Ahmadinejad: Iran may end uranium enrichment

reply to post by centurion1211

All can see now that even though we have obama (whom I dislike) telling iran the door is open for dialog - offering another olive branch if you will - while pajamaman stands up at the UN saying nothing but BS, in your mind obama is hitler and pajamaman is ghandi? That's nothing less than insane.

I said the differences are just about as far apart as the two. Furthermore, how do you consider the US walking out of the UN General assembly during Iran's speech, trying to open a dialogue with them and work things out diplomatically? Olive branch? More like poison ivy.

While my government has lied to me just about every chance that they can get, Iran's government has not, at least with anything that affects me. I don't believe one word coming out of Obama's mouth and I'm sure he is just saying that he wants to work diplomatically so that he can say that he tried when it comes time to shoot.

The childish behavior of walking out on Iran's speech, speaks volumes for their effort and just about proves that Obama says one thing, while doing another.

--airspoon

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Why does his speech matter? They are nothing more than words.

It is the ACTIONS of governments that concern me.

Until Iran does something, I have no reason to believe that they will do something.

Is that your personal philosophy as well?

If so, if you buy insurance, why? Until something happens to cause you loss, why worry about it, right?

If you lock the doors on your house and your car, why? Until someone breaks in and steals something or worse attacks you or your family, why worry about it, right?

If you saw or heard a man threaten to burn down your house why worry, right? Even if he's got gasoline cans piled against your house, not to worry, right? After all, he hasn't actually lit the match yet ...

The same goes on the world stage.

History shows that countries that did not maintain vigilance and/or tried appeasement did not fair very well.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by centurion1211

 

All can see now that even though we have obama (whom I dislike) telling iran the door is open for dialog - offering another olive branch if you will - while pajamaman stands up at the UN saying nothing but BS, in your mind obama is hitler and pajamaman is ghandi? That's nothing less than insane.

I said the differences are just about as far apart as the two. Furthermore, how do you consider the US walking out of the UN General assembly during Iran's speech, trying to open a dialogue with them and work things out diplomatically? Olive branch? More like poison ivy.

Yeah, listening to the pajamaman blaming the U.S. for 9/11 was worth staying to hear.

No doubt you stood up and applauded when you heard that, right. My new favorite country is really sticking it to those crappy Americans, right?

Do you know the definition of the word sycophant? Could it apply here?

reply to post by centurion1211


And in response, you base your opinion of Iran on a MSM that HAS lied to you. Yet you still believe the drivel.

I like to give trust until somebody breaks that trust. So far it has given me great happiness.

What has the opposite given the United States?

In response to your addition.

When Iran starts attacking other countries on whims, I will be concerned. Until that time, they are another country trying to do their thing, by their laws, none of which concerns me.

Originally posted by airspoon
I might even put money on TPTB (Israel and Neo-Cons) trying to argue that Iran won't stop, even if they do.

I'll add 100 bucks to that pot

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by centurion1211

 

And in response, you base your opinion of Iran on a MSM that HAS lied to you. Yet you still believe the drivel.

I like to give trust until somebody breaks that trust. So far it has given me great happiness.

What has the opposite given the United States?

That's really sweet. And I really do hope it works out for you on both the personal and national levels.

Pardon us if others believe that fools in high places thinking like you will only end up getting millions of us killed and or injured. It's our right, too, you know ...

reply to post by ThichHeaded


I've argued the same point as you over and over, but no one seems to listen. They all give me the same exact response, 'Well, Iran are the bad guys, and they are making nuclear bombs'.

What kind of ignorant moron can fall to the same crap twice? An American ignorant moron

reply to post by centurion1211


Lol, thank you, it has worked well so far.

History has shown us that it is not the fools who live by peace that kill millions. They generally just get themselves killed.

It is, unfortunately, the fools that buy into the paranoia and fear that get many killed.

