NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061224/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iran_nuclear

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, increasing international pressure on the government to prove that it is not trying to make nuclear weapons. Iran immediately rejected the resolution.

The result of two months of tough negotiation, the resolution orders all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also freezes Iranian assets of 10 key companies and 12 individuals related to those programs.

If Iran refuses to comply, the council warned it would adopt further nonmilitary sanctions, but the resolution emphasized the importance of diplomacy in seeking guarantees "that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes."


Well...atleast the the Security Council passed this..I never thought it would happen.

Thoughts? Comments? What do you think about Iran's rejection of the resolution?

Just the same BS we hear week end and week out. When the UN decides to actually do something let us know.

Good. Iran has no reason to back down.

Good. Iran has no reason to back down.

So you support violations of International Law?

So you support violations of International Law?

Consider the source.

Consider the source.

Oh I am but if he supports the violations of International Law done by Iran then he has no choice but to support it elsewhere too.

So you support violations of International Law?

Israel defies international law almost on a daily basis. If they don't have to follow it, neither does the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Does Iran really have a choice? They weren't backing down before, if they do now it's political suicide, interally and on the international scene.

Besides, these sanctions are very weak - China and Russia saw to that. They freeze some assets and ban the sale of nuclear technology to Iran, while ruling out military force. I doubt Iran's scared.

I am also obliged to do this - No evidence exists Iran is doing anything but what they are quite legally allowed to do - enrich Uranium for a civilian program. They claim they're not going for a bomb. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, regardless of our distaste for their government/religion/people/ideas/etc, logic tells us we should take their claim at face value. They deserve this slap on the wrist for fucking with the IAEA, but so far that's all they've done wrong.

Worthless, impotent blather that won't make an iota of difference. Another excuse supported by Russia, China, France and others, who in fact support Iran, for doing nothing while Iran continues on its way toward acquiring nuclear weapons. Russia and China in particular want Iran to succeed because Islamo-Nazi nukes create problems for the US. Which is stupidly short-sighted of them, because eventually the same problems will bite them in the ass as well (Russia, think Chechnya; China, think Xinjiang).

The only thing that will stop A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket, and the puppet-masters pulling his strings (Khamanei and the rest of the moolah-cracy) is direct action: instigating a revolt, special operations against Iranian nuclear sites, etc.

Once again it looks like Israel and the US will have to get the job done. Time's a-wastin'. Lock and load. :mp5:

Does Iran really have a choice? They weren't backing down before, if they do now it's political suicide, interally and on the international scene.

Besides, these sanctions are very weak - China and Russia saw to that. They freeze some assets and ban the sale of nuclear technology to Iran, while ruling out military force. I doubt Iran's scared.

I am also obliged to do this - No evidence exists Iran is doing anything but what they are quite legally allowed to do - enrich Uranium for a civilian program. They claim they're not going for a bomb. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, regardless of our distaste for their government/religion/people/ideas/etc, logic tells us we should take their claim at face value. They deserve this slap on the wrist for fucking with the IAEA, but so far that's all they've done wrong.
Didnt you catch that article about the Atomic Energy Commitee in Vienna finding out that Tehran has been buying Nuclear bomb blueprints on the blackmarket?
Israel defies international law almost on a daily basis. If they don't have to follow it, neither does the Islamic Republic of Iran.
No....because, Israel has not publicly demonstrated its will to "wipe another nation off the map"...even though its had Nuclear Weapons for years and ample opportunities to do so.

Also, two wrongs do not make a right.;)

Israel defies international law almost on a daily basis. If they don't have to follow it, neither does the Islamic Republic of Iran.

You have a slight problem however! Iran is a member of the NPT whereas Israel is not.

So why do you support Iran for violating terms of a treaty that Israel is not a part of?

Didnt you catch that article about the Atomic Energy Commitee in Vienna finding out that Tehran has been buying Nuclear bomb blueprints on the blackmarket?

Nope, and I pay quite a bit of attention to the news (for the curious, that means BBC online for my daily dose of world affairs). If you've got a link up your sleeve that can show that Iran is purchasing black market nuclear weapons information during this crisis, that would change the equation somewhat.

Though I have to question this... in reality a nuke isn't that hard to build. The specs should be easy enough to find, in fact our noble Wikipedia has a very basic blueprint of a fission device. The hard part in this process is, ironically enough, getting one's hands on weapons grade enriched uranium.

You have a slight problem however! Iran is a member of the NPT whereas Israel is not.

So why do you support Iran for violating terms of a treaty that Israel is not a part of?

Israel defies international law that has nothing to do with NPT all the time. So if they defy international law, Iran has that right too.

Israel defies international law that has nothing to do with NPT all the time. So if they defy international law, Iran has that right too.

Ah but we are dealing with the NPT here and nothing else. So why should we allow Iran to violate the NPT?

I hope the UN actually does somthing and boycotts Iran. A tarde boycott would be nice:)

Nope, and I pay quite a bit of attention to the news (for the curious, that means BBC online for my daily dose of world affairs). If you've got a link up your sleeve that can show that Iran is purchasing black market nuclear weapons information during this crisis, that would change the equation somewhat.

Though I have to question this... in reality a nuke isn't that hard to build. The specs should be easy enough to find, in fact our noble Wikipedia has a very basic blueprint of a fission device. The hard part in this process is, ironically enough, getting one's hands on weapons grade enriched uranium.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/11/19/un_agency_says_iran_got_nuclear_designs_warhead_plan_suspected/

VIENNA -- The UN atomic watchdog agency revealed yesterday that Iran received black market nuclear designs that diplomats say appear to be blueprints for the core of a nuclear warhead -- a finding expected to be used by Washington and its allies in their push to have Tehran referred to the UN Security Council.

Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts A senior US diplomat called the development disturbing. The revelations also came as Iran said it had begun converting a second batch of uranium into gas, a step that brings it closer to producing the enriched uranium used to either generate electricity or build bombs.

The State Department denounced Iran's actions. ''You've given the world cause for concern," spokesman Adam Ereli said. ''The international community doesn't like what it sees, and it doesn't like the kind of behavior that you've been exhibiting over the last several years."

He urged Iran to be more forthcoming with the International Atomic Energy Agency at its 35-nation meeting next week. He said that if Tehran chooses to remain silent, it increases chances of becoming more isolated.

''If a nation thinks that it's in their interest to tell the rest of the world to go take a leap, they can do that," Ereli said. ''But that would certainly be unusual and ill-advised."

Ah but we are dealing with the NPT here and nothing else. So why should we allow Iran to violate the NPT?

Why not? why should Israel be allowed to violate UN resolutions? I think they have every right to violate the NPT to keep a balance of power of sorts in the middle east.

Why not? why should Israel be allowed to violate UN resolutions? I think they have every right to violate the NPT to keep a balance of power of sorts in the middle east.

Not talking about Israel here. We are talking about Iran. Why should Iran be given the go ahead to violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty? I would not care if they withdrew from it, then I say more power to them, but they have not. They should be punished for violating the terms of the treaty.

Why not? why should Israel be allowed to violate UN resolutions? I think they have every right to violate the NPT to keep a balance of power of sorts in the middle east.
Well if you really want to play this game. None of this wouldnt have happend if the arabs didnt violiate the mother of all UN resolutions...the Resolution that was sooo important, it grew its own hair.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/53384C2B-F718-4FFF-A548-5BC60430A3FF/0/partitionmap.jpg
You guys saddled up, went to war (by doing which you totally violated the resolution), lost the war(s), then started bitching about how its not fair.

Not talking about Israel here. We are talking about Iran. Why should Iran be given the go ahead to violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty? I would not care if they withdrew from it, then I say more power to them, but they have not. They should be punished for violating the terms of the treaty.

Every nation has a soveriegn right to pursue nuclear technology. If the NPT says Iran can't, then they should withdraw from it.

Every nation has a soveriegn right to pursue nuclear technology. If the NPT says Iran can't, then they should withdraw from it.

Nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is ok under the NPT. But why did the Iranian Government kick out the IAEA and move their operations underground? Does not seem like they want peaceful nuclear power. So tell me why you want Iran to violate the NPT?

Nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is ok under the NPT. But why did the Iranian Government kick out the IAEA and move their operations underground? Does not seem like they want peaceful nuclear power. So tell me why you want Iran to violate the NPT?

Personally I want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I see it as a counterbalance to Israel's stockpile.

Personally I want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I see it as a counterbalance to Israel's stockpile.

Even though Israel's is defensive only and not an offensive one?

Even though Israel's is defensive only and not an offensive one?

Since when is a nuke a defensive weapon? It's either a first strike weapon or a retaliation weapon, neither of which are defensive in nature.

Since when is a nuke a defensive weapon? It's either a first strike weapon or a retaliation weapon, neither of which are defensive in nature.

Tell that to those who think Iran should have nukes for they are saying it is for defensive purposes.

Israel defies international law almost on a daily basis. If they don't have to follow it, neither does the Islamic Republic of Iran.

You're a real sad case.

Blind faith always leads to destruction. And I don't think I'll miss you.

Since when is a nuke a defensive weapon? It's either a first strike weapon or a retaliation weapon, neither of which are defensive in nature.

It's a deterrent.

Does Iran really have a choice? They weren't backing down before, if they do now it's political suicide, interally and on the international scene.

Besides, these sanctions are very weak - China and Russia saw to that. They freeze some assets and ban the sale of nuclear technology to Iran, while ruling out military force. I doubt Iran's scared.

I am also obliged to do this - No evidence exists Iran is doing anything but what they are quite legally allowed to do - enrich Uranium for a civilian program. They claim they're not going for a bomb. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, regardless of our distaste for their government/religion/people/ideas/etc, logic tells us we should take their claim at face value. They deserve this slap on the wrist for fucking with the IAEA, but so far that's all they've done wrong.

They've repeatedly said that they want to "wipe Israel off the map."

For that reason alone, they should be denied any opportunity of obtaining/building nuclear weapons.

You have a slight problem however! Iran is a member of the NPT whereas Israel is not.the NPT is total bullshit.

repeatedly said that they want to "wipe Israel off the map."No He did not.

No He did not.
'He'? The President of Iran is a deity to you? This explains so much. :p

In all seriousness, yes he did. What makes you think he didn't?

By the way, OcceanDrive, hello. Haven't seen you around in a while. Thought I'd let you know in your absence that United Beleriand and Soviestan have usurped your title of Head Anti-Israel Generalite, so you might want to try and reclaim it somehow. :p

Even though Israel's is defensive only and not an offensive one?so this is how you do it..

you take a big-O-marker.. and write "defensive" on all the Jewish/US nukes.. then you turn around and Mark "offensive" on the Korean/Pakistani/Indian/Russian/Chinese/Iranian nukes..
:rolleyes:

By the way, OcceanDrive, hello. Haven't seen you around in a while. hello, and.. err.. who are you?

whoever you are,

Merry Christmas.
y Feliz Anho Nuevo!!

