Iran is not building any nukes

[Eki]

Ahmadinejad says Iran is not building any nukes and agrees with me that the US and the UN Security Council have disproportionate influence. Maybe the US could start negotiations with Iran by promising a seat in the UN Security Council if Iran cooperates?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562955818&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull


Regarding statements calling on Iran to stop supporting terror, Ahmadinejad denied that his country commits terror and furthermore, claimed Teheran did not want to build a nuclear weapon.

"We do not commit terror, but we are victims of terror. Our faith forbids us from engaging in terrorism," he was quoted as saying.

The Iranian leader claimed his country was wrongly accused of pursuing a military nuclear ability.

"We have no interest in building a nuclear weapon. We have sent the IAEA thousands of pages of reports and made thousands of hours of inspections possible. The IAEA cameras monitor our activities," he said.

"Who is dangerous, and whom should the inspectors distrust? Those who secretly built the bomb, or us, who are cooperating with the IAEA?" Ahamdinejad asked.

The Iranian leader went on to express his "mistrust" and "concern" with the UN, and stated that "were done fairly in the world, Iran would also have to be a member of the Security Council."

"We do not accept the notion that a handful of countries see themselves as the masters of the world. They should open their eyes and recognize real conditions," said Ahmadinejad.

When asked about the shift in American policy and US President Barack Obama's repeated statements on his commitment to dialogue with Iran, Ahamdinejad said he is "neither obstinate nor gullible" regarding the prospects of improving the relations between Washington and Teheran.

While "we cannot expect to see problems that have arisen over more than half a century resolved in only a few days…solutions can be found" if steps were taken by the US to change the atmosphere, Ahmadinejad said.

"Great things are happening in the United States," said the Iranian president, stressing that he expected "fundamental changes" on part of the Obama administration.

Ahmadinejad explained that he his country was waiting for Obama to announce his plans so that they could be analyzed.

[anthonyvop]

Yea,

And your pal Hitler agreed to peace in our lifetime and signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR.

[Eki]

Yea,

And your pal Hitler agreed to peace in our lifetime and signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR.
Ahmadinejad is not Hitler and Iran is not Nazi-Germany. Different time, different place and different people.

[Easy Drifter]

Right on Eki.
You believe the word of a megomanic leader of rogue nation but never believe anything from any President of the US or other free democratic countries.
You really are in need of help.

[EuroTroll]

Well done Eki. You are quite the troll. ;)

[Eki]

Right on Eki.
You believe the word of a megomanic leader of rogue nation but never believe anything from any President of the US or other free democratic countries.
You really are in need of help.
That's not true. I believe Obama when he says he wants to improve relations with Iran. Now I'm waiting for it to happen to see which one is more trustworthy and if Obama can give Iran a fair deal. Right now I have no reason to doubt the words of either Ahmadinejad or Obama.

Besides, I consider Finland as a free democratic country and I believe much of what our President says. Especially when she said that the Iraq war was illegal:

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/President+Halonen+at+United+Nations+Iraq+War+was+i llegal/1076154009154


President Halonen at United Nations: Iraq War was illegal


In her address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Finnish President Tarja Halonen expressed the view that the War in Iraq was illegal.
Speaking on the opening day of the General Assembly, President Halonen said that the international community had failed before the war in Iraq began. "Conflicting national interests prevailed over common will", she said.
"There was not enough commitment to act within the boundaries of Security Council resolutions. Some countries resorted to use of force which was not compatible with international law."
At a press conference held before her speech, Halonen said that some kind of an international court would be needed to give a formal decision on the legality of the war.
"However, it is my own impression that the requirements of international law were not met", the President said.

The main focus of President Halonen’s address was on issues that are especially close to her heart: globalisation, worldwide development, and the key role of multilateral cooperation and the UN.
She repeated the view that she had expressed at the previous day’s seminar on globalisation, according to which globalisation in its present form is ethically and politically unsustainable, as it does not pay heed to people’s needs and aspirations.
"We must make the 0.7% target on development assistance a reality", Halonen demanded.
She mentioned at the press conference that Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson had promised on Monday that Sweden would raise its aid level to one percent of GDP in 2006.
Finland is lagging far behind, but Halonen noted that the amount of aid provided by Finland is rising.

During a busy Tuesday, the President met with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and attended a reception hosted by US President George W. Bush.
On the agenda of the meeting with Secretary-General Annan was the plan for a new system with which the UN could act more efficiently in Iraq. Halonen said that Finland is willing, in principle, to take part in such a move.
She emphasised that it is important in Iraq to look ahead, and that the country’s leadership needs international support.

[markabilly]

Eki may be right, but why take a chance?
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
Nuke Iran and then look for the weapons after the dust settles.
If we are wrong, we can always do a hamilton and apologize later
They already think we be the anti-christ and I hate to disappoint people like this, so give them a good reason

[EuroTroll]

They already think we be the anti-christ and I hate to disappoint people like this, so give them a good reason

Yeah, they probably don't think we're the anti-Christ. :) Anti-Allah, maybe. :)

Seriously, I mean I haven't been here for a while, but do people still fall for Eki's provocations? :) Funny, that. ;)

[Eki]

Our President has also traditionally had good relations with the Palestinians. She met Arafat when she was the Finnish foreign minister. I'd like to see Obama shake hands with Hamas leaders.

http://www.tyly.edu.hel.fi/icp/large/arafat-halonen.html

http://www.tyly.edu.hel.fi/icp/large/arafat-halonen.jpg

[Roamy]

Great idea EKI and while you are at it please move the UN to Iran. It would be better off there.

Oh also EKI would you please buy your President a freaking Wig !!!! Or at least a doylie like Arafat.

[Eki]

Oh also EKI would you please buy your President a freaking Wig !!!! Or at least a doylie like Arafat.
This is not the US, where the man with the best hair and the best teeth gets elected no matter how dumb he is.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Now I know Eki is in need of serious pharceutical help.

The thing is, I just find arguing with him marvellously entertaining. Troll yes, but it keeps me from doing something constructive, like my laundry!

Eki....if you believe this guy and a year from now Iran announces they have the bomb, We will revisit this.

[anthonyvop]

This is not the US, where the man with the best hair and the best teeth gets elected no matter how dumb he is.
If it was, Finland would have to outsource for a leader.

[Roamy]

If it was, Finland would have to outsource for a leader.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Sonic]

This is not the US, where the man with the best hair and the best teeth gets elected no matter how dumb he is.

You thought G W Bush had good hair??? :eek:

[Eki]

You thought G W Bush had good hair??? :eek:
Better than Karl Rove's, who was running G W Bush:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/w/d/rove_arrested.jpg
It was G W's hair and Karl's brains.

[anthonyvop]

Better than Karl Rove's, who was running G W Bush:

It was G W's hair and Karl's brains.
If Rove ran for president he would get my vote.

[EuroTroll]

If Rove ran for president he would get my vote.

What about Rush Limbaugh? :rolleyes:

Wow, my good man, you really are as crazy as Eki pretends to be, aren't you? :p : Only of the opposite... you know. I dread to think what would happen if you two (i.e. you and Eki's forum character) ever met. Probably, the Universe would implode. :laugh:

[Eki]

If Rove ran for president he would get my vote.
He probably knew that it would be futile for a nerd-looking short and balding "four eyed" guy.

[Easy Drifter]

Arafat is laughing as he thinks 'Well I just conned another dumb broad.'
Of course Finland is as immaterial to the rest of the world as Eki is.

[Eki]

Of course Finland is as immaterial to the rest of the world as Eki is.
I don't remember Canada being mentioned amongst the "world leaders" either. It's considered more like a US satellite.

[Easy Drifter]

Is there any real point to your last post? Or just bashing another country when you, as usual, have no sensible response.
It probably escaped your feeble mind that Canada did not support the US in Iraq. Or that we have refused to have nuclear weapons on our soil or participate in the 'Star Wars' project the US wanted us involved in. Some satellite country.
We may not be a major world power but we are a G8 ( and before that a G7) country.
Naturally with your imbecellic thinking that makes us a US lackie.
Anyway I have the perfect job for you. See the thread on the Somali pirates.

[Eki]

Is there any real point to your last post? Or just bashing another country when you, as usual, have no sensible response.

You bashed Finland first, was that a "sensible response"?
If I recall it right you have also bashed Iran and North Korea.

[Easy Drifter]

So has just about every other poster except for a certain Finnish Hamas member.
By the way Canada has participated in more UN peacekeeping missions than any other nation.
Our troops are also not hiding in safe areas like those of some other nations in Afganistan. I am not saying those troops are cowards but suggest the leadership of a certain Scandanavian country is.

[Eki]

So has just about every other poster except for a certain Finnish Hamas member.
By the way Canada has participated in more UN peacekeeping missions than any other nation.
Our troops are also not hiding in safe areas like those of some other nations in Afganistan. I am not saying those troops are cowards but suggest the leadership of a certain Scandanavian country is.
But a certain former Finnish President received the 2008 Nobel Peace Price, it's more than any Canadian did. And if you meant Finland by a certain Scandinavian country, I let you know that Finland isn't a Scandinavian country. It's a Nordic country, but not a Scandinavian country. And the Finnish leadership are cowards all right. They're afraid of losing their seats in the next elections if they go against the will of their voters. Democracy is like that.

