Iran continues towards confrontation

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Oh Jayzuss, another one who'll label anyone with a contrary opinion 'a supporter of.....blah blah blah'.
That's really lame.
(or is that supposed to be some more of those attempts at side-splitting humour?
Sorry, it failed.)

If I made that statement out of the blue then yeah, it would have been lame. But based on all of your statements, you have yet to prove that statement is wrong.

- The difference is in the track-record to date and also the degree of power and influence and their ability to 'project power'.

Iran's record on global dominance verses the Bush version of the USA?
Please.

?
We attacked Afghanistan as a direct result of 9/11.
We went to war with Iraq for various reasons.
We.....well....that seem that's it....

Since when do 2 piss poor countries constitute the world?
Since Bush supposedly has a track record of global dominance, then surly you can present facts to support your statement.

- I suggest you go acquaint yourself with the Israeli terrorists and their terrorism just before the birth of the Israeli state.

Check out the King David Hotel bombing......

......and then come back and tell me about who doesn't know their history (and if you are man enough maybe even apologize for taking silly digs about it too?)

You're joking?
You stated terrorism was the reason for Isreal becoming a state, not that Jews conducted terrorists attacks. There were so many factors that led to Isreal becoming a state that to say it was terrorism just shows your ignorance. Or was that way of justifying trerrorism in the world now?
en.wikipedia.org...
www.eretzyisroel.org...
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

I posted a link showing the Iranian President had called for a nuclear-free ME, not actually further 'confrontation' and certainly a move towards a more sane regional nuclear 'posture', right?

Since when can you believe what any leader (and I'm including Bush and Blair in this, don't panic) says, especially one who, by your own admission, runs his mouth off and should be ignored as he's just a mouthpiece (or whatever). You're just selectively quoting some his slightly less insane talk. It means nothing - of course he will say such thinks....he's not a complete Muppet.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
based on all of your statements, you have yet to prove that statement is wrong.

- I don't have to prove anything.

You made the daft claim so you try back it up.

Of course you can't.

What I am is anti-war, anti-stupidly making a situation a hell of a lot worse than it already is and anti the propaganda that is well on the way to make a war with Iran seem natural and acceptable.

None of that is "pro-Iran"; actually.

To spell it out, I am not "pro-Iran" (if by that you mean pro this Iranian administration).

Since Bush supposedly has a track record of global dominance, then surly you can present facts to support your statement.

- If you think the current administrations attempt at global dominance amount to just the 2 wars you have mentioned then you are seriously misinformed.
It involves trade and cultural activities, it's the whole America first, the 'with us or against us' fascist stupidity, the aid with political strings and the financial deals through a US dominated World Bank and IMF to name just some of what it is.

You can follow up the subject if you choose, the information and ideas are widely available, I will not play the endless link game with you......especially when you refuse to back your own claims up.

You stated terrorism was the reason for Isreal becoming a state, not that Jews conducted terrorists attacks.

- That is actually totally false, you are quite wrong.

Go look at what I actually said.

There were so many factors that led to Isreal becoming a state that to say it was terrorism just shows your ignorance.

- Construct as many pointless straw-men as you like, that is not what I said.

What I said was - In fact the state of Israel was born out of a terrorist/freedom fighters struggle itself.

This is factually correct.

Clearly it is not the only factor involved but then I never said it was.

Or was that way of justifying trerrorism in the world now?

- Well seeing as I have never attempted to 'justify' anyone's 'terrorism', ever, I think the only suitable answer to that is 'hardly'.

I suggest you go and find someone who'll play the kind of silly games you obviously wish to play.
I won't.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Curio
Since when can you believe what any leader (and I'm including Bush and Blair in this, don't panic) says, especially one who, by your own admission, runs his mouth off and should be ignored as he's just a mouthpiece (or whatever).

- I wasn't saying anyone should fall over themselves to believe anything.
I merely pointed out that his more conciliatory remarks were completely ignored - as people here claimed the situation was getting worse in this thread - and yet his obviously stupid and offensive remarks were taken as Gospel.

I agree there is a contradiction there but it surely can not be reasonable to utterly ignore one set of remarks and yet treat another as if it were completely valid?

You're just selectively quoting some his slightly less insane talk.

- No, I disagree, I don't think I have been selective about this.

I have not denied his inflammatory remarks are anything but the stupid, nasty and offensive comments that they so clearly are, all I have done is challenge the idea that they amount to much due to them not amounting to anything in reality.

To comment and react as if those idiotic statements are all he has ever said is surely to be selective, right?

It means nothing - of course he will say such thinks....he's not a complete Muppet.

- Frankly I wonder about that.
I am just glad he does not wield the real power in Iran.

