When you say (for example) “the Holocaust didn’t really happen,” it doesn’t matter if you are calm or agitated. The position itself is crazy. John Mace is essentially on target here. Ahmadinejad is not in charge in Iran, but he does say a lot of disgusting things. There’s not much to argue about as far as that goes. You might remember Iran is the country that doesn’t have any gays, but does sometimes execute them. It’s his way of playing to his base of voters. All politicians do that, although most are not so repulsive as he is. And saying he is “calm” while speaking does not refute any of those points.
It’s true that the invasion of Iraq helped push Iran into developing nuclear weapons. But Iran hasn’t been invaded and it won’t be. It’s not possible. That said, taking what he says about friendship at face value would be very foolish. It’s meaningless grandstanding.
No, I’m not going to listen to 2 speeches and tell you who sounds more rational. If you want to lay out the case for us, go ahead. Ahmadenijad has a long history of inflammatory rhetoric.
Frankly, I don’t blame them for wanting nukes. But as it is, 9% of the rest of the world, along with the US, doesn’t want them to. Tough cookies for them. They can continue to isolate themselves, or they can join the community of nations.
you ignoring just why the hostage crisis happened, or what exactly provoked it?
I take it, you mean by nobody ever heard of Iran, you mean us, not them?
course you do, right? or
they don’t matter, their Oil belongs to us?
and this and such as this, should of zero concern to them?
Obama wants $80 billion to upgrade nuclear arms complex:
and,
Obama seeks $205 million for Israel rocket shield:
President Barack Obama will ask Congress to provide $205 million to Israel to spur production and deployment of a new short-range rocket defense system, administration officials said Thursday. http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3889421,00.html
We will do everything on heaven and Earth to defend ourselfes against any possible threat from you, BUT we will never ever tolerate any attempt by you to defend yourselves against us…
Right?
What have we done to stop Iran from developing conventional weapons? Nothing.
Iran is a signatory to the NNPT. As such, they have committed to not developing nukes. Now, if they want to drop out of that treaty, then they should do so explicitly. Otherwise, they’re not getting any sympathy from us.
I disagree. Iran is more of a natural ally to the US than is Saudi Arabia. There is fault on both sides that have historically lead us to where we are now, but Iran doesn’t have many friends these days, and that’s their own fault.
Alright. The invasion accelerated the process of Iran going nuclear by proving that Iran needed nuclear weapons to forestall an invasion, while hamstringing the U.S. so it couldn’t do anything about Iran’s nuclear program even if it wanted to.
Actually, that’s wrong too.
The 2007 NIE report on the Iranian nuclear weapons program found, with a high degree of confidence, that it halted in the fall of 2003 for at least several years.
The 2007 NIE was notable precisely because the intelligence community was essentially taking a stand against some of the more extreme rhetoric that was coming out of the Bush administration at the time about Iran. If you have a better cite which claims that Iran accelerated its nuclear weapons program after, say, spring of 2003, then please post it.
On review, yes, it did. But I stand by my more general point: the war encouraged Iran on this course (they didn’t stop because of the war, they stopped because they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar), and it left the U.S. unable to do anything about the Iranian program because it was militarily and diplomatically taxed.
Does this mean that you agree that the 2007 NIE was fairly accurate?
What course are you saying the war encouraged Iran on? Because it sure seems the war encouraged Iran to stop its nuclear program. Your chronology also seems a bit strange. It was in late 2002 that Iran admitted it had the Natanz and Arak facilities that it had been operating in secret up to that time. If it was going to stop its nuclear program due to the ‘cookie jar’ effect, why wait nearly a year after the cat was out of the bag?
I’m saying it encouraged (and also enabled) them to continue developing their nuclear program with the goal of creating nuclear weapons.
The NIE you just cited says they stopped for that reason. “We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.”
No, not really. It wasn’t being “caught with their hand in the cookie jar” that did it, as that happened in 2002, but the increase in scrutiny and (potentially military) pressure.
You also need to clarify your argument. How did the Iraq war “encouraged (and also enable) Iran to continue developing their nuclear program with the goal of creating nuclear weapons.”
If, almost immediately after the start of the war, Iran shelved its nuclear weapons program and most likely didn’t resume it for years later… then it seems that it is an odd thing to claim that they accelerated their program in that timeframe.
Again: “the halt […] was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.” Meaning they stopped work because after getting caught, they faced greater international scrutiny and pressure.
It encouraged them because (from their standpoint) it proved that if you have nuclear weapons, the U.S. will leave you alone. And if you don’t, you may get invaded.
If they temporarily halted the program the war obviously didn’t accelerate anything. I said it encouraged them to continue, and it left the U.S. without any real ability to stop them from doing what they wanted.
so, such info as these irrelevant then?
of no bearing nor consequence?
How US Weapons Grade Uranium was Diverted to Israel
Declassified GAO Report Exposes Fatally Flawed Israel Investigations
( basically states the West turns a blind eye, deaf ears, when it wants to… perhaps even covertly assists…? )
excerpt from article.
May 16, 2010 “Antiwar” May 10, 2010 – The 2010 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is underway at UN Headquarters in New York. A working paper calls for a nuclear-free Middle East. It would require member states of the NPT to “disclose in their national reports on the implementation of the resolution on the Middle East all information available to them on the nature and scope of Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel.” On May 6, 2010, the Government Accountability Office (formerly known as the General Accounting Office) released the previously secret 1978 report “Nuclear Diversion in the U.S.? 13 Years of Contradiction and Confusion” [.pdf]. It fills in important historic gaps about weapons-grade uranium diversions from the U.S. to Israel.
U.S. presidents have long acquiesced to “strategic ambiguity” – a policy of neither confirming nor denying that Israel even possesses nuclear weapons. This pretext has allowed the U.S. to deliver the lion’s share of its foreign assistance budget to Israel, despite clear legal prohibitions imposed by the Glenn and Symington amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act. UN member countries have long suspected that the United States either turns a blind eye or actively supports the transfer of know-how, weapons-grade uranium, and dual-use technology to Israel. The 62-page General Accounting Office investigation and correspondence confirms the United States refuses to mount credible investigations that would enable warranted prosecutions of the perpetrators.
article continues, lengthy…
and why then is this apparently dismissed as untouchable?
Headline.
Russia to sell Syria warplanes, air defense systems
Head of Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation says Moscow to supply Damascus with MiG-29 fighters, truck-mounted Pantsir short-range surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery systems
(( Beyond our reach to interfere with, or of no consequence cos anything they can do we can do a million times more powerful?. therefore of no real threat?
or the US sells $US millions of weapons more than any oner else on the planet? but are sohow, ‘above the Law’ when it comes to accountability, EG, Ollie North, The Iran Contra Affair, etc…?
Which is it, ?))
excerpt from article.
Russia has signed deals with Syria under which it will sell it warplanes, antitank weapons and air defense systems, Itar-Tass news agency quoted a senior Russian arms trader as saying on Friday.
Mikhail Dmitriyev, head of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, said Russia would supply Syria with MiG-29 fighters and truck-mounted Pantsir short-range surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery systems.
article continues…