'No force' can stop uranium enrichment: Iran

"A top Iranian official renewed Tehran's claim here Monday that it has a right to enrich uranium as part of its nuclear energy program, saying "no force" can stop it from doing so.
"The enrichment of uranium is Iran's internal affair," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said at a press conference during a visit to Azerbaijan."

www.spacewar.com...

Based on the boldness of these recent press releases Iran must be very close or infact have several nukes..............

The world needs to wake up and deal with it.

But at the same time kind of a dumb thing to say. No force can stop them. I mean wow, pretty confident there it seems. But anyhow I dont see how it can matter, if they want to talk that way it just puts those who dont believe they should enrich uranium more of a reason to act on it. If they saw armies from the US and EU at the doorstep, I think they would change thier tone, but this I doubt will happen.

... Perhaps it is time for the Iranian people to get their politicians to shut up. I mean, if I lived in Iran I would be shaking in my boots that these morons are provoking the rest of the world. Perhaps a little lesson in history is in order... anyone in Iran remember a little country called Germany, or perhaps a ruler named Hitler!? Anyone know what happened to them? You cannot continue to openly defy the will of the majority of teh developed world without facing dire consequences - as Iran is about to find out.

I can think of a number of "Forces" that could easily stop Iran's uranium enrichment... Aggressive UN sanctions for one, (But since the liberal UN would never have it), a united political front of first-world countries absent of the UN; if that were to fail, a united military front of first wolrd nations and finally, and hopefully never, a strategic nuclear attack on Iran's facilities. Any of those would be certain to foment the end of their "Enrichment" program.

Originally posted by thermopolis
"A top Iranian official renewed Tehran's claim here Monday that it has a right to enrich uranium as part of its nuclear energy program, saying "no force" can stop it from doing so.
"The enrichment of uranium is Iran's internal affair,"

It most certainly is not an internal affair. They agree as part of a series of international treaties to receive advanced nuclear technology and engineering expertise, in exchange for making the problem explicitly not an internal affair, in exchange for making it completely transparent to the international community and in exchange for not using it for weapons. Every aspect of their nuclear program, eternally, is an international affair. That was what they agreed to.

Originally posted by kozmo
... Perhaps it is time for the Iranian people to get their politicians to shut up.

Many Iranians stick by their government regarding the "Nuclear" issue, thousands of Iranians have been forming human chains around the reactors to protest against the West interferrence into Iranian affairs (again and again..)

Originally posted by kozmo
I mean, if I lived in Iran I would be shaking in my boots that these morons are provoking the rest of the world.

Sorry but sounds hypocritcal to me coming from someone who lives in the US of A...

Originally posted by kozmo
You cannot continue to openly defy the will of the majority of teh developed world without facing dire consequences - as Iran is about to find out.

Again your government has been doing that for oh such a long time.

Originally posted by kozmo
I can think of a number of "Forces" that could easily stop Iran's uranium enrichment...

Ofcourse they could but they wont, any military action will have consenquences..

Originally posted by kozmo
a united political front of first-world countries absent of the UN; if that were to fail, a united military front of first wolrd nations

The population of those first world countries wont stand another unprovoked invasion, unlike Bush they actually know what "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." means

Originally posted by kozmo
and finally, and hopefully never, a strategic nuclear attack on Iran's facilities. Any of those would be certain to foment the end of their "Enrichment" program.

Again wont happen, that will give the likes of China, Russia etc to use it for their military advancements.
And the backlash from the world aswell as the American people would be too severe for the current admin.

Originally posted by shire19
The population of those first world countries wont stand another unprovoked invasion.

I think you're wrong about this. There is undeniable proof of Iran's intentions. There is plenty of provoking going on by Iran.

- Attero

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita
I think you're wrong about this. There is undeniable proof of Iran's intentions. There is plenty of provoking going on by Iran.

How? How has Iran been provoking the West? Has it threatened to attack it? (besides the usual talk but no action since the revolution)
Iran hasnt invaded nor attacked another country unprovoked for centuries now, they've been in possession of WMDs (chemical/bio) for decades and so far has not even used them.

I dont deny Iran is after Nuclear weapons, the way the US Gov't is throwing it's weight around is just encouraging more and more countries to acquare Nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad's call last month for Israel to be "wiped off the map" intensified international concerns about his policies. Iran's resumption of uranium conversion angered some nations that have suspicions over whether the Tehran regime is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

www.azdailysun.com...

Anyway, I was going to claim that by making such threatening remarks to Israel that Iran was provoking USA. I believed USA to be allied with Israel, but then I started searching the internet for a list of allies of the USA, and I couldnt really find much. Apparently they aren't allies..