[Easy Drifter]

As usual Eki, you have opened your mouth and babbled on without having a clue about what you are talking about.
Lester B (Mike) Pearson April 23 1897 Dec 27 1972.
PM of Canada April 22 1963 April 20 1968.
Nobel Peace Prize 1957 re Suez Canal.
Considered father of modern Peacekeeping.
Creator of UN Emergency Force.
Cdn. Ntl. Health Care.
Cdn. Flag.
Served WW1 Medical orderly.

[EuroTroll]

Funny argument, this. :) Since we all know that both Canada and Finland are sparsely inhabited frozen wastelands. :p :

And no real American (in the Palin sense) can find either on the map. :p :

I kid, of course. ;) Finland is actually probably one of the most well-functioning and harmonious societies in the world. Certainly the best I've ever experienced. And I hear that Canada is very nice too. So put your feud aside, boys. Your two countries are actually very similar - are they not?

PS. Isn't this thread about I'm-a-Dinner-Jacket and his nukes? :)

[Eki]

Your two countries are actually very similar - are they not?

Except more Canadians seem to root for Israel and the US than Finns do.

[Garry Walker]

What about Rush Limbaugh? :rolleyes:



Anytime over Barack.

[EuroTroll]

Anytime over Barack.

Really?? How very interesting! :laugh:

[Garry Walker]

Really?? How very interesting! :laugh:

Indeed. He has his faults obviously, but I would pick him over a jerk like Barack anytime. I am sure you will explain to me why he is so bad.

[EuroTroll]

Indeed. He has his faults obviously, but I would pick him over a jerk like Barack anytime. I am sure you will explain to me why he is so bad.

Well, from what little exposure I've had to his views, it seems to me that he is just about as stupid as political fundamentalists come. Oh, and with a touch of pure evil thrown in. ;) Is that wrong? :)

Now, I'm sure you will explain to me why you think Obama is a jerk? ;)

Since it's all so relevant to this thread! :D

PS. I always vote for right-wing parties in our elections. Either for the right-liberal or the right-conservative one. ;) ("Liberal" tending to mean something else entirely in Europe...) But if I were American, I'd certainly have voted for Obama in the Presidential Election. Since the Republican Party has recently become almost synonymous with "bigotry" and "stupidity", in my view. And Sarah Palin as Vice-President??! Possibly President, if McCain - the 72-year-old ex-cancer-patient - moved to Valhalla, so to say?! Jesus H. Christ...

[Easy Drifter]

No. There are a lot of differences. There are some similarities though.
Politically Canada is much more involved in world affairs (not always for the best) and more centralist than leftist (or socialistic).
Our population is much more varied as to origin.
Quebec and northern NB. are predominately French speaking as are parts of northern Ont.
In parts of Toronto and Vancouver Chinese is the main language.
Canada has large visible minorities and in Toronto in particular there are almost as many non white as white.
Southern Ont. is fairly densely populated especially the GTA and Niagara penninsula. The population of the GTA is close to 6 million and Toronto proper about 3 million.
We welcome around a quarter of a million immigrants a year compared to Finland's minicule numbers.
The north is sparsely populated and the vast majority of Cdns. live within a 100 miles of the US border.

Oh and we do have some people like Eki who hate the US. We also have the largest population of Tamils outside of Sri Lanka.

[Garry Walker]

Well, from what little exposure I've had to his views, it seems to me that he is just about as stupid as political fundamentalists come. Oh, and with a touch of pure evil thrown in. ;) Is that wrong? :)
Well, he hates feminists and is for DP and takes a hard stance on illegal immigrants. How could I not support those views.
He has his idiotic views of course too (environment and religion)



Now, I'm sure you will explain to me why you think Obama is a jerk? ;)
There are many many reasons for that, I have highlighted those on this forum many times already.


. Since the Republican Party has recently become almost synonymous with "bigotry" and "stupidity"
What is bigoted about Republicans?

[Eki]

No. There are a lot of differences. There are some similarities though.
Politically Canada is much more involved in world affairs (not always for the best) and more centralist than leftist (or socialistic).

Finnish parliament has had nod-socialist majority for decades.


Our population is much more varied as to origin.
Quebec and northern NB. are predominately French speaking as are parts of northern Ont.
Some areas in Finland have a Swedish speaking majority and some have a large Swedish speaking minority. According to the Finnish constitution, both Finnish and Swedish are national languages of Finland and all government and communal officials are required to have adequate skills in both Finnish and Swedish. In Lapland we have a Saami speaking minority with some of their special rights as the native population. After the fall of the Soviet Union we have also received a large Russian speaking minority. Estonians, Somalis, Vietnamese and Chinese are also plenty.




Southern Ont. is fairly densely populated especially the GTA and Niagara penninsula. The population of the GTA is close to 6 million and Toronto proper about 3 million.

The north is sparsely populated and the vast majority of Cdns. live within a 100 miles of the US border.


At least 1/3rd of the Finns live on the southern coast with over 1 million around Helsinki. About 4/5th live south to the central Finland.




We welcome around a quarter of a million immigrants a year compared to Finland's minicule numbers. The total population of Finland is minuscule compared to Canada.



Oh and we do have some people like Eki who hate the US.
We do have people like Easy Drifter who hate Russia, Iran and North Korea. We also have Israel fans (mostly religious nutters) and the US fans (mostly right-wing nutters).

[Easy Drifter]

You really are pathetic Eki.
I do not hate Russia nor have I ever posted anything against current Russia. Currently both Iran and North Korea are ruled by nut cases that are a threat to world peace and security. Both do not tolerate any dissension or free speech.
Yes I support Israel but I also do not consider her without some fault.
I do not support terrorists such as Hamas, unlike you.
Several months ago you were supporting the Somali pirates!
I do not call people who do not support the US or Israel nut cases. I do not agree with them but they are not nutcases.
You on the other hand have called, indirectly, the Cdn. Govt. and the majority of Cdns. nutcases because we generally support both, although not always.
The population of Finland is between 1/3 and 1/4 that of Canada. That is not miniscule.
Finland's record for accepting immigrants does not bear close scrutiny and yes, I have looked it up.
You accept the word of a despotic Iranian leader who wishes to destroy Israel (as apparently do you, since you have said they have no legal right to exist, despite the fact they are a creation of the UN) and yet constantly question the word of most democratically elected leaders.
You are, in my opinion, morally deficient and possibly mentally unstable.

[Eki]

I do not call people who do not support the US or Israel nut cases.
You call me names. And you call the Iranian and North Korean leaders names. IMO they are basicaly just like the western leaders, they all want to stay in power and keep their benefits.


The population of Finland is between 1/3 and 1/4 that of Canada. That is not miniscule.

You should look also that up. It's about 1/6 (5.3 million vs. 33.5 million)


Finland's record for accepting immigrants does not bear close scrutiny and yes, I have looked it up.
It's not about accepting. It's just that not as many people want to come to Finland as to Canada. Maybe it's because we speak a strange language spoken only by about 5 million while you speak a language spoken by hundreds of millions, I don't know.


You accept the word of a despotic Iranian leader who wishes to destroy Israel (as apparently do you, since you have said they have no legal right to exist, despite the fact they are a creation of the UN) and yet constantly question the word of most democratically elected leaders.
Destroy Israel? Maybe politically and religion wise (I don't like Jewish or Christian extremists any more I like Muslim extremists) , but not physically.


You are, in my opinion, morally deficient and possibly mentally unstable.
There you go calling me names again.

[Eki]

Politically Canada is much more involved in world affairs
Yes, Canada seems like a trouble maker compared to Finland:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html


Disputes - international:

managed maritime boundary disputes with the US at Dixon Entrance, Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the Gulf of Maine including the disputed Machias Seal Island and North Rock; Canada, the US, and other countries dispute the status of the Northwest Passage; US works closely with Canada to intensify security measures for monitoring and controlling legal and illegal movement of people, transport, and commodities across the international border; sovereignty dispute with Denmark over Hans Island in the Kennedy Channel between Ellesmere Island and Greenland; commencing the collection of technical evidence for submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in support of claims for continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from its declared baselines in the Arctic, as stipulated in Article 76, paragraph 8, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fi.html


Disputes - international:

various groups in Finland advocate restoration of Karelia and other areas ceded to the Soviet Union, but the Finnish Government asserts no territorial demands

[Easy Drifter]

Yes, we like to protect our soveriegnty rather than rolling over and playing dead.
Note that we are working with the US and negoitiating these disputes and that our borders with the US are the longest undefended borders in the world.
Any comments on the French and US wasting a bunch of pirates?
Of course Finland couldn't help protect shipping in the area from the Somali pirates as she has no naval forces that would be of any use.

[anthonyvop]

But a certain former Finnish President received the 2008 Nobel Peace Price,.
Are you really proud of that?

The Nobel peace prize is considered a silly joke only given to left wing Darlings.

Among some of the more glaring examples.

Lê Ðức Thọ (Liar/Murdurer)
Amnesty International(Supporter of Terrorism)
Mother Teresa(Liar)
Adolfo Pérez Esquivel(Supporter of Terrorism)
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War(Supporter of Dictatorships)
Dali Lama(Fame seeker while people die)
Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev(Murdering dictator/Despot)
Rigoberta Menchú Tum(Liar/Charlatan)
Yasser Arafat(Terrorist)
United Nations(USELESS)
Kofi Annan(Anti-Amrerican/Puppet for despots/
Jimmy Carter(Supporter of dictators and terrorists)
International Atomic Energy Agency/Mohamed ElBaradei(Supporter of Despots)
Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr./Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(Liar/Anti-Freedom)

[RaceFanStan]

Ahmadinejad says Iran is not building any nukes ......
Yes & anyone who believes that I hear the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale cheap. http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g202/gr8link/orn/ooo.gif

[Eki]

Yes, we like to protect our soveriegnty rather than rolling over and playing dead.
What do you do with some islands between Canada and Greenland? Of course I must ask the Danes the same.