No He did not.

Um, yes they did.
Why are you in denial?

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051031&s=karshmiller103105

Even world leaders know what he said.

repeatedly said that they want to "wipe Israel off the map."No He did not.

No He did not.

Nice, ignore the evidence. :headbang:

No He did not.

Or going to, or whatever, but you knew what I meant.

No He did not.

You are just as stupid as I remember you if not even more so.

Or going to, or whatever, but you knew what I meant.nope, he did not say
I am going to
I will
I want to

see this is the problem.. with all the FOX/CNN/AP propaganda.. you dont know what he actually said anymore.

nope, he did not say
I am going to
I will
I want to

see this is the problem.. with all the FOX/CNN/AP propaganda.. you dont know what he actually said anymore.

President of Iran: Israel should be wiped off the map.

That is what he said fool.

You are just as stupid as I remember you if not even more so.If you remember correctly... all your insult have never worked on me..

why should they work today???

BTW.. Merry Chrismas Allegheny.

If you remember correctly... all your insult have never worked on me..

why should they work today???

BTW.. Merry Chrismas Allegheny.

Who said I was trying to make them work? You are a fool.

President of Iran: Israel should be wiped off the map.
the correct translation actually says "should be moved out of the map".. but close enough.
and when the press asked for more the next day.. he said "Israel should be recreated in Europe"..
but like I said your translation is close-enough.

the key word is should..

its like when I say " Bush should be kicked out of the white House"

I am not saying "I will kick Bush out"

or like when my friend says "Bush should be choked to death, quick someone send him some pretzels "

Just the same BS we hear week end and week out. When the UN decides to actually do something let us know.
When the US and other members decide to allow the UN to do something, I hope they let us know!

Worthless, impotent blather that won't make an iota of difference. Another excuse supported by Russia, China, France and others, who in fact support Iran
Nice little insertion there (it's always France's fault!) but France isn't working to aid Iran, although Russia and China are.

Russia and China in particular want Iran to succeed because Islamo-Nazi nukes create problems for the US.
No, they want Iran's oil.

Which is stupidly short-sighted of them, because eventually the same problems will bite them in the ass as well (Russia, think Chechnya; China, think Xinjiang).
Iran isn't going to nuke Russia or China.

The only thing that will stop A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket, and the puppet-masters pulling his strings (Khamanei and the rest of the moolah-cracy) is direct action: instigating a revolt, special operations against Iranian nuclear sites, etc.
Maybe, though I'm not sure if it's feasible or desirable. The facilities are too spread out (unlike Osirak) and military intervention will probably juck make everything suck more (again).

Once again it looks like Israel and the US will have to get the job done. Time's a-wastin'. Lock and load. :mp5:
Yeah!! Testosterone!!!

You have a slight problem however! Iran is a member of the NPT whereas Israel is not.

So why do you support Iran for violating terms of a treaty that Israel is not a part of?
Probably for idiotic "Islamic" reasons that only people like he and New Mitanni can fathom.

I hope the UN actually does somthing and boycotts Iran. A tarde boycott would be nice:)
That put Iran right into the arms of China and Russia.

Personally I want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I see it as a counterbalance to Israel's stockpile.
Why is such a thing necessary? I thought the enormity of the Arab League (plus Iran) in general was a counterbalance to Israel.

so this is how you do it..

you take a big-O-marker.. and write "defensive" on all the Jewish/US nukes.. then you turn around and Mark "offensive" on the Korean/Pakistani/Indian/Russian/Chinese/Iranian nukes..
:rolleyes:
The "Jewish" nukes. :rolleyes: Retard.

the correct translation actually says should be moved out of the map.. but close enough.

oh brother.

the correct translation actually says should be moved out of the map.. but close enough.
He wants to see the state of Israel to end and perhaps move to some other continent, because they're taking up "his" land.

nope, he did not say
I am going to
I will
I want to

see this is the problem.. with all the FOX/CNN/AP propaganda.. you dont know what he actually said anymore.

Actually we do, its people like you that follow the far left and Muslem radicals propaganda...

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000400.htm

the correct translation actually says should be moved out of the map.. but close enough.

the key word is should..

its like when I say " Bush should be kicked out of the white House"

I ma not saying "I will kick Bush out"
or like when my friend says "Bush should be killed"

Yes, but when you say it, you aren't trying to build a nuclear arsenal (or are you...)

Yes, but when you say it, you aren't trying to build a nuclear arsenal (or are you...) If my neighbor(Israel) has a nuclear arsenal, then yes.. you can your bet your ass I am. :D
Its first on my Santa list

If my neighbor(Israel) has a nuclear arsenal, then yes.. you can your bet your ass I am. :D
Its first on my Santa list

But also note that Israel hasn't sworn to "drive (you) into the sea" using their nuclear arsenal.

Oh, and you do know why Israel has a nuclear arsenal, right? It's so that madmen like Ahmedinijad (sp?), when/if he ever fires a nuke on Israel, don't live long enough to fire another.

Oh, and you do know why Israel has a nuclear arsenal, right?I am going to give an answer for Israel.. and at the same time for all the others. Its called absolute logic.
why do we want a weapon??? It its the same reason for US and them (whoever these are).

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/11/19/un_agency_says_iran_got_nuclear_designs_warhead_plan_suspected/

It recieved the documents in 1989. Suspicious? Hell yes. But I'd say the threshold for military action is higher than that.

I am going to give an answer for Israel.. and at the same time for all the others. Its called absolute logic.
why do we want a weapon??? It its the same reason for US and them (whoever these are).

Ah, OK, I see.

So, If Amadinejad wants nuclear weapons to deter madmen like himself, then why does he continually preach about the annihilation of Israel in almost the same sentence? I honestly wouldn't trust the man with a pop gun, myself, let alone a nuclear arsenal.

Didnt you catch that article about the Atomic Energy Commitee in Vienna finding out that Tehran has been buying Nuclear bomb blueprints on the blackmarket?


Oh don't worry....we have had people (TG - the ex mod, nonetheless) arguing here that Iran might have gotten that blueprint from Pakistan by mistake and there is no proof that they were actually going to use it...

i guess it's gonna look like this now: iran gets nukes, and launches a nuke at the USA for absolutely no reason. while it is on it's way, bush is like "yikes! nukes are coming! hide in the broom closet!" then once he is told that won't do anything, he is like "oh well, fire missiles!". and everone else is like "WTF". now putin's like "OUR MOTHERLAND (read as "i'montheline"), blair is like, "we need to imitate bush, tell everyone to hide in the closet, er... fire missiles.", everyone thinks france is like "we surrender!", and india and pakistan launch their nukes, so now we have missiles flying everywhere, passing each other. okay. now we have nuclear winter, everone is dead, except Australia, and their also, like "wtf", but they will be dead soon. but, assuming we don;t die, us poles, being sick of all those invasions, decide to invade germany. maybe the czech republic too.

i guess it's gonna look like this now: iran gets nukes, and launches a nuke at the USA for absolutely no reason. while it is on it's way, bush is like "yikes! nukes are coming! hide in the broom closet!" then once he is told that won't do anything, he is like "oh well, fire missiles!". and everone else is like "WTF". now putin's like "OUR MOTHERLAND (read as "i'montheline"), blair is like, "we need to imitate bush, tell everyone to hide in the closet, er... fire missiles.", everyone thinks france is like "we surrender!", and india and pakistan launch their nukes, so now we have missiles flying everywhere, passing each other. okay. now we have nuclear winter, everone is dead, except Australia, and their also, like "wtf", but they will be dead soon. but, assuming we don;t die, us poles, being sick of all those invasions, decide to invade germany. maybe the czech republic too.

Did you rip that off of "Ze End of Ze World"?

Did you rip that off of "Ze End of Ze World"?

yes, as a matter of fact i did.

Good. Iran has no reason to back down.


Yes they do. Their stupid leader and their violent religion don't deservee it. They should learn a bit more about nukes and become more civilized before they should be able to get them for any purpose. (That will probably be never.)

Ah, OK, I see.

So, If Amadinejad wants nuclear weapons to deter madmen like himself, then why does he continually preach about the annihilation of Israel in almost the same sentence? I honestly wouldn't trust the man with a pop gun, myself, let alone a nuclear arsenal.
And why the hell does the US get any when it's the only country to have used them on mainly civilian targets, and constantly goes on about this "Axis of Evil" crap that is basically "Let's annihilate the evil Muslims, but not the ones in Saudi, because they're our mates for some reason", eh?

Fucksakes, if anyone can have them, then everyone can have one.

Yes they do. Their stupid leader and their violent religion don't deservee it. They should learn a bit more about nukes and become more civilized before they should be able to get them for any purpose. (That will probably be never.)

don't feed the troll.

And why the hell does the US get any when it's the only country to have used them on mainly civilian targets

Bullshit it was primarily civilian.

and constantly goes on about this "Axis of Evil" crap that is basically "Let's annihilate the evil Muslims, but not the ones in Saudi, because they're our mates for some reason", eh?

Fucksakes, if anyone can have them, then everyone can have one.

Unless of course, they signed the NPT. Iran did. By law, Iran cannot legally have nuclear weapons.

Bullshit it was primarily civilian.
Yes, yes it was.
Unless of course, they signed the NPT. Iran did. By law, Iran cannot legally have nuclear weapons.
Because international law is utterly undefiable by anyone, ever, and makes every nation that does it into a pariah state or something, yeah?

Yes, yes it was.

THen I suggest you go back and study history.

Because international law is utterly undefiable by anyone, ever, and makes every nation that does it into a pariah state or something, yeah?

Actually, it is defineable. Treaties are considered International Law and must be followed. Violating the terms of a treaty is violating International Law.

THen I suggest you go back and study history.
Sorry, did you not blow up two whole cities?

Yes, there were factories there. That clearly makes the entire area into a military target...
Actually, it is defineable. Treaties are considered International Law and must be followed. Violating the terms of a treaty is violating International Law.
On the other hand, the kind of people who set international law also violate it on a daily basis and because of this, nobody cares any more.

Sorry, did you not blow up two whole cities?

Yes, there were factories there. That clearly makes the entire area into a military target...

Indeed. Back in those days, it was a military target. Gotta put things into perspective for the time era. Can't put things into today's terminology.

On the other hand, the kind of people who set international law also violate it on a daily basis and because of this, nobody cares any more.

Apparently, the UN disagrees with you.

Indeed. Back in those days, it was a military target. Gotta put things into perspective for the time era. Can't put things into today's terminology.
No, you can be a complete wanker even in World War 2 terms. It was out of order. So were Butch Harris' bomber raids, especially on Dresden. Even for the time.
Apparently, the UN disagrees with you.
And what's it going to do?