This is a promising development if it is true? However, as we have seen with other remarks from President, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, about scaling back their nuclear efforts or decreasing their enrichment activities, and it is usually a glass half full. Just enough good nature rhetoric to pacify those opposed to his county's nuclear program to take the heat and pressure off for awhile, and then after awhile we always seem to hear about them resorting to their old ways.

Someone on the thread had mentioned earlier an article about Russians agreeing to send enough enriched uranium for a reactor and civilian purposes, but somehow the deal was never made? They have been enriching uranium, or the President of Iran would not be making the statement of discontinuing it in the future. Now, is it weapons grade uranium they have been enriching or uranium for civilian purposes as is the long held aim of the Iranian government? I am skeptical of their candor regarding nuclear power, but that is just me. However, it is better to be safe than sorry on this issue. Just one bomb in the hands of the sometimes fanatical Mullah's of Iran is one two many.

Now, some will bring up the United States and their massive arsenal or the Israelis and their secret arsenal. and it gives them no room to negotiate or dictate terms for the Iranians? In essence that is correct, however, no one brings up European countries like France or Great Britain who also possess nuclear weapons and are concerned about this issue as well. They get off the hook as Israel and the United States faces daggers from all opponents? I see a double standard on this issue?

Personally, I don't care if Iran has nuclear power plants and for energy purposes, but I am concerned if they are making weapons. Furthermore, I am concerned about them pressuring its neighbors with the clout and power of having one in their possession. Moreover, it could very well lead to a a quasi cold war between the Arab nations opposed to the Iranians? It makes an already dangerous and unstable place even worse. Lets hope the Iranian President owns up to this latest gesture of goodwill and we can put nuclear weapons question to rest once and for all.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Stop putting words in my mouth. Never said that. All governments lie to their people. It's a question of degree and effect. BTW, mentioning 9/11 in this context places you squarely in the nutjob category.

If you didn't watch pajamaman's UN speech, I suggest you do, before defending him further.

No i stated 9/11 is because Iraq supposedly was harboring members of al qaeda. Also 9/11 was the basis of us going in Afghanistan to supposedly to get Bin Laden..

There is more to do with 9/11 and Iraq than what you think.. All this bs went down because of 9/11 if 9/11 never happened then we would not be in 2 illegal wars right now...

And who tf is pajaman?

And you shouldnt call people names on the forum. Its a no no.. So you know.. People have been banned warned for that.

Originally posted by Jakes51
This is a promising development if it is true? However, as we have seen with other remarks from President, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, about scaling back their nuclear efforts or decreasing their enrichment activities, and it is usually a glass half full.

The other half of the glass is filled with UN sanctions..

Originally posted by Jakes51
Someone on the thread had mentioned earlier an article about Russians agreeing to send enough enriched uranium for a reactor and civilian purposes, but somehow the deal was never made?

International pressure?

Originally posted by Jakes51
Just one bomb in the hands of the sometimes fanatical Mullah's of Iran is one two many.

The point that everyone is trying to make, US leaders are just as fanatical, if not more then 'radical' Islam. See [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods]Operation Northwood to see what extent your government is willing to go to.

Originally posted by Jakes51
Now, some will bring up the United States and their massive arsenal or the Israelis and their secret arsenal. and it gives them no room to negotiate or dictate terms for the Iranians? In essence that is correct, however, no one brings up European countries like France or Great Britain who also possess nuclear weapons and are concerned about this issue as well. They get off the hook as Israel and the United States faces daggers from all opponents? I see a double standard on this issue?

They united states have tested over 500 nuclear bombs to date. No other country in the world comes close except for USSR, who we don't have to worry about any more. France and GB's tests combined (and x5), wouldn't even compare to the amount of bombs (nuclear) the US has tested. What clearly is our intentions if we are testing so many of these bombs that are ONLY meant to cause destruction? Not to mention, as someone has said before me in this thread, we are the only countries to have used a nuclear weapon against a civilian/military force(hey there's that c word...). Point is, you shouldn't be scared of a tyrant 2,000 miles away, you should worry more about the tyrant 20 miles away.

reply to post by BiGGz


Meh, its people like that who make the world a better place to live.. We dont have to worry about evil Iraq, or Iran, or ??? ya know.. Its so cool living in this world we have that i seem to be banging my head off the wall constantly...

