Ahmadinejad wants Security Council appearance

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to take his case for pursuing nuclear power before the U.N. Security Council, the government said, as the world body debates new sanctions for Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.

Iran has rejected U.N. demands that it halt enrichment, insisting its nuclear program is peaceful and aimed at producing energy. The U.S. and its European allies are concerned its real aim is to produce nuclear weapons.

"The president of the Islamic Republic of Iran intends to attend a U.N. Security Council meeting to be held on Iran's nuclear case in order to defend the rights of the Iranian nation in exploiting peaceful nuclear energy," state TV quoted government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham as saying.

edition.cnn.com...

I think this is a brilliant Idea,
Let him plead his case to the world without media interception.

Give them the chance to prove themselves as a nation of peace, before we destroy them assuming there a nation of hate.

Think about it, any nuclear fuel that comes out of Iran will be catalouged much liked the rest of the worlds nuclear stuff.

Should a bomb ever detonate in israel, or anywhere in the world for that matter, we will be able to trace it to Iran should it be then.
Then all the war mongerers, and hawks will have there wet dream and nuke Iran.

Whats better?

Destroy Iran, kill hundereds of thousands and turn the rest against the west?
Or give iran a chance, with a RISK they will kill hundereds of thousands, resulting in their death.

Only one option, has the chance for peace.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by Agit8dChop]

every country has a right to defend its self
every country has a right to face those that acuse it
every country has a right to voice their views

in short i think this is a great idea
insted of having the US ambasidor bitch about Iran to the rest of the perm member crew Iran should have the opertunity to show their intentions and their position

I guess we can count on the same iranian honesty as they exhibited during the 20 year clandestine program?uh..yeah..their promises are good with me.btw,since iran ignores u.n.resolutions what makes them think they even deserve a place at that meeting?

[edit on 12-3-2007 by Xfile]

Well, Iran has been given the opportunity of using light-water reactors and it has refused. I cant understand why if they are already enriching uranium, they should not have a problem with light-water reactors, especially if it is for "peaceful purposes."

they insist on using heavy-water breeder type reactors.....

well, that kind of gives what they are up to away.

Originally posted by Xfile
.btw,since iran ignores u.n.resolutions what makes them think they even deserve a place at that meeting?

not to be Rude Xfile Iran isnt the only country that ignores UN resolutions or breaks UN Laws. So dont preach that it has a nasty habbit of back firing

so what they are using heavy water reactors?
that instantly means nukes?

hows about this to those who say Iran is after nukes
prove it i mean hard facts and not speculations from people and so on

I think it's a great idea as well.

It will definately give him the opportunity to stick his head up his backside once more.

I wonder if his speach will include the wish for "Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth" again. Or would that not be PC under the circumstances?

[edit on 12-3-2007 by Seeker PI]

Originally posted by Seeker PI
I think it's a great idea as well.

It will definately give him the opportunity to stick his head up his backside once more.

on the bright side he doesnt feck up as much as george bush does when it comes to speaches even when he has people write it down for him

Originally posted by Seeker PI
I wonder if his speach will include the wish for "Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth" again. Or would that not be PC under the circumstances?

would that be the speach where he said zionest regieme?
not israel which i last time checked zionest regieme wasnt a country :p

Originally posted by bodrul

would that be the speach where he said zionest regieme?
not israel which i last time checked zionest regieme wasnt a country :

It depends on what translation you read and who it came from bodrul.

I've seen it expressed as you state for sure. But I think it's irrelevant. It's the sentiment behind the words that count, and any "Zionist regime" has to include the State of Israel.

Dont get me wrong I would love see the situation resolved peacefully, but Ahmadinejad doesn't really want that, does he?]

Originally posted by Seeker PI

Dont get me wrong I would love see the situation resolved peacefully, but Ahmadinejad doesn't really want that, does he?]

Do you think he wants his country invaded? If your answer is yes, then I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself.

Diplomacy and discussion is the way of civilized nations.

zionest regieme has always be considerd the the regeime which controls israel, not israel its self i will look for the link

since there are jews in israel and other countries who also see them as zionests.

hence the def of zionest and why most people use that

ps nice to see that you would like to see a peace full solution

its not just Ahmadinejad its also leaders of other nations that play the role of a peacefull solution.

hence why i think this is a great opertunity for him

Originally posted by deessell

Originally posted by Seeker PI

Dont get me wrong I would love see the situation resolved peacefully, but Ahmadinejad doesn't really want that, does he?]