Write me an angry letter?

Plus if anything goes against any of the people who actually set international law in the UN, they just veto it. This is why it's crap and nobody cares at all any more.

Israel about to get condemned? Veto!
Invasion about to get named illegal? Veto again!
Don't like some kind of leftist leader in South America? Sanctions and then a veto-off with Russia and China!

Israel defies international law almost on a daily basis. If they don't have to follow it, neither does the Islamic Republic of Iran.

What a hidiously lame excuse to support Iran.

No, you can be a complete wanker even in World War 2 terms. It was out of order. So were Butch Harris' bomber raids, especially on Dresden. Even for the time.

I'll give you Dresden. Damn Brits. As for the Bombs, look at the Japanese Culture. Look at how the actually build things and then tell me it was primarily civilian.

And what's it going to do?

Write me an angry letter?

You the President of Iran?

Plus if anything goes against any of the people who actually set international law in the UN, they just veto it. This is why it's crap and nobody cares at all any more.

And why everyone hates the UN.

Israel about to get condemned? Veto!
Invasion about to get named illegal? Veto again!
Don't like some kind of leftist leader in South America? Sanctions and then a veto-off with Russia and China!

Pretty much.

Nobody knew the long-lasting effects of a nuclear strike, so few were opposed to it.

That, plus, more lives were saved than lost by dropping the bomb as opposed to invading the mainland.

What a hidiously lame excuse to support Iran.

ANd if he supports IRan's violation of international law then he has no choice but to support everyone who violates international law, including Israel.

I'll give you Dresden. Damn Brits.
Which was less than the amount of people you killed in Tokyo with your firebombs.
As for the Bombs, look at the Japanese Culture. Look at how the actually build things and then tell me it was primarily civilian.
It's a city. Unless it's a city entirely made of up of soldiers for some reason or other, then it's not a legitimate military target.
You the President of Iran?
No, I'm actually Ehud Olmert playing devil's advocate.
And why everyone hates the UN.

Pretty much.
So why the hell are you arguing about whether it's legal or not?

If nobody even cares any more, then where's the argument?

Which was less than the amount of people you killed in Tokyo with your firebombs.

I guess you forgot that Tokyo is also more populated than Dresden with houses that were not all that well constructed? Also, the firebombings killed more people than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It's a city. Unless it's a city entirely made of up of soldiers for some reason or other, then it's not a legitimate military target.

If it was supporting the war effort, it becomes a military target. Would you rather have us use Chemical Weapons in an invasion of Japan?

No, I'm actually Ehud Olmert playing devil's advocate.

Haha. Nice sarcasm. NOT!

So why the hell are you arguing about whether it's legal or not?

If nobody even cares any more, then where's the argument?

Because its a treaty that is currently be violated and thus the procedures stated in the NPT are being used.

Whoever put that map up from back in 1947, i dont quite remember your point.

However, anyone who has read history extensively should know about that "little" meeting they had after the war to divide the spoils of war, including displacing a few people on a map to fit their needs and desires.

Now, while thats all good and well considering they won the war and at that point could do whatever the hell they wanted. But complaining about Iran wanting nuclear powered whatsoever is useless.. fact of the matter is they're doing it, like countries before them.

At this point this "international law" you all speak of became null ages ago.

So yes, lets all rise up and hate muslims and the arab nations who were displaced all those years ago to be just a little bit angry!!! Damn them!!! They have no rights as a people, who cares about them!!!

I guess you forgot that Tokyo is also more populated than Dresden with houses that were not all that well constructed? Also, the firebombings killed more people than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Right, which utterly makes the US blameless for killing a huge number of Japanese civilians and makes the British complete wankers, right?

It was all utterly unforgivable, and had the Axis somehow won in the end, a great, great many people would have been tried as war criminals and executed on the Allied side.
If it was supporting the war effort, it becomes a military target.
Right, I see. So how do you feel about Palestinians blowing up cafés which make money for Israel, then?

Because that's just as "OK".
Would you rather have us use Chemical Weapons in an invasion of Japan?
No. I'd rather have you actually let Japan conditionally surrender, rather than the unconditional surrender that was desired, and have left all kinds of NBCs at home.
Haha. Nice sarcasm. NOT!
A true master of wit yourself, aren't you?
Because its a treaty that is currently be violated and thus the procedures stated in the NPT are being used.
Right. Well the NPT has the same problems as the UN. It's a massive joke.

India and Pakistan have nukes and Israel also has nukes, breaking the terms of the treaty.

But they don't get sanctions or anything for it.

Now why should that be any different for Iran, I ask?

It's a deterrent.

Which is why Iran needs them.

Yes they do. Their stupid leader and their violent religion don't deservee it. They should learn a bit more about nukes and become more civilized before they should be able to get them for any purpose. (That will probably be never.)

Their leader is not stupid and Islam is not a violent religion.

Israel defies international law that has nothing to do with NPT all the time. So if they defy international law, Iran has that right too.

The NPT is the ONLY law when it comes to nuclear weapons. If you're outside that law your immune completely. I guess Iran regrets signing it now don't they? Of course I bet the only reason they signed it was because Israel didn't sign it.

Personally I want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I see it as a counterbalance to Israel's stockpile.
So you won't be sad when Iran uses it on Israel... Resulting in Israel laying waste to the entire middle east as their version of a Sucide bomb.

Of course for your sake I'd hope the don't.
Be kind of hard to go to Mecca after it's a radioactive crateor.

Which is why Iran needs them.
Israel isn't going to Invade Iran anytimes soon.
But this does give Iran protection if they start doing large scale terrorist funding.

World: "You gave Hezbollah a Dirty Bomb, you've gone too far!"
Iran: "Stop!" Points to nuke arsenal, "Can't touch this!"

Then Israel uses conventional weapons then Iran Nukes them.
Israel Nukes entire middle east.

Mecca and Medina are radioactive crateors= No muslims can make the piligrhamage.

Their leader is not stupid and Islam is not a violent religion.
Reading your past posts... Your version is. But then again I don't call you a muslim in that case.

Who cares about the U.N anyway. No one refrained from doing something because of the U.N.

Even the US started the war on Iraq, the U.N was against it, and nothing changed.

Btw, muslims usually are very good people. The problem is that some fundamentalists give it bad names. And also some american movies, where muslims always are the bad guys.

Bullshit it was primarily civilian.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were primarily civilian. I thought everyone accepted that, except you and the other pro-murder crowds. And if you think that the hundreds of thousands who died there were soldiers, I would like a source.

Fucksakes, if anyone can have them, then everyone can have one.
I never thought I'd see a leftist who supported nuclear proliferation.

Indeed. Back in those days, it was a military target. Gotta put things into perspective for the time era. Can't put things into today's terminology.
The victims were primarily civilians, you liar.

Apparently, the UN disagrees with you.
The UN sucks.

If it was supporting the war effort, it becomes a military target.
So they would have to secede from Japan? Where's your damn respect for the sanctity of human life?

I never thought I'd see a leftist who supported nuclear proliferation.
I don't support nuclear proliferation, I support nuclear decommision, but for the time being it might pragmatically be best if Iran had, say, 3 nukes. Not many. Just as something of a deterrent.

Either that, or Israel gives them up completely, which won't happen at all. So for now, it might be best to equal up the power a bit in the Middle East.

Their leader is not stupid and Islam is not a violent religion.


A leader that wants to commit genocide is not only a retard but a crazy lunatic as well.

Prove that Islam isn't a violent religion. and not with the Koran, that doesn't count.

don't feed the troll.

sorry lol. Is he really a converted Islamist or is he joking?

Prove that Islam isn't a violent religion. and not with the Koran, that doesn't count.

:rolleyes:

Oye. Prove ANY religion isn't a violent one at that rate.

It's the interpretation that makes it good or evil - nothing more or less.

India and Pakistan have nukes and Israel also has nukes, breaking the terms of the treaty.

India, Pakistan and Israel are not signatories to NPT. The key word here is NOT. N.O.T.

They cannot break the terms of a treaty they never signed.

OTOH, Iran did. And they are bound by it, unless they break it. Even if they break from it, they are still bound by the breaking clauses. That's the way it works. They should have read it before signing for it. If they wanted nukes so badly, they should have toughened it out like Ind, Pak and Israel.


But they don't get sanctions or anything for it.



Yes, they are sanctioned. None of the above countries can be legally sold anything related to nukes (nuke fuel, technology etc) by the NPT states (unless the deals were made before NPT was ratified or done in a clandestine way by proliferation), especially the NSG - the nuclear suppliers group, which is specifically prohibited to do any trading with non-NPT states.

Try reading more on the subject before posting about it. ;)

Saying islam is violent and dangerous just because of a few people is the same as saying catholics and protestants are dangerous because or IRA and all the turmoils in Ireland.

I´ve met muslims, and I have to say they were some of the most educated, nice and inteligent people I´ve ever met. And honest.

I was traveling in Chile, and one day I went in a horse ride with some other people. Some of them (about 15 people) were like a muslim group from Istambul. Not only they helped me ride the horse I was riding (it was my first time) but they also found 300 dolars in the floor and asked if it was mine. I mean, it was not a small amount of money, it was 300 dolars. And they kept asking everyone until they found the right guy.

Now, I´ve seen dozens of bastards who said they were catholics. But I´ve not seen one muslim yet that has given me any reason whatsoever to not trust him.

sorry lol. Is he really a converted Islamist or is he joking?

He is not joking.

A leader that wants to commit genocide is not only a retard but a crazy lunatic as well.

Prove that Islam isn't a violent religion. and not with the Koran, that doesn't count.
Take your religious debate to one of the four religion threads on the first page.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=512088

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=512232

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=512022

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=512037

sorry lol. Is he really a converted Islamist or is he joking?
Soviestan has some opinions I really don't like, but he's not an Islamist. Just a Muslim.

I don't support nuclear proliferation, I support nuclear decommision, but for the time being it might pragmatically be best if Iran had, say, 3 nukes. Not many. Just as something of a deterrent.
That is supporting nuclear proliferation.

Either that, or Israel gives them up completely, which won't happen at all. So for now, it might be best to equal up the power a bit in the Middle East.
If the power is unequal, it's because of the US, not Israel. Israel is quite evenly balanced by the enormity of the Arab/Persian countries around it.

Israel isn't going to Invade Iran anytimes soon.
But this does give Iran protection if they start doing large scale terrorist funding.
Israel may not (though a repeat of Ossirak is very possible) on the other hand an invasion at some point by the USA is quite plausible. It's true the President has said "Israel should be wiped off the map". Also true that Israel made a counter threat of the same nature very soon after that.


