0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAN

 
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 01:42 pm
McGentrix

Quote:
Tell me about Israel "conquering Arab territories." That sounds fascinating.


Expelling "millions" of Arab residents from their homes and stripping them of their rights.

Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Palestinian refugees from Jaffa, the West Bank and Gaza, but also in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 01:46 pm
McGentrix wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
In another example, Israeli nuclear expert Oded Brosh said in 1992, "...we need not be ashamed that the nuclear option is a major instrumentality of our defense as a deterrent against those who attack us." According to [Israeli human rights activist] Israel Shahak, "The wish for peace, so often assumed as the Israeli aim, is not in my view a principle of Israeli policy, while the wish to extend Israeli domination and influence is." and "Israel is preparing for a war, nuclear if need be, for the sake of averting domestic change not to its liking, if it occurs in some or any Middle Eastern states.... Israel clearly prepares itself to seek overtly a hegemony over the entire Middle East..., without hesitating to use for the purpose all means available, including nuclear ones."


http://wally.wa.funpic.de/4images/data/media/19/bullshit.jpg


prove it ? Rolling Eyes

Are you saying Jews are liars ?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 01:50 pm
I am saying that there is no doubt that some Israeli's have opinions, and that there is no doubt that those opinions are bullshit.

But if you wish to further discuss Israel, we should start another thread as I would like to stay on the topic of Iran with this one.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 01:57 pm
In April 2002 Jewish academic David Perlmutter in the Los Angeles Times inferred Israel under some circumstances would launch revenge attacks against targets worldwide: "Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow--it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Sampson in Gaza? With an H-bomb? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens?
"For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away--unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans--have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?"

There you go with credible source.
Now, do you agree that Isreal is also a threat to Arabs Nations and even Europe?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 02:03 pm
No. That is nothing more then another silly supposition of "could be's".

As I requested though, I would be happy to discuss this with you on a different thread. Perhaps you could title it "Why I hate Israel and believe they should no longer exist".

If you wish to discuss Iran, this is the place to do so. I apologize for continuing this topic with you.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 02:15 pm
McGentrix

Quote:
If you wish to discuss Iran, this is the place to do so.


Your topic title should have been 'Defending USrael from evil Iran'

Don't reply to this post, its my last post regarding USreal in this thread. However, other people will mention it, you can't discuss Iran's nuclear program without Israel's involvement.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Apr, 2006 04:39 pm
Of Imperial Presidents and Congressional Cowards

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Now that Congress is back from spring break and looking ahead to Memorial Day, July 4, the August recess and adjournment early in October for elections, perhaps it can take up this question.

Does President Bush have, or not have, the authority to take us to war with Iran? Because Bush and the War Party are surely behaving as though this were an executive decision alone.

No sooner had President Ahmadinejad declared that his country had enriched a speck of uranium than the war drums began again.

Bush has said of Iran that even "a process which would enable Iran to develop a nuclear weapon is unacceptable." John McCain has said too many times to count, "The military option is on the table." The 2006 National Security Strategy re-endorses preventive war and elevates Iran to the No. 1 threat to the United States.

This is not enough for The Weekly Standard, which equates our situation with that of France in 1936, when Paris sat immobile while Hitler marched three lightly armed battalions back into the German Rhineland, which had been demilitarized by the Versailles Treaty.

"To Bomb or Not to Bomb, That Is the Iran Question," is the title of an extended piece in the Standard, whose editorial calls for "urgent operational planning for bombing strikes." As that would likely ignite Shia and Revolutionary Guard terror attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, the Standard wants Bush to send more troops.

In an editorial "Iran, Now," National Review is already into target acquisition. It calls for plans for a massive bombing campaign "coupled with an aggressive and persistent efforts to topple the regime from within." Ideally, U.S. bombs "should hit not just the nuclear facilities, but also the symbols of state oppression: the intelligence ministry, the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guard, the guard towers of the notorious Evin Prison."

