NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/07/khatami.visit/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

Mohammed Khatami recently visited the U.S. to give a press conference. His speech was nice, and had a lot of stuff in it I support. I don't know enough about him to pass judgement though, and I know Iran supports terrorism. What do you think?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/07/khatami.visit/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

Mohammed Khatami recently visited the U.S. to give a press conference. His speech was nice, and had a lot of stuff in it I support. I don't know enough about him to pass judgement though, and I know Iran supports terrorism. What do you think?
I see he's a lot like our past Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. He just doesn't know how to stay home and stay quiet.

I see he's a lot like our past Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. He just doesn't know how to stay home and stay quiet.

He should have to swim home.

Now-imagine if Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton went to Iran to speak at some assembly ? I'm sure they'd be provided with security.

Mohammed Khatami recently visited the U.S. to give a press conference. His speech was nice, and had a lot of stuff in it I support.

That was a speech? I was under the impression that it was a comedy routine. He said that Iran's nuclear weapons programme was peaceful. Lol. He also claimed that "Iran is making progress on the road to democracy." Hilarious. He continued with "what exists and has existed in Iran for many years is a tradition of coexistence and tolerance." Ah yes, how well they tolerate the Jews. Then he delivered the knockout punch: "What exists at the international level, unfortunately, is based on intolerance." Yes, while the rest of the world is trying to stop a fanatical regime from obtaining nukes, that regime is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state and oppressing its citizens politically. Guess which one is "tolerant"?

He should have to swim home.

Now-imagine if Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton went to Iran to speak at some assembly ? I'm sure they'd be provided with security.

I doubt they would leave their Secret Service men behind. And I'm sure the host organization would provide additional security.

Begoner21;11669276']That was a speech? I was under the impression that it was a comedy routine. He said that Iran's nuclear weapons programme was peaceful. Lol. He also claimed that "Iran is making progress on the road to democracy." Hilarious. He continued with "what exists and has existed in Iran for many years is a tradition of coexistence and tolerance." Ah yes, how well they tolerate the Jews. Then he delivered the knockout punch: "What exists at the international level, unfortunately, is based on intolerance." Yes, while the rest of the world is trying to stop a fanatical regime from obtaining nukes, that regime is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state and oppressing its citizens politically. Guess which one is "tolerant"?

Its like preaching to people to be tolerant of cancerous cells.

Begoner21;11669276']That was a speech? I was under the impression that it was a comedy routine. He said that Iran's nuclear programme was peaceful. Lol.
There's no evidence that Iran is doing anything more than trying to generate electricity.

He also claimed that "Iran is making progress on the road to democracy." Hilarious. He continued with "what exists and has existed in Iran for many years is a tradition of coexistence and tolerance." Ah yes, how well they tolerate the Jews. Then he delivered the knockout punch: "What exists at the international level, unfortunately, is based on intolerance." Yes, while the rest of the world is trying to stop a fanatical regime from obtaining nukes, that regime is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state and oppressing its citizens politically. Guess which one is "tolerant"?
I agree more or less.

Good on the protestors. Iran is not tolerant of minorities.

There's no evidence that Iran is doing anything more than trying to generate electricity.

They're building fast-breeder, heavy water reactors. That usually means they want to generate plutonium for nuclear weapons.

They're building fast-breeder, heavy water reactors. That usually means they want to generate plutonium for nuclear weapons.
My bad. Didn't know that.

Begoner21;11669276']Then he delivered the knockout punch: "What exists at the international level, unfortunately, is based on intolerance." Yes, while the rest of the world is trying to stop a fanatical regime from obtaining nukes, that regime is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state and oppressing its citizens politically. Guess which one is "tolerant"?
That's only because the Israelis (not Jews) are intolerant towards them and their allies.

That's only because the Israelis (not Jews) are intolerant towards them and their allies.

Yes, because we should all tolerate regimes that sponsor terrorist groups and are in the process of building WMDs. I'm sure the Iranians would simply love the Israelis if Israel allowed Iran to continue funding Hezbollah and gave it carte blanche to develop nukes. That is, of course, until Israel gets "wiped off the face of the Earth" by those very same Iranian nukes.

That's only because the Israelis (not Jews) are intolerant towards them and their allies.

That's true. Muslims are actually peace loving people that wear furry mittons and frolick through the meadows. They are solidly good to the core and only react violently as a completely justifiable response to what other people do. :)

Khatami did the best he was able to do as the first reformist president of Iran, espescially since the Ayatollahs had gone out of their way to restrict his ability to do things. Bush personally signed off on Mr. Khatami's trip to the US, and I really don't mind that he's come for a bit of a visit and a tour.

Begoner21;11669598']Yes, because we should all tolerate regimes that sponsor terrorist groups and are in the process of building WMDs. I'm sure the Iranians would simply love the Israelis if Israel allowed Iran to continue funding Hezbollah and gave it carte blanche to develop nukes. That is, of course, until Israel gets "wiped off the face of the Earth" by those very same Iranian nukes.

As far as terrorism is concerned, the only reason it's popular at all is because of Israel, and the only reason they target us is because we are either seen as controlling Israel or being controlled by them.
I don't care who has nukes. MAD ftw.