What becomes to Karelia, the Russians have ruined it so badly that it's now practically wasteland and it would be so expensive to fix that in my opinion it would be insane to accept it back even if Russia offered it. Besides I don't want the about 2 million Russians who live there now to become Finnish citizens. And to force them move away would be as unfair as it was to move away the half a million Finns in 1944 (although, to be fair, they were offered a chance to stay in Karelia and live under the Soviets, but only few took the offer). IMO it's the best to let the sleeping dogs lie.



Any comments on the French and US wasting a bunch of pirates?
Good for them.


Of course Finland couldn't help protect shipping in the area from the Somali pirates as she has no naval forces that would be of any use.
That's what you think:

http://www.mil.fi/merivoimat/esikunta/toim_kalusto.dsp

Maybe you're right to some point. Our navy seems to be optimized to stop large scale invasion attempts from the sea near our own borders (mostly mine and missile ships and boats) and not to stop few pirates in rubber boats on the other side of the world.

[Eki]

Are you really proud of that?


Yes, I am.



Lê Ðức Thọ (Liar/Murdurer)
Amnesty International(Supporter of Terrorism)
Mother Teresa(Liar)
Adolfo Pérez Esquivel(Supporter of Terrorism)
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War(Supporter of Dictatorships)
Dali Lama(Fame seeker while people die)
Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev(Murdering dictator/Despot)
Rigoberta Menchú Tum(Liar/Charlatan)
Yasser Arafat(Terrorist)
United Nations(USELESS)
Kofi Annan(Anti-Amrerican/Puppet for despots/
Jimmy Carter(Supporter of dictators and terrorists)
International Atomic Energy Agency/Mohamed ElBaradei(Supporter of Despots)
Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr./Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(Liar/Anti-Freedom)
He's in good company. The fact that people like you don't like them proves that the prize has gone to the right addresses.

[markabilly]

You know if you would brush your teeth more than once every five years or so, that camera the CIA planted would work better and then we would all know if you have really been french kissing with the Iran president and how crazy you two guys really are for each other :love:

Of course bin laden will be jealous

[chuck34]

Ahmadinejad is not Hitler and Iran is not Nazi-Germany. Different time, different place and different people.

A wise man once said, "Those who do not know history, are DOOMED to repeat it".

Might not be the exact words, but close. Point is, people (Chaimberlin comes to mind) thought the same things about Hitler. "All he wants is a bit of 'traditional' Germany back, after that he'll be ok. He's not like the others"

[Eki]

A wise man once said, "Those who do not know history, are DOOMED to repeat it".
Those who can't let the past go are DOOMED to live in the past.


Might not be the exact words, but close. Point is, people (Chaimberlin comes to mind) thought the same things about Hitler. "All he wants is a bit of 'traditional' Germany back, after that he'll be ok. He's not like the others"
Chamberlain thought Hitler wasn't Ahmadinejad? He was right wasn't he? We are not talking about Hitler or Germany's history, but Iran's and Ahmedinejad's history, and there is nothing you can compare to Germany and Hitler. Iran has not tried to gain more "lebensraum" from the neighboring countries and Ahmedinejad has not shown he's a liar (like Bush has when he said Iraq had WMDs and cooperating with al-Qaeda, while both turned out be fiction. The US can thank Bush for looking like the boy who cried wolf. It's really hard to believe the US is right about Iran when it was so miserably wrong about Iraq) .

[chuck34]

Those who can't let the past go are DOOMED to live in the past.


Chamberlain thought Hitler wasn't Ahmadinejad? He was right wasn't he? We are not talking about Hitler or Germany's history, but Iran's and Ahmedinejad's history, and there is nothing you can compare to Germany and Hitler. Iran has not tried to gain more "lebensraum" from the neighboring countries and Ahmedinejad has not shown he's a liar (like Bush has when he said Iraq had WMDs and cooperating with al-Qaeda, while both turned out be fiction. The US can thank Bush for looking like the boy who cried wolf. It's really hard to believe the US is right about Iran when it was so miserably wrong about Iraq) .


What a bunch of crap. Nothing to compare Germany and Iran about? Are you serious? What do you think started Hitler's rise to power? Honestly, I want to know what you think. And if you think that has nothing to do with Iran right now, I'd also like to know why you think that.

Perhaps Ahmedinejad has not shown he's a liar (I don't believe that, but just to move things along I'll agree for now). However, what happens if he's lying just this once? What happens if he suckers us all into thinking he just wants "peaceful" nuke power? What happens when we allow that, and then he proves to be the lying sack of sh!t we all think he is? What will you tell the people of Isreal that are effected by his bomb? And remember they won't all be Jews.

[Eki]

What a bunch of crap. Nothing to compare Germany and Iran about? Are you serious? What do you think started Hitler's rise to power? Honestly, I want to know what you think. And if you think that has nothing to do with Iran right now, I'd also like to know why you think that.

Iran is not a dictatorship. Power is distributed to multiple people. The President doesn't have much power and is supervised by the Supreme Leader, who is supervised by the Assemly of Experts. See, no one person can make decisions on using nuclear weapons in Iran. Iran is actually quite democratic compared to many other Middle Eastern countries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran


The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, which is also in charge of overseeing the Supreme Leader, and also has the power to dismiss him. As the name indicates, the Supreme Leader is considered as the ultimate head of the Iranian political and governmental establishment, above that of Iran's president. According to the constitution, he has the last say in internal and foreign policies, control of all of the armed forces (Army, Revolutionary Guards, Police), and control of state broadcast and others (see below). The head of the Judicial branch (in Persian: رئیس قوه قضائی&#1607 ;) is also directly appointed by him.
The President of Iran, who is elected by universal suffrage, is the Executive President (Head of government). In 1989, the Prime Minister's office was merged with the figurehead President's office to form the current post of President of Iran. However, certain executive powers, such as commandment of the armed forces and declaration of war and peace, remain in the hands of the Supreme Leader.[5]

And even if Iran had nuclear weapons, it's still not the same as using them. They know that if they used nuclear weapons, they would be right back at them times ten.

[chuck34]

Iran is not a dictatorship. Power is distributed to multiple people. The President doesn't have much power and is supervised by the Supreme Leader, who is supervised by the Assemly of Experts. See, no one person can make decisions on using nuclear weapons in Iran. Iran is actually quite democratic compared to many other Middle Eastern countries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran



And even if Iran had nuclear weapons, it's still not the same as using them. They know that if they used nuclear weapons, they would be right back at them times ten.

Wow what a deflection! Germany was also a Democracy and Hitler was democratically elected. So your deflection of my questions actually came back to bite you as it goes towards my point that there are plenty of parallels between Germany and Iran.

It'll be interesting to see what unrelated fact you come up with next.

[Eki]

Wow what a deflection! Germany was also a Democracy and Hitler was democratically elected. So your deflection of my questions actually came back to bite you as it goes towards my point that there are plenty of parallels between Germany and Iran.

It'll be interesting to see what unrelated fact you come up with next.
It was you who started with unrelated facts comparing Germany and Iran. Germany was a democracy that turned to dictatorship. What does that got to do with Iran? As well the US could turn into a dictatorship as Germany or Iran. Tell me what in your opinion Germany and Iran have in common that makes them suspicious? That they are not the US and as an American you don't trust anyone but the US?

[Eki]

Heh, some Zionists are already starting to shake in their boots for possibly less hostile relations between the US and Iran:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562949505&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull


Like it or not, the United States of America is no longer the world's policeman. This was the message of Barack Obama's presidential journey to Britain, France, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Iraq this past week.

Somewhere between apologizing for American history - both distant and recent; genuflecting before the unelected, bigoted king of Saudi Arabia; announcing that he will slash the US's nuclear arsenal, scrap much of America's missile defense programs and emasculate the US Navy; leaving Japan to face North Korea and China alone; telling the Czechs, Poles and their fellow former Soviet colonies, "Don't worry, be happy," as he leaves them to Moscow's tender mercies; humiliating Iraq's leaders while kowtowing to Iran; preparing for an open confrontation with Israel; and thanking Islam for its great contribution to American history, President Obama made clear to the world's aggressors that America will not be confronting them for the foreseeable future.

Whether they are aggressors like Russia, proliferators like North Korea, terror exporters like nuclear-armed Pakistan or would-be genocidal-terror-supporting nuclear states like Iran, today, under the new administration, none of them has any reason to fear Washington.

This news is music to the ears of the American Left and their friends in Europe. Obama's supporters like billionaire George Soros couldn't be more excited at the self-induced demise of the American superpower. CNN's former (anti-)Israel bureau chief Walter Rodgers wrote ecstatically in the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday, "America's... superpower status, is being downgraded as rapidly as its economy."

The pro-Obama US and European media are so pleased with America's abdication of power that they took the rare step of applauding Obama at his press conference in London. Indeed, the media's enthusiasm for Obama appeared to grow with each presidential statement of contrition for America's past uses of force, each savage attack he leveled against his predecessor George W. Bush, each swipe he took at Israel, and each statement of gratitude for the blessings of Islam he uttered.

But while the media couldn't get enough of the new US leader, America's most stable allies worldwide began a desperate search for a reset button that would cause the administration to take back its abandonment of America's role as the protector of the free world.