Interesting though how international news tells is something completely different people would still take Fox news as truth...

Oh and thanks for your support... For the record I live in the states.. I live where the last g20 summit was in the US.

You people keep saying TPTB. Who the # are TPTB? It's a stupid word, just like MSM. You people keep bringing up 9/11. There's no proof it was an inside job. Why are you willing to believe a crazy idea instead of a much simpler, proven story? If I see proof that it was an inside job, I'll believe it. You people keep praising Iran. Iran supports Hezbollah and Hamas. It operates through these proxies so that it doesn't seem like a bad country. I wish there was a voice of reason that you would listen too.

Originally posted by BiGGz

Ahmadinejad: Iran may end uranium enrichment

www.haaretz.com

Iran would consider ending uranium enrichment, the most crucial part of its controversial nuclear activities, if it world powers send Tehran nuclear fuel for a medical research reactor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told reporters Friday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

it's the same sh#t...just easier.
why to go through the tedious process of enrich it, if you can have it already done?
thats why they say they'd stop the enrichment if the world send it to them already enriched.

so it's clear that they will continue with their nuclear program but this time supported by other contries =)

reply to post by ThichHeaded


Hah, international news sites are better news sources [regarding US news], then fox

reply to post by Throwback

You people keep saying TPTB. Who the # are TPTB?

Currently that would be the criminals on Wall Street who have hijacked the US govt. thru' campaign contributions, bribes and large bonuses brought about by the deregulation carried out by the Reagan and Clinton administrations.

You people keep praising Iran.

I don't see that many people praising Iran, only seeing the difference between words from Iran (sometimes misinterpreted) and actions by the US/Britain over decades in the middle east involving coups, wars etc.

Iran supports Hezbollah and Hamas

The US govt. supports Israel who both kill many more innocent people.

Read this article on Gideon Levy - an Israeli who has seen the crimes of his own govt. first hand - www.independent.co.uk...

Nearly every week for three decades, he has travelled to the Occupied Territories and described what he sees, plainly and without propaganda.

He reported that day on a killing, another of the hundreds he has documented over the years. As twenty little children pulled up in their school bus at the Indira Gandhi kindergarten, their 20 year-old teacher, Najawa Khalif, waved to them – and an Israel shell hit her and she was blasted to pieces in front of them. He arrived a day later, to find the shaking children drawing pictures of the chunks of her corpse.

“My biggest struggle,” he says, “is to rehumanize the Palestinians. There’s a whole machinery of brainwashing in Israel which really accompanies each of us from early childhood, and I’m a product of this machinery as much as anyone else. [We are taught] a few narratives that it’s very hard to break. That we Israelis are the ultimate and only victims. That the Palestinians are born to kill, and their hatred is irrational. That the Palestinians are not human beings like us? So you get a society without any moral doubts, without any questions marks, with hardly public debate. To raise your voice against all this is very hard.”

He unequivocally condemns the firing of rockets at Israeli civilians, but adds: “The Qassams have a context. They are almost always fired after an IDF assassination operation, and there have been many of these.” Yet the Israeli attitude is that “we are allowed to bomb anything we want but they are not allowed to launch Qassams.” It is a view summarised by Haim Ramon, the justice minister at time of Second Lebanon War: “We are allowed to destroy everything.”

Even the terms we use to discuss Operation Cast Lead are wrong, Levy argues. “That wasn’t a war. It was a brutal assault on a helpless, imprisoned population. You can call a match between Mike Tyson and a 5 year old child boxing, but the proportions, oh, the proportions.” Israel “frequently targeted medical crews, [and] shelled a UN-run school that served as a shelter for residents, who bled to death over days as the IDF prevented their evacuation by shooting and shelling... A state that takes such steps is no longer distinguishable from a terror organisation. They say as a justification that Hamas hides among the civilian population. As if the Defence Ministry in Tel Aviv is not located in the heart of a civilian population! As if there are places in Gaza that are not in the heart of a civilian population!”