World: "You gave Hezbollah a Dirty Bomb, you've gone too far!"
Iran: "Stop!" Points to nuke arsenal, "Can't touch this!"

Basically why everyone else has them. Nuclear weapons make you a major player in International politics. People can't ignore you or dismiss you all that easily. Look at the shift in stance when Pakistan/India got nucelar weapons.

And the West has been backing/supplying arms to terrorrists for decades and applied the same logic to it. Let him without sin cast the first stone etc etc.

As for the International Law, as is well-known Israel has broken more laws than any other country, but has been generally unpunished for it. You can't (or shouldn't) hold one country to higher standards than another, once one country can break such laws with impunity then any sort of justice is gone.

:rolleyes:

Oye. Prove ANY religion isn't a violent one at that rate.

It's the interpretation that makes it good or evil - nothing more or less.

They are all violent, just because I'm picking on Islam right now doesn't mean I don't hate the rest of them. Which is why I'm an atheist. The world would be much better off without any religion.

What a hidiously lame excuse to support Iran.he is not supporting Iran.. he is asking for International Law to be applied to all Countries.

ANd if he supports IRan's violation of international law then he has no choice but to support everyone who violates international law, including Israel.Like I said..

he is not supporting Iran.. he is asking for International Law to be applied to all Countries.

Well that's all well and good but to support another nation that is violating International Law while condemning another that is doing it is being hypocritical.

Ah, OK, I see.

So, If Amadinejad wants nuclear weapons to deter..yes that is why they all want Nukes "To deter"..
there is only one historical exeption.

So they would have to secede from Japan? Where's your damn respect for the sanctity of human life?This kid only respects American life.

yes that is why they all want Nukes "To deter"..
there is only one historical exeption.That's what all nuclear powers have used their weapons for so far, except the US of course.

Well that's all well and good but to support another nation that is violating International Law while condemning another that is doing it is being hypocritical.he is not asking for an exeption for Iran.. he is just asking for the Internationl Law to be applied to all Countries.. on the other hand.. many around here do asks for an exeption for Israel.

If the UN asks for Inspections for both Iran and Israel.. then there is no reason for us to condem the UNSC unfair double measures.

That's what all nuclear powers have used their weapons for so far, except the US of course.100% true

This kid only respects American life.

Bullshit. If I did not respect all life, I would have said we should have invaded using Chemical Weapons that would have killed millions of Japanese.

he is not asking for an exeption for Iran.. he is just asking for the Internationl Law to be applied to all Countries.. on the other hand.. many around here do asks for an exeption for Israel.

If the UN asks for Inspections for both Iran and Israel.. then there is no reason for us to condem the UNSC unfair double measures.

Israel is a NON-MEMBERof the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why should they be inspected when they are not a party to it? Iran is a party to it. Therefor, they are obligated to abide by all terms of the treaty.

Bullshit. If I did not respect all life, I would have said we should have invaded using Chemical Weapons that would have killed millions of Japanese.You country did kill millions of Japanese, but since that was far away from you, you couldn't care less. You are so stereotypical.

Israel is a NON-MEMBERof the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why should they be inspected when they are not a party to it? Iran is a party to it. Therefor, they are obligated to abide by all terms of the treaty.They do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran

You country did kill millions of Japanese, but since that was far away from you, you couldn't care less. You are so stereotypical.

You think i'm that old? I guess that makes me older than you then.

I guess you forgot that it was a freaking war in which EVERYONE WAS BOMBING EVERYTHING? I guess people forget the time period and the level of technology we had during said time period. There were no precision guided bombs back in those days sonny boy. I also know you have no idea that things were being manufactured inside homes as well as factories in Japan. Oops. I guess you failed to realize that the Japanese were militaristic. They do not surrender and they do not retreat. Here's another thing, only 600,000 Japanese civilians died in World War II. OOPS. What you are thinking of is the 2,000,000 Japanese soldiers that were killed. On top of that, more allied civilians died in the war than the Axis powers civilians. OOPS.

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

Then why are they refusing IAEA inspections? Why move things underground if they have nothing to hide?

Personally I want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I see it as a counterbalance to Israel's stockpile.

and a threat to international security....;)

Well if you really want to play this game. None of this wouldnt have happend if the arabs didnt violiate the mother of all UN resolutions...the Resolution that was sooo important, it grew its own hair.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/53384C2B-F718-4FFF-A548-5BC60430A3FF/0/partitionmap.jpg
You guys saddled up, went to war (by doing which you totally violated the resolution), lost the war(s), then started bitching about how its not fair.

Bam! hit the nail right on the head.

Their leader is not stupid.

He's either really stupid or really racist.

Since when is a nuke a defensive weapon? It's either a first strike weapon or a retaliation weapon, neither of which are defensive in nature.

Its defensive in that it demotivates (i don't know if thats a real word or not) a nation from attacking another nation.

the correct translation actually says "should be moved out of the map".. but close enough.
and when the press asked for more the next day.. he said "Israel should be recreated in Europe"..
but like I said your translation is close-enough.

the key word is should..

its like when I say " Bush should be kicked out of the white House"

I am not saying "I will kick Bush out"

or like when my friend says "Bush should be choked to death, quick someone send him some pretzels "

Whether or not he says he's actually going to do it he has said he wants it to happen. People's actions are motivated by their desires. Therefore you're wrong.

the NPT is total bullshit.

Great. So now your doubting the validatie of the npt. It seems like all of your arguements are based on the denial of facts.

Which is why Iran needs them.

Why would they have to deter a defensive nation?

Then why are they refusing IAEA inspections? Why move things underground if they have nothing to hide?Because of US enmity towards Iran (you know, because they got kicked out when their puppet dictator there was toppled).
However, we already know hat US surveillance is worth.
http://www.sierrafoot.org/soapbox/powells_un_speech.jpg

Why would they have to deter a defensive nation?Why do the US have nukes? Officially?

Why would they have to deter a defensive nation?

In English, "defense" is a euphamism for war.

The occupation of palestine gives the lie to the D in IDF.

In English, "defense" is a euphamism for war.

The occupation of palestine gives the lie to the D in IDF.Indeed. It's impossible to defend something that did not even exist prior to the "defense".

Great. So now your doubting the validatie of the npt. It seems like all of your arguements are based on the denial of facts.

He just hates Israel like Sovietstan and UB does.

Because of US enmity towards Iran (you know, because they got kicked out when their puppet dictator there was toppled).
However, we already know hat US surveillance is worth.
http://www.sierrafoot.org/soapbox/powells_un_speech.jpg

*yawns*

I see you would rather attack the US and not attack the point that if it was for peaceful nuclear power, they would not have kicked out the IAEA or move their operations underground. That makes people highly suspicious. They are only hurting their own cause by doing so.

*yawns*

I see you would rather attack the US and not attack the point that if it was for peaceful nuclear power, they would not have kicked out the IAEA or move their operations underground. That makes people highly suspicious. They are only hurting their own cause by doing so.
Within their own country they can just do whatever they wish. What you or your country deems suspicious is of no relevance. Iran is a sovereign country and perfectly entitled to pursue nuclear power.

Within their own country they can just do whatever they wish. What you or your country deems suspicious is of no relevance. Iran is a sovereign country and perfectly entitled to pursue nuclear power.

at the expense of treaties it created with other countries....

In English, "defense" is a euphamism for war.

The occupation of palestine gives the lie to the D in IDF.

And that justifies their government not defending its people? That justifies Iran breaking a treaty which it had signed in good faith?

And that justifies their government not defending its people? They don't defend.
That justifies Iran breaking a treaty which it had signed in good faith?The treaty didn't include accepting US accusations. And since the US is abusing the treaty to compromise Iran's sovereignty, Iran has every right to throw the inspectors out.

They don't defend.The treaty didn't include accepting US accusations. And since the US is abusing the treaty to compromise Iran's sovereignty, Iran has every right to throw the inspectors out.
Actually if they don't defend then their citizens would be dead. And the treaty did include accepting UN inspectors in order to varify that they were keeping their part in the treaty.

Actually if they don't defend then their citizens would be dead. And the treaty did include accepting UN inspectors in order to varify that they were keeping their part in the treaty.Palestinians defend. Israelis invade and occupy.
The treaty didn't include accepting US rhetoric. And Iran owes the UN nothing. The UN is no governing body with authority over any country's energy considerations.

Within their own country they can just do whatever they wish. What you or your country deems suspicious is of no relevance. Iran is a sovereign country and perfectly entitled to pursue nuclear power.

Go back and study International Law. It is apparent that you failed the course. When a nation signs a treaty, it is bound by the terms of the treaty. That means, by failing to follow through on the terms of the treaty, Iran is violating International Law.

On top of that, you contradicted yourself on your stances. I'll let you figure out where you contradicted yourself.

They don't defend.
The treaty didn't include accepting US accusations. And since the US is abusing the treaty to compromise Iran's sovereignty, Iran has every right to throw the inspectors out.

Abusing it? *dies of laughter* And incase you have not realized, we are not the only ones accusing Iran. Europe is too. I see you forgot about that part of the equation. We would not be at the UN now if it was not for an agreement made between the EU and the US. That agreement was that the EU will negotiate and then if they reach an impasse, they would agree to UN Sanctions.

*shakes head at the level of ignorance being displayed*

Actually if they don't defend then their citizens would be dead. And the treaty did include accepting UN inspectors in order to varify that they were keeping their part in the treaty.

WE HAVE A WINNER! Congratlatins Heculisis! You just showed that UB has no clue what the NPT actually states.

Palestinians defend. Israelis invade and occupy.

Only occupation going on now is in the West Bank. That we all know. They have completely pulled out of Gaza. Since then, Fatah and Hamas have been killing eachother.

The treaty didn't include accepting US rhetoric. And Iran owes the UN nothing. The UN is no governing body with authority over any country's energy considerations.

Iran owes the IAEA inspectors free access to all of their sites to verify that they are indeed going after Nuclear power and not nuclear weapons. That is stated in the treaty.

Go back and study International Law. It is apparent that you failed the course. When a nation signs a treaty, it is bound by the terms of the treaty. That means, by failing to follow through on the terms of the treaty, Iran is violating International Law.

On top of that, you contradicted yourself on your stances. I'll let you figure out where you contradicted yourself.

Abusing it? *dies of laughter* And incase you have not realized, we are not the only ones accusing Iran. Europe is too. I see you forgot about that part of the equation. We would not be at the UN now if it was not for an agreement made between the EU and the US. That agreement was that the EU will negotiate and then if they reach an impasse, they would agree to UN Sanctions.

*shakes head at the level of ignorance being displayed*

WE HAVE A WINNER! Congratlatins Heculisis! You just showed that UB has no clue what the NPT actually states.