BTW did anyone catch the report about Israeli submarine based nuclear weapons?
(It's an Israeli source so I guess on matters internal to Israel it is credible.)

Submarines may be used for hitting strategic targets outside Israel's territory, chief commander of the IDF's submarine fleet, Colonel Yoni, stated. "The submarine task force is preparing for any scenario the State of Israel has defined as plausible for the army," he added.


In an interview with Ynet, Colonel Yoni revealed some of the capabilities of the Israeli army's most hi-tech and secret war machine, and hinted to the possible role of subs in future military disputes.......

...... While Colonel Yoni's statements are shrouded in mystery, publications in the foreign press have already hinted Israel's Dolphin submarines have the ability to carry and launch nuclear weapons, a capability that will be put to use should the country's nuclear ground bases are hit in a surprise attack.

www.ynetnews.com...

- I guess that renders claims of a couple of Iranian nuclear weapons being able to knock out an Israeli retaliatory response redundant, hmmm?

Is anyone remotely surprised by this information or that it should appear now?

[edit on 1-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- I don't have to prove anything.

You made the daft claim so you try back it up.

Of course you can't.

What I am is anti-war, anti-stupidly making a situation a hell of a lot worse than it already is and anti the propaganda that is well on the way to make a war with Iran seem natural and acceptable.

None of that is "pro-Iran"; actually.

To spell it out, I am not "pro-Iran" (if by that you mean pro this Iranian administration).

So you defending them so much means....what?

Why so quick to shrug off almost to the point of defending the Iranian president when he says something stupid?
Quotes like: "It is not unreasonable to say that they may talk about wanting to see a political system destroyed or vanish without their intending to exterminate every person in a particular country"
Don't know the history of that region very much do you?

And do you think that GB, France, and Germany just one day decided to just report Iran to the UN? Or could it be despite your claims, Iran was not doing everything right?
Quotes like: "I was seeing an Iran extending itself beyond the requirements of the various treaties she had signed up to"
are not being back up with facts.

quote from another thread:
"But if were to take Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon to stabilise the region establish deterrence and end the threat of further ME wars then I don't see that as the worst possible outcome."

It's stuff like this. Do you honestly believe Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would stablize anything?

I made my statement based on your statements. You can deny whatever, but come on....we all know what's up. *wink, wink*

- If you think the current administrations attempt at global dominance amount to just the 2 wars you have mentioned then you are seriously misinformed.
It involves trade and cultural activities, it's the whole America first, the 'with us or against us' fascist stupidity, the aid with political strings and the financial deals through a US dominated World Bank and IMF to name just some of what it is.

Why did you limit it to just this administration then if that's what you're talking about?

You can follow up the subject if you choose, the information and ideas are widely available, I will not play the endless link game with you......especially when you refuse to back your own claims up.

My claims?
You're the one who suggested this administration is trying to take over the globe.

What I said was - In fact the state of Israel was born out of a terrorist/freedom fighters struggle itself.

This is factually correct.

Clearly it is not the only factor involved but then I never said it was.

By saying Isreal was "born" because of that you suggest that is the main reason. Not factually correct.

- Well seeing as I have never attempted to 'justify' anyone's 'terrorism', ever, I think the only suitable answer to that is 'hardly'.

So, do you see Hamas and Hezbollah as freedom fighters or terrorists?

They are at it AGAIN!!!

You guys are great.

Good new though...

thestar.com.my.../2006/3/2/worldupdates/2006-03-02t153447z_01_nootr_rtrjonc_0_india-238966-1&sec=worldupdates

Is he comming around?

Has the voice of reason overpowered that of mania?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
quote from another thread:
"But if were to take Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon to stabilise the region establish deterrence and end the threat of further ME wars then I don't see that as the worst possible outcome."

Man who said that? Please dont tell me that was you sminkleypinkey.

More nukes thats really what the ME needs to stabilize it Why dont we just give every country a bunch of nukes that would surely end war. What was the majority of the planet thinking with the NPT

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
So you defending them so much means....what?

- It's got nothing to do with "defending them" over anything and everything to do with a refusal to go along with the obvious propagandising towards a new ME war because the known facts just don't support it.

Why so quick to shrug off almost to the point of defending the Iranian president when he says something stupid?

- Recognising a stupid empty comment for the stupid emptiness it is is hardly just 'shrugging off' when there are those who seek to use that stuff to crank up the momentum towards a new war.

That is (quite plainly) all.

And do you think that GB, France, and Germany just one day decided to just report Iran to the UN? Or could it be despite your claims, Iran was not doing everything right?

- I never did say that Iran was doing everything right at all times.