I wish there was a voice of reason that you would listen too.

All those using reason understand that if 9/11 wasn't an inside job, it happened because of US foreign policy, and fascist Israel. So I think it's obvious who to blame.

Originally posted by Jakes51
This is a promising development if it is true? However, as we have seen with other remarks from President, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, about scaling back their nuclear efforts or decreasing their enrichment activities, and it is usually a glass half full.

Originally posted by BiGGz
The other half of the glass is filled with UN sanctions..

Yes, the sanctions seem like a glass half full, because we have seen governments of the past circumvent them. One example that comes to mind is Saddam Hussein and his take on sanctions. He was still building palaces and smoking the best Cuban cigars as his people were starving. Moreover, he made a killing in kickbacks from his involvement in the Oil For Food Program and many western corporations made a killing off that illegal enterprise as millions suffered and starved as well. So, if sanctions aren't the answer in bringing Iran to the table about their nuclear program, what is? Let everyone and their mother make atomic weapons? Kind of defeats the purpose of non-proliferation.

Originally posted by Jakes51
Someone on the thread had mentioned earlier an article about Russians agreeing to send enough enriched uranium for a reactor and civilian purposes, but somehow the deal was never made?

Originally posted by BiGGz
International pressure?

International pressure to prevent Russia from sending non-weapons grade uranium? I have a hard time seeing the purpose for that if Russia was going to ensure that the the uranium would be enriched in their facilities while addressing concerns with Iran uranium enrichment activities among UN member nations. However, it was Iran who put a stop to it, and not international pressure.

Senior Iranian lawmakers rejected on Saturday a U.N.-backed plan to ship much of the country's uranium abroad for further enrichment, raising further doubts about the likelihood Tehran will finally approve the deal.

The UN-brokered plan requires Iran to send 1.2 tons (1,100 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium — around 70 percent of its stockpile — to Russia in one batch by the end of the year, easing concerns the material would be used for a bomb.

abcnews.go.com...

It seems Russia was trying their best to help Iran out of this mess? They get the materials to run their reactor, and the West gets to breath a sigh of relief that the materials in Iran's possession are not being using to make weapons. It was a win win for all. However, Iran continues it rogue mentality and are now under sanctions.

Originally posted by Jakes51
Just one bomb in the hands of the sometimes fanatical Mullah's of Iran is one two many.

Originally posted by BiGGz
The point that everyone is trying to make, US leaders are just as fanatical, if not more then 'radical' Islam. See Operation Northwood to see what extent your government is willing to go to.

Yes, there are fanatics in the US government with the NeoCons and others, but because we have fanatics of our own; does it make it okay to turn a blind-eye to others? Or should they be dealt with where ever they are? I am aware of the Operation Northwoods plan, and it was fanatical to say the least. Creating violence and mayhem to rally the people for war with a another country on false pretenses?

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

abcnews.go.com...

As the article above mentions later, the Joint Chiefs drafted the plan and sent it to former Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara who rejected it. So, at the time the madmen and fanatics where put in their place. However, as I see it in Iran, no one is there to put the madmen and fanatics into the place.If someone is foolish enough to open their mouth, they are either locked away in prison or executed. On a side note, it seems there were plans for a false flag attack concocted by non other than former Vice President, Dick Cheney, to provoke hostilities against Iran and uncovered by journalist, Seymor Hersh, as he spoke at a journalism conference some years back.

HERSH: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.

Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

thinkprogress.org...

Thank goodness sanity prevailed on that cloak and dagger plan, or there would be another war in the Middle East. I only brought up the last issue to echo your sentiment about fanatics holding high office in the US government, but Iran is full of them as well. I just don't want to see the Middle East escalating into an arms race and a cold war mentality between nations in the region. The place is a mess already, and with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, things are only going to get worse.

