the birthplace of modern radical Islam (and where a senior nuclear scientist copped to selling nuclear secrets to other Muslim countries and god knows who else)? Furthermore, if anyone believed a nuclear-armed Iran would be the threat you say, you can pretty much guarantee its facilities would either already have been hit, or the rhetoric in support of such a course of action would be a lot more fevered. Finally, by most estimates, Iran is anywhjere from five to ten years removed from developing nuclear weapons, by which time the political landscape there would be quite different. So I have a real hard time accepting the notion that your apocolyptic vision has a lot of traction in the real world.

[Argus]

It really doesn't matter. The risk of what could happen if Iran got nukes is simply too horrible. Almost anything, including a sharp spike in oil prices, would be preferable. How long could it last, anyway? They have nothing else to sell but sand, and they are not self-sufficient in anything, including food.

Just out of curosity, why is Iran's possession of nukes so much more intolerable than, say, Pakistan, a far more unstable regime and the birthplace of modern radical Islam

Well, of course I'm not happy at Pakistan having it either. But the hierarchies who are in control of Pakistan tend to be a fairly pragmatic lot. Having a nuclear armed enemy on your border that's ten times bigger than you tends to do that.

As for Iran. No nation has ever before gone about acquiring nuclear weapons after not one, but two presidents, have made menacing sounds towards an enemy. Remember that Iran's former president once told cheering crowds that as soon as Iran gets nuclear weapons it must use them on Israel. That even though millions of Muslims would die in the retaliation, Islam would survive, but the scourage of Jews would be wiped off the map in the middle east. Its present president has made a number of similar sounding noises about Israel being a "tumor" which needed to be wiped off the map. He's also a member of the most crazed of Muslims, those which believe the "return of the mahdi" or the second coming, is almost at hand.

Iran President's Divine Mission

Little is known about Israel's nuclear strategy. Especially in terms of today. What it used to be, as of a few years back, was figured by intelligence agencies to be something akin to the US/USSR/s MAD. Except that Israel's "one" enemy, was the Arabs surrounding it. So if Israel was nuked, their strategy was to nuke the capitals of every surrounding Arab nation, to nuke their oil wells, to nuke their major population centres. The purpose was to so destroy their governmental structures as to make them incapable of following up with a land invasion. It does not take a great deal of imagination to consider what kind of disaster this would be for the entire planet.

The threat is so great that it cannot be risked. Iran is not the place to have nuclear weapons, not today, not while it's run by religious wackos who make Pat Robertson seem sane (and yes, I'd be frightened at the thought of Pat Robertson with nukes too.

[newbie]

The threat is so great that it cannot be risked. Iran is not the place to have nuclear weapons, not today, not while it's run by religious wackos who make Pat Robertson seem sane (and yes, I'd be frightened at the thought of Pat Robertson with nukes too.

Who has the right to tell anyone they can't have nuclear weapons? Amazing how quick we forget who first used "the" bomb, not once but twice, against an enemy nation after they were about to surrender. This also broke international law (League of Nations - 1938) as it bombed civilians.

[Argus]

The threat is so great that it cannot be risked. Iran is not the place to have nuclear weapons, not today, not while it's run by religious wackos who make Pat Robertson seem sane (and yes, I'd be frightened at the thought of Pat Robertson with nukes too.

Who has the right to tell anyone they can't have nuclear weapons? Amazing how quick we forget who first used "the" bomb, not once but twice, against an enemy nation after they were about to surrender. This also broke international law (League of Nations - 1938) as it bombed civilians.

Right? Who has the right? Will you listen to yourself? I'm talking about the deaths of tens of millions and you're asking about rights? The ultimate right is the right to survive, and that trumps all others. Think of the Israelis. Imagine your're them, and the religious wackos who hate you, who never miss an opportunity to bay for your blood, who have talked about wiping you off the map and using nuclear weapons on you to destroy your country are on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. What are you going to do? Negotiate? Not possible. The only thing which would satisfy them is your death. Are you going to wait until they fire the first shot, knowing it will be the end of your nation and people? I would think the Israelis would be perfectly justified in whatever level of force they choose to use against Iran to prevent them from getting nukes. Including, arguably, nuking Iran first.

