It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran says its "nuclear rights" must be recognized

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eight
But I think a few fundamental criterion has to pertain to the country that want's them... The country cannot be threatening to 'wipe out' other nations or races.


...a false impression created by a simple misquote in translation...



According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem
(een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods)
must [vanish from] the page of time
(bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[13]

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly, as "be eliminated from the pages of history."[14]

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[15]

source: en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by searching4truth
 


You talk about "Going Nuclear" like they want to get a bomb to blow up there enemies when that isn't what they want. Obviously Iran doesn't have the right to free nuclear energy, however, they have the right to pursue nuclear energy themselves. Why should countries, which use nuclear power themselves, tell Iran that it can't pursue nuclear power. That would have been like us telling them they couldn't use electricity or oil. Why do we have a right to prevent their use of something when we use it?



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Here's my view on Iran's 'rights'. This regime has none! It is very apparent that they completely disregarded the actual election results from the last presidential election. Thus, it is an illegal regime.

Rule of thumb: News from inside the bubble* is often filtered and fabricated. If you want objective reporting look outside of the bubble*:
* the u.s. & u.k. mass media pro-israel propaganda machines



Approximately 80% of Iranians have accepted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election as president of Iran, according to a World Public Opinion poll. The poll also shows that 63% of Iranians favor restoring diplomatic relations with the US.

source: www.france24.com...


[edit on 17-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by Eight
 


Iran is not in the pursuit of the Bomb.

The want nuclear power.


Let me ask you a few questions:

1) Do you know what a nuclear program is?
2) Did you know that Iran has a nuclear program?
3) Do you know the definition of "Diversion" in terms nuclear power?


Diversion -- The deliberate removal of fissionable material in civil fuel cycles for other uses.


4) Are you aware that from this enrichment process, along with fuel for nuclear power plants, weapons can also be produced?
5) After all of this along with you own personal research, are you sure Iran only wants nuclear power? If so, would you bet your life on it?

If not,stop being naive.


[edit on 17-1-2010 by Eight]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canis Lupus
reply to post by searching4truth
 


You talk about "Going Nuclear" like they want to get a bomb to blow up there enemies when that isn't what they want. Obviously Iran doesn't have the right to free nuclear energy, however, they have the right to pursue nuclear energy themselves. Why should countries, which use nuclear power themselves, tell Iran that it can't pursue nuclear power. That would have been like us telling them they couldn't use electricity or oil. Why do we have a right to prevent their use of something when we use it?


Really? You got that out my post, k, well let's see here.

I in no way said or implied that they want the bomb to blow up their enemies. If anything I said it was to "impress their friends". Am I personally uncomfortable with Iran having a bomb, yes. Just as I am uncomfortable with any nation having such a powerful device, America included.

Honestly now, do you really believe that their sole intention it to develop nuclear power for the masses? That's incredibly naive. Of course they want the bomb, every nation on the planet wants the bomb, if for nothing else to ensure their power, strength, and to ensure that no one bombs them. Especially in a time where Iran is on the radar, of course they want to ensure that they have every weapon at their disposal, nukes included. It's in their best interests, but you know what that doesn't match up with my best interests so I'm opposed to it.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by Eight

Also would you really feel safe allowing a country to have WMD that may have empathy and sympathy for terrorists like the Taliban,Jihads, and any body else that they may share views with?


It wasn't 5 Iranians dancing by the white van, watching the Towers fall.


Can you please elaborate a bit more? I don't quite know what you mean.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Nice, lol.

Everyone knows only five Israelis dance.
Reminds me I have to find that video again, classic.

edit: does anyone have the clip of the interview where they said they were there to observe? I can't locate it.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by searching4truth]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Blind Eye
...a false impression created by a simple misquote in translation...



I want generally speaking when I said this because there are people out there that would totally decimate America or any other country that is had issues with if they had the means to do so.

To raze any country to the ground in my opinion is impossible, especially in this day and age.Also I agree That his statements have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Just because a country's leader betokens the removal of a regime that are in power does in no way demands the elimination or annihilation of that country.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by searching4truth
 


Iran already has enough uranium to produce a nuclear weapon. There is nothing that can stop them from developing it if they wanted to. At this point, the only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, is to cooperate with them so they can have an open nuclear power program.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

I still remember that this regime held 53 Americans for 444 days for no other reason other than they were American.

You speak with a double edge sword. US also holds innocent people at Gitmo. US holds innocent people at Gitmo

And saying Iran regime won a fraudulent election is like saying George Bush won a fraudulent election 2004 election
Not that this is a reputable site but my point is clear...



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Alchemst7
 



Ahh, what lovely examples of strawmen! Position A is invalid because of B and C.... The Bush debackle has absolutely nothing to do with the Iranian Hostage Crisis, so let's leave that out of this, shall we...



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
...I still remember that this regime held 53 Americans for 444 days for no other reason other than they were American...


Oh, that and the US overthrew their democratically elected government - just a minor detail. While I do agree that the current government's legitimacy is in doubt, all I can add to that is, you reap what you sow.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Here's my view on Iran's 'rights'. This regime has none! It is very apparent that they completely disregarded the actual election results from the last presidential election. Thus, it is an illegal regime.

I still remember that this regime held 53 Americans for 444 days for no other reason other than they were American. As far as I am concerned, the Islamic Republic of Iran is an enemy of the United States, thus the United States has every reason to not want the Islamic Republic of Iran to not have nuclear capabilities.