Do you think he wants his country invaded? If your answer is yes, then I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself.

Diplomacy and discussion is the way of civilized nations.

The answer is NO. But I do not understand the question. What should I be looking for during my self examination?

"Diplomacy and discussion is the way of civilized nations".

You are correct I just wish Amadinejad would embrace the concept.


Websters online dictionary

Diplomacy:

Main Entry: di·plo·ma·cy
Function: noun
Date: 1796
1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility :

Point 2 would be an invaluable guide to him.

Originally posted by bodrul
zionest regieme has always be considerd the the regeime which controls israel, not israel its self i will look for the link

since there are jews in israel and other countries who also see them as zionests.

hence the def of zionest and why most people use that

ps nice to see that you would like to see a peace full solution

its not just Ahmadinejad its also leaders of other nations that play the role of a peacefull solution.

hence why i think this is a great opertunity for him

I respect your opinion bodrul.

I have nothing against the Iranian people. Infact I fear for their safety.

My anger is pointed soley at those in charge. On both sides of the fence.

He should be able to speak before the council, especially if the council members get to question him.

I don't understand where people get this picture of Iran as the aggressor from. Iran has defended itself many times, but never once attacked another country.

It depends on what translation you read and who it came from bodrul.

I haven't read one translation apart from the paraphrasing on the president's website that translates it this way. Besides, the translation reads as 'this zionist regime' not 'any zionist regime'. Does the rhetoric from Bush and Israel on how this 'antisemitic regime' needs to be removed from Iran play out any differently? It's the difference between wiping an entire country (presumably it's citizens as well as leadership) from the map - and changing the political regime in a country. We've seen that Bush & Co have no problem changing the regime in a country, so why the outrage when the Iranian president suggests the same?

And Seeker, I would have to say point 2 would be an invaluable guide to Bush as well. Say what you like about him and his policies - he certainly has no qualms about arousing hostility.

Agreed thestev.

I only pointed the finger in one direction because the thread was about Amedinejad. Didn't want to sidetrack the thread.

However, what we are seeing from the Western Allies is a form of Gunboat diplomacy. I do not believe Amedinejad has the political prowess to back it off.

I would welcome seeing what he has to say this time.

I'm all for Iran having nuclear energy, everyone should, its clean though expensive. If Iran can show without a shadow of a doubt that they are after energy only and not nukes, then I will support their endeavour 100%. But its just the way they have dealt with the IAEA that gives me pause about their motives. I will look forward to hearing the case he makes.

Originally posted by ludaChris
I'm all for Iran having nuclear energy, everyone should, its clean though expensive. If Iran can show without a shadow of a doubt that they are after energy only and not nukes, then I will support their endeavour 100%. But its just the way they have dealt with the IAEA that gives me pause about their motives. I will look forward to hearing the case he makes.

Thats the problem, they cant.

They refuse to use light-water reactors which do not produce weapons grade uranium or plutonium.

There is only a few reasons to use heavy-water reactors:

1. they can use raw uranium ore (unnecesary in iran's case since they enrich their uranium)

2. produce weapons grade plutonium

So their "peaceful" program is BS. The government knows this, thats why they are unconvinced.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
So their "peaceful" program is BS. The government knows this, thats why they are unconvinced.

and most of this is BS

where is your evidence iran is building a bomb or intends to
i want to see some facts not some BS opinion

If Iran is truly wanting nuclear power the more to them, however, agit8dchop said

Should a bomb ever detonate in israel, or anywhere in the world for that matter, we will be able to trace it to Iran should it be then.

The objective is to avoid that from happening in the first place. Also the middle east is not a stable place to have nuclear weapons unless you can defend them extremely well. I.E. Isreal has the U.S. help with technology and such. For the US it would be the equvilent of giving nukes to N. Korea and be able to reach any where in the US. It's something Isreal dosn't want to have to think of.

you say the the whole point is not to have nukes in the middle east?
disarm israel they are known to have a couple hundred nukes

on topic

Iran isnt building nukes and there isnt any hard proof of it just peoples opinions and so on, unless someone can get hard facts with Iran is building nukes then i will backdown but untill then people have to STF with israel should bomb iran or US should

because in reality every country has a right to defend its self so as you said Israel should bomb Iran
Iran would have every right to bomb the bleep out of israel in deffence.


i will repeat this again Prove Iran is building nukes with facts
a heavy reactor doesnt equal nukes