Am I the only one who agrees with Iran?

I just read a report on the recent visit of Irans president while he was in Malaysia and he makes some very valid points about

TEHRAN, Iran -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday challenged the authority of the UN Security Council as Iran faces a deadline to halt its uranium enrichment and he called for a televised debate with U.S. President George Bush on world issues.
The Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend enrichment, a process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or material for weapons.
"The U.S. and Britain are the source of many tensions," Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. "At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to.
"This (veto right) is the source of problems of the world. ... It is an insult to the dignity, independence, freedom and sovereignty of nations," he said.
Ahmadinejad rejected any suspension of enrichment, even if UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan asked for it during an upcoming visit to Iran.
"The use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is the right of the Iranian nation. The Iranian nation has chosen this path. ... No one can prevent it," he said.
Iran last week responded to a Western incentives package aimed at getting Tehran to roll back its nuclear program. Iranian officials said the Islamic country did not agree to halt enrichment -- the key demand -- before engaging in further talks. continues

And the fact he wants to have a debate with Bush Jr is awesome..Ofcourse the blundering baboon would never agree to it as he obviously could string enough words together to HAVE a debate. but i digress.

the report i read:
ctv.ca

mod edit to use "ex" tags instead of "quote" tags
Quote Reference.

[edit on 3-9-2006 by sanctum]

Mod Edit: CAP title

[edit on 3-9-2006 by kinglizard]

Good luck with this thread. If it takes off you'll get a lot of people wanting to take you on.

I had quite a good go with a thread asking WHY Iran is a threat to the US... when you ask people to come up with solid evidence, it's easier to see that there's very little solid stuff to go on. It's mostly propaganda and repetition...

If you're interested, you can find it here.

Thanks for the link.

I found it really really funny the first person to reply to your thread said this:

Posted by Iori Komei
It's not that there a threat to us right this very second.

It's that there government is run by fanatics and Islamic zealots.
And that they could by the middle of the next decade,
have nuclear weapons capabilities.

And they could create a union of all the middle-eastern/Islamic
run countries, which would be a very bad thing.

Ok.... I could say this about the USA

It's not that there a threat to us right this very second.

It's that there government is run by fanatics and CHRISTIAN zealots.
And that they HAVE nuclear weapons capabilities.

And they could create a union of all the WESTERN / CHRISTIAN
run countries, which would be a very bad thing.


2nd largest religion IN the USA is ISLAM!

So you think that a country like Iran, whose leader says he wants to wipe another country off the map is a good candidate for possessing a nuclear arsenal?

Or do you really believe he wants the nuclear power for the country?

I know what I believe!

[edit on 3/9/06 by Mcphisto]

Originally posted by Mcphisto
So you think that a country whose leader says he wants to wipe another country off the map is a good candidate for possessing a nuclear arsenal?

Or do you really believe he wants the nuclear power for the country?

I know what I believe!

Who? The USA? I dont think they deserve nuclear arsenal at all! Thats very scary knowing they are "allowed" and no one else is.

Hear is another thred about Iran.
You might find some of the information that was menchened interesting.
There are a few posts about there nuke program.

[edit on 3-9-2006 by RedGolem]

donk,
Our Country has proven multiple times that we can own an aresenal of nukes. We are responsible keepers of this tech. Trust me, on alot of occasions I wish my country was the bad nuke threat some of you foriegners believe we where. I would have felt alot better watching Somalia turned to glass after my troops where drug threw the streets. But, no, our liberal leaders at the time saw fit to just run home. I also felt this way back in 83' when the coawrds dropped the embassy of beirut. You should be glad none of our leaders including the big ole meany Bush, doesn't feel and think as I do.

I dont believe a nuclear weapon is neccessary in anyway, the damage is to significant to used on military targets and will only serve to kill innocent civilians. That is the actions of a terrorist, not a civilised nation. I am thankfull that our leaders do not think the way you do vance, the public would not stand for it my country and I hope they wouldn't in the states.