[Easy Drifter]

Eki is the ultimate left wing demagogue who sees no evil in most of the world's most tyrannical dictatorships while castigating most democraticaly elected goverments.
Claiming Iran to be a true democracy is utterly delusional.
I wouldn't be surprised if he were to blame Bush and the US for 9/11.
You use history when it suits your leftist anti democratic purposes and dismiss history that runs contrary to your distorted view of the world according to Eki.

By the way Eki the only Finnish naval vessels even capable of reaching the Indian ocean are slow mine layers, for all the good they would be. Your fast vessels are all coastal defence ships with limited range and the Finnish navy has no ships with helicopter capability a key to thwarting piracy on the open ocean.

[chuck34]

It was you who started with unrelated facts comparing Germany and Iran. Germany was a democracy that turned to dictatorship. What does that got to do with Iran? As well the US could turn into a dictatorship as Germany or Iran. Tell me what in your opinion Germany and Iran have in common that makes them suspicious? That they are not the US and as an American you don't trust anyone but the US?

The point is that Iran has a person in charge that has stated that he wants to see then end of another nation, that the Holocaust never happened, and that Jews are basically not human. You are saying that none of this is true, he only wants peaceful nuke power. Then anthonyvop points out that is pretty much what Hitler said to. You counter that by saying different time, different place, different cirucumstances. I'm saying that a lot can be learned from the past, and that there are many, many parallels between the two situations. Then you come up with some mundane detail that has nothing to do with the current situation to try and deflect your way out of a corner.

Is that a good enough summation for you?

And you are asking me what Germany and Iran have so in common that makes them suspicious. Well since your knowlege of history only starts in about 1990, and is so tainted by anti-Americanism, I'll go ahead and explain it to you. Both Hitler and Ahmadinejad came to power at a time when their countries were down economically. They both ran on platforms of bringing national pride back to their countries. They both speak of expanding their "sphere of influence" to be broader regionally, if not globally. They both want "peace in our time" and are trying to force world powers into negotiating away something important to themselves to get it. They both suckered bleeding hearts into believing them. And if you actually listen to either one of them you can tell that their true goal is the extermination of the Jewish race.

It's like a cover song, everyone knows they've heard it before (some just aren't sure where), but Eki keeps insisting its brand new.

[Eki]

s.
Claiming Iran to be a true democracy is utterly delusional.
Did I say "true" (whatever that is)? No, I said "compared to many other Middle Eastern countries.




By the way Eki the only Finnish naval vessels even capable of reaching the Indian ocean are slow mine layers, for all the good they would be. Your fast vessels are all coastal defence ships with limited range and the Finnish navy has no ships with helicopter capability a key to thwarting piracy on the open ocean.
That's what I said. Our Navy is for protecting our own shores, not the shores of Africa. Our military is called the defense force for a good reason, not the attack force. For the same reason, we also don't have any bomber planes, just fighters, or any long-range missiles.

[Eki]

The point is that Iran has a person in charge that has stated that he wants to see then end of another nation, that the Holocaust never happened, and that Jews are basically not human. You are saying that none of this is true, he only wants peaceful nuke power. Then anthonyvop points out that is pretty much what Hitler said to. You counter that by saying different time, different place, different cirucumstances. I'm saying that a lot can be learned from the past, and that there are many, many parallels between the two situations. Then you come up with some mundane detail that has nothing to do with the current situation to try and deflect your way out of a corner.

Is that a good enough summation for you?
No. Like I said the Iranian President may say whatever he wants, he doesn't control the Iranian armed forces.


And you are asking me what Germany and Iran have so in common that makes them suspicious. Well since your knowlege of history only starts in about 1990, and is so tainted by anti-Americanism, I'll go ahead and explain it to you. Both Hitler and Ahmadinejad came to power at a time when their countries were down economically.
Duh? So did Roosevelt in 1933 and the winner of the 2008 Noble Peace prize, President Martti Ahtisaari in 1994, still the US or Finland didn't turn into dictatorships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahtisaari

What can be common between Germany and Iran is that Germany was humiliated by the Allied after WW1 and Iran is currently being humiliated by the US and Israel. There's something to be learnt from the history and maybe treat Iran with some dignity and mutual respect.

BTW, Iran is not trying to exterminate the Jews. The Jews even have a seat in the Iranian Parliament:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_parliament

[Easy Drifter]

Eki: Are you still a member of Hamas?

Are you still a member of the Communist party in Finland?

Are you still employed by Russia?

[chuck34]

No. Like I said the Iranian President may say whatever he wants, he doesn't control the Iranian armed forces.


Duh? So did Roosevelt in 1933 and the winner of the 2008 Noble Peace prize, President Martti Ahtisaari in 1994, still the US or Finland didn't turn into dictatorships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahtisaari

What can be common between Germany and Iran is that Germany was humiliated by the Allied after WW1 and Iran is currently being humiliated by the US and Israel.


So the President of Iran doesn't have total power. Who cares? You don't see the Leader out there in the World Press saying something to the effect of "Our President is very over zelous, and we will never allow him to do these things". No, silence is a tacit approval, in this case.

Roosevelt did try to take much more control than he should have. Look up the court packing case. But that's neither here nor there.

So at least you admit that there is a link between Germany and Iran. Now let's see, how would one go about stopping the "humiliation" of Iran ... Hmmm, that's a tough one. ... Oh I've got it. Tell the President of Iran to give up on his nuclear ambition, and some of the UN sanctions will start to come off. You see if Iran would just listen to World Opinion, that you are so fond of saying the US should listen to, they wouldn't be "humiliated" any longer.

Now all you need to do is admit that it might be a bad thing to call for a nation to be wiped off the map.

[chuck34]

They both ran on platforms of bringing national pride back to their countries. They both speak of expanding their "sphere of influence" to be broader regionally, if not globally. They both want "peace in our time" and are trying to force world powers into negotiating away something important to themselves to get it. They both suckered bleeding hearts into believing them. And if you actually listen to either one of them you can tell that their true goal is the extermination of the Jewish race.


I'll go ahead and repost this for you Eki as you forgot to "prove" me wrong on these points.

[Eki]

Oh I've got it. Tell the President of Iran to give up on his nuclear ambition, and some of the UN sanctions will start to come off.
No, that would be Iran bending over backwards and giving up to the extortion. Quite humiliating IMO. Better solution would be to lift the sanctions and grant Iran the right to peaceful nuclear energy like most of the other nations have too, as long as they "play with open cards" and let in international inspectors. The US and Israel should also let in international inspectors in return.

[Easy Drifter]

Chuck: Have you ever heard of the 'Noble Peace Prize'?
I haven't.
I do know of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Of course any such an award has nothing to do with the subject at hand except to muddy the waters.

[chuck34]

No, that would be Iran bending over backwards and giving up to the extortion. Quite humiliating IMO. Better solution would be to lift the sanctions and grant Iran the right to peaceful nuclear energy like most of the other nations have too, as long as they "play with open cards" and let in international inspectors. The US and Israel should also let in international inspectors in return.

Your naive view of world affairs is quite frightening. I am glad that you are not in a posisition of power.

[Eki]

Chuck: Have you ever heard of the 'Noble Peace Prize'?
I haven't.
I do know of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Of course any such an award has nothing to do with the subject at hand except to muddy the waters.
If I were Chuck, I wouldn't be nitpicking on spelling after spelling Chamberlain as "Chaimberlin".

[chuck34]

If I were Chuck, I wouldn't be nitpicking on spelling after spelling Chamberlain as "Chaimberlin".

I am Chuck, and I know typos happen.

Back on topic now Eki.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You still at it Eki? My god you are a glutton for punishment.

Just remember Eki what I pointed out. You say they are not building any nukes. The WORLD ( not just the US) seems to think they are. The EU has sanctions against Iran because of it. Could it be they are ALL WRONG?

I rest on the fact that in about a year, the truth will be out, and this thread will be rubbed in your face REPEATELY as your naive and inaccurate accuastions are proven wrong.

As for your accusing Canada of being a US satellite Eki, let me also point out that the Canadian gov't doesn't hardly ever follow the US lead on any military actions. Vietnam, Nicaragua, Bay of Pigs/US Missile Crisis, the second Gulf War and Reagan's messing about in the Caribbean were all instances where Canada said no and just plain wasn't invited. Some satellite.

That said, we are allies of the US when it counts, and where it suits our foreign policy. There are some like Drifter and myself that kind of wish our military was used in a more effective and maybe more robust fashion to defend human and democratic rights, but often the UN has gotten in the way of this. Read Maj. General Lewis MacKenzie's book "Peacekeeper" and you learn very quickly how useless the UN can be at times and the whole feckless point of "world consensus." Read Romeo Dallaire's story of the useless and pointless exercise of the UN in Rwanda and how as a Canadian he was ashamed of the world community.

No, Us Canadians have a far better grip on reality about strategic issues and military issues than you Eki, and I can also point out my ex-father-in-law served with the Finn's on UN duty in the Suez in the early 70's. He said they were excellent soldiers and good guys. I guess not all Finn's get their political training from a Marxist or a overly liberal wackjob.

[steve_spackman]

Right on Eki.
You believe the word of a megomanic leader of rogue nation but never believe anything from any President of the US or other free democratic countries.
You really are in need of help.

The notion that Iran has nukes is coming from fear mongering paranoid leaders. The same ones who said Saddam had WMDs and look how wrong they were. Could it be that they want to get there hands on Irans oil reserves just like they have Iraqs??? I think so....