There has never been a treaty between Israel and the United States. Both countries have shared values and a passion for democracy. While in 2002 Israel is a defacto ally of the U.S., the official U.S. government position is that there is a "special relationship" between Israel and the United States. Those who refer to Israel as an ally of the United States in 1967 are guilty of an anachronism and display a lack of knowledge of history.

hnn.us...

Ignorance denied I suppose.

- Attero



[edit on 28-11-2005 by Attero Auctorita]

I'm glad you have NO issues with Iran, it's nuclear weapons or it's intensions. I mean after all, the UK, and not the US, are in range of those Shahab3 missiles. Because, after all, we ALL know how peaceful and respectful Iran is of it's neighbors or any other country it may have an issue with. Have fun.

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita
Anyway, I was going to claim that by making such threatening remarks to Israel that Iran was provoking USA. I believed USA to be allied with Israel, but then I started searching the internet for a list of allies of the USA, and I couldnt really find much. Apparently they aren't allies..
[edit on 28-11-2005 by Attero Auctorita]

Moreso than you or I will ever know Attero. When we supported the creation of Israel we became "Married" so to speak. When we began to provide them top-flight military technology and weapons platforms our destinies became intertwined. Our lack of follow-through in supporting the countless UN resolutions against Israel has demonstrated our international resolve to support Israel no matter what. We don't need no stickin' treaties to inform the entire world that the US and Israel are allies... it's that obvious.

Unfortunately for Iran it has nothing to do with their comments on Israel; their "leaders" have said such things publicly for decades. But it certainly didn't help their PR campaign at all. And Shire, another thing... If they are in possession of either Chemical or Biological weapons, they are violating more treaties and conventions than I care to discuss. Also, centuries??? You sure about that? Do they teach history at your school?

Rest assured, things are not going to be going smoothly for Iran in the near future. And NO, that does not mean a war... it means just what it says!

Originally posted by kozmo
Also, centuries??? You sure about that? Do they teach history at your school?

Well, proof me wrong.. Im not talking about Iran-Iraq war cause that was an provoked invasion by Saddam, Im talking about unprovoked wars that Iran started or even invaded a country for atleast the last century.

That would be difficult because Iran didn't exist as "Iran" until 1935 when Persia became Iran. They didn't begin independent rule until 1949 when they became a Constitutional Monarchy. As a result, Iran hasn't even been around for one hundred years. Now, PRIOR to that, they were a VERY warring people...

www.zum.de...

For additional history on the birth of Iran visit: i-cias.com...

Now, once again I ask you, Do they teach you history at your school???

Errr, I dont see any invasions by Persia/Iran after 1900s after looking at those links you provided.

Now, once again I ask you, Do they teach you history at your school???

Ofcourse we get thaught history at school/college, what kinda ignorant question is that..

Perhaps it's "reading" that they are lacking in your educational curriculum...

From the site I posted:

1736-1744 Persian occupation of Oman
1738-1739 Invasion of Afghanistan, Punjab and sacking of Delhi
1740 Expedition against the Uzbecks
1766 Persian forces conquer Fort Mosselstein on Karhg Island
1776-1779 Temporary occupation of Basra
1856-1857 Occupation of Herrat
1971 Occupation of UAE Islands in Persian Gulf

Those are the obvious, outward acts of aggression during the last few centuries, as you requested. These do NOT include the countless clandestine terrorist acts perpetrated or supported by Iran over the past several decades. Those alone constitute acts of war in and of themselves.

I beleive I have sufficiently proven my point to you. They are NOT a peaceable peoples. Heretofore, I am finished.

Originally posted by kozmo
That would be difficult because Iran didn't exist as "Iran" until 1935 when Persia became Iran. They didn't begin independent rule until 1949 when they became a Constitutional Monarchy. As a result, Iran hasn't even been around for one hundred years. Now, PRIOR to that, they were a VERY warring people.

Iran had been independent fro quite some time. The name "Iran" meaning the land of the aryans was used by the native people since the time of the Sassanid empire. Iran before 1949 was ruled by the Pahlavi dynasty, before that by the Qajar dynasty, before that by the Zand dynasty, before that by the Afsharid dynasty and before that by Safavid dynasty that is just the dynasties from 1502 till 1979. I could go on for quite some time. So now in light of this what do you mean when you say Iran "didn't begin independent rule until 1949 "?