[newbie]

Since you brought up Israel, what of the Palestinians and their rights? Who speaks for them? I think you'd better go back and look up the history of that area before spouting off the rights of Israelis.

[Black Dog]

As for Iran. No nation has ever before gone about acquiring nuclear weapons after not one, but two presidents, have made menacing sounds towards an enemy. Remember that Iran's former president once told cheering crowds that as soon as Iran gets nuclear weapons it must use them on Israel. That even though millions of Muslims would die in the retaliation, Islam would survive, but the scourage of Jews would be wiped off the map in the middle east. Its present president has made a number of similar sounding noises about Israel being a "tumor" which needed to be wiped off the map. He's also a member of the most crazed of Muslims, those which believe the "return of the mahdi" or the second coming, is almost at hand.

I grew up during the post-revolution days and remember well how Ayatholla Khomeni would extort cheering crowds with promises of the Great Satan's destruction. 25 year son, I have little reason to beleive the latest crop of Iranian firebrands are any more sincere. Remember: in Iran, the mullahs run the show, not the political leadership. And I maintain they are not about to destroy the very country they have spent a quarter of a century consolidating their grip on, regardless of whatever the peasant Ahmadinejad preaches.

Really, we've had this conversation before and I still can't get why Iran is so different and why you are so willing to take its leaderships' demagoury at face value. What is it about Muslims that make you believe they are capable of acting, not just irrationally, but in a completely insane manner?

What was it you said elsewhere? Oh yeah:

QUOTE(Argus @ Jan 20 2006, 09:01 PM) *

Religion was never the cause of war.

And now you expect us to believe that this time its different?

[Argus]

Since you brought up Israel, what of the Palestinians and their rights? Who speaks for them? I think you'd better go back and look up the history of that area before spouting off the rights of Israelis.

I'm not going to get into yet another debate about who was there first, and who did what to whom. There'll never be agreement anyway. Suffice to say it's not likely to end up in a nuclear conflagration.

[Argus]

I grew up during the post-revolution days and remember well how Ayatholla Khomeni would extort cheering crowds with promises of the Great Satan's destruction. 25 year son, I have little reason to beleive the latest crop of Iranian firebrands are any more sincere.

I don't think the original fanatics were insincere. I think they lacked the means to bring their hate to fruition. Just as the present fanatics lack that means. And as long as they don't have nuclear weapons they can go on spouting.

Remember: in Iran, the mullahs run the show, not the political leadership. And I maintain they are not about to destroy the very country they have spent a quarter of a century consolidating their grip on, regardless of whatever the peasant Ahmadinejad preaches.

And would you trust Pat Robertson with nuclear weapons? Whatever you think of the mullahs, the political leadership will have a lot of control over the weapons, and they can use them, even if illegally, even without the knowledge of the mullahs. I don't want nukes near either group.

Really, we've had this conversation before and I still can't get why Iran is so different and why you are so willing to take its leaderships' demagoury at face value. What is it about Muslims that make you believe they are capable of acting, not just irrationally, but in a completely insane manner?

Their behaviour.

What was it you said elsewhere? Oh yeah:

QUOTE(Argus @ Jan 20 2006, 09:01 PM) *

Religion was never the cause of war.

And now you expect us to believe that this time its different?

I said religion wasn't the cause of war but the excuse for war. It was and is an excuse by power hungry men who lack any sense of ethical or moral values. and that certainly describes the leadership of Iran.

[PocketRocket]

Who has the right to tell anyone they can't have nuclear weapons? Amazing how quick we forget who first used "the" bomb, not once but twice, against an enemy nation after they were about to surrender. This also broke international law (League of Nations - 1938) as it bombed civilians.

The following is NOT to be taken as a justification, but......

I've been watching an 11 hour DVD set, "WWII, The Complete History".

It's incredibly detailed, and concentrates on the history, and cause-and-effect more than spectacular battle scenes.

All sides were guilty of bombing civilian centers in all theaters of operations.

The Blitz over London.

The razing of Stalingrad and Leningrad.

Japanese attacks on civilian populations, mostly in China, but a lot elsewhere in the Asian theater.

British and US planes carpet-bombing French and German cities.

EVERYONE was bombing civilian populations in that war.

Furthermore, the Japanese could not be said to have been "about to surrender". On the contrary, they were digging in, ready to fight over their homeland inch-by-inch, as they had already done on various islands.

