Iran's President says his country is not a threat to Israel!

Originally posted by mr conspiracy

Otherwise, Iran will nuke Tel Aviv, and not give a damn about Iran being nuked in retaliation.

The only problem with that, Mr. C., is that Israel is the country that has the nukes.* Not Iran, at the present time.



*most supplied by the US, no doubt.

Originally posted by SteveR
I have a better proposal. Go join up and fight on the front lines. Then maybe we'll either lose you or you'll become re-educated. Win-Win.

[edit on 26/8/06 by SteveR]

I'll go you one better. Since you are sooo concerned about Iran, why don't you go live in Iran and join Hezbollah? While you're in Iran, you can badmouth the US which you are so fond of doing.

Originally posted by SteveR
ROFL. You're not the brighest bulb in the bunch are you?

At least my argument is not limited to whining about how bad the US is. And I see you've failed to answer the anthrax questions. Stll searching for "proof" on your anti-US websites? That "source" you supplied is full of holes. You have to do better than that.

from psyopswatcher
That letter shows some interesting insight into the Iranian psyche at the present time, if Mr. Ahmadinejad is a true representation of his constituents. (He is an elected official so we can't take that to them.)

Iran: Clerical Leaders Foreclose Free Elections
Arbitrary Interference, Discriminatory Criteria Exclude Candidates
(New York, June 12, 2005) ?
Iran?s discriminatory election laws and the Guardian Council?s exclusion of candidates prevents Iranian voters from freely electing candidates or standing for public office, Human Rights Watch said today ahead of Friday?s presidential election.

In a 17-page briefing paper, ?Access Denied: Iran?s Exclusionary Elections,? Human Rights Watch details how election laws prevent candidates outside the ruling elite from running for high public office. Iran?s Guardian Council, an unelected body of 12 Sh`ia Muslim clerics and religious jurists, had interpreted these laws to exclude all women as well as all candidates whose views are critical of the current leadership.

?Iran?s elections for all practical purposes are pre-cooked,? said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch?s Middle East Division. ?The Guardian Council appoints a few candidates, and then Iranians get to choose from this very restricted list.?

www.hrw.org...

You are working from a flawed premise to begin with; you think Iran openly and freely elected that madman.

You need to correct this flaw in your thinking before you can clearly see what is truly happening in Iran.

Originally posted by jsobecky

from psyopswatcher
That letter shows some interesting insight into the Iranian psyche at the present time, if Mr. Ahmadinejad is a true representation of his constituents. (He is an elected official so we can't take that to them.)

Iran: Clerical Leaders Foreclose Free Elections
Arbitrary Interference, Discriminatory Criteria Exclude Candidates
(New York, June 12, 2005) ?
Iran?s discriminatory election laws and the Guardian Council?s exclusion of candidates prevents Iranian voters from freely electing candidates or standing for public office, Human Rights Watch said today ahead of Friday?s presidential election.

In a 17-page briefing paper, ?Access Denied: Iran?s Exclusionary Elections,? Human Rights Watch details how election laws prevent candidates outside the ruling elite from running for high public office. Iran?s Guardian Council, an unelected body of 12 Sh`ia Muslim clerics and religious jurists, had interpreted these laws to exclude all women as well as all candidates whose views are critical of the current leadership.

?Iran?s elections for all practical purposes are pre-cooked,? said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch?s Middle East Division. ?The Guardian Council appoints a few candidates, and then Iranians get to choose from this very restricted list.?

www.hrw.org...

You are working from a flawed premise to begin with; you think Iran openly and freely elected that madman.

You need to correct this flaw in your thinking before you can clearly see what is truly happening in Iran.

How is this any different from the US path to the presidency? AAC

Exactly, in American elections you can only become the President if you are

a) Rich
b) A member of one of two major political parties, with their endorsement
c) A man (how many female US presidents?)

So by the Iran-is-bad yard stick, America is worse since there were more candidates on the Iranian ballot than any US Presidential ballot.