Plus no one seems to be too bothered about all the WMDs that Israel has stockpiled...perhaps they need to have weapons inspectors sent there and sanctions put on them. Oh i am sorry, but Israel does have sanctions, yet they seem to ignore them yet no one kicks up a fuss!!!

[Mark in Oshawa]

The notion that Iran has nukes is coming from fear mongering paranoid leaders. The same ones who said Saddam had WMDs and look how wrong they were. Could it be that they want to get there hands on Irans oil reserves just like they have Iraqs??? I think so....

Plus no one seems to be too bothered about all the WMDs that Israel has stockpiled...perhaps they need to have weapons inspectors sent there and sanctions put on them. Oh i am sorry, but Israel does have sanctions, yet they seem to ignore them yet no one kicks up a fuss!!!

Steve...do yourself a favour and quit following the Eki view of the world.

Iran has STATED that they feel they can develop nukes if they want. They have the reactor already. They have centerfuges in action enriching uranium. They have NOT denied this. A nation doesn't spend THAT much money on enriching uranium if they don't have a bomb project on the way. Again, it isn't the right wing reactionaries of this world that are just stating this, the nations of the EU are concerned. Last time I looked, they were not in the George W Bush fan club.

Secondly, as for Israel, the UN sanctions put on them by the General Assembly were NOT put on them by the Security Council. Hence they are just the usual meaningless platitudes that passes for important in the world of UN diplomats.

Thirdly, the Arab league and third world nations that are the majority in the General Ass'y trade off votes and support each other's wacky resolutions all the time as a political play. The resolutions against the Israeli's having nukes are non-binding and basically a bunch of nations that have denied Israel's right to exist basically whining. Hardly worth losing sleep over.

Fourth, Israel has had the bomb probably over 15 years now. In that time, they haven't once threatened to use it, nor have they even open admitted to any policy TO use it. Iran on the other hand...well Their wackjob leader has left no doubt in anyone's mind on his probable target if he had a bomb.

It is one thing to have the bomb. It is another thing to be responsible with it. In a world where Obama is now advocating nations get rid of the bomb, the point of Iran getting one would be foolish..... but then again, unlike Obama I think the whole notion of all the world's nations turning in their nukes is a tad naive and unrealistic...

[steve_spackman]

Steve...do yourself a favour and quit following the Eki view of the world.

Iran has STATED that they feel they can develop nukes if they want. They have the reactor already. They have centerfuges in action enriching uranium. They have NOT denied this. A nation doesn't spend THAT much money on enriching uranium if they don't have a bomb project on the way. Again, it isn't the right wing reactionaries of this world that are just stating this, the nations of the EU are concerned. Last time I looked, they were not in the George W Bush fan club.

Secondly, as for Israel, the UN sanctions put on them by the General Assembly were NOT put on them by the Security Council. Hence they are just the usual meaningless platitudes that passes for important in the world of UN diplomats.

Thirdly, the Arab league and third world nations that are the majority in the General Ass'y trade off votes and support each other's wacky resolutions all the time as a political play. The resolutions against the Israeli's having nukes are non-binding and basically a bunch of nations that have denied Israel's right to exist basically whining. Hardly worth losing sleep over.

Fourth, Israel has had the bomb probably over 15 years now. In that time, they haven't once threatened to use it, nor have they even open admitted to any policy TO use it. Iran on the other hand...well Their wackjob leader has left no doubt in anyone's mind on his probable target if he had a bomb.

It is one thing to have the bomb. It is another thing to be responsible with it. In a world where Obama is now advocating nations get rid of the bomb, the point of Iran getting one would be foolish..... but then again, unlike Obama I think the whole notion of all the world's nations turning in their nukes is a tad naive and unrealistic...

They have very right to have nukes, if its to deter other countries from attacking them..

The only country ever to use such a bomb was...the US. Isnt that a tad bit hypercritical?? The US is the one country that should not be on the bench saying other countries cant have them.

At the end of the day, its all about power. If Iran gets some nukes, then its one less country that the US can boss about!!

[Mark in Oshawa]

They have very right to have nukes, if its to deter other countries from attacking them..

The only country ever to use such a bomb was...the US. Isnt that a tad bit hypercritical?? The US is the one country that should not be on the bench saying other countries cant have them.

At the end of the day, its all about power. If Iran gets some nukes, then its one less country that the US can boss about!!


First off, the US has never seriously threatened anyone since 1945 with nukes.

Secondly, they used the bomb in 1945 because Japan ( those guys who started the shooting on that side of the world ) wasn't ready to capitulate despite the fact all the great powers were going to go after them, and despite the fact they had lost all their holdings of note NOT on the home islands. The Japanese Bushido code made them almost pathologically bent on NOT giving up, and any invasion of the home islands would have cost more lives than the two bombs did. Also, take note, President Truman is gone. The US isn't the only Nuclear power, and the US has never threatened to take another nation of the earth, Iran HAS. Of course, I keep explaining this logic to Eki and he cant grasp it, but I usually figure you are smart enough to understand the difference.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Iran does have the right to own nukes. Never said they didn't Steve. I just stated I think I would not be amused if they had them, and unlike most nations in the nuclear club, I have little faith in Iran NOT sooner or later waving them around like a pop gun....

[steve_spackman]

First off, the US has never seriously threatened anyone since 1945 with nukes.

Secondly, they used the bomb in 1945 because Japan ( those guys who started the shooting on that side of the world ) wasn't ready to capitulate despite the fact all the great powers were going to go after them, and despite the fact they had lost all their holdings of note NOT on the home islands. The Japanese Bushido code made them almost pathologically bent on NOT giving up, and any invasion of the home islands would have cost more lives than the two bombs did. Also, take note, President Truman is gone. The US isn't the only Nuclear power, and the US has never threatened to take another nation of the earth, Iran HAS. Of course, I keep explaining this logic to Eki and he cant grasp it, but I usually figure you are smart enough to understand the difference.

Iran is just rattling the cage by saying what it does and the US and Israel keep falling for it. Do you really think that Iran would use a nuke?? I dont think they have the balls to do it. But then the US or Israel will attack Iran on the notion that they would. Just like Iraq was attacked on the notion that they was going to fire WMDs at the US or the UK...and that was never a threat was it???

[Rollo]

You still at it Eki? My god you are a glutton for punishment.

Just remember Eki what I pointed out. You say they are not building any nukes. The WORLD ( not just the US) seems to think they are. The EU has sanctions against Iran because of it. Could it be they are ALL WRONG?


Here and here:
http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1737/index.shtml
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9268.doc.htm

Adopting Resolution 1803 by 14-0-1, Council Welcomes Agreement between Iran,
Atomic Energy Agency to Resolve Outstanding Issues on Iran’s Nuclear Programme
The Security Council today approved a new round of sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment and heavy-water-related projects, as had been required in resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007), and for taking issue with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) right to verify design information provided to it.

For the record:
Iran has Nuclear Weapons - it's a fact.

Their nuclear program has been in existance since about 1967, and was originally set up with US help. Prior to 1979 the Shah and the US President had quite peaceful relations.

Is it justification to declare war on Iran? Most definately not. The reason quite simply is stated here:


It is one thing to have the bomb. It is another thing to be responsible with it.

The world should quite justifiably be suspicious of Iran, but going to war is a course of action which is reprehensively stupid.

Since Chamberlain has been mentioned in this thread, I should point out that he knew that war with Germany was inevitable but that he delayed it, saving unknown countless lives.
The policy of no less than 9 Presidents of the US was pretty well much the same when it came to the Soviets. Avoidance of war with a known nuclear enemy.
Obama's policy of wanting to speak with Iran is no less sensible. Avoidance of a costly war - again sensible.

For all the bickering that goes on here, people often forget that it's servicemen and civilians who actually bear the brunt of warfare. An Iranian sitting at home minding their own business is no more or less valuable than an American, a Briton, a Ghanaian, a Bolivian or whoever else you'd like to nominate.

[Easy Drifter]

Steve I didn't think you were quite as much a left wing anti west whack job as Eki.
The US used its atomic bombs over 60 years ago and in the process saved many more lives than they took. The invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost the allies many thousands of lives and those of thousands of Japanese.
There are many countries in the world that have nuclear weapons in addition to the US. France, the UK, Russia, Israel, India, China, Pakistan, possibly the Ukraine and probably South Africa and N. Korea. None have used them. Pakistan's possession of them worries me as she is more than a little unstable.
The US has not stopped any of these countries from possessing them.
The US encouraged Canada to become a nuclear armed country. We said no.
What the US and most countries of the world do not want is countries ruled by whack jobs (N. Korea) or demogogues (Iran) to obtain them. Even China does not want N. Korea to have them and delivery systems.

[steve_spackman]

For all the bickering that goes on here, people often forget that it's servicemen and civilians who actually bear the brunt of warfare. An Iranian sitting at home minding their own business is no more or less valuable than an American, a Briton, a Ghanaian, a Bolivian or whoever else you'd like to nominate.

Could not agree more

[steve_spackman]

Steve I didn't think you were quite as much a left wing anti west whack job as Eki.
The US used its atomic bombs over 60 years ago and in the process saved many more lives than they took. The invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost the allies many thousands of lives and those of thousands of Japanese.
There are many countries in the world that have nuclear weapons in addition to the US. France, the UK, Russia, Israel, India, China, Pakistan, possibly the Ukraine and probably South Africa and N. Korea. None have used them. Pakistan's possession of them worries me as she is more than a little unstable.
The US has not stopped any of these countries from possessing them.
The US encouraged Canada to become a nuclear armed country. We said no.
What the US and most countries of the world do not want is countries ruled by whack jobs (N. Korea) or demogogues (Iran) to obtain them. Even China does not want N. Korea to have them and delivery systems.

a left wing anti west whack job??