The USA was simply the first country to develop the A-bomb, and consequently, the first (and hopefully last) to use it.

Let us all thank our lucky stars that none of the Axis powers developed it first.

[Black Dog]

I don't think the original fanatics were insincere. I think they lacked the means to bring their hate to fruition. Just as the present fanatics lack that means. And as long as they don't have nuclear weapons they can go on spouting.

In the 25 years since teh revolution, Iran has never attacked another country, never been linked to international terrorism and has never represented a direct threat to peace in the region. I think that if the leadership was sincere, they would have found other ways to go about it in the meantime.

Their behaviour.

They? What about Iranians in particular make you believe they are prone to mass suicide?

I said religion wasn't the cause of war but the excuse for war. It was and is an excuse by power hungry men who lack any sense of ethical or moral values. and that certainly describes the leadership of Iran.

Nuclear war would end Iran as a political entity. It's hard to wield power when you're dead or your country is a glass sheet. If Iran's leadership is as power hungry as you say, they won't throw it away for nothing.

[newbie]

Who has the right to tell anyone they can't have nuclear weapons? Amazing how quick we forget who first used "the" bomb, not once but twice, against an enemy nation after they were about to surrender. This also broke international law (League of Nations - 1938) as it bombed civilians.

The following is NOT to be taken as a justification, but......

I've been watching an 11 hour DVD set, "WWII, The Complete History".

It's incredibly detailed, and concentrates on the history, and cause-and-effect more than spectacular battle scenes.

All sides were guilty of bombing civilian centers in all theaters of operations.

The Blitz over London.

The razing of Stalingrad and Leningrad.

Japanese attacks on civilian populations, mostly in China, but a lot elsewhere in the Asian theater.

British and US planes carpet-bombing French and German cities.

EVERYONE was bombing civilian populations in that war.

Furthermore, the Japanese could not be said to have been "about to surrender". On the contrary, they were digging in, ready to fight over their homeland inch-by-inch, as they had already done on various islands.

The USA was simply the first country to develop the A-bomb, and consequently, the first (and hopefully last) to use it.

Let us all thank our lucky stars that none of the Axis powers developed it first.

Here are a few quotes from that era you might find interesting.

"The weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new [Kyoto or Tokyo].

8/9/45: Excerpt from public statement by President Truman. This was the second time he had publicly given reasons for using the atomic bomb on Japan:

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.

Well, we now know that wasn't the case.

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

[PocketRocket]

NEWBIE: I Appreciate the reply, but still maintain that Japan was hardly "about to surrender". That they had lost the war is beyond doubt, but I believe Ike was wring in his assessment in this regard, and most war historians tend to agree. When you consider that their fighting became more and more vicious as the war drew nearer to Japan, not to mention installing the "kamikaze" tradition as a main weapon, it seems clear that their army had a "no retreat, no surrender" attitude, as did their people.

That aside, and also setting aside the allegation that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were supposed to be "military bases", this still does not "justify" the carpet bombings of various cities both in Japan, and in Germany, which were carried out by US bombers. Many of these cities clearly NOT tactical or industrial targets.

As I said, in WWII, EVERYONE bombed civilian targets.

This is the result of a simple equation; Convince the population that their government cannot protect them, and they will stop supporting said government, and may even rise up in revolt against that government.

"Breaking the will of the people", was what Hitler called it when he called for the blitz.

[Riverwind]

NEWBIE: I Appreciate the reply, but still maintain that Japan was hardly "about to surrender".

After bombing Hiroshima the US demanded an unconditional surrender. The Japanese gov't responded with a surrender under one condition: the emperor would be kept in place as a figure head. The US refused to accept that condition and bombed Nagasaki. The Japanese responded with the same offer to surrender with the one condition regarding the emperor. This time the US accepted to offer.

You could spin this sequence of events in two ways: 1) The US bombed Nagasaki because the Japanese refused to provide an unconditional surrender. 2) The bombing of Nagasaki was unnecessary because the the terms of surrender offered by the Japanese were reasonable - even with the condition attached.

Personally, I think the US gov't was motivated by a desire to prove that they were capable of producing more than one nuclear bomb and that the quick 'conditional' surrender was rather inconvenient for them.