[edit on 27/8/06 by subz]

How is this any different from the US path to the presidency? AAC

Originally posted by subz
Exactly, in American elections you can only become the President if you are

a) Rich
b) A member of one of two major political parties, with their endorsement
c) A man (how many female US presidents?)

So by the Iran-is-bad yard stick, America is worse since there were more candidates on the Iranian ballot than any US Presidential ballot.

Right. Women in the US are excluded from running, eh?

And equating the number of candidates to goodness, even tho women are excluded is good .... how, subz?

Your statement c) is a lie, subz.

He said "become President" not "run for President".

So so far, his statement is true, to accuse him of lying is a little weird. He never claimed women were prohibited from running. The non-rich are not prevented from running either, they just don't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

That may change in 2008 however, there are a lot more Hillary supporters out there than I once thought. Not that this makes me happy, I am no fan of Hillary, I think she is too much like the worst aspects of her husband.

I'm all for a female President - just about any woman but Hillary. Even Condi wouldn't be as bad, as much as I am not a fan. Condi does seem to be the only thing standing between the US and a war with Iran right now, to the great chagrin of the administration's neocon wing.

Anyway I'm getting way offtopic here...

Originally posted by jsobecky

You are working from a flawed premise to begin with; you think Iran openly and freely elected that madman.

You need to correct this flaw in your thinking before you can clearly see what is truly happening in Iran.

So, jsobecky. You would have another people come here to tell us how to run our elections? Oh no, that's why we're fighting them over there...

Flawed thinking or not, all this saber rattling will boil down to one thing, jsobecky. Iran will get nuclear power just as Japan did. But only after purchase arrangements are made with the 'right' war machine firms which can also supply the correct uranium grades needed for whatever the hell those processes call for. (get techy on me and my eyes glaze over)

There is no reason in the world Iran should not be allowed to provide power to the citizens that put Ahmadinejad in office--with or without the mullahs' blessings. The only blessing the US wants to force down their throat is WHO will emerge with the profits from such dealings.

Do not worry though, the same entities will also be line for cleaning up the rubble in the event that it comes to another disaster like Iraq and Lebanon. Only this time the US would be VERY foolish to attempt an occupation of a country that size. They'll just let them rot. Or, as in Lebanon, let the UN round up the usual collition forces and do the dirty work for them.

Thought this might be pertinent data to this debate.

Current status of the nuclear industry:

* 442 nuclear power plants in operation with a total net installed capacity of 369.588 GW(e)
* 6 nuclear power plants in long term shutdown
* 27 nuclear power plants under construction

www.iaea.or.at...

I counted 33 countries, with one plant under construction in Iran.

BUSHEHR

Construction Started 1975/05/01
Status Under Construction
Connected to Electricity Grid 2006/10/01
Net Capacity 915 MWe
Commercial Operation 2006/12/01

Ah, they named it after Jr.... and they want to go online in October, eh?

Now someone prove to me Ahmad's a madman. Unless he's just another puppet like Shrug, with his visers handing him lines and buzzwords, writing policy for him, hoping he doesn't goof up and knock down the curtain, I won't write him off as that. Never in a million years would I underestimate the intelligence of an individual determined to do what's right for his people.

Even when the nutbag in Korea plays this game, the people benefit from a more efficient source of electricity than this current course of depleting the earth's oil resouces and destroying the environment while we're at it.

Junior's a different case. We know he's a shill for the 1%ers, a very willing shill. It's a very simple reason that the World Trade Center towers were taken down. They hit him where it hurts, in the pocketbook.

Originally posted by xmotex
We're not supposed to believe this, because it doesn't help make the case for war.

On the other hand, we're supposed to believe the "wipe israel off the map" thing without question, because it does help make the case for war.

Even though that's a mistranslation: he was calling for "regime change" not genocide.

I'm under no illusions that the Iranian government is some paragon of benevolence.
But the situation is being manipulated by people thirsty for more blood.

