Iran set to announce nuclear plans on Monday

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia

Originally posted by digitalassassin

This is not good news at all. Any opinions on what will come of it? I for one think Iran needs to be stopped. They keep inching their way forward and no one is doing anything. The UN like to look like they get stuff done. However, where is the proof they do anything? Iran needs to be stopped because they will build a bomb. No if's and's or but's about it. If China and Russia don't agree screw them. They are supplying Iran with weapons anyway. How do they get away with that crap. The UN is a joke.

toda y.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 8-4-2007 by UM_Gazz]

How do they get away with that crap? What the ? We are also asking the same question in regard to the US's imperialist motives with the botched up mission called Iraq?

How do they get away with that crap??? You tell me?

Yes, Iran shouldnt have a nuclear ability/potential but Russia/China are supporting and funding it to entice the US into a war with them because the rest of the world is fed up with the agressive nature the US has been exhibiting.

It is acting like a rogue nation, the US economy is going downhill and war is the only thing proping it up at the moment.

What was the initial reason for the Iraq War? Weapons of Mass Destruction, then Regime Change, then the battle for hearts and minds, why cant they stop beating around the bush and say it as it is, we have invaded Iraq to secure future oil resources and revenue for ourselves, because we can!

How do they get away with that crap?

exactly........

I am not saying I don't agree with you. Iraq was a huge mess up, I would never deny that. I didn't however include my personal opinions of Iraq in the original post. I didn't know, to discuss other countries in the region you must first declare your personal opinions about Iraq.

This is about Iran and Iran alone nothing more.

[edit on 4/10/2007 by digitalassassin]

Dyepes

I happen to agree with you. I think that if Iran had nukes it would act as a stabilizer. I KNOW! Insane! But the rest of you hear me out.

Consider Iran the wanna be America of the Middle East. It is a very progressive country for that part of the world, however, being an Islamic state, the President has to deal with both moderates and hardliners. The moderates look at the some of the extreme statements made by the President as appeasement to the hardliners. Not to be taken seriously. ie: wiping Israel off the map which has been taken out of context by the Western media. Even the BBC has admited that.

www.bbc.co.uk...

peoplesgeography.com...

Ahmadinejad is no idiot. He knows that in order to be a force in the middle east, he must become nuclear. Im not saying its right, i'm just pointing out that its something that must be done. It will change Irans perception from a small desert country to a real global player.

I think Ahmadinejad knows that if we do attack him, it will unite the Arab countries against the US. If we don't attack him. He becomes the America of the middle east with the added benefit of controlling vast amounts of oil which could be sold to everyone using Euro Dollars. I'm sure he would rather have the latter happen, but he needs a little insurance.
Overall Its a win - win.

peoplesgeography.com...

I never understood this website; I have seen it a few times. What is the practical difference between "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" and "Israel must be wiped off the map"? Isn't the regime occupying Israel the Israeli people? If there is a distinction being drawn here, it is uncomfortably fine for my tastes.

[edit on 4/10/2007 by Togetic]

hi Togetic,

The difference is two fold. First, the actual quote is a citation of another quote. Second, it refers not to the Israeli people, who President Ahmadinejad has said elsewhere he has no issue with, but the Zionist regime ie the government.

Ann

[edit on 10-4-2007 by aelkhour]

Originally posted by xEphon
Dyepes

I happen to agree with you. I think that if Iran had nukes it would act as a stabilizer. I KNOW! Insane! But the rest of you hear me out.

I never actually thought of it like that. As crazy as it sounds, it does make a little sense. If Iran were to obtain Nuclear technology that would stabilize the region. No doubt about it. There would be one major central power in the Middle East. Iran having 'The Bomb' would force those with ideas of regime change to back-off, this would stabilize the region.However, This would enable their security over the collective "Ours", everyone that has been threatened by Iran.

Yes, it is true that Iran is not alone in the threatening of other nations. But tell me this. Is there a bigger chance of a rebel, terrorist or freedom-fighter (whatever you want to call them) group, acquiring Nuclear Weapons from Iran or the U.S.? If Iran gets the 'Technology' to build one, how long to you think it will be before one of Iran Army units brings one to Israel or Iraq even?