Only occupation going on now is in the West Bank. That we all know. They have completely pulled out of Gaza. Since then, Fatah and Hamas have been killing eachother.

Iran owes the IAEA inspectors free access to all of their sites to verify that they are indeed going after Nuclear power and not nuclear weapons. That is stated in the treaty.

four posts in a row - not getting a bit too eager there Allegheny County perhaps?

four posts in a row - not getting a bit too eager there Allegheny County perhaps?

maybe he just likes proving a point.

Even though Israel's is defensive only and not an offensive one?

MAD only works if more than one side has the nukes. And nobody ever launched nuclear weapons as a defensive measure... except against giant meteors drifting towards the planet.

MAD only works if more than one side has the nukes. And nobody ever launched nuclear weapons as a defensive measure... except against giant meteors drifting towards the planet.

Then why exactly does Iran need nukes?

Then why exactly does Iran need nukes?

Because Israel has them. And Pakistan, and India. You know, the regionial neighbourhood?

Because Israel has them. And Pakistan, and India. You know, the regionial neighbourhood?

as previously stated by our friend, nukes have never been used in a defensive measure. Plus Pakistan and India are too busy squabling amongst themselves to care about the rest of the world. So, as I previously asked, Why does Iran need nukes? India and Pakistan really aren't hostile to Iran, Iraq's in chaos, and Afghanistan is a rebuilding nation. Past expeirience says that Israel only attacks when another nation attacks it first. The U.S. is WAY to caught up in Iraq to even think about attacking another nation. Who else is there to pose a threat to Iran? The answer: no one. The only reason Iran wants nukes is so that it can: 1. Make more threats to Israel and 2. Interfer in Iraq without retaliation. Those really aren't what you would call noble aspirations.

four posts in a row - not getting a bit too eager there Allegheny County perhaps?

Could it also be that I do not feel like opening up microsoft word and copy and pasting all the posts I want to respond to? Why don't you actually debate a point instead of doing this shit.

MAD only works if more than one side has the nukes. And nobody ever launched nuclear weapons as a defensive measure... except against giant meteors drifting towards the planet.

MAD is already working in the Middle East. Everyone knows that Israel will use nuclear bombs on their enemies if it looks like they are going to go down in flames.

If the UN asks for Inspections for both Iran and Israel.. then there is no reason for us to condem the UNSC unfair double measures.

The UN did inspect Israel, it turned out later however that when Israel gave them a tour through their Nuclear facility, they were making bombs 6 stories underground in a control room that was on an elevator. When the UN guys went through, the place was lowered underground, when they left, the place went back up.

Its good to see that Iran is going to stay on track. If theres one thing Iran needs its nuclear weapons. In fact every country should have them, every last one.

Its good to see that Iran is going to stay on track. If theres one thing Iran needs its nuclear weapons. In fact every country should have them, every last one.

I see someone else has little regard for the Non-proliferation treaty obligations.

I see someone else has little regard for the Non-proliferation treaty obligations.

Has that ever really worked? Seems to me that the primary reasoning behind said treaty was to ensure that only a handful of elite countries would ever have the power to ensure total destruction, thus, never having to fear when they sent troops to some third world country to conquer.

Has that ever really worked? Seems to me that the primary reasoning behind said treaty was to ensure that only a handful of elite countries would ever have the power to ensure total destruction, thus, never having to fear when they sent troops to some third world country to conquer.

That still doesn't justify giving nuclear weapons to a country that has repeatedly: 1. sponsored radical terrorist organizations 2. Said it wishes the destruction of both Israel and America 3. been repressive to all manners of change and democracy 4. Allowed terroists to cross its border with Iraq 5. spread radical propaganda attacking both the states mentioned before.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061224/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iran_nuclear

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, increasing international pressure on the government to prove that it is not trying to make nuclear weapons. Iran immediately rejected the resolution.

The result of two months of tough negotiation, the resolution orders all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also freezes Iranian assets of 10 key companies and 12 individuals related to those programs.

If Iran refuses to comply, the council warned it would adopt further nonmilitary sanctions, but the resolution emphasized the importance of diplomacy in seeking guarantees "that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes."


Well...atleast the the Security Council passed this..I never thought it would happen.

Thoughts? Comments? What do you think about Iran's rejection of the resolution?

I, for one, am curious. Apparently, people on this forum (some, anyway) take great stock in the pronoucements of the UN - in their view, our only hope of world government.

For those who believe the UN should be obeyed (especially in instances where the Security Council is unanimous - you can't say this is all the US's machinations), do you think it's fair that Iran is getting punished in this way?

Its good to see that Iran is going to stay on track. If theres one thing Iran needs its nuclear weapons. In fact every country should have them, every last one.

That's nuts.

Britian-nukes? Yes.
France-nukes? Sure, they can make fine food with it.
Iran-psycho crazy islamic leader? No.
Iraq-mass murdering Dictator? No.

Give one unstable and psycho leader power to eleminate the world's better half very easily.

And Iran thinks that it is somehow their God given right to do with the world as they please, since when their messiah comes it'll all be gravy. Not so.

Basically you'd be setting the world up for a nuke conflict.

I, for one, am curious. Apparently, people on this forum (some, anyway) take great stock in the pronoucements of the UN - in their view, our only hope of world government.

For those who believe the UN should be obeyed (especially in instances where the Security Council is unanimous - you can't say this is all the US's machinations), do you think it's fair that Iran is getting punished in this way?

As an American, I would only obey the UN where it benefits me. I have no intentions of becoming part of the one-world government BS. Quite happy dealing with mine, and it's enough.

I see someone else has little regard for the Non-proliferation treaty obligations.
Yes, a treaty is only worth the value those who are involved place on it.

That's nuts.

Britian-nukes? Yes.
France-nukes? Sure, they can make fine food with it.
Iran-psycho crazy islamic leader? No.
Iraq-mass murdering Dictator? No.

Give one unstable and psycho leader power to eleminate the world's better half very easily.

And Iran thinks that it is somehow their God given right to do with the world as they please, since when their messiah comes it'll all be gravy. Not so.

Basically you'd be setting the world up for a nuke conflict.
The Israelis have nuclear weapons. Bush has nuclear weapons. Both are aggressive and both believe that their God is with them, but neither have used them. And you would be immensly hard pushed to find a government that would use nuclear weapons unless they had been deployed against them first, or the nation was facing total annihilation.

The Israelis have nuclear weapons. Bush has nuclear weapons. Both are aggressive and both believe that their God is with them, but neither have used them. And you would be immensly hard pushed to find a government that would use nuclear weapons unless they had been deployed against them first, or the nation was facing total annihilation.


Neither Israel nor Bush have threatened repeatedly to wipe another nation off the face of the Earth.

Reagan apparently joked about it, though.

I've decided that I want Iran to have nuclear weapons. It will make the next war even more interesting. We haven't nuked anyone since WWII. I can't wait to se what our bombs look like airbursting over Tehran and Qom.

I've decided that I want Iran to have nuclear weapons. It will make the next war even more interesting. We haven't nuked anyone since WWII. I can't wait to se what our bombs look like airbursting over Tehran and Qom.

Will that be on YouTube?

Neither Israel nor Bush have threatened repeatedly to wipe another nation off the face of the Earth.

Reagan apparently joked about it, though.
Its all bluster. Israel already has nuclear weapons and so MAD is in effect.

Its all bluster. Israel already has nuclear weapons and so MAD is in effect.

I doubt that MAD always works. It assumes, for starters, that the mindset of Iranian leaders is the same as the mindset of Western nations (I include Russia in this, as they had a more or less European outlook).

We're talking about a culture that embraces suicide attacks, and suicidal crossing of minefields by hundreds of thousands of children.

Will that be on YouTube?

Either there or on Strategypage. When, not if, when it happens it'll be on the internet.

I've decided that I want Iran to have nuclear weapons. It will make the next war even more interesting. We haven't nuked anyone since WWII. I can't wait to se what our bombs look like airbursting over Tehran and Qom.

Chance are it will have already happened over here before that happens.

I would prefer not getting nuked as I've heard it's unpleasant.

I doubt that MAD always works. It assumes, for starters, that the mindset of Iranian leaders is the same as the mindset of Western nations (I include Russia in this, as they had a more or less European outlook).

We're talking about a culture that embraces suicide attacks, and suicidal crossing of minefields by hundreds of thousands of children.
We are talking about the leading politicians, who are more likely to be more reasonable, dare I say, intelligent (yes) than the average idiot fanatic who does not understand the concept of living to fight another day.

We are talking about the leading politicians, who are more likely to be more reasonable, dare I say, intelligent (yes) than the average idiot fanatic who does not understand the concept of living to fight another day.

The real political power in Iran is the council of mullahs. The same men who sent hundreds of thousands of small children into minefields to die.

The real political power in Iran is the council of mullahs. The same men who sent hundreds of thousands of small children into minefields to die.
Yes I know the religious leaders hold the real power. The fact that they are the leaders in itself suggests that they are more intelligent than most. If they were really that confident that Allah was waiting for them, they would have either suicide bombed something long ago, or at least be abroad encouraging lesser Jihad. These men hold the most power and so stand to lose the most if it is evapourated.

Firstly, I doubt bush could get away with another war without an almost immediate revolt on his hands. Secondly, congress wouldn't allow it. Even if Bush were to declare himself 'dictator' or go for another term as many liberals say he will, the people of this country wouldn't let him. The people of other countries wouldn't let him. Plus, him being a politician, I think he's at least a little bit smarter than what you make him out to be. Kennedy got us into Vietnam, does that make him a dumb politician? No, Kennedy was actually one of the most intelligent politicians of his time.

Yes I know the religious leaders hold the real power. The fact that they are the leaders in itself suggests that they are more intelligent than most. If they were really that confident that Allah was waiting for them, they would have either suicide bombed something long ago, or at least be abroad encouraging lesser Jihad. These men hold the most power and so stand to lose the most if it is evapourated.

Of course, they're content to sell weapons to other terroist organizations and have them carry out those actions. Plus Iran has already attacked the U.S. once. Ever hear of the Iranian hostage Crisis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_hostage_crisis#Background

Of course, they're content to sell weapons to other terroist organizations and have them carry out those actions.

And the Russians are content to make them for Iran and both the Russian and US nuclear sites are so poorly defended a person could virtually walk in unopposed. Also, do not use the word 'other', it implies that the Iranians are terrorists.

And the Russians are content to make them for Iran and both the Russian and US nuclear sites are so poorly defended a person could virtually walk in unopposed. Also, do not use the word 'other', it implies that the Iranians are terrorists.

Actually, Hezbollah is paid for (in its entirety) and trained by and supplied by (in its entirety) by Iran.

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

Plus Iran has already attacked the U.S. once.
Living the dream.

Ever hear of the Iranian hostage Crisis?