Explain to me why the US and Israel should have nukes and Iran shouldnt?

[Easy Drifter]

YES!
The US and Israel are stable countries.
Iran is not and is led by a man who has said Israel should not exist.
Is that simple enough for you?

Off topic: What was the result with your windshield wiper? Did all the free help you got sort it out for you?

[Eki]

Just remember Eki what I pointed out. You say they are not building any nukes. The WORLD ( not just the US) seems to think they are. The EU has sanctions against Iran because of it. Could it be they are ALL WRONG?

They were ALL WRONG about Iraq. You should learn from history and Iraq war is much more recent and geographically closer history than Hitler, Chamberlain and WW2.

[chuck34]

They have very right to have nukes, if its to deter other countries from attacking them..

The only country ever to use such a bomb was...the US. Isnt that a tad bit hypercritical?? The US is the one country that should not be on the bench saying other countries cant have them.

At the end of the day, its all about power. If Iran gets some nukes, then its one less country that the US can boss about!!


Holy Cow! You have no idea that the bombs SAVED lives, probably about a million. Do you know that through the first Gulf War we were still using Purple Hearts ordered in 1945.

[chuck34]

Here and here:
http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1737/index.shtml
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9268.doc.htm

Adopting Resolution 1803 by 14-0-1, Council Welcomes Agreement between Iran,
Atomic Energy Agency to Resolve Outstanding Issues on Iran’s Nuclear Programme
The Security Council today approved a new round of sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment and heavy-water-related projects, as had been required in resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007), and for taking issue with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) right to verify design information provided to it.

For the record:
Iran has Nuclear Weapons - it's a fact.

Their nuclear program has been in existance since about 1967, and was originally set up with US help. Prior to 1979 the Shah and the US President had quite peaceful relations.

Is it justification to declare war on Iran? Most definately not. The reason quite simply is stated here:



The world should quite justifiably be suspicious of Iran, but going to war is a course of action which is reprehensively stupid.

Since Chamberlain has been mentioned in this thread, I should point out that he knew that war with Germany was inevitable but that he delayed it, saving unknown countless lives.
The policy of no less than 9 Presidents of the US was pretty well much the same when it came to the Soviets. Avoidance of war with a known nuclear enemy.
Obama's policy of wanting to speak with Iran is no less sensible. Avoidance of a costly war - again sensible.

For all the bickering that goes on here, people often forget that it's servicemen and civilians who actually bear the brunt of warfare. An Iranian sitting at home minding their own business is no more or less valuable than an American, a Briton, a Ghanaian, a Bolivian or whoever else you'd like to nominate.

For the record, Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, they do have enough uranium to make one. But there is a pretty big step from there to a weapon. I'm not saying that they couldn't do it quickly, just saying I don't think anyone believes they currently have a bomb.

By Chamberlain delaying the war, he did not save any lives. Had he listened to Churchill he may have, but he didn't. There was little to no real war preperation in the years leading up to the actual war. An example of what should have been done, although not totally effective either, was the US under Roosevelt. We started Lend-Lease which ramped up our war production, at least a bit, not really enough. But Britian did not really do much ramping up before the actual war, then not much until Churchill came into power.

As for your last bit. Make no mistake, I think about the brave service men and women on both sides, and say a prayer for them everyday.

[Eki]

Steve...do yourself a favour and quit following the Eki view of the world.

Iran has STATED that they feel they can develop nukes if they want. They have the reactor already. They have centerfuges in action enriching uranium. They have NOT denied this. A nation doesn't spend THAT much money on enriching uranium if they don't have a bomb project on the way.
How would you run nuclear power plants without reactor grade enriched uranium. Iran has never claimed they can and do enrich weapons grade uranium. They have adamantly denied they are doing that.

Read and learn about enriching uranium and about the difference between reactor grade and weapons grade uranium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

[chuck34]

They were ALL WRONG about Iraq. You should learn from history and Iraq war is much more recent and geographically closer history than Hitler, Chamberlain and WW2.

So we were wrong once, maybe. I'm still not convinced that we were totally wrong on Iraq.

What if you are wrong about Iran? What if they do nuke Israel as they said is their intention? Will those lives not be lost in vein? I'll remind you once again, there will be Arab lives lost as well as your hated Jews.

[Eki]

The US isn't the only Nuclear power, and the US has never threatened to take another nation of the earth, Iran HAS.
No it hasn't. Their President, who doesn't control their armed forces, has said he wants Israel off the map, not that he wants to blow it up. I want Israel off the map too, peacefully. Changing the name Israel to Palestine would be the first step to the right direction.

[Eki]

YES!
The US and Israel are stable countries.
Iran is not and is led by a man who has said Israel should not exist.

In what way Iran is unstable?

Again: President Ahmadinejad does not lead Iran any more than Queen Elisabeth II leads Canada.

[chuck34]

No it hasn't. Their President, who doesn't control their armed forces, has said he wants Israel off the map, not that he wants to blow it up. I want Israel off the map too, peacefully. Changing the name Israel to Palestine would be the first step to the right direction.

And Hitler wanted to live peacefully with his neighbors, had a non-agression pact with the Soviets, only wanted to "watch" the Jews, etc., etc.

The circle is now complete.

And just out of curiosity, why must the name of Israel be changed to Palestine? It was called Israel first, or maybe Canaan, or even Judah, heck even Rome would fit.

[Eki]

And just out of curiosity, why must the name of Israel be changed to Palestine? It was called Israel first, or maybe Canaan, or even Judah, heck even Rome would fit.
Because it was called Palestine before Zionist terrorists decided to move there in the 1940s and changed the name to Israel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Conflict_with_Zionism


Between 1945 and 1948, the refusal of the British government to allow Jewish immigration to Palestine led to an increasingly bitter conflict between Britain and Palestinian Jews. In particular it resulted in large scale illegal Jewish immigration, "boat people", and terrorism in Palestine. The policy of opposing Zionism led to deep divisions within the British leadership and anti-semitism in Britain[1].

[steve_spackman]

Off topic: What was the result with your windshield wiper? Did all the free help you got sort it out for you?

The motor went on the wiper arm...thanks for you advice on the matter mate!!

[chuck34]

Because it was called Palestine before Zionist terrorists decided to move there in the 1940s and changed the name to Israel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Conflict_with_Zionism

Great now we're expanding your knowledge of history beyond 1990.

Of course it was called Palestine before 1948. But prior to that, that part of the Middle East has been called many things, Canaan and Judah among them. What is so d@mn special about calling it Palestine?

[EuroTroll]

In what way Iran is unstable?

Again: President Ahmadinejad does not lead Iran any more than Queen Elisabeth II leads Canada.

Yes! A thousand times - yes! Since Ahmadinejad isn't the real leader of Iran, Iran should have nukes. Because his boss the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei must be much more reasonable. Right? I mean, he doesn't say much, but if I know my religious leaders - and I think I do - they are usually very reasonable fellows, indeed. :rolleyes:

And it just isn't fair to deny nukes to Iran. And fairness is the most important thing! :up: I mean, if Iran and Israel end up exchanging a few nukes - that's OK! As long as it's fair! And North Korea should have them too! And Libya. And... well, everyone who wants to have them, really. Because that's fair! And if one of these wonderful, peaceful, modern countries ever goes through a popular uprising or a revolution - as all dictatorships eventually will - and becomes unstable and we have ourselves a little "nuclear holocaust" (for whatever reason), well then that's how it must be!

Because then we can all enjoy the nuclear winter knowing that we have been fair! And that's the most important thing. :up:

:rolleyes:

PS. Eki, you ARE good. Practice makes perfect. ;)

[Eki]

Yes! A thousand times - yes! Since Ahmadinejad isn't the real leader of Iran, Iran should have nukes.Not nukes, peaceful nuclear energy. There's a difference.


Because his boss the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei must be much more reasonable. Right? I mean, he doesn't say much, but if I know my religious leaders - and I think I do - they are usually very reasonable fellows, indeed. :rolleyes:
The Supreme Leader doesn't have the final word either. He has the Assembly of Experts above him. What are the odds that they are all mad?


PS. Eki, you ARE good. Practice makes perfect. ;)
Thanks for the opportunity to practice.

[555-04Q2]

Just remember Eki what I pointed out. You say they are not building any nukes. The WORLD ( not just the US) seems to think they are. The EU has sanctions against Iran because of it. Could it be they are ALL WRONG?

Herein lies the problem. Either the world KNOWS they are going to build nukes or they THINK they are going to build nukes. One is a fact, the other an assumption. There is a vast difference between the two.

I also dont see how countries with thousands of nukes in their arsenals can complain about other countries wanting to develop their nuclear capabilities, especially the US which is the only country to have used nukes in the first place.

[Eki]

Great now we're expanding your knowledge of history beyond 1990.

Of course it was called Palestine before 1948. But prior to that, that part of the Middle East has been called many things, Canaan and Judah among them. What is so d@mn special about calling it Palestine?
It doesn't matter what it was called thousands of years ago, but there are still people alive who lived there when it was Palestine. Palestine also doesn't have the same religious sentiments as Israel.

[EuroTroll]

What are the odds that they are all mad?