They'd love Isreal if the Zionists hadn't stolen land from Muslims and then perpetuated increasing abuses against them.
That's true. Muslims not Islamic extremists are actually peace loving people that wear furry mittons and frolick through the meadows. They are solidly good to the core and only react violently as a completely justifiable response to what other people do.
Noted.
And they're intolerant.

That's only because the Israelis (not Jews) are intolerant towards them and their allies.
When did Israel ever bomb Iran?

Begoner21;11669598']That is, of course, until Israel gets "wiped off the face of the Earth" by those very same Iranian nukes.
Iran will never do that, because it would mean the end of Iran.

Noted.
And they're intolerant.

Yeah, the edit of my post. I was once told that was against the rules here, but I don't care. You do understand that Iran is a nation ruled by Islamic Extremists, right?

They're building fast-breeder, heavy water reactors. That usually means they want to generate plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Assuming you're right (without sources and whatnot) Nuclear Weapons like the ones that the USA has (and has used), Britain has, China has, Israel has, and several other countries also have. Also note that it is said western countries that have actually invaded countries because they didn't like the regime controlling it. You can't really turn around to Iran and say they can't have any because you don't want them to. On the upside perhaps having a rival of comparable influence in the Middle East will lessen Israel's aggression.

Assuming you're right (without sources and whatnot) Nuclear Weapons like the ones that the USA has (and has used), Britain has, China has, Israel has, and several other countries also have. Also note that it is said western countries that have actually invaded countries because they didn't like the regime controlling it.

It's odd how some folks who believe in gun ownership and the right to self-defense support the idiotic attempts at nuclear 'gun' control.

While on that subject, sometimes I rather think the NRA doesn't give a shit about MY right to own a gun, only THEIRs. Thems that has the guns, want to keep the guns AND be the only ones armed.

Ahmadinejad is just talk. Even if Iran were to get the bomb, they wouldn't use it.

Assuming you're right (without sources and whatnot)

UN Security Council Resolution 1696
July 31, 2006


Introduction

As concern mounted over the Iranian nuclear development program, EU countries and the US tried to engage Iran with a package of incentives to cease nuclear enrichment as well as implied and overt threats to impose sanctions. Iran had developed a uranium enrichment program without informing IAEA inspectors of the existence of that program. Centrifuges were manufactured in a "watch factory" in Natanz. Likewise had begun building a heavy water reactor at Arak that could be used as a breeder reactor to generate fissionable plutonium. Iran claimed that its nuclear program was intended to generate electricity in order to meet a critical shortage of fossil fuels, but Iranian proven oil and gas reserves are among the largest in the world and gasoline is heavily subsidized in Iran.

Iran refused to provide a straightforward reply to the the package of benefits proposed by the EU, saying it would reply August 22. The fear expressed by the US was that Iran would continue to delay and "negotiate," all the while continuing enrichment of uranium until it had sufficient quantities and purity to allow construction of nuclear weapons. Led by the US, the UN Security Council passed Security Council Resolution 1696, calling for Iran to cease nuclear enrichment activities by September 1, 2006. I Ominously, the IAEA also reported that Iran was denying inspectors access to some facilities. The resolution was passed under authority of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with threats to world peace. Failure to comply with this resolution mandates action by the Security Council such as sanctions or even armed intervention. However, the deadline passed, Iran ignored the deadline and continued enrichment, and the UN appeared to be powerless to act. Iran might retaliate against sanctions by ceasing the export of oil, which would raise the already high price of that commodity. US calls for action were blocked by other security council members, particularly France, Russia and China, who insisted on further negotiations.

The resolution does not explicitly mention the breeder reactor at Arak.

Ami Isseroff

http://www.mideastweb.org/1696.htm

When did Israel ever bomb Iran?

It stole land from Muslims and threatens Syria, Iran's ally.

Iran will never do that, because it would mean the end of Iran.

I'm not so sure. Iranians get taught the virtues of martyrdom at a very early age. I'm sure they'd support launching a nuke at Israel, even if it means their demise. And I question the sanity of the people in charge of Iran -- especially Ahmadinejad, whose religious rambles far outweigh George's own:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23916

It's odd how some folks who believe in gun ownership and the right to self-defense support the idiotic attempts at nuclear 'gun' control.

I'm pretty sure that if I obtain a gun, I won't be able to end civilization as we know it. I cannot say the same thing about Iran, however. There is no hypocrisy there -- I do not support the right of an individual citizen to own a stealth bomber, either. There is a fine line between self-defense and weapons capable of killing thousands of people; maybe even millions.

Begoner21;11669883']I'm not so sure. Iranians get taught the virtues of martyrdom at a very early age. I'm sure they'd support launching a nuke at Israel, even if it means their demise. And I question the sanity of the people in charge of Iran -- especially Ahmadinejad, whose religious rambles far outweigh George's own:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23916


Ahmadinejad holds no real power, Iran is an islamic theocracy. The elected president is little more than a mascot. The mullahs are the real movers and shakers.