Taking a small group of people hostage is not evidence of preperation for an all out nuclear war.

Actually, Hezbollah is paid for (in its entirety) and trained by and supplied by (in its entirety) by Iran.

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

So by your logic the USA and its citizens are all terrorists (albeit stupider ones).

So by your logic the USA and its citizens are all terrorists (albeit stupider ones).

Depends on who is writing the history books (and who wins in the end).

Depends on who is writing the history books (and who wins in the end).

True, so your saying that they are all equally bad for not bowing down to our superior Confucian system of ethics coupled with communism.

True, so your saying that they are all equally bad for not bowing down to our superior Confucian system of ethics coupled with communism.

No, I'm saying they suck because we're going to win and write the history books.

No, I'm saying they suck because we're going to win and write the history books.

By 'we' I assume you mean the USA. Well, good luck, you seem to need it, not saying anything but it seems that even Bush is beginning to comprehend that people other than US soldiers can fight.

Are you one of those who refuses to acknowledge the fact that China is going to the the world superpower before too long?

Of course, they're content to sell weapons to other terroist organizations and have them carry out those actions. Plus Iran has already attacked the U.S. once. Ever hear of the Iranian hostage Crisis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_hostage_crisis#BackgroundBritain and Argentina can kiss and make up. Even the USA can befriend Vietnam. Why won't the USA and Iran make up? I'll tell you why, because the USA is the big boy in the playground and isn't willing to share its toys.

Besides, Iran has made concilatory attempts by assisting with the USA's war on terror in Afghanistan.
edit: It was shortly after this that Bush called Iran a rogue state. As result one could be sympathetic to Iran's view of the USA after this. If they help the USA they're called evil. If they shun the USA they're called evil. Might as well just get called evil and not waste money on helping the USA.

I believe the Iranian Parliament has also ordered Ahmadinejad to review his stance with the IAEA. Though admittedly the legislation passed rule out leaving the NPT.

By 'we' I assume you mean the USA. Well, good luck, you seem to need it, not saying anything but it seems that even Bush is beginning to comprehend that people other than US soldiers can fight.

Are you one of those who refuses to acknowledge the fact that China is going to the the world superpower before too long?

China is a long way from that and the fact that oil will only be getting more expensive and scarce as time goes on makes it much less likely that China will ever become a superpower. The internal unrest that's been bottled up will eventually take a toll on China's economic growth as well.

China is a long way from that and the fact that oil will only be getting more expensive and scarce as time goes on makes it much less likely that China will ever become a superpower. The internal unrest that's been bottled up will eventually take a toll on China's economic growth as well.

You do realise that the USA will run out of oil too (although they may stave it off with more Middle Eastern invasions). Every world power falls and a new one will take its place. If not China, then India. Why would the US succeed when no others have.

You do realise that the USA will run out of oil too (although they may stave it off with more Middle Eastern invasions). Every world power falls and a new one will take its place. If not China, then India. Why would the US succeed when no others have.

Because on that day, all Hell will break loose, and the nukes will fly, and the smallpox will come out of the vials and the global asskicking will begin.

Because on that day, all Hell will break loose, and the nukes will fly, and the smallpox will come out of the vials and the global asskicking will begin.

Firstly, this will probably be a gradual process of decline.
Secondly, it is not a good thing that you think the USA would rather destroy the world than take second place in it. Rather foolish really.

Firstly, this will probably be a gradual process of decline.
Secondly, it is not a good thing that you think the USA would rather destroy the world than take second place in it. Rather foolish really.

We wont' have a choice. Everyone will be nuking everyone else.

You do realise that the USA will run out of oil too (although they may stave it off with more Middle Eastern invasions). Every world power falls and a new one will take its place. If not China, then India. Why would the US succeed when no others have.

Sure, but we'll be able to afford it for a longer time due to our economic might. During that time we can make an easier transition to more efficient technologies and alternate fuels. We really should be doing that now, but the oil companies own the government, so we'll have to rush to get it done at the last second.

We wont' have a choice. Everyone will be nuking everyone else.

No, what you have said is that the day the USA is forced to acknowledge it is no longer top dog it will destroy the world to the best of its ability. Its the USA that made the choice and everyone else who did not.

Sure, but we'll be able to afford it for a longer time due to our economic might. During that time we can make an easier transition to more efficient technologies and alternate fuels. We really should be doing that now, but the oil companies own the government, so we'll have to rush to get it done at the last second.

There are other nations better equiped to deal with less oil than the USA, and it is probably a matter of time before that economic might is surpassed.

There are other nations better equiped to deal with less oil than the USA, and it is probably a matter of time before that economic might is surpassed.
I don't know. Our R&D is pretty good. We've got a company building factories that convert garbage and sewerage to fuel, and we've recently developed solar cells that generate electricity at 40% efficiency. We've got plenty of Uranium, even more Thorium. We've just got to start building more nuclear plants. We've definitely got to step up the production of alternative energy, but it's not like we're ignoring the problem.


Surpassed by who? China's economy is still tiny compared to the US.

I don't know. Our R&D is pretty good. We've got a company building factories that convert garbage and sewerage to fuel, and we've recently developed solar cells that generate electricity at 40% efficiency. We've got plenty of Uranium, even more Thorium. We've just got to start building more nuclear plants. We've definitely got to step up the production of alternative energy, but it's not like we're ignoring the problem..
And France already generate two thirds of its energy using nuclear power.


Surpassed by who? China's economy is still tiny compared to the US.
Yet its growing much faster and another alternative is the unified EU (or USE as I call it).

And France already generate two thirds of its energy using nuclear power.



Yet its growing much faster and another alternative is the unified EU (or USE as I call it).

Yeah. We need to get on the ball with building reactors, but we'll be able to afford oil longer than many other countries.

China's economy won't continue to grow that fast. There are internal issues that will slow it. Also who knows what the future will bring? If the US develops an interest in protecting manufacturing jobs and enforcing patent laws China's economy will take a big hit.

A unified EU? I don't know for a fact, but it seems like a pipe dream to me.

China's economy won't continue to grow that fast. There are internal issues that will slow it. Also who knows what the future will bring? If the US develops an interest in protecting manufacturing jobs and enforcing patent laws China's economy will take a big hit.
Which here means adopts policies out of spite, because they are fighting a losing battle.


A unified EU? I don't know for a fact, but it seems like a pipe dream to me.

You never know. It could happen, and it would be an instant world superpower, and hopefully by that time Russia will have joined, and if not it may want to after the merge.

Which here means adopts policies out of spite, because they are fighting a losing battle.




You never know. It could happen, and it would be an instant world superpower, and hopefully by that time Russia will have joined, and if not it may want to after the merge.

Spite? No, protecting our manufacturing base and strengthening our economy. It's what nations are supposed to do. When China strenghtens it's economy through violating patents and forcing workers to work in unsafe factories it's ok, but when the US does it through legal means it's wrong?

It could happen, but it doesn't look likely. Russia won't join. You underestimate their nationalism and how much they enjoy controling the flow of natural gas to Europe.

There are other nations better equiped to deal with less oil than the USA, and it is probably a matter of time before that economic might is surpassed.

Maybe so, however, the American People for the most part are very intelligent and very resourceful people. We have ideals and such. We'll figure something out, we always do. Americans are survivors.

On topic of Iran and their defiance is nothing new. They keep claiming wanting Nukes for peaceful energy and then the next paragraph following they claim how the want to wipe Israel off the map. Very suspect.

Spite? No, protecting our manufacturing base and strengthening our economy. It's what nations are supposed to do. When China strenghtens it's economy through violating patents and forcing workers to work in unsafe factories it's ok, but when the US does it through legal means it's wrong?
China is doing it through legitimate, if distasteful, means. Why would you want to increase secondary industry when you can further transit into tertiary? Besides, isn't that against the spirit of capitalism?

It could happen, but it doesn't look likely. Russia won't join. You underestimate their nationalism and how much they enjoy controling the flow of natural gas to Europe.

I do appreciate the degree of Russian nationalism present, but I think you underestimate their desire to become as powerful as they were during the Cold War, more so actually. As for the gas, it will only last for so long, and before to long the US will be gunning for it (possibly literally).

I've decided that I want Iran to have nuclear weapons. It will make the next war even more interesting. We haven't nuked anyone since WWII. I can't wait to se what our bombs look like airbursting over Tehran and Qom.

I agree with this statement. I want EVERYONE to own nuclear weapons. Then, when nearly everyone dies, I can march in with my robot army commanded from my moon base and TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!!111shift+1!1111!!!!!!11

Sure, but we'll be able to afford it for a longer time due to our economic might. During that time we can make an easier transition to more efficient technologies and alternate fuels. We really should be doing that now, but the oil companies own the government, so we'll have to rush to get it done at the last second.

Well, without the last second, nothing would get done. We can do it.

China is doing it through legitimate, if distasteful, means. Why would you want to increase secondary industry when you can further transit into tertiary? Besides, isn't that against the spirit of capitalism?



I do appreciate the degree of Russian nationalism present, but I think you underestimate their desire to become as powerful as they were during the Cold War, more so actually. As for the gas, it will only last for so long, and before to long the US will be gunning for it (possibly literally).

To slow the transition between the old economy and new economy and make it easier on our workers would be one good reason. Also capitalism is a tool to achieve certain goals. It's not a goal all by itself. Also since when is violating international patent law legitimate?

Sure the Russians want to be powerful. And you don't get to be powerful by having Britain, France and Germany participate in your country's decision making.

To slow the transition between the old economy and new economy and make it easier on our workers would be one good reason. Also capitalism is a tool to achieve certain goals. It's not a goal all by itself. Also since when is violating international patent law legitimate?
International law is meaningless unless someone does something about a violation, and quite frankly no one both cares and has the power to do something. If capitalism itself is meaningless why was it the idiological difference that helped to cause the Cold War. As for the workers, they are hardly 'yours', much of the US's manual labour force are immigrants that the US refuses to acknowledge as a pillar of their economy.

Sure the Russians want to be powerful. And you don't get to be powerful by having Britain, France and Germany participate in your country's decision making.
I'm not sure about that. Britain, France and Gemany are powerful, and have been even more so in the past.

International law is meaningless unless someone does something about a violation, and quite frankly no one both cares and has the power to do something. If capitalism itself is meaningless why was it the idiological difference that helped to cause the Cold War. As for the workers, they are hardly 'yours', much of the US's manual labour force are immigrants that the US refuses to acknowledge as a pillar of their economy.


I'm not sure about that. Britain, France and Gemany are powerful, and have been even more so in the past.

Too many questions and too many assertions that I don't agree with in the first part. I don't feel like dealing with it for now. Maybe later.