In The Washington Post, Mark Helprin, who is identified as having "served in the Israeli army and air force," says "the obvious option is an aerial campaign to divest Iran of its nuclear potential: i.e., clear the Persian Gulf of Iranian naval forces, scrub anti-ship missiles from the shore and lay open antiaircraft-free corridors to each target. … Were the targets effectively hidden or buried, Iran could be shut down, coerced and perhaps revolutionized by the simple and rapid destruction of its oil production and transport."

Since Muslims may not like what we are up to, Helprin cautions, we should prepare "for a land route from the Mediterranean across Israel and Jordan to the Tigris and Euphrates," and, presumably, from there the final push on to Tehran.

In all this hawk talk, something is missing. We are not told how many innocent Iranians we will have to kill as we go about smashing their nuclear program and defenses. Nor are we told how many more soldiers we will need for the neocons' new war, nor how long they will have to fight, nor how many more wings we should plan for at Walter Reed, nor when it will be over - if ever.

Moreover, where does Bush get the authority to launch a war on a nation that has not attacked us? As few believe Iran is close to a nuclear weapon, while four neighbors - Russia, India, Pakistan, and Israel, not to mention the United States - already have the bomb, what is America's justification for war?

If we sat by while Stalin got the bomb, and Mao got the bomb, and Kim Jong-Il got the bomb, why is an Iranian bomb a threat to the United States, which possesses thousands?

There is a reason the Founding Fathers separated the power to conduct war from the power to declare it. The reason is just such a ruler as George W. Bush, a man possessed of an ideology and sense of mission that are not necessarily coterminous with what is best for his country. Under our Constitution, it is Congress, not the president, who decides on war.

Many Democrats now concede they failed the nation when they took Bush at his word that Iraq was an intolerable threat that could be dealt with only by an invasion. Now, Bush and the War Party are telling us the same thing about Iran. And the Congress is conducting itself in the same contemptible and cowardly way.

It is time for Congress to tell President Bush directly that he has no authority to go to war on Iran and to launch such a war would be an impeachable offense. Or, if they so conclude, Congress should share full responsibility by granting him that authority after it has held hearings and told the people why we have no other choice than another Mideast war, with a nation three times as large as Iraq.

If Congress lacks the courage to do its constitutional duty, it should stop whining about imperial presidents. Because, like the Roman Senate of Caesar's time, it will have invited them and it will deserve them.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 04:45 am
To throw in my 2 cents worth, the U.N. has now reaped what it has sown. The U.N.'s failure or inability to follow through with its own resolutions or put any real teeth into what it says in the past has not fallen on deaf ears. Observe the countries that voted for resolutions concerning Iraq, but have not supported the actions necessary as a followup. So is it now surprising to hear the madman in charge of Iran tell the U.N. to shove it?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 05:52 am
Number one, we don't know what nations would have voted for war since Bush cut it short and invaded Iraq before the vote, and number two, military options are not the answer to everything. After watching the results of these military options performed by this administration, I would hope it would be the last option taken by the UN.

Having said all that I agree with the author of blueflame1's article:

Quote:
In all this hawk talk, something is missing. We are not told how many innocent Iranians we will have to kill as we go about smashing their nuclear program and defenses. Nor are we told how many more soldiers we will need for the neocons' new war, nor how long they will have to fight, nor how many more wings we should plan for at Walter Reed, nor when it will be over - if ever.

Moreover, where does Bush get the authority to launch a war on a nation that has not attacked us? As few believe Iran is close to a nuclear weapon, while four neighbors - Russia, India, Pakistan, and Israel, not to mention the United States - already have the bomb, what is America's justification for war?
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 06:23 am
Quote:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/images/logo/top-news.gif

No one can prevent cooperation between Iran and China: envoy

April 30, 2006

Tehran Times Economic Desk
TEHRAN – Chinese Ambassador to Tehran Lio G. Tan has said that the oil and gas deal between Iran and China has been thoroughly studied by experts and is ready to be signed.

The Chinese ambassador was clearly referring to an energy agreement between Tehran and Beijing which is worth over 100 billion dollars.