The scaremongering needs to be stopped before the war starts.

For whatever it is worth I hope you're right. Though common sense tells me that Iran is a threat, a very obvious one. I guess time will tell.

If I had the power I'd love to warp 50 years into the future and read about the next decade's headlines.

Originally posted by psyopswatcher
So, jsobecky. You would have another people come here to tell us how to run our elections? Oh no, that's why we're fighting them over there...

Guess what, psyopswatcher? It's already been happening:

International team to monitor presidential election
Observers will be part of OSCE's human rights office
From David de Sola
CNN
Monday, August 9, 2004 Posted: 9:08 AM EDT (1308 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A team of international observers will monitor the presidential election in November, according to the U.S. State Department.

www.cnn.com...

There is no reason in the world Iran should not be allowed to provide power to the citizens that put Ahmadinejad in office--with or without the mullahs' blessings.

Do you have any idea of the natural resources Iran is sitting on?

OIL AND GAS RESERVES, PRODUCTION, CAPACITY
The Persian Gulf contains 715 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, representing over half (57%) of the world's oil reserves, and 2,462 Tcf of natural gas reserves (45% of the world total). Also, at the end of 2003, Persian Gulf countries maintained about 22.9 million bbl/d of oil production capacity, or 32% of the world total. Perhaps even more significantly, the Persian Gulf countries normally maintains almost all of the world's excess oil production capacity. As of early September 2004, excess world oil production capacity was only about 0.5-1.0 million bbl/d, all of which was located in Saudi Arabia.

www.eia.doe.gov...

It's not a matter of need. I would be more empathetic if that were so. The fact is, they want nuclear weapons. And I am against that.

Do you think Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, psyopswatcher?

The only blessing the US wants to force down their throat is WHO will emerge with the profits from such dealings.

Nearly the entire world is against Iran having nukes.

Beyond the immediate issue of Iran's nuclear program, there is widespread sentiment - especially in the West - that countries that do not have nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing them. Overwhelming majorities in Germany (91%), Japan (87%) and France (85%) say non-nuclear countries should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons. Roughly three-quarters in Great Britain (77%), the United States (74%), and Russia (73%) also say that countries that do not have nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing such weapons.

Attitudes in Muslim countries on halting nuclear weapons proliferation divide along about the same lines as opinions on Iran's nuclear program. A narrow majority in Jordan (53%), 50% of Pakistanis, and 44% of Egyptians say non-nuclear countries should not be stopped in their attempts to develop nuclear weapons; comparable percentages in all three countries say they favor Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Most Indonesians (61%) and Turks (58%) say countries that do not possess nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing them. Majorities in these countries also expressed opposition to Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

pewglobal.org...

So, you see, as much as you've been conditioned to think, it is not a case of the US being singularly opposed to Iran possessing nukes.

Do not worry though, the same entities will also be line for cleaning up the rubble in the event that it comes to another disaster like Iraq and Lebanon. Only this time the US would be VERY foolish to attempt an occupation of a country that size. They'll just let them rot. Or, as in Lebanon, let the UN round up the usual collition forces and do the dirty work for them.

I don't think the US wants to invade. They want to put a halt to the spread of nukes to Iran. And they will do this. The reactors are deep underground, but it is not necessary to hit the reactors - only the exit points.

And, as far as the UN, what dirty work have they ever done for the US? Esp. in Lebanon. They can pass a million resolutions, which Hezbollah will scoff at, and then they will turn to us for help.

I can't understand why you are so pro-Iran and anti-US. How can you defend a nation that prohibits women from running for any office? Do you just not want to think about that, and hope that it will be all OK in the morning?

But I stand behind my earlier statement that you are working from disinfo, if you think that Iran is this benevolent theocracy. Far from it, I assure you.

Originally posted by xmotex
He said "become President" not "run for President".

So so far, his statement is true, to accuse him of lying is a little weird.

Really? Read some of his posts where he jumps all over people for "knowingly posting material that you know to be false". Then he calls them a liar.