Begoner21;11669894']I'm pretty sure that if I obtain a gun, I won't be able to end civilization as we know it. I cannot say the same thing about Iran, however. There is no hypocrisy there -- I do not support the right of an individual citizen to own a stealth bomber, either. There is a fine line between self-defense and weapons capable of killing thousands of people; maybe even millions.

Agreed, Nuclear bombs and handguns are not equal....

Begoner21;11669894']I'm pretty sure that if I obtain a gun, I won't be able to end civilization as we know it. I cannot say the same thing about Iran, however. There is no hypocrisy there -- I do not support the right of an individual citizen to own a stealth bomber, either. There is a fine line between self-defense and weapons capable of killing thousands of people; maybe even millions.

"End civilization as we know it?" What are you on about? Iran MIGHT get ONE first generation nuke and you think the end of the world is coming?

And when it comes to defense of a nation, well, a handgun is not going to cut it. Sad but true, nuclear weapons are a deterrant. Note the lack of US/USSR nuclear war.

If I was Iran I'd be developing nukes too. It may be the only thing that would stop the US from invading based on whether its president is doing poorly or badly in the polls.

Begoner21;11669883']...I question the sanity of the people in charge of Iran...

Well then you are drastically underestimating Iran.

The Islamic Republic of Iran forms a continuation of a lasting Persian civilisation going back 4,000 years, a civilisation that more often than not has been the area's leading imperial power. Pragmatic imperialist motives are thouroughly ingrained into the political culture, so the Iranian ruling class know how not to destroy themselves.

You seem to be of the mistaken impression that Iran is somehow an inferior culture. It is not. Iran is not motivated entirely by ideology, its actions are entirely pragmatic and moved primarily on maintaining its survival and perhaps increasing its power.

Yes, Iran's growing influence is something we in the West should oppose. But we cannot do that by being completely ignorant and patronising.

"End civilization as we know it?" What are you on about? Iran MIGHT get ONE first generation nuke and you think the end of the world is coming?
Iran launches a nuke at Israel, Israel nukes the living hell out of Iran. Third Intifada is declared probably hezb controlled lebanon as well as syria join in.... it would be the end of the ME anyways...

And when it comes to defense of a nation, well, a handgun is not going to cut it. Sad but true, nuclear weapons are a deterrant. Note the lack of US/USSR nuclear war.
This is true....I wouldn't mind Iran having nukes if they changed a few things about their gov't. Stop supporting Terrorism, recognize israel and stop trying to destroy it, end the barbaric aspects of their sharia law(i dont mind a theocracy what i do mind is an insane theocracy)

"End civilization as we know it?" What are you on about? Iran MIGHT get ONE first generation nuke and you think the end of the world is coming?

You suggested that Iran be allowed to continue its nuclear programme without any impediment. That will surely lead to Iran's acquisition of more than one nuke. If it proceeds at this rate for several decades, Iran will indeed be able to end civilization as we know it. Of course, even with one last-generation nuke, the economy would go haywire if Iran launched that nuke at Israel.

Note the lack of US/USSR nuclear war.

Note the lack of religious fanatics who have frequent hallucinations and highly value martyrdom in the US/USSR. That might have something to do with it, no?

If I was Iran I'd be developing nukes too. It may be the only thing that would stop the US from invading...

Yes, the US definitely wouldn't invade if Iran were developing nukes. I mean, then it would have a perfect reason to invade. On the other hand, if Iran dismantled its nuclear programme and the US had no reason to invade Iran, I'm sure that the US would then decide to invade. Do you think that Iran's development of nukes is going to make it more or less of a target? For God's sake, use your head, man!

Begoner21;11670048']
Yes, the US definitely wouldn't invade if Iran were developing nukes. I mean, then it would have a perfect reason to invade. On the other hand, if Iran dismantled its nuclear programme and the US had no reason to invade Iran, I'm sure that the US would then decide to invade. Do you think that Iran's development of nukes is going to make it more or less of a target? For God's sake, use your head, man!

use your head...A nuke landing in tel-aviv is something the U.S. wants to avoid.......

Third Intifada is declared probably hezb controlled lebanon as well as syria join in.... it would be the end of the ME anyways...

Umm... who exactly would be intifading? Any nuclear strike against Israel would also exterminate the entire Palastinian nation. And I doubt Lebanon and Syria would want to invade a land so irradiated that being within it would cause nigh-instantaneous death.

It'd be America that would fire the most at Iran, leading to the latter's total destruction.

use your head...A nuke landing in tel-aviv is something the U.S. wants to avoid.......

I guess it wasn't the obvious that I was being sarcastic, sorry. I was trying to point to the gaping flaw in his logic (ie, he stated that if Iran poses a threat, we would not invade, while if it was peaceful, we would invade).

Umm... who exactly would be intifading? Any nuclear strike against Israel would also exterminate the entire Palastinian nation. And I doubt Lebanon and Syria would want to invade a land so irradiated that being within it would cause nigh-instantaneous death.

It'd be America that would fire the most at Iran, leading to the latter's total destruction.

Sounds to me like their attempting to aqcuire fission nuclear bombs, two mile destruction radius. Yes palestine and lebanon would be irradiated but death by radiation sickness is extremely slow..