“No country can prevent the deal,” the ambassador told the Mehr News Agency correspondent in Tehran last week. When asked whether China was under U.S. pressure not to sign the deal, Lio responded by asking, “Would the U.S. export oil to us if it didn’t let you (Iranians) give it to us?”

The ambassador said that even if there were no dispute over Iran’s nuclear program, the U.S. would have tried to halt the deal, but China will not be swayed. He noted, “For example, can you find a time since the victory of the Islamic Revolution that the U.S. has not interfered in your country’s affairs?”

He put China’s annual oil imports from Iran at over 10 million tons.

A delegation from Iran’s Oil Ministry is due to visit China soon to conclude the huge oil and natural gas deal.

A memorandum of understanding was signed in October 2004 between Iran and Sinopec, China's largest refiner, to buy 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) over 25 years.

In exchange for developing Yadavaran, one of Iran's largest onshore oil fields, China would agree to buy 10 million tons of liquefied natural gas a year for 25 years beginning in 2009.

tehrantimes


OKay folks, here is a perfect example of how US interests have been sacrificed to a war for Israel's benefit.

Common sense is going to say that if you make enemies of your former friends, your enemies will make friends of your former friends. In other words, China and Russia will be quick to exploit US alienation in the oil-rich nations of the Middle East.

Bush has cut the throat of our own economy with his war based on lies.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 07:49 am
Iran's psychopath in chief, by Israel
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 08:51 am
freedom4free wrote:


Common sense is going to say that if you make enemies of your former friends, your enemies will make friends of your former friends. In other words, China and Russia will be quick to exploit US alienation in the oil-rich nations of the Middle East.

Bush has cut the throat of our own economy with his war based on lies.


Since when has China and Russia ever been loyal friends of ours? There has been some flirtation, but I don't think any lasting friendship has ever been established with them in recent times. Further, the record shows behind the scenes assistance from Russia to Saddam Hussein against us. China and Russia have always pursued their own interests there without regard to us, and so their actions now are no different than they would have been anyway.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 08:55 am
Quote:
The attack on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", came as it emerged that the head of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, secretly discussed the nuclear programme with officials in Washington last week.


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2010655#2010655
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 08:57 am
revel wrote:
Quote:
The attack on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", came as it emerged that the head of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, secretly discussed the nuclear programme with officials in Washington last week.


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2010655#2010655


Yes, I have seen that poor attempt to defend the insanity.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:19 pm
It was not an attempt to defend anything, merely saying that the words about wiping Israel off the map attributed to Ahmadinejad, are false as the transcript shows.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:52 pm
how could so many be so wrong?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 12:54 pm
McGentrix wrote:
how could so many be so wrong?


Shrugs, a lot of people once thought the world was flat.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 10:34 am
More Uranium Reportedly Found in Iran

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 28 minutes ago

VIENNA, Austria - The U.N. atomic agency found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site linked to the country's defense ministry, diplomats said Friday, adding to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities aimed at making nuclear arms.

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests. But they said the density of enrichment appeared to be close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads.

Still, they said, further analysis could show that the traces match others established to have come from abroad. The
International Atomic Energy Agency determined earlier traces of weapons-grade uranium were imported on equipment from Pakistan that
Iran bought on the black market during nearly two decades of clandestine activity discovered just over three years ago.

Uranium enriched to between 3.5 percent and 5 percent is used to make fuel for reactors to generate electricity. It becomes suitable for use in nuclear weapons when enriched to more than 90 percent.

Iran's refusal to give up enrichment ambitions has led to involvement by the
U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions but remains split on how firmly to pressure Tehran.

Key U.N. Security Council members agreed Tuesday to postpone a resolution that would have delivered an ultimatum to Tehran, giving Iran another two weeks to re-evaluate its insistence on developing its uranium enrichment capabilities.

Iran's hard-line president said Friday that his country was not afraid of possible U.S. military action over its enrichment program, but added that he thought any such strikes were very unlikely. Washington has said it favors a diplomatic end to the dispute, but it hasn't ruled out military force.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also told a local TV station that Iran would cooperate with the Security Council if it makes a decision on the escalating standoff as long as the world body acts "in line with international rules."