I am quite happy to agree that they have done themselves no favours in any of this and their President has been far from helpful in the current environment.

Just because their is a dangerous and stupid element in Iran is no reason to give licence to 'our' dangerous and stupid element.

However Iran, as a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, does have a right to peaceful nuclear power, including 'ownership' of the enrichment process.

'Europe' IMO is caught between trying to bring an amicable solution to a situation where certain parties keep pressurising the situation (you know who - neither of which would themselves permit spot check or 24/7 monitoring of all of their nuclear installations and one of whom has refused to sign up to any treaties on this subject at all.
One can understand why they don't like being lectured by hypocrites; who ever does?) .

Quotes like: "I was seeing an Iran extending itself beyond the requirements of the various treaties she had signed up to"
are not being back up with facts.

- Er, yes they are.
The 24/7 monitoring and 'go anywhere at any time' spot checks are additional and beyond the terms of the normal treaty.

"But if were to take Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon to stabilise the region establish deterrence and end the threat of further ME wars then I don't see that as the worst possible outcome."

It's stuff like this. Do you honestly believe Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would stablize anything?

- I believe in the principle of deterrence so yes, I suppose I do.

Particularly as elements of the Israeli military are now letting it be known that they have submarine based nuclear strike capability.

The notion some have around here of a nuclear missile armed Iran willing and able to try and knock out Israel's retaliatory capability with nuclear attacks is therefore something false (like it was ever seriously open to question anyway ) and something they could never now achieve.

Therefore we are back to a situation where deterrence applies and the peace will be kept.

I made my statement based on your statements. You can deny whatever, but come on....we all know what's up. *wink, wink*

- Infer all you like, sadly neither I nor anyone else can prove a negative so you can insinuate to your heats content.

Being anti-war does not make one pro anything other than maintaining the peace.......but your kind of 'tack' is both typical and tragically predictable.

Why did you limit it to just this administration then if that's what you're talking about?

- I don't.
You may have noticed that previously I have referred to 'Imperial America' (a notion doing the rounds in Eisenhower's time); I will say that this lot are especially repellent though.

By saying Isreal was "born" because of that you suggest that is the main reason. Not factually correct.

- False. Pure wriggle.
Actually I did not say Israel was "born because of that".

So, do you see Hamas and Hezbollah as freedom fighters or terrorists?

- Like I already said to some extent that depends on your point of view.

Personally I would consider the maiming and slaughter of any innocents an act of 'terrorism'.
My contention therefore would be that that makes for a world pretty full of terrorists then.

Violence simply breeds more violence.
Rather than ignore this truth I'd rather see everybody stop their terrorist acts.

Sadly some seem to imagine this position is 'supportive' of terrorists, a total perversion of where I stand in fact.


........and like I have repeatedly said here, in view of the thread title this is all well off track and almost no word about how there were conciliatory remarks made about a nuclear free ME as opposed to claims about further 'confrontation'.

==========================================================

Originally posted by ShadowXIXMore nukes thats really what the ME needs to stabilize it Why dont we just give every country a bunch of nukes that would surely end war. What was the majority of the planet thinking with the NPT

- It's not a perfect world.

......and I don't see 'certain people' in any hurry to sign up to and abide by the terms of the NPT you claim to be so concerned about.

The sad truth is that deterrence works.
'We' spent billions over decades because of that truth.

We can now also be sure that Israel can mount submarine based nuclear strikes (because they say so).

Therefore this fanciful notion of a 'consequence-free' knock-out blow by a nuclear weaponised Iran (despite there being no evidence of this whatsoever anyway) that is currently doing the rounds to justify attacking them cannot now happen anyway, right?
(Unless you are now joining the 'they don't care about suiciding themselves or their nation' camp?)

Cheer-lead on a new ME war (as you claim to be worried about a ME war - completely oblivious to the irony of that) all you like to to be anti-war is just that, being anti-war.

Here's a little more of todays news.
(It is a factual report and not a piece of opinion.....or any imagined 'support' for anyone, ok?)

This shows Iran not actually continuing towards confrontation and whilst not a giant stride in itself at least it is progress and quite the opposite of confrontational comment -

Iran to continue nuclear activity under IAEA eye

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday his country would continue its nuclear activities under the supervision of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency. "Our activities will continue in the context and the framework of the agency and the NPT," Ahmadinejad said, speaking through an interpreter at a joint press conference with Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

He added, "We are going to continue on this road under the supervision of the agency and according to the regulations."

thestar.com.my.../2006/3/2/worldupdates/2006-03-02t153447z_01_nootr_rtrjonc_0_india-238966-1&sec=worldupdates


[edit on 2-3-2006 by sminkeypinkey]