Pretty high, I'd say. :)

Look, I'm not saying Iran can't have nuclear energy. Not at all! So if they'd cooperate fully and openly with the relevant international agency, I don't think anyone would have a problem. But they don't, do they... They twist and turn like a... twisty, turny thing. :) And that's why everyone is suspicious.

Especially given the recent practice of India and Pakistan regarding nukes. "Nukes - no way. We're not building them. We're not building them. -> BOOM! -> Oh yeah, we have them."

And isn't it just wonderful that Pakistan has nukes? An government on shaky legs, desperately trying to somehow get along with a concentration of religious nutters, who are just itching to take over...

Do you seriously believe the Iranian leadership when they tell us they're not pursuing nuclear weapons? I mean, hand on heart - seriously? I know you like to pretend that you do, because it drives people nuts and you get your fun. ;)

My view is that Iran is definitely pursuing nuclear weapons. This is based on their behaviour. If they weren't, why wouldn't they cooperate fully with IAEA? Now, how boldly they pursue this goal depends very much on the international response. If they think they will get there without any serious repercussions - they will get there! If they are made to realize that they will lose more than they will gain by doing what they do - they'll probably stop.

But seriously - Ahmadinejad says they don't want nukes and we should just believe it? That's just laughable. :)

As you well know. ;)

[Eki]

If they weren't, why wouldn't they cooperate fully with IAEA?
As far as I know, they weren't given a fair chance to do so before the US and Israel decided they can't have nuclear energy at all. I mean, what would IAEA do there if there weren't any nuclear energy whatsoever in Iran?

[EuroTroll]

I also dont see how countries with thousands of nukes in their arsenals can complain about other countries wanting to develop their nuclear capabilities, especially the US which is the only country to have used nukes in the first place.

Let me ask you this - would the world be a better place if more countries had nukes?

"We can have them, but you can't" - yes, it's hypocritical. It's not fair. But so what? I'd rather be hypocritical and unfair than increase the chances of a nuclear exchange. The more countries have them, the higher the chances. No?

[EuroTroll]

As far as I know, they weren't given a fair chance to do so before the US and Israel decided they can't have nuclear energy at all. I mean, what would IAEA do there if there weren't any nuclear energy whatsoever in Iran?

And as far as I remember, El-Baradei (the Director General) stated quite clearly that Iran wasn't cooperating.

[Eki]

As far as I know, they weren't given a fair chance to do so before the US and Israel decided they can't have nuclear energy at all. I mean, what would IAEA do there if there weren't any nuclear energy whatsoever in Iran?
Ahmadenijad also said Iran has cooperated with IAEA. I don't think he would say that if there were hard evidence of the opposite:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562955818&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull


"We have no interest in building a nuclear weapon. We have sent the IAEA thousands of pages of reports and made thousands of hours of inspections possible. The IAEA cameras monitor our activities," he said.

"Who is dangerous, and whom should the inspectors distrust? Those who secretly built the bomb, or us, who are cooperating with the IAEA?" Ahamdinejad asked.

[EuroTroll]

Ahmadenijad also said Iran has cooperated with IAEA.

Well, if HE said it, then it must be true! :D I mean, what reason could he possibly have to not tell the truth regarding this? :laugh:

[Easy Drifter]

And the IAEA say Iran hasn't.
Well of course our little Finnish Hamas member, communist in the employee of Russia says Iran is telling the truth and everyone else are liars.
If you check back on this thread he did not deny any of the above statements when asked to do so.

[Eki]

Well, if HE said it, then it must be true! :D
I didn't say that it must be true. But what happened to the "innocent until proven guilty" -principle (or do you know it in Estonia?)? If you can't prove he's lying, you shouldn't be so sure he's lying.

[EuroTroll]

I didn't say that it must be true. But what happened to the "innocent until proven guilty" -principle (or do you know it in Estonia?)? If you can't prove he's lying, you shouldn't be so sure he's lying.

I didn't say that we should! But we should be suspicious, given that we have one man's word against another's. And one of the men is known to have a "special relationship" with the truth (Holocaust denial, anyone?), and has good reason to lie.

Oh, and nice touch, implying negative things about my country. ;) Provocateurs everywhere - look and learn! :laugh:

[Eki]

I didn't say that we should! But we should be suspicious, given that we have one man's word against another's. And one of the men is known to have a "special relationship" with the truth (Holocaust denial, anyone?), and has good reason to lie.
As far as I know, he didn't deny the Holocaust, he questioned it. I think everyone should have the right to question things and not take them as god-given truth.


Oh, and nice touch, implying negative things about my country. ;) Provocateurs everywhere - look and learn! :laugh:
All Estonian cops are bribed.

[EuroTroll]

As far as I know, he didn't deny the Holocaust, he questioned it. I think everyone should have the right to question things and not take them as god-given truth.

In 2005, he said, "They have fabricated a legend, under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves...If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Iranian_President_Ahmadinejad



All Estonian cops are bribed.

Oh, I am just so offended by this statement which is just so true! :laugh: It really makes me want to say bad things about you and Finns in general, thus discrediting all the other stuff I've written! :laugh:

[Eki]

And the IAEA say Iran hasn't.
Well of course our little Finnish Hamas member, communist in the employee of Russia says Iran is telling the truth and everyone else are liars.
If you check back on this thread he did not deny any of the above statements when asked to do so.
My dear Canadian Zionist and right-wing nutter, what above statements are you referring to?

[Easy Drifter]

Thank you for the compliment.

I think I could imagine your grandmother's comment as you marched in a troop of Boy Scouts -- 'Look everyone is out of step but my Eki.'

[EuroTroll]

Oh get a room, you two. :p imp:

[chuck34]

It doesn't matter what it was called thousands of years ago, but there are still people alive who lived there when it was Palestine. Palestine also doesn't have the same religious sentiments as Israel.

So governments should only last one generation? MOST of the people there were not alive to see anything other than Israel.

Palestine doesn't have the same religious sentiments as Israel? What do you mean by that?

[Eki]

Palestine doesn't have the same religious sentiments as Israel? What do you mean by that?
Palestinians don't see it as a "Promised Land" and that they have a god-given right to it the same way the Jewish do.

[chuck34]

Palestinians don't see it as a "Promised Land" and that they have a god-given right to it the same way the Jewish do.

That points in the direction of the Jewish people having more of a right to the land, does it not?

Face it, you're stuck. However you look at it the Jewish people have a real claim to the land. The oldest and the newest claims as a matter of fact. They are there now, so clearly they have the most recent claim to the land. And whether you believe the Bible or not, Jews had a claim to that land about as far back as anyone wants to trace it.

And the Islamic people sure do seem to think they have a god-given right to Jerusalem. So does that make their claim invalid now based on your logic?

[Eki]

That points in the direction of the Jewish people having more of a right to the land, does it not?


No, I don't think the world needs a Jewish nation any more it needs an Islamic or a Christian nation. Thousands of years old book shouldn't be a valid document for land-ownership in a modern world.

[Eki]

And the Islamic people sure do seem to think they have a god-given right to Jerusalem.
That's because they lived there before 1947, not because of their religion. Look at it this way: Someday someone comes knocking at your door and tells you to leave because some Indians whose forefathers lived on that spot 500 years earlier want it back. Wouldn't you be pissed?

[EuroTroll]

No, I don't think the world needs a Jewish nation any more it needs an Islamic or a Christian nation. Thousands of years old book shouldn't be a valid document for land-ownership in a modern world.

Does the world need a Finnish nation? You do know that being a Jew is as much about ethnicity as religion, don't you?

[chuck34]

No, I don't think the world needs a Jewish nation any more it needs an Islamic or a Christian nation. Thousands of years old book shouldn't be a valid document for land-ownership in a modern world.

That's fine with me. Then what should be a valid document for land ownership?

Usually there are two ways to determine land ownership, current possesion or historic "ownership". Which do you prefer, or do you have another suggestion?

[chuck34]

That's because they lived there before 1947, not because of their religion.

Jewish people lived there before 1947 too. What's your point?

[EuroTroll]

That's because they lived there before 1947, not because of their religion.

Ah, so it's not at all about them believing that Mohammed ascended to Heaven from there.. :rolleyes:

[Eki]

Jewish people lived there before 1947 too. What's your point?
And they weren't fighting with the Palestinians of other religions, because they hadn't taken land from them and over-populated the area. Majority of the Israeli Jews now are post-1947 immigrants or their descendants, and the land they occupy didn't come from thin air, it was stolen or forcefully bought from people who lived there, and it was not from the pre-1947 Palestinian Jews.

[Eki]

That's fine with me. Then what should be a valid document for land ownership?

Usually there are two ways to determine land ownership, current possesion or historic "ownership". Which do you prefer, or do you have another suggestion?
There are more ways. Dispute the present ownership in a court or in a war. Currently the Palestinians have to dispute it in a guerrilla war, because there is no court they can take their case to.

In 1990, Iraq owned Kuwait for awhile and then the US came and took it away from them. Which one do you think was more wrong, Iraq taking Kuwait or the US taking it and giving it back to the Kuwaiti?

[Eki]

Ah, so it's not at all about them believing that Mohammed ascended to Heaven from there.. :rolleyes:
I haven't heard about that. Maybe you're confusing him with Jesus?

It says here that he died in Medina, Saudi Arabia and is buried there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#Farewell_pilgrimage_and_death


A few months after the farewell pilgrimage, Muhammad fell ill and suffered for several days with head pain and weakness. He died on Monday, June 8, 632, in Medina. He is buried where he died which was in his wife Aisha's house and is now housed within the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina.[140][14][141] Next to Muhammad's tomb, there is another empty tomb that Muslims believe awaits Jesus.[141][142]

[chuck34]

So Eki, who exactly do you think Israel was "stolen" from?