Add to that the danger of any Theocracy have the 'bomb'...



Iran's election was targeted for use as a propaganda tool. Same goes for the protesting and whatever else found useful to recruit public support. Propaganda to gain favor in the looming invasion of Iran by the west. Since when has the US made Iranian election protocol it's concern? Such obvious propaganda, yet people like you are oblivious to it.? You are programmed!

If one of these nations is to hold the other as an enemy it certainly shouldn't be the US. Iran has loads of reasons to hate the US. One of them being the CIA's coup d'etat in 1953 known as Operation Ajax. One of the US' many missions that tear down a nations democratically elected government in order to install a puppet dictator. This one happened to be a particularly brutal murderer that killed many. This event was no secret to Iranians and was the exact cause of the hostages you claim they had no reason to take.

Also, the dangerous theocracy you mentioned has never once attacked another country. Iran has refrained from this throughout their history, which is multiple times longer than that of the US and Israel. US and Israel both have nuclear weapons, one of which, the US, having even used them, but that's perfectly alright with you, huh? These two countries have each attacked many others, but you're fine with them having nukes?

Do you see how ridiculously ignorant your statements sound? How perverse your logic is? Can you see how you're mindlessly following the status quo like a robot? I hope your kind of logical reasoning can see it someday because you're in the majority.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Snappahead
 


So what you're telling me is that it would be completely acceptable for me to take you hostage and hold you against your will for well over a year just because of something your government did a couple of decades ago... Is that really what you mean here???



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Zerbst
 


So, if Iran is never invaded, I guess that's gonna make your point look like the BS that it is, huh...

Me thinks you assume way too much there...



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


No, I am replying to your statement that the hostages were taken just for being Americans. Is an extremely simplistic sense that is true, but everything has a context. They were taken hostage because they were Americans representing their government, which happens to be the same government that deposed a democratically elected Iranian government and installed a dictator instead.

The revolution in Iran was a direct result of America's actions against it - I am merely pointing out these things are connected and the hostages were not taken JUST because they were Americans. The last part - you reap what you sow, was intended to allude to that.

I have not argued that it was right or wrong, but in your rabid state you seem to have missed that point.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Snappahead
 


While I understand what you are saying, it is a direct violation of international law, which safeguards diplomats, and then there's the fact that none of these people had anything to do with the CIA's backing of the Shah... Those people were either dead or long since retired...

My base point is that the current Regime in Iran simply cannot be trusted with such a dangerous technology. If they were to become a stable non-theocracy, such as their neighbors, Turkey, then I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever with them obtaining Nuclear Energy.

I am also vehemently opposed to the US imposing it's 'will' on other nations governments, such as it did in Iran with the Shah, and all of the other countless examples that have come back to bite us in the arse...



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


What about the Iranians rights to a Sovereign Nation that were violated when the US CIA instigated a Coup-D'Etat and installed a brutal dictator that murdered thousands. So it's alright for a foreign intelligence service to instigate a coup-d'etat on the US?

If the world started showing some respect to Iran instead of treating it as a little child I'm sure that that would change Iran's willingness to cooperate. But the way the West is treating them can you really blame them?

Read a book called Spider's Web

Great read on how Bush senior and the US government armed Iraq and urged Saddam to takeon the Iranians which he did. Meanwhile, the US armed both sides of the war through shell companies around the world. The Iranians didn't even retaliate on Iraq with WMD(chemical,bio) even after being attacked themselves. This cabal was still funding Saddam when the US invaded Iraq after it took over Kuwait who backed out on a deal to fund Iraq to fight Iran made a decade earlier. It was in Kuwaits interest to have Iran eliminated.

You should read up on the history of the region my friend. I'm not saying I like the idea of Iran having nukes but it's hypocritical to say who and who can't have that type of technology. Those already in possession of those weapons show a much stronger will to use them.

The point is, Iran is important to stability in the region. Israel is just going to have to accept the demographics of the region. It's not going to change unless their willing to shed a lot of blood. There's no proof that as soon the first nuke came off of their production floor that it would be in the air as soon as possible. Iran knows that this would lead to their annialation and they aren't that stupid. China and Russian deem Iran to be very important to their economic future and let's not kid ourselves they are the major power brokers now. That is becoming more and more apparent as time goes on.

I think if we dropped the sanctions as they are useless and showed a little more civility with Iran and treat them like a partner to the solution they would me more open to a verified nuclear program. But just walking in and saying "Do this or else we will punish you" is plainly just not working and who can blame them for being dismissive of these demands. The US wouldn't tolerate it. No country would.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Anybody else feel that every nation should be Nuclear Weapon free?

Nuclear Weapons are good for one thing: retaliating against aliens when they decide to invade Earth.

Besides that, what purpose could they serve?



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Here's my view on Iran's 'rights'. This regime has none! It is very apparent that they completely disregarded the actual election results from the last presidential election. Thus, it is an illegal regime.


I can post proof debunking your claim if you would make a different thread to discuss that subject so as not to derail this thread.

Iran already has rights to peaceful Nuclear Power as signatory to N.P.T They are within their means to develop nuclear reactors for medicine and energy.

Seeing the aggressive behavior of US/UK and a neighboring county like Israel which has undeclared Nuclear Weapon and do not abide by IA.E.A, I would also say Iran has right to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrence.

Either remove nuclear weapons from Middle East completely or let Iran have them too.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by December_Rain]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join