Thanks for the positive replies. Thats very cool.

Originally posted by rich23
I had quite a good go with a thread asking WHY Iran is a threat to the US... when you ask people to come up with solid evidence, it's easier to see that there's very little solid stuff to go on. It's mostly propaganda and repetition...

So a country that sits on one of the largest known oil reserves desperately needs nuclear power? And you trust a dictatorship, run by Islamofascist Mullahs who are hell-bent on wiping Israel off the map and are the largest state-sponsor of terrorism, with highly enriched uranium? Sorry, but I don't trust a regime that throws their people in jail just for celebrating Valentine's Day, with nuclear weapons.

There's just no point arguing with people like you. You have your mind made up and you've decided that putting blind faith in these radicals is more important than guaranteeing the safety of millions of people from an Iranian nuclear attack.

God help us all if you get what you wish for, and God help us all if you're wrong on top of it all.

Originally posted by Rasputin13
There's just no point arguing with people like you. You have your mind made up and you've decided that putting blind faith in these radicals is more important than guaranteeing the safety of millions of people from an Iranian nuclear attack.

I think thats a little unfair, both posted threads asking for reasons to side on either side of the debate, I dont think either of them has fully made their mind up and neither have I. I think everyone has the right to technology, but I will admit that I find it difficult to trust them as a nation.

I don't like some of the noises Iran's making, but I don't like the US govt or the UK one for that matter - but this doesn't justify military action against any of them.

I really don't see what Iran's crime is - apart from being muslim and 'different'.

So they might have nuclear energy / capability, the same rules apply to them as to all other nuclear powers - use your nukes in an unwarranted attack and the US will annihilate you, the UK will stir the dust up in a token contribution fashion afew hours later and the French missiles will follow on when they've got them to work properly.

This philosophy has kept the world free from nuclear destruction for over 60 years.

Quite why Bush & and his cronies think (ha) that they have suddenly seen a truth that compels them to completely re-write this effective rule is beyond me.

Perhaps their version of 'god' is guiding them?

As rich23 says good luck with the thread - cue the onslaught

I think Iran has the right to produce uranium.

But that they are doing it for peaceful reasons is kind of a joke.

Iran is not beong honest.

It would be nice if Iran would stop executing homosexuals and arresting/ torturing protesters. After that I might consider talking about a nuclear program.

i have stated time and time again that iran should be alowed nukes, hell any and every country should have them.

now i typicaly end up with people whineing about how "bad" the iranian leader is. how he openly threatens isrial. and that due to that there is no way that iran should be alowed to have them. my point actualy is that no country or even the un should have them. all nukes are, are TERROR weapons. they are specificaly meant to harm not only millitary instalations but all life in the area where they are deployed. just look at hiroshima, and that is a tiny nuke compared to todays weapons.

by their very known propperties nukes are weapons of mass destruction. isn't that amoung the stated reasons to attack irac? because saddam "supposidly" had weapons of mass destuction? prety tame ones in comparrison to nukes. so why is the mighty us allowed to have them? why is britton, isrial and old eastern block countries allowed to have them? or anyone else for that matter?

i find it mildly amuseing that the us is so hard that iran should not have what they themselves have. it is much like telling a youngster that drugs are bad and not to use them while in the midst of snorting coke. it's just a wee bit hypicritical to tell someone you can't have what we have.

hell I DON"T realy want iran to have nukes, but by the same token i can perfectly understand why they want them. the country that they are most scared of in their area has nukes. therefore if they had them they could do what the us and sssr used to do. "you launch at us and we launch at you". without nukes they can be constantly told what to do or "we'll drop nukes on you". they have no reasonable way to threaten back with equil force. i am sure that isrial dropping nukes on them is as real as the fear in the west that the sssr would launch nukes at them and vice versa.

as things stand now we have two divisions of countries, we have the "big boys" that have nukes, and those without nukes. this in and of itself causes a power imballance. it's like a bully being allowed to have a gun but those he bullies can not have a gun. so he can use the gun as a very real threat to which those he bullies can not respond.