The Islamic republic denies accusations it wants to make nuclear arms and says it is only interested in uranium to generate power.

To argue that it never enriched uranium domestically to weapons grade, it cites the IAEA's tentative conclusion last year that weapons-grade traces collected from other sites within the country with no suspected ties to that military came in on equipment from Pakistan.

The origin of the samples now under perusal created some concern in that regard.

One of the diplomats told The Associated Press that the samples came from equipment that can be used in uranium-enriching centrifuges at a former research center at Lavizan-Shian. The center is believed to have been the repository of equipment bought by the Iranian military that could be used in a nuclear weapons program.

The United States alleges Iran had conducted high-explosive tests that could have a bearing on developing nuclear weapons at the site.

The State Department said in 2004 that Lavizan's buildings had been dismantled and topsoil had been removed in attempts to hide nuclear weapons-related experiments. The agency subsequently confirmed that the site had been razed.

In an April 28 report to the U.N. Security Council and the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors, agency head Mohamed ElBaradei said the agency took samples from some of the equipment of the former Physics Research Center at Lavizan-Shian. The diplomat said the evaluation of those samples revealed the traces in question.

Ahmadinejad's remarks on possible U.S. military action were made in Jakarta during a discussion with Indonesian Islamic leaders.

Asked whether his country was prepared to face an attack by the United States, he said "that is very unlikely because they know the Islamic Republic of Iran is a strong country."

"They are trying to frighten our country by waging a propaganda campaign using strong words. The people of Iran and the country are not afraid of them," he said to applause from the audience.

The Chinese and Russians have balked at British, French and U.S. efforts to put the resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. Such a move would declare Iran a threat to international peace and security and set the stage for further measures if Tehran refuses to suspend its uranium enrichment operations. Those measures could range from breaking diplomatic relations to economic sanctions and military action.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 10:41 am
Quote:
US must address Iran security concerns: IAEA US must address Iran security concerns: IAEA

"This is primarily a regional security issue," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) he told a debate in The Hague.

"Iran is surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons, Russia has nuclear weapons, Pakistan has nuclear weapons,Israel has nuclear weapons, Iraq has used chemical weapons against them. There is a sense of insecurity," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060512/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_iaea_dc_1


What El-Bbaradei is saying makes absolute sense, which is why the U. S. is apt to ignore it completely.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 May, 2006 01:54 pm
freedom4free wrote:
Quote:
US must address Iran security concerns: IAEA US must address Iran security concerns: IAEA

"This is primarily a regional security issue," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) he told a debate in The Hague.

"Iran is surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons, Russia has nuclear weapons, Pakistan has nuclear weapons,Israel has nuclear weapons, Iraq has used chemical weapons against them. There is a sense of insecurity," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060512/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_iaea_dc_1


What El-Bbaradei is saying makes absolute sense, which is why the U. S. is apt to ignore it completely.


Just a comment in reference to "absolute sense" as quoted in the above. It seems the argument is made that since other people have nuclear weapons, then they should have them, I guess is the "absolute sense." Upon reading some history, I have yet to run across a case where anybody waited for and wanted their enemies to have equality of weapons, and in fact advocated it prior to any anticipated confrontation.

And now in a world where certain individuals and idealogies advocate the strapping on of bombs in order to kill their enemies, it would appear that logic would tell us that the objective of such is to kill the enemy in as many numbers as possible regardless of the loss of ones own life. And if a small explosive would kill yourself very dead in your suicide mission, what would be the barrier to strapping on a small nuclear device? I would judge little to none. After all, you are not any more dead, but you sure have killed alot more of your perceived enemy. So in this world where sanity and restraint is seemingly evaporating into the justification of suicide bombers, I do not count myself as one that thinks it makes any "absolute sense" to allow such countries that may subscribe to such tactics as suicide bombing to obtain nuclear weapons. However, I guess I'm from Oklahoma so the foremost world thinkers probably figure I would simply be out of touch.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 02:17:57