Originally posted by Jakes51
Now, some will bring up the United States and their massive arsenal or the Israelis and their secret arsenal. and it gives them no room to negotiate or dictate terms for the Iranians? In essence that is correct, however, no one brings up European countries like France or Great Britain who also possess nuclear weapons and are concerned about this issue as well. They get off the hook as Israel and the United States faces daggers from all opponents? I see a double standard on this issue?

Originally posted by BiGGz
They united states have tested over 500 nuclear bombs to date. No other country in the world comes close except for USSR, who we don't have to worry about any more. France and GB's tests combined (and x5), wouldn't even compare to the amount of bombs (nuclear) the US has tested. What clearly is our intentions if we are testing so many of these bombs that are ONLY meant to cause destruction? Not to mention, as someone has said before me in this thread, we are the only countries to have used a nuclear weapon against a civilian/military force(hey there's that c word...). Point is, you shouldn't be scared of a tyrant 2,000 miles away, you should worry more about the tyrant 20 miles away.

Yes, the US has tested scores of atomic weapons since the Manhattan Project, and have no doubtingly dispersed all kinds of radiation into the air, water, and food supply. All that fallout had to have gone somewhere. However, that is for another thread. It was during the Cold War, and it turned into game of competition between the two prevailing super powers. It came down to, who could make the most devastating bomb the fastest, in feeble attempt to deter the other. When just a mere handful could devastate the former Soviet Union or the United States in one swoop and severely hindering the rest of the world as well. It was a crazy time as it was then and is now. So, France and Great Britain tested fewer bombs, but they can still wreck as much havoc as anyone with nuclear weapons. So, who has more is kind of a mute point, because just one can turn a city into an uninhabitable location for generations.

Now, you mentioned about the US deploying atomic weapons during the Second World War as many do during conversations of this sort. My take on that is this, we could have not dropped the bomb and risked half a million US soldiers being killed in the process of subduing the Japanese homeland and the virtual annihilation of the Japanese people and culture. If I remember correctly, it took not one bomb to bring Japan to surrender but two before Emperor Hirohito made his famous radio speech to bring an end to the war. We spoke of fanatics earlier, and the Japanese of the Second World War were some of the most crazed fanatics the world has ever known, and they would not have stopped until either Japan was turned into a cemetery of US soldiers or every last man, woman, or child was killed. I started a thread on this very topic sometime ago and you may be interested in checking it out.

One of the last remaining questions of WWII?

I and the other contributors went into great depth about the US dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the US military operations that would have taken place in its absence.

As for your topic about tyrants abroad and tyrants at home, tyrants should be dealt with wherever they are and a threat is a threat no matter if it is next door or down the street. This world of ours is getting smaller and smaller by the day, and even the smallest infraction can have affects the world over. I have enjoyed your response to my remarks, and the points you have made are well taken. However, I respectfully disagree on a few minor technicalities. Hopefully, at the very least, we can agree that more nuclear weapons in the world is a bad thing? Therefore, the world must ensure that others do not take the bold of move of joining the nuclear club.

reply to post by BiGGz

Ahmadinejad: Iran may end uranium enrichment

Iran may have some 'right' to pursue nuclear technology but... that's not the argument. The point has been and remains whether or not they are pursuing nuclear weapon technology. To date, the Iranian regime has been less than forthcoming to anyone, including the UN.

Ahmadinejad appears to be little more than the front man for the Revolutionary Guards, who probably pull the strings from behind the curtain. The former concept of an Islamic Republic looks stone, cold dead. This is as much bad news for the common Iranian citizen as a police state would be to any other nation.

It may be politically popular right now to prop up the Iranian regime because it puts one at odds with Israel. But there seems little good to come from crutching-up one poor regime in order to stand against another. If the current course is allowed to continue, there will be a war and it could get really bad. This won't help the Palestinians, the Israelis or the Iranians nor will it make one right and the other wrong. All it will do it make a lot of people on all sides, dead.

Ahmadinejad is no leader nor even a half decent diplomat. He is, at best, a showman for a very dangerous circus performance that appears to have no real desire except to prolong the standoff.

That's just one person's opinion; my own.