Sure they're powerful nations. That's exactly why Russia doesn't see allowing such powerful nations to dictate it's policies as a positive. If I'm trying to build a strong nation I don't allow others to interfere.

Sure they're powerful nations. That's exactly why Russia doesn't see allowing such powerful nations to dictate it's policies as a positive. If I'm trying to build a strong nation I don't allow others to interfere.

Really, if I'm faced with the possibilty of becoming a part of a super-power under a government that will treat me no differently from any of the other members, I may take it. Look at the US system of federal governing, just because Florida wants to do well economically and politically doesn't mean that it refuses to deal with California or declare itself an independant nation.

Really, if I'm faced with the possibilty of becoming a part of a super-power under a government that will treat me no differently from any of the other members, I may take it. Look at the US system of federal governing, just because Florida wants to do well economically and politically doesn't mean that it refuses to deal with California or declare itself an independant nation.

So you clearly don't appreciate Russian nationalism. Russia was once at the helm of the Soviet Union. It was one of two superpowers. Since then it has fallen. It's aspiration isn't to join in as a member in a European superpower, but rather to lead as it once led the Soviet Union.

So you clearly don't appreciate Russian nationalism. Russia was once at the helm of the Soviet Union. It was one of two superpowers. Since then it has fallen. It's aspiration isn't to join in as a member in a European superpower, but rather to lead as it once led the Soviet Union.

Its easier to gain control of a body from the inside than from outside, no?

So you clearly don't appreciate Russian nationalism. Russia was once at the helm of the Soviet Union. It was one of two superpowers. Since then it has fallen. It's aspiration isn't to join in as a member in a European superpower, but rather to lead as it once led the Soviet Union.
Looking at the recent Duma results for the Liberal Democratic Party (which is a lie/word ratio of 2:3) points to a very strong Russian nationalistic feeling.

Its easier to gain control of a body from the inside than from outside, no?

Not if your decisions can be vetoed by one or more very strong nations. In that case it's better to dominate the South Asian former Soviet republics, like Turkmenistan, Kazahkstan, et cetera, control the flow of their natural gas (All of Turkmenistan's gas exports flow through Russian pipelines), and build yourself up independent of foreign interference.

Not if your decisions can be vetoed by one or more very strong nations. In that case it's better to dominate the South Asian former Soviet republics, like Turkmenistan, Kazahkstan, et cetera, control the flow of their natural gas (All of Turkmenistan's gas exports flow through Russian pipelines), and build yourself up independent of foreign interference.

I think you misunderstand the term 'unified' as I mean it. This USE would be one country, controlled by one government, with devisions concerned with each region.

I think you misunderstand the term 'unified' as I mean it. This USE would be one country, controlled by one government, with devisions concerned with each region.

Which makes it more likely that swarms of flying purple and orange rottweilers will soar out of Vladimir Putin's ass than Russia choosing to join it and losing it's sovereignty.

Which makes it more likely that swarms of flying purple and orange rottweilers will soar out of Vladimir Putin's ass than Russia choosing to join it and losing it's sovereignty.

Feelings can change, remember? Things do not stay constant.
Now I have other commitments that I must take care of relatively soon, so, back to the point...

I believe that the USA will decline, and probably be replaced by another super-power, because the same has happened with every other super-power in history (ones that have been more powerful in their time than the USA).

You seem to believe that the USA will remain the lone super-power forever, why, when history has so often demonstrated that this is not the case?
Please give a brief overview of your reasoning, just to wrap this up.

Living the dream.



Taking a small group of people hostage is not evidence of preperation for an all out nuclear war.

Obviously not, but it does justify not allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Britain and Argentina can kiss and make up. Even the USA can befriend Vietnam. Why won't the USA and Iran make up? I'll tell you why, because the USA is the big boy in the playground and isn't willing to share its toys.

Besides, Iran has made concilatory attempts by assisting with the USA's war on terror in Afghanistan.
edit: It was shortly after this that Bush called Iran a rogue state. As result one could be sympathetic to Iran's view of the USA after this. If they help the USA they're called evil. If they shun the USA they're called evil. Might as well just get called evil and not waste money on helping the USA.

I believe the Iranian Parliament has also ordered Ahmadinejad to review his stance with the IAEA. Though admittedly the legislation passed rule out leaving the NPT.

The Iranian government has still repeatedly called America the "great satan".

Britain and Argentina can kiss and make up. Even the USA can befriend Vietnam. Why won't the USA and Iran make up? I'll tell you why, because the USA is the big boy in the playground and isn't willing to share its toys.

Besides, Iran has made concilatory attempts by assisting with the USA's war on terror in Afghanistan.
edit: It was shortly after this that Bush called Iran a rogue state. As result one could be sympathetic to Iran's view of the USA after this. If they help the USA they're called evil. If they shun the USA they're called evil. Might as well just get called evil and not waste money on helping the USA.

I believe the Iranian Parliament has also ordered Ahmadinejad to review his stance with the IAEA. Though admittedly the legislation passed rule out leaving the NPT.
Because Iran is funding terroists against the US and Israel.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were primarily civilian. I thought everyone accepted that, except you and the other pro-murder crowds. And if you think that the hundreds of thousands who died there were soldiers, I would like a source.

Sorry, they were MILITARY targets. Plain and simple.


I never thought I'd see a leftist who supported nuclear proliferation.

I am not suprised.


The victims were primarily civilians, you liar.

The point is, it WAS a military target, what part of that dont you understand?


The UN sucks.

This i agree on, however the treaty wasnt just about the UN it was made between nations.


So they would have to secede from Japan? Where's your damn respect for the sanctity of human life?[/QUOTE]


Wow, learn about the reality of that time before making comments like this...
The point is the civilians KNEW the consquences of being near a military target, its part of that culture then and even now in some nations still. Get a grip.

You know why, as you said, "the UN sicks"?

It is because its the USA's puppet. They keep using it to attack their enemies, and to set a double standard. The UN would never tell the USA to shut down their nuclear program! It is diisgusting.

You know why, as you said, "the UN sicks"?

It is because its the USA's puppet. They keep using it to attack their enemies, and to set a double standard. The UN would never tell the USA to shut down their nuclear program! It is diisgusting.

Really? If it's the USA's puppet, why didn't it allow the US to invade Iraq? Seems that a good puppet would have given the US a unanimous resolution in favor of invading Iraq over presumed WMD.

It didn't. Not a very good puppet.

Sorry about the spelling...:rolleyes:

Nicely put Eve. :D

You know why, as you said, "the UN sicks"?

It is because its the USA's puppet. They keep using it to attack their enemies, and to set a double standard. The UN would never tell the USA to shut down their nuclear program! It is diisgusting.

Why should they tell us to do so when we are not violating the NPT? Iran is violating the NPT and therefor, deserves to be punished.

Whether or not he says he's actually going to do it he has said he wants it to happen. People's actions are motivated by their desires. If I say "I wish Bush would just choke to death on a pretzel."

Do you actually think.. I am worried about the secret Service tryng to track my PC? :rolleyes:

Great. So now your doubting the validatie of the npt.
what I actually said was "the NPT is utter Bull Shit"..

"doubting" does not quite cover it.

Neither Israel nor Bush have threatened repeatedly to wipe another nation off the face of the Earth.

Reagan apparently joked about it, though.threatened?

Like I said, (for the eleventh time)
Ahmadinejad has never threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

..since some idiot is going to try to prove me wrong again(as usual) I will repeat that:

Ahmadinejad has never-ever threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

If I say "I wish Bush would just choke to death on a pretzel."

Do you actually think.. I am worried about the secret Service tryng to track my PC? :rolleyes:

*identifies your IP address, establishes your location, sends a strike team after you*

:mp5: :mp5:

HAIL ZE PRESIDENT!

threatened?

Like I said, (for the eleventh time)
Ahmadinejad has never threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

..since some idiot is going to try to prove me wrong again(as usual) I will repeat that:

Ahmadinejad has never-ever threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Wow what a moron. You actually defend this scumbag? He repeatedly stated he wants to destroy Israel.

Wow what a moron. You actually defend this scumbag? He repeatedly stated he wants to destroy Israel.

Perhaps, but he still never said 'Israel should be wiped off the map'. This is the quote that people always use and he simply didn't say it.

Perhaps, but he still never said 'Israel should be wiped off the map'. This is the quote that people always use and he simply didn't say it.

OK then replace "wipe off" by "destroy".

OK then replace "wipe off" by "destroy".

In that particular instance or generally?

Perhaps, but he still never said 'Israel should be wiped off the map'. This is the quote that people always use and he simply didn't say it.

Funny...all of these articles claim otherwise and here are some outtakes:

"Referring to comments by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, Admadinejad said, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, in contrast, proposed a dialogue among civilizations and pursued a policy of détente."

From: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/iran.php

and here: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

and here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html

Yet there is a claim on Wikipedia that thsi was a mis translation of the Persian language saying that no such phrase exists in Persian. This is from Wikipedia:

"Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map"[4][5][6], an English idiom which means to cause a place to stop existing[7].

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[1]

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:

[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[9]

On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said. [10][11][12]

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away." Bronner stated: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question." [2]

On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cites several Persian speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map". [13]

A synopsis of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech on the Iranian Presidential website states:"


Regardless of the translation, it is clear that President Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of the Israeli state as we know it. We also know that he funds the terrorist group Hizballah which is responsible for the deaths of Americans, Frenchmen, and Israelis. Given his rhetoric it is clear that it would be unsafe to allow this country to obtain nuclear weapons.

It's also clear that with his undermining of the Holocaust that he is delusional and dangerous.

In that particular instance or generally?

He didn't bother to specify. It's really amazing to see people that are saying "Maybe he means that sometime, somehow, Israel will be destroyed" or bullshit like this. Don't try to defend him or justify what he said. He intends to destroy Israel. He doesn't need to spell it out for us.

He didn't bother to specify. It's really amazing to see people that are saying "Maybe he means that sometime, somehow, Israel will be destroyed" or bullshit like this. Don't try to defend him or justify what he said. He intends to destroy Israel. He doesn't need to spell it out for us.

So you can't give an example of a time when he said it then? Gotcha.

So you can't give an example of a time when he said it then? Gotcha.

He says that every time he gives a speech. Gotcha.

He says that every time he gives a speech. Gotcha.

And yet you haven't provided an example.

The man may be an idiot but he never said he was going to wipe Israel of the map as the idiom doesn't exsist in the language he was speaking at the time. That he said Israel would be destroyed, along with the US and UK, in a statement responding to the sanctions put in place by the UN over nuclear research about a week ago and you didn't even point to that very recent news story makes me think you are just a talking head regurgatating the stuff you think you know.

And yet you haven't provided an example.