I just wanted him to get a dose of his own, that's all.

He never claimed women were prohibited from running. The non-rich are not prevented from running either, they just don't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

And Ahmadinejad never said he hated Jews. He just hates that they have a country.

Right....

Originally posted by jsobecky
And Ahmadinejad never said he hated Jews. He just hates that they have a country.

Right....

you should really read more or listen more into what he says
last time i checked there is a diffrence between jews and zionests which he clearly has the issues with, also Iran has plenty of jews in their country and goverment

Originally posted by bodrul
you should really read more or listen more into what he says

last time i checked there is a diffrence between jews and zionests which he clearly has the issues with, also Iran has plenty of jews in their country and goverment

I'm not going to go thru machinations to try to twist his words to make them look innocent. That's the job of the apologists. I know what he said about pushing Israel into the sea, I know about his denial of the Holocaust. People apparently agree with his views if they are so willing to defend him. Either that, or his defenders are in deep denial.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by psyopswatcher
So, jsobecky. You would have another people come here to tell us how to run our elections? Oh no, that's why we're fighting them over there...

Guess what, psyopswatcher? It's already been happening:

International team to monitor presidential election
Observers will be part of OSCE's human rights office
From David de Sola
CNN
Monday, August 9, 2004 Posted: 9:08 AM EDT (1308 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A team of international observers will monitor the presidential election in November, according to the U.S. State Department.

www.cnn.com...

Monitoring is a far cry from setting the rules, making the law, jsobecky. Observing how DEMOCRACY is done, first hand, is an outreach program to countries who WANT to follow our example. What spreading democracy is about... and that's not a good thing??? We monitor plenty of other countries elections, what's good for the goose... And where do you think our CIA gets their statistics from? Disinfo?

There is no reason in the world Iran should not be allowed to provide power to the citizens that put Ahmadinejad in office--with or without the mullahs' blessings.

Do you have any idea of the natural resources Iran is sitting on?

Yes, and what does that have to do with power production? (I know, I just want to see if you do.)

It's not a matter of need. I would be more empathetic if that were so. The fact is, they want nuclear weapons. And I am against that.

Do you think Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, psyopswatcher?

No one should be allowed instruments of destruction. Implements of self-defense is one thing, but when they (Uncle Ronnie's Neokook bunch) decided that mutually assured destruction was a viable means of Peace, they sure'll thought we fell off the turnip wagon.

The only blessing the US wants to force down their throat is WHO will emerge with the profits from such dealings.

Nearly the entire world is against Iran having nukes.

Beyond the immediate issue of Iran's nuclear program, there is widespread sentiment - especially in the West - that countries that do not have nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing them. Overwhelming majorities in Germany (91%), Japan (87%) and France (85%) say non-nuclear countries should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons. Roughly three-quarters in Great Britain (77%), the United States (74%), and Russia (73%) also say that countries that do not have nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing such weapons.

Attitudes in Muslim countries on halting nuclear weapons proliferation divide along about the same lines as opinions on Iran's nuclear program. A narrow majority in Jordan (53%), 50% of Pakistanis, and 44% of Egyptians say non-nuclear countries should not be stopped in their attempts to develop nuclear weapons; comparable percentages in all three countries say they favor Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Most Indonesians (61%) and Turks (58%) say countries that do not possess nuclear weapons should be prevented from developing them. Majorities in these countries also expressed opposition to Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

pewglobal.org...

So, you see, as much as you've been conditioned to think, it is not a case of the US being singularly opposed to Iran possessing nukes.

Then they should also be against Israel having nukes too?

Do not worry though, the same entities will also be line for cleaning up the rubble in the event that it comes to another disaster like Iraq and Lebanon. Only this time the US would be VERY foolish to attempt an occupation of a country that size. They'll just let them rot. Or, as in Lebanon, let the UN round up the usual collition forces and do the dirty work for them.

don't think the US wants to invade. They want to put a halt to the spread of nukes to Iran. And they will do this. The reactors are deep underground, but it is not necessary to hit the reactors - only the exit points.