Iran is supplying the insurgents in Iraq right now, we know that pretty much for sure. How long before Iran supplys the insurgents with a 'Nuke'?

Yes, in the short term it is true, Iran obtaining a 'Nuke' will stabilize the region. But is that temporary bandage worth it? Think of all that could happen when Iran has a 'Nuke'. That to me is a much scarier thing to ponder.

With Iran I have one thought always in the back of my mind that is.

If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for a glass of milk.

Originally posted by aelkhour
hi Togetic,

The difference is two fold. First, the actual quote is a citation of another quote. Second, it refers not to the Israeli people, who President Ahmadinejad has said elsewhere he has no issue with, but the Zionist regime ie the government.

Ann

[edit on 10-4-2007 by aelkhour]

With respect to the first point, has he explicitly condemned that quote? I would expect him to do so. Otherwise he has implicitly endorsed it, hasn't he? What good would come from him reading it and not condemning it? If the president were to come out and read quotes from Mein Kampf, people would go nuts unless he immediately condemned it, because they would reasonably attribute implicit acceptance.

Second, that statement is open to two interpretations. The first is that the goverenment is separate from the people. The second is that all Israelis are zionist, by definition. I would think, based on the sentiments of the government, that they would lean towards the second statement. I have seen nothing that would imply otherwise.

Originally posted by Togetic

With respect to the first point, has he explicitly condemned that quote? I would expect him to do so. Otherwise he has implicitly endorsed it, hasn't he? What good would come from him reading it and not condemning it? If the president were to come out and read quotes from Mein Kampf, people would go nuts unless he immediately condemned it, because they would reasonably attribute implicit acceptance.

Second, that statement is open to two interpretations. The first is that the goverenment is separate from the people. The second is that all Israelis are zionist, by definition. I would think, based on the sentiments of the government, that they would lean towards the second statement. I have seen nothing that would imply otherwise.

Actually just google Jews against Zionism and you'll find that there is a huge amount of dislike, even from fellow Jews, over Zionism. Many people have mis judged this to mean anti-Jew but its a significant difference. If I was in the middle east I would be anti Zionist too considering the whole Israel was stolen situation. This is what he was speaking about when he was referencing Israel to be wiped out.

What is Zionism?
One of our most oft-asked questions is "what is Zionism?"


Theodor HerzlZionism is a movement founded by Theodor Herzl in 1896 whose goal is the return of Jews to Eretz Yisrael, or Zion, the Jewish synonym for Jerusalem and the Land of Israel.

The name of "Zionism" comes from the hill Zion, the hill on which the Temple of Jerusalem was situated.

Supporters of this movement are called "Zionists".

www.jewsagainstzionism.com...



[edit on 10-4-2007 by xEphon]

Togetic,

I don't know that I follow your reasoning. Are you comparing a call for regime change to Hitler's Mein Kampf? So do you similarly see US governments that explicitly call for regime change and meddling subject to the same kind of comparison?

Not only does he endorse it, but others do too, including Israelis of conscience. Of course you can separate a government from its populace, we see the increasing disconnect when the US and UK invade Iraq (if that wasn't regime change with impunity, I don't know what is) against the overwhelming wishes of their respective populations.

Originally posted by Togetic

With respect to the first point, has he explicitly condemned that quote? I would expect him to do so. Otherwise he has implicitly endorsed it, hasn't he? What good would come from him reading it and not condemning it? If the president were to come out and read quotes from Mein Kampf, people would go nuts unless he immediately condemned it, because they would reasonably attribute implicit acceptance.

Second, that statement is open to two interpretations. The first is that the goverenment is separate from the people. The second is that all Israelis are zionist, by definition. I would think, based on the sentiments of the government, that they would lean towards the second statement. I have seen nothing that would imply otherwise.

The Israeli state is a settler colonial one predicated upon the zionist ideology. A fifth of its population are Israeli Arabs, who I'm willing to wager are not sympathetic to zionism, which treats them as a demographic threat. Even if not all (though most are) of the population are themselves Zionists, Israel is a Zionist state.

Ann