'No force' can stop uranium enrichment: Iran

Originally posted by Sep
what do you mean when you say Iran "didn't begin independent rule until 1949 "?

They were under a form of monarchy, not a democracy.

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.

I would LOVE for you document EACH of said US agressions. I will be waiting.

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?

Again, a non-sequitur and a non-starter. The US, nor any of it's allies are in question in this post. And Finally - as I can see that you are in complete denial here is a partial list of conflicts:
www.zum.de...




[edit on 30-11-2005 by Sep]

Originally posted by kozmo
They were under a form of monarchy, not a democracy.

Iran hasn’t been a democracy since 1953. Does that mean they were not "independent"? If it does then you are kind of using the work "independent" loosely.

Originally posted by kozmo
I would LOVE for you document EACH of said US agressions. I will be waiting.

There is a fair amount of history to go through, and since I am not an American citizen and haven't been educated in an American history class I may take some time.

You find me some acts of aggression from Iran and I'll find some from the US.

Originally posted by kozmo
Again, a non-sequitur and a non-starter. The US, nor any of it's allies are in question in this post. And Finally - as I can see that you are in complete denial here is a partial list of conflicts:
www.zum.de...

I made a general comment in order to put into perspective the acts of aggression committed by Iran. You said that Iranians were "VERY warring people", I am simply disagreeing with that comment.

Also most of the conflicts in the list in the link you provided were not started by Iran. I thought that is what we are discussing here "acts of aggression".



[edit on 1-12-2005 by Sep]

The Red, White And Blue Prism

Originally posted by Sep
There is a fair amount of history to go through, and since I am not an American citizen and haven't been educated in an American history class I may take some time.

Actually, you may consider that an advantage, since American history as taught by Americans -- even in many of the most radical universities -- tends to spin things from the American perspective (except for the far left, which spins things from the Soviet perspective).

And well, we know how that works, don't we?

I tend to roll my eyes (like this: ) when threads devolve into nationalist pissing contests because the truth is that we all suck.

I get particularly impatient with my friends in Europe who point fingers at us and call us "warmongers".

It takes a hell of a lot of historical ignorance for Europeans to say things like that with a straight face. I mean holy crap, just look at the last freakin' century -- or how about all the freakin' centuries before that one?

Yes, the U.S. fights wars with other countries.

What often gets conveniently left out in the anti-U.S. rhetoric is that other countries fight wars too -- with us and each other.

In a world like this, it's pretty damn arrogant for anyone -- American or otherwise -- to claim the moral high ground when we're all guilty of the same sin: being human.

My advice for those who have a problem with humanity: love it or leave it.





Edit: Please pardon the mild invective, but well, holy crap!

Editorial: Hmm, I really like that "love it or leave it" line. Gonna have to sig that one. Kids say the darnedest things.





[edit on 12/1/2005 by Majic]

I have tried to open my mind to the Iran situation, looking at some more recent stories there does seem to be a percentage of people who still believe he was part of the embassy thing. As for the Iranian people no I don't think that they actively want to nuke america although the media shows a fair bit of US/UK flag burning by quite large groups.

Its the Leadership i find the problem with. As i do with some decisions made by UK/US leaders. In my honest opinion I believe that the current tensions in the middle east area make it a bad time to go ahead with this uranium enrichment. It can only lead to an excuse by warmongers to attack Iran and lets face it little excuse is needed by some.

I cannot give the name and address of any suicide bomber from Iran thats true again though its a tactic that would be employed in reality, sorry but I do feel that is the case.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
I have tried to open my mind to the Iran situation, looking at some more recent stories there does seem to be a percentage of people who still believe he was part of the embassy thing.

The Western civilian population believes this because when the CIA disclosed that Ahmadinejad had taken no part in the embassy takeover, it was not widely reported by western media in the same way as the allegations against him were shown.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
As for the Iranian people no I don't think that they actively want to nuke america although the media shows a fair bit of US/UK flag burning by quite large groups.

The flag burning and yelling and et cetera are all rhetoric. The "civilians" which are reported to be committing those acts are almost always, the government supported militia, Basij. They are used to convey the government's rhetoric.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
Its the Leadership i find the problem with. As i do with some decisions made by UK/US leaders. In my honest opinion I believe that the current tensions in the middle east area make it a bad time to go ahead with this uranium enrichment. It can only lead to an excuse by warmongers to attack Iran and lets face it little excuse is needed by some.

I understand what you mean. However from the Iranian politicians point of view, they have spent too much political capital in enriching uranium. They propagated its advantages to the Iranian populace daily and it is the one thing which all Iranians both reformers and conservatives, have come to agree on. So if they want to stop the enrichment they will look weak to their populous and may result in a backlash by the right, whose support is crucial in keeping the left quiet.

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
I cannot give the name and address of any suicide bomber from Iran thats true again though its a tactic that would be employed in reality, sorry but I do feel that is the case.

With my statement regarding you pointing out an Iranian suicide bomber, I was just trying to bring to your attention that the majority of suicide bombers in the Middle East are of Arab background. They are usually Saudis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Lebanese or Jordanian. But there are few, if any, Iranian suicide bombers outside Iranian boarders. But if the US decided to attack I am sure that (tragically) suicide bombing would probably be one method that would be used by the Iranians.

Involuntary Suicide

Originally posted by Sep
But if the US decided to attack I am sure that (tragically) suicide bombing would probably be one method that would be used by the Iranians.

If the Iran-Iraq War proved nothing else, it proved that Iranians are not afraid to die for their country.

It was to Iran (and Iraq), what WWI was to Europe, and one of the great tragedies of the 20th Century. Both nations suffered terribly.

And worse is yet to come.

Has anyone stopped to think that perhaps they are saying such things to provoke Western, and more specifically U.S. involvement so the radical Islamic Fundamentalists can use that against us and add more fuel to the fire? Conversely, the radical Christian Protestants (as I call them) who are in power over here might be using the same issue for similar gains. Let's face it folks, this has become a holy war.

Its funny that most religions preach peace and love. In reality more people have died for religious beliefs than any other reason. The world's problem is we are not united. One world, one community, one god. He may have many names but its the same being - I sometimes think the world would be better off if there was no humans populating it, just let the animals get on with it.

We never learn, we fear what we don't know or understand. Its funny that America is a prime example of what a united world would be like as it has a very diverse population drawn from all round the world, with great ideals. Just a pity it can't seem to live up to them.

Someone has to say enough lay down the weapons, turn the other cheek and hope thet example is enough to spark humanity into a more righteous existence.

Well I hope the people of Iran the US and here in the EU can work out this problem to a peaceful end.