ANY bombing is a bombing too many. Get it? ANY at all.

And, as far as the UN, what dirty work have they ever done for the US? Esp. in Lebanon. They can pass a million resolutions, which Hezbollah will scoff at, and then they will turn to us for help.

I'm talking about cleaning up the messes the US starts (by sending weaponry), and Lebanon's dirty coastline is right there on my mind.

I can't understand why you are so pro-Iran and anti-US. How can you defend a nation that prohibits women from running for any office? Do you just not want to think about that, and hope that it will be all OK in the morning?

But I stand behind my earlier statement that you are working from disinfo, if you think that Iran is this benevolent theocracy. Far from it, I assure you.

You'll have to get a bit more specific, if you wish me to believe I'm working from disinfo. That you can't understand the rights of the international community isn't my problem. This is about getting power to the people, in more ways than one, I agree. But electrical power is necessary for progress and you know that as well as I do. Or is this about stopping the Iranian people from progress???

I'm pretty much against any country that thinks it can throw it's weight around nation building against the will of the people it would wish to dominate. Not anti-US, You can call me an Anti-Dominiista if you insist on calling names. Insult my patriotism and I'll put you on ignor because your long and boring posts aren't worth the hassle.

Like someone said earlier, Iran hasn't attacked anyone EVER. A religious people see it as their duty to offer protection to their brothers anywhere. And muslims in particular in other mideastern countries, just as a state department overseas would protect citizens of their nation.

Americans may view their civic and religious rights as seperate entities, but you're stepping on toes when you try to seperate the secular from the spiritual in these countries. It's a courtroom dance that has been millenia in the making.

Look, why don't we just tackle Iran one right at a time? This plant has been sitting there since 1975. What is so horrible about getting POWER to the people. Even the tiny country of Armenia (on Iraq AND Iran's norther border) has a plant in operation--from soviet days.

ARMENIA-2

Construction Started 1975/07/01
Status Operational
Connected to Electricity Grid 1980/01/05
Net Capacity 376 MWe
Commercial Operation 1980/05/03

source

map

Do they enrich weapons quality uranium too? If not, who's stopping them?

I guess the next batch of clusterbombs we see being discovered will be marked Made in the USSR.





[edit on 28-8-2006 by psyopswatcher]

I just have to make one statement over that whole conversation about the US presidency vs. the Iranian Presidency concerning women. I don't think that anyone mentioned that not only are women not allowed to run for president in Iran, but men are forbidden to even shake hands with a woman (unless she is your wife)

Correct me if I'm wrong anyone.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
So far he has said he wants them wiped off the map. (alternate meanings-Regime change)

Also he says that his country is no threat to the zionist regime.

Who is the fortune teller whom is assured that Iran will make a weapon?





That same fortune teller is 0-1 in the guessing game. Remember Iraq?

~~

instead of U2U, AnAbsoluteCreation
i would like to link you all to the Counterpunch Article --->

'Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth' published today Aug 28th !
www.counterpunch.com...


if any of youse will read thru the article, one just may see that we are getting spin in the 'official' interpetations of the Irani Presidents speeches about Israel,
as an adversary

Originally posted by St Udio

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
So far he has said he wants them wiped off the map. (alternate meanings-Regime change)

Also he says that his country is no threat to the zionist regime.

Who is the fortune teller whom is assured that Iran will make a weapon?





That same fortune teller is 0-1 in the guessing game. Remember Iraq?

~~

instead of U2U, AnAbsoluteCreation
i would like to link you all to the Counterpunch Article --->

'Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth' published today Aug 28th !
www.counterpunch.com...


if any of youse will read thru the article, one just may see that we are getting spin in the 'official' interpetations of the Irani Presidents speeches about Israel,
as an adversary

Thanks for the link It is a insightful read, hope the rest of this thread takes a ganders. AAC