Originally posted by kozmo
From the site I posted:

1736-1744 Persian occupation of Oman
1738-1739 Invasion of Afghanistan, Punjab and sacking of Delhi
1740 Expedition against the Uzbecks
1766 Persian forces conquer Fort Mosselstein on Karhg Island
1776-1779 Temporary occupation of Basra
1856-1857 Occupation of Herrat
1971 Occupation of UAE Islands in Persian Gulf

The first three acts were committed by the same king, Nadir Shah, who was later killed by his own Persian generals because they believed he was going crazy. Of course something that was missing from you selected highlights was that Afghans has attacked Iran and destroyed beautiful cities just a few years before Nadir took revenge on the people who attacked Iran. Also he wasn’t a Persian by blood. He was an Uzbek. But that’s just detail. Karim Khan Zand did indeed attack Basra in 1776 and it was returned to the Ottomans in 1779 without any blood being spilt. The occupation of Herat, a former providence of Iran, where Persian is spoken up to this day and still is Shia Islam unlike the rest of Afghanistan, could be considered an act of war. The three Island incident was not an act of aggression. It was occupied by Britain until 1971 and when they left Iran took over. The Islands do not belong to the UAE. And of course needless to say no one died once the authority of the Islands was turned over to the Iranian king.

Originally posted by kozmo
Those are the obvious, outward acts of aggression during the last few centuries, as you requested. These do NOT include the countless clandestine terrorist acts perpetrated or supported by Iran over the past several decades. Those alone constitute acts of war in and of themselves.

I beleive I have sufficiently proven my point to you. They are NOT a peaceable peoples. Heretofore, I am finished.

Would you like me to point out the actions of the US during the same period of time? How about the British or Spanish or ANY European or Asian power? The US in its short history has probably been involved in more acts of aggression than Iran has in its 3000-year history.

The occupation of three Islands that rightfully belong to Iran, during which not a single soul was hurt, is the greatest act of agression that these war-like people were involved in in the last centry. In the same amount of time how many acts of agression was US involved in? How about Russia or China? How about Britain, France or Germany?



[edit on 30-11-2005 by Sep]

Originally posted by Sep
The US in its short history has probably been involved in more acts of aggression than Iran has in its 3000-year history.

I highly doubt that, Sep.
Considering the number of conquests [ie: acts of aggression] required to build the Persian Empire far outnumber any number of US acts of aggression you wish to put forth. Furthermore, coupled with what kozmo posted:

1736-1744 Persian occupation of Oman
1738-1739 Invasion of Afghanistan, Punjab and sacking of Delhi
1740 Expedition against the Uzbecks
1766 Persian forces conquer Fort Mosselstein on Karhg Island
1776-1779 Temporary occupation of Basra
1856-1857 Occupation of Herrat
1971 Occupation of UAE Islands in Persian Gulf

Your assertion is invalid, as well as entirely incorrect.






seekerof

[edit on 30-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
I highly doubt that, Sep.
The number of conquests required to build the Persian Empire far outnumber any number of US acts of aggression you wish to put forth.

The first Persian Empire known as the Achaemenid Empire was build by Cyrus the great conquering Media, Lydia, and Babylonia. Cyrus's son took Egypt. Xerxes and Darius also attacked Greece on two occasions one of which was as a result of the Greeks pushing Ionians and Carians to rebel.So overall this makes wars started by the Achaemenid 6.

The seconds Persian empire known as the Sassanid Empire. Ardashir its first king started 2 wars with Rome. Shapur started one war Shapur II started a couple and Bahram V started one. Making it a grand total of 6,

So the ancient Persian empires started 12 wars all together.

This is just quick research so feel free to find some more.




[edit on 30-11-2005 by Sep]

So the ancient Persian empires started 12 wars all together.

Please, list or link them, Sep.
You see, the problem here is that it is a known historical fact that the longer a nation or civilization has been around, the more or greater the chance occurance of acts of aggressions it has committed.

As such, Iran's 3,000 years to the US's 200+ tells you what?





seekerof

[edit on 30-11-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Please, list or link them, Sep.

I did provide a list. You can read it.

Originally posted by Seekerof
You see, the problem here is that it is a known historical fact that the longer a nation or civilization has been around, the more acts of aggressions it has committed.

As such, Iran's 3,000 years to the US's 200+ tells you what?

That is not a fact. India for example has been around for quite some time and the nucmber of its acts of agression are neglegable.

Originally posted by Sep
I did provide a list. You can read it.

Your list is sorely in need of being updated/corrected, for it is incorrect, as I originally mentioned.

That is not a fact. India for example has been around for quite some time and the nucmber of its acts of agression are neglegable.

It is historical fact, especially in the case of Iran: aka: the Persian Empire, etc. As for India's acts of aggression being "neglegable." That is when compared to Iran's? China? Egypt? Greece? Rome? The US?
How about this:
The US total acts of aggression over its short history are "neglegable" when compared to Iran's long 3000 year history?







seekerof

[edit on 30-11-2005 by Seekerof]