The man may be an idiot but he never said he was going to wipe Israel of the map as the idiom doesn't exsist in the language he was speaking at the time. That he said Israel would be destroyed, along with the US and UK, in a statement responding to the sanctions put in place by the UN over nuclear research about a week ago and you didn't even point to that very recent news story makes me think you are just a talking head regurgatating the stuff you think you know.

:rolleyes: Again, wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech
You really get a kick out of defending him right? He wants to destroy Israel, deal with it.

Obviously not, but it does justify not allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Why not, are you saying that the nuclear powers have never done anything reprehensible?

:rolleyes: Again, wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech
You really get a kick out of defending him right? He wants to destroy Israel, deal with it.

Hang on, the link you just gave says I'm right and that he never uttered the phrase 'wiped off the map'. He said something similar but not that oft quoted phrase.

Out of interest, where have I defended him? In the post of mine you are quoting I explicitly state that he has said Irsrael, the US and the UK would be destroyed. I think I'm right, you are a talking head, you don't even read posts you are responding to.

threatened?

Like I said, (for the eleventh time)
Ahmadinejad has never threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

..since some idiot is going to try to prove me wrong again(as usual) I will repeat that:

Ahmadinejad has never-ever threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.A phrase Ahmadinejad used in a speech in Oct 2005 to a conference in Tehran can be translated as 'Israel must be wiped off the map'. What Ahmadinejad means by the Farsi phrase he used isn't too easy to decipher.

Two points that can be made are that
(a) He was quoting someone else at the time.
(b) That the 'wiped off' translation infers meaning on the phrase that does not exist in the Farsi language.

But yeah, it's tricky to figure out what Ahmadinejad meant.

I just found an article in an English version of a Turkish paper. It's quite interesting and talks about the context of the phrase used.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=1805

:rolleyes: Again, wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech
You really get a kick out of defending him right? He wants to destroy Israel, deal with it.

And you really get a kick out of demonizing him, so forgive me if I tune the both of you out.

Nuclear power for all, and an end to divisiveness.

Hang on, the link you just gave says I'm right and that he never uttered the phrase 'wiped off the map'. He said something similar but not that oft quoted phrase.

Out of interest, where have I defended him? In the post of mine you are quoting I explicitly state that he has said Irsrael, the US and the UK would be destroyed. I think I'm right, you are a talking head, you don't even read posts you are responding to.

Someone translated it that way, and everyone else agrees he meant he wants to destroy Israel. He repeatedly said it.

And you are defending him by saying he doesn't really want to destroy Israel. He's just an innocent man trying to peacefully run a country.

And you really get a kick out of demonizing him, so forgive me if I tune the both of you out.

Nuclear power for all, and an end to divisiveness.

Ahmadinejad is a monster. Why shouldn't I demonize him?

Someone translated it that way, and everyone else agrees he meant he wants to destroy Israel. He repeatedly said it.

And you are defending him by saying he doesn't really want to destroy Israel. He's just an innocent man trying to peacefully run a country.

When did I say he didn't want to destroy Israel? I want you to quote the post for me or apoligise.

When did I say he didn't want to destroy Israel? I want you to quote the post for me or apoligise.

ok, you are trying to imply that he doesn't want to destroy Israel.

Ahmadinejad is a monster. Why shouldn't I demonize him?

Because whether or not he is a monster is a matter of opinion, someone somewhere must disagree or he would be gone. Use the strength of your argument rather than demonisation to win. If you don't this will end up like a US election.

ok, you are trying to imply that he doesn't want to destroy Israel.

And how am I doing that? By posting that he has explicitly said that Israel, the US and the UK would be destroyed in this post?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12145362&postcount=216

Because whether or not he is a monster is a matter of opinion, someone somewhere must disagree or he would be gone. Use the strength of your argument rather than demonisation to win. If you don't this will end up like a US election.

I disagree. There are Neo-Nazis that agree with Hitler, and I have every right to call him a monster. Ahmadinejad too is a cold blooded monster.

And how am I doing that? By posting that he has explicitly said that Israel, the US and the UK would be destroyed in this post?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12145362&postcount=216

Ahmadinejad wanting to destroy Israel is a well known fact. You are trying to make it look like what he said is not so bad, by that you are defending him.

I disagree. There are Neo-Nazis that agree with Hitler, and I have every right to call him a monster. Ahmadinejad too is a cold blooded monster.

You have the right to call Hitler or anyone a monster (unfortunately), but that neither makes them a monster nor proves to anyone that they were, try stating why the individual is a monster to strengthen yur point, rather than calling anyone who doesn't subscribe to your world view a monster or arguing about the specifics of what someone else says rather than what they mean.

Ahmadinejad wanting to destroy Israel is a well known fact. You are trying to make it look like what he said is not so bad, by that you are defending him.

A fact I have not argued with. All I have said is that the most quoted 'proof' of the fact is a mistranslation.

From this you manage to get the idea that I somehow support his ideas and wish to defend them. You sir are extremely paranoid.

Ahmadinejad wanting to destroy Israel is a well known fact. You are trying to make it look like what he said is not so bad, by that you are defending him.

Is there necessarily a problem with wanting to destroy Israel?

Does that make him evil or monsterous?

Ahmadinejad is a monster. Why shouldn't I demonize him?

No, he is not a monster. He is as human as you or I. By attempting to paint Ahmadinejad as something less-than human, as an aberration unaccounted for in the human condition, you underscore the extent to which you fail to understand the human condition - or your position, and that of your fellow-men, within the context of the human condition. Dehumanize at your own peril, sir; I will have none of it.

No monsters in my cupboards.

You have the right to call Hitler or anyone a monster (unfortunately), but that neither makes them a monster nor proves to anyone that they were, try stating why the individual is a monster to strengthen yur point, rather than calling anyone who doesn't subscribe to your world view a monster or arguing about the specifics of what someone else says rather than what they mean.
Why? Because he wants to destroy Israel, because he's denying the Holocaust happened.
No, he is not a monster. He is as human as you or I. By attempting to paint Ahmadinejad as something less-than human, as an aberration unaccounted for in the human condition, you underscore the extent to which you fail to understand the human condition - or your position, and that of your fellow-men, within the context of the human condition. Dehumanize at your own peril, sir; I will have none of it.

No monsters in my cupboards.

I really couldn't care less.

Is there necessarily a problem with wanting to destroy Israel?

Does that make him evil or monsterous?

Are you bulshitting me?

No, he is not a monster. He is as human as you or I. By attempting to paint Ahmadinejad as something less-than human, as an aberration unaccounted for in the human condition, you underscore the extent to which you fail to understand the human condition - or your position, and that of your fellow-men, within the context of the human condition. Dehumanize at your own peril, sir; I will have none of it.

Theres no problem with dehumanising as long as you are doing it to help you achieve an objective, rather than doing it for the sake of justifying hate and nothing else.

A fact I have not argued with. All I have said is that the most quoted 'proof' of the fact is a mistranslation.

From this you manage to get the idea that I somehow support his ideas and wish to defend them. You sir are extremely paranoid.

He has said it in other speeches, not just the one that everybody is quoting.

Are you bulshitting me?

No. If Iran was being told that it would be destroyed would you have the same objection?
Why should the Israelis be above any other country in the region, the West shows them little sympathy?
Do you believe that they have some sort of 'God given right' to exist that other nations do not?

Theres no problem with dehumanising as long as you are doing it to help you achieve an objective, rather than doing it for the sake of justifying hate and nothing else.

I disagree; there's never an acceptable context for dehumanization. It speaks of an essentially willfull laziness of thought that should never be encouraged.

He has said it in other speeches, not just the one that everybody is quoting.

I know. Like the one I said he said it in two fucking pages ago.

Are you deliberatly being this dense or is it natural?

No. If Iran was being told that it would be destroyed would you have the same objection?
Why should the Israelis be above any other country in the region, the West shows them little sympathy?
Do you believe that they have some sort of 'God given right' to exist that other nations do not?

Why shouldn't Iran have an objection if someone that has nuclear power wanted to destroy it?
You ACTUALLY said that there's nothing wrong with him wanting to destroy Israel.

I disagree; there's never an acceptable context for dehumanization. It speaks of an essentially willfull laziness of thought that should never be encouraged.

Yes, if I'm (hypothetically, I do not condone this) killing someone or someones and do not want to deal with the emotional issues that may be involved, then I convince myself that they are sub-human and not worth consideration. Then it becomes easier and it has served a purpose.

I know. Like the one I said he said it in two fucking pages ago.

Are you deliberatly being this dense or is it natural?

Well sorry I didn't read the entire damn thread before responding. I apologize for saying you defend him.

Well sorry I didn't read the entire damn thread before responding. I apologize for saying you defend him.

The post I said it in was in response to you and you even quoted it.

Why shouldn't Iran have an objection if someone that has nuclear power wanted to destroy it?
You ACTUALLY said that there's nothing wrong with him wanting to destroy Israel.

I think you might mean Israel there, I'll assume you do. Israel should have an objection, it would be stupid not to, but given that they already have a nuclear deterrent and support from the US if necessary they are at little real risk.

I don't think there is anything wrong with him wanting to destroy Israel as long as he doesn't attempt to, and then he would be eliminated very quickly. Plenty of nations and leaders around the world would undoubtedly like to destroy others, but they don't and are not as loud about it.

The post I said it in was in response to you and you even quoted it.

Can you quote it because I don't recall it. And if I missed it, again, I'm sorry but I was in a rush before.

The U.S should put half of are troops in Iraq under command of the Israelis and moved into the borders of Israel and the other half be sent home.Then Israel should light up Tehran and Damascus like roman candles and dare the rest of the world to do anything about it.Terrorism would be stopped dead in its tracks.

I think you might mean Israel there, I'll assume you do. Israel should have an objection, it would be stupid not to, but given that they already have a nuclear deterrent and support from the US if necessary they are at little real risk.

I don't think there is anything wrong with him wanting to destroy Israel as long as he doesn't attempt to, and then he would be eliminated very quickly. Plenty of nations and leaders around the world would undoubtedly like to destroy others, but they don't and are not as loud about it.

There is everything wrong with wanting to destroy a country when you are the president and you have the weapon and ability to do so. Why should we sit and wait for him to attempt something?

Can you quote it because I don't recall it. And if I missed it, again, I'm sorry but I was in a rush before.

My post

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12145362&postcount=216

Your quote of it

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12145376&postcount=217

There is everything wrong with wanting to destroy a country when you are the president and you have the weapon and ability to do so. Why should we sit and wait for him to attempt something?

Do you think that Bush wouldn't like to glass over all of the Middle East (except Israel) and Russia and China and North Korea?
That Putin wouldn't love to pepper the USA with craters?
That Olmert wouldn't annihilate most of the nearby Muslim countries?

But they do not, because they all no that a counter-strike would come from somewhere, and it could very well destroy them.