NO country should have nukes just as no country should have or manufacture other weapons of mass destruction. those that do have them should be forced by un resulution to get rid of them. but that won't happen because the powerfull voices all tend to have nukes. interesting that isn't it? in todays world nukes equil power. those without nukes don't have the real power that those that have nukes have.

Originally posted by drogo



NO country should have nukes just as no country should have or manufacture other weapons of mass destruction. those that do have them should be forced by un resulution to get rid of them.

Why should the US give up our nukes?

They were developed to end a world war, and where later used to stop another. This is the reason we legitimately have them now. To give them up is to weaken the deterrent stopping many nations from attacking the US.

Donk, I know the thread I posted is pretty long, but if you're interested in arguing against any of the more jingoistic and ill-informed posters on this thread (noticed how their spelling's often not very good?) you might find some answers there...

Best of luck...

R

Yes, Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear energy technology.
However, they and really no one should have the right to have
nuclear weapons. It's bad enough we (the U.S) has them,
I mean look what we did to Japan in the 40's.


Oh, and donk, if you want to confront an issue I say in another thread,
post your issue with it in that thread, not another one.

[edit on 9/3/2006 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend

NO country should have nukes just as no country should have or manufacture other weapons of mass destruction. those that do have them should be forced by un resulution to get rid of them.

Why should the US give up our nukes?

i actualy said no country should have them not just the us. tho it would make dissarmerment easyer if a country like the us would volintarily give them up.

They were developed to end a world war, and where later used to stop another. This is the reason we legitimately have them now. To give them up is to weaken the deterrent stopping many nations from attacking the US.

yes they were developed to end a war and they did help to end that war. i will also state that that war could have been won by more conventinal means. especialy since the war in euope was already over. in one way i am glad they were used as both my grandfathers were prepareing to attack japan. but then again i am sure that the germans thought the same thing about the use of mustered gas in the first world war.

what war did they stop? the cold war?

so it is okay that the us has nukes because they are a "deturrant"? the same excuse can be used by every other country on earth. and they are only a realy good deturrant when only one side has them. so you are saying that if no one had nukes that the us would be attacked? i wonder why that might happen. could it be that the bullied would now be able to stand up to a percieved bully? in that case mabe some countries shouldn't be throwing their weight arround then. besides if the us millitary was at home i doubt that most countries would stand a chance if they attacked the us.

just think about how our lives would be better if we didn't have to worry about some country or other launching a nuklear strike against another. it might do much to promote peace if they were ALL gone.

as for another much heard arguement that a country like iran shouldn't have nuke is that "the leader is insane". many people may worry that the currant or possibly future president, might be insane or untrustworthy of holding the "key" to launch an attack. i would say that from things like the 911 conspiracy that many do considder the currant us administration to be unworthy of such a responsibility. they may not have used them yet but one never knows untill it's too late, do they?

Originally posted by drogo

i actualy said no country should have them not just the us. tho it would make dissarmerment easyer if a country like the us would volintarily give them up.

I find that to be highly suspect.

what war did they stop? the cold war?

just think about how our lives would be better if we didn't have to worry about some country or other launching a nuklear strike against another. it might do much to promote peace if they were ALL gone.

You are correct, the United State's nuclear arsenal helped to halt and end Soviet oppression.

The idea that there could be a world without nuclear weapons is illogical. If every nation were to genuinely give up their nuclear weapons, you know that some rouge nation would then build there own and hold the world at gunpoint.

The way you deal with the nuclear issue is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, not to disarm everyone. Iran should be able to have a peaceful nuclear program, but I do not think that the current oppressive regime in that nation should be allowed to continue their development un-checked.