[Eki]

So Eki, who exactly do you think Israel was "stolen" from?
Like I said, the non-Jewish Palestinians (mainly Muslims) who lived there before 1947 and their descendants.

If you think it was right that the US took Kuwait from Iraq and gave it back to the Kuwaiti, surely you must agree that it's equally right that Hamas tries to take the land back from the Jewish immigrants and their descendants and give it back to the Palestinians who owned it before.

[chuck34]

Like I said, the non-Jewish Palestinians (mainly Muslims) who lived there before 1947 and their descendants.

If you think it was right that the US took Kuwait from Iraq and gave it back to the Kuwaiti, surely you must agree that it's equally right that Hamas tries to take the land back from the Jewish immigrants and their descendants and give it back to the Palestinians who owned it before.

So I guess your study of history has not gotten back this far yet. Let's start with the 20th Centruy, and do a quick timeline. At the start of the centruy, the Ottoman Empire controlled the area. Then after WWI the Turks lost control to the British. The area was then called "British Mandate of Palestine", or just Palestine. Following WWII, the UN set up Israel. So tell me again who it was stolen from? The British, the Ottomans, the Egyptians, European Crusaders, the Byzantines, the Romans, the Persians, who exactly are you talking about having control over this area that might possibly be called "Palestinians".

Your attempt to link Kuwait and Palestine is not a valid point. Kuwait is an internationally recognized independent soverign nation. When was the last time there was an independent nation called Palestine?

[Captain VXR]

My dear Canadian Zionist and right-wing nutter, what above statements are you referring to?

hahahahaha



Don't tell me you beleive in the Protocols of Zion, some crap made up by the Russians........................
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread445213/pg1

[Eki]

When was the last time there was an independent nation called Palestine?
Palestinians are working on it.

So you think it's OK to oppress people like the Kurds, Tibetans and others just because they don't have an independent nation? Was it also right to oppress the Bosnians and Kosovians until they were given the status of an independent nation?

[chuck34]

Palestinians are working on it.

So you think it's OK to oppress people like the Kurds, Tibetans and others just because they don't have an independent nation? Was it also right to oppress the Bosnians and Kosovians until they were given the status of an independent nation?

When have I ever said it is ok to oppress people? Not having your own "nation" does not mean you are oppressed.

[EuroTroll]

I haven't heard about that. Maybe you're confusing him with Jesus?

"Jerusalem is considered the third-holiest city in Islam. For approximately a year, before it was permanently switched to the Kabaa in Mecca, the qibla (direction of prayer) for Muslims was Jerusalem. The city's lasting place in Islam, however, is primarily due to Muhammad's Night of Ascension (c. 620 CE). Muslims believe Muhammad was miraculously transported one night from Mecca to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, whereupon he ascended to Heaven to meet previous prophets of Islam. The first verse in the Qur'an's Surat al-Isra notes the destination of Muhammad's journey as al-Aqsa (the farthest) mosque, in reference to the location in Jerusalem. Today, the Temple Mount is topped by two Islamic landmarks intended to commemorate the event — al-Aqsa Mosque, derived from the name mentioned in the Qur'an, and the Dome of the Rock, which stands over the Foundation Stone, from which Muslims believe Muhammad ascended to Heaven."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Religious_significance

As I understood it, Mohammad went to Heaven, had a chat with a few blokes there and then came back. Much the wiser, no doubt! And that's why it's now impossible for Palestinians (being good Muslims) to relinquish Jerusalem.

[EuroTroll]

My personal opinion (which I'm sure many share) is that Jerusalem should not be the capital of any state, but a city under international administration. Something like Berlin was, since the end of WW2 until German reunification.

The capital of Israel could be Tel Aviv, like it was.

As for a Palestinian state, well... since "Palestinian" means nothing more than an Arab who lives in the area formerly known as "Palestine" - to the best of my understanding, it is not a distinct ethnic or even a cultural group -, they can just go to live in Egypt or Jordan, can't they. If they don't want to live in Israel.

Just my two cents.

And no disrespect. ;)

[chuck34]

My personal opinion (which I'm sure many share) is that Jerusalem should not be the capital of any state, but a city under international administration. Something like Berlin was, since the end of WW2 until German reunification.

The capital of Israel could be Tel Aviv, like it was.

As for a Palestinian state, well... since "Palestinian" means nothing more than an Arab who lives in the area formerly known as "Palestine" - to the best of my understanding, it is not a distinct ethnic or even a cultural group -, they can just go to live in Egypt or Jordan, can't they. If they don't want to live in Israel.

Just my two cents.

And no disrespect. ;)

That is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to logical for our boy Eki. Although I'm not 100% on Jerusalem being an "International" city, I could probably accept that.

See Eki, I can give up something, can you????????

[steve_spackman]

That points in the direction of the Jewish people having more of a right to the land, does it not?

Face it, you're stuck. However you look at it the Jewish people have a real claim to the land. The oldest and the newest claims as a matter of fact. They are there now, so clearly they have the most recent claim to the land. And whether you believe the Bible or not, Jews had a claim to that land about as far back as anyone wants to trace it.

And the Islamic people sure do seem to think they have a god-given right to Jerusalem. So does that make their claim invalid now based on your logic?

Just like the AMERICAN INDIANS have more of a claim to the US than anyone living there now

Whats happening in Israel is what happened to the american indians..ethnic cleansing

[Easy Drifter]

We, and that includes me, have totally drifted off the topic of this thread.

[airshifter]

We, and that includes me, have totally drifted off the topic of this thread.

Eki and Spackman are involved. Does it surprise you that the subject has gone to anti US everything and Israel being in the wrong for existing? :laugh:


As for Iran and nukes, the above two have read the actual UN reports about as much as they have on Iraq. Clueless to the known facts, they can continue claiming everyone is wrong.

[steve_spackman]

Eki and Spackman are involved. Does it surprise you that the subject has gone to anti US everything and Israel being in the wrong for existing? :laugh:


:love:

[steve_spackman]

Eki and Spackman are involved. Does it surprise you that the subject has gone to anti US everything and Israel being in the wrong for existing? :laugh:


As for Iran and nukes, the above two have read the actual UN reports about as much as they have on Iraq. Clueless to the known facts, they can continue claiming everyone is wrong.

i have not claimed that everyone is wrong. i simply have my own views

Im not anti US..just coz i dont agreew with things DOES NOT make me anti US...

[Camelopard]

.......
Im not anti US..just coz i dont agreew with things DOES NOT make me anti US...

But these people don't understand that!

As their recently departed president said: "if you ain't with us, you are against us" or some such tosh........

[Eki]

When have I ever said it is ok to oppress people? Not having your own "nation" does not mean you are oppressed.
It can, and often does.

[Eki]

As for a Palestinian state, well... since "Palestinian" means nothing more than an Arab who lives in the area formerly known as "Palestine" - to the best of my understanding, it is not a distinct ethnic or even a cultural group -, they can just go to live in Egypt or Jordan, can't they. If they don't want to live in Israel.

Our former President Mauno Koivisto was criticized for not actively supporting Estonian independence in the early 1990s. Well, to most of us Finns Estonian meant nothing more than a Fenno-Ugrian who lived in a Soviet state formerly known as "Estonia" who could just go to live in Siberia.

[555-04Q2]

Let me ask you this - would the world be a better place if more countries had nukes?

"We can have them, but you can't" - yes, it's hypocritical. It's not fair. But so what? I'd rather be hypocritical and unfair than increase the chances of a nuclear exchange. The more countries have them, the higher the chances. No?

Hell no, the world would be really screwed if everyone had nukes! But there is no justification for proactive nuclear countries having nukes and complaining about other countries developing their nuclear capabilities. As the sayig goes, "you cant have your cake and eat it".

[EuroTroll]

Our former President Mauno Koivisto was criticized for not actively supporting Estonian independence in the early 1990s. Well, to most of us Finns Estonian meant nothing more than a Fenno-Ugrian who lived in a Soviet state formerly known as "Estonia" who could just go to live in Siberia.

Oh, did it now? :laugh: You just keep 'em coming, fellow - you ain't gonna get me! :D

Oh, and your former President Koivisto is actually criticized for being a total wussy and being against Estonia reestablishing independence, since he didn't want anyone to "disturb Moscow". ;)

By the way, don't you just love the term "finlandization"? ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

[EuroTroll]

But these people don't understand that!

As their recently departed president said: "if you ain't with us, you are against us" or some such tosh........

No recently departed president of mine (and quite a few others around here) has ever said that. ;)

[EuroTroll]

Hell no, the world would be really screwed if everyone had nukes! But there is no justification for proactive nuclear countries having nukes and complaining about other countries developing their nuclear capabilities. As the sayig goes, "you cant have your cake and eat it".

Well, there may be no justification, but this is one of the very few cases where "the end" really does "justify the means", in my view.

[Eki]

By the way, don't you just love the term "finlandization"? ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
Yes, it could also be applied to the NATO countries and others who don't want anyone to disturb Washington DC. Different sides of the same coin.

[Eki]

Well, there may be no justification, but this is one of the very few cases where "the end" really does "justify the means", in my view.
In what way? If any country didn't have any nukes, why would it be a worse situation than some having nukes and some having not? The US can bully other countries with its conventional weapons, it doesn't need the nukes.

[EuroTroll]

In what way? If any country didn't have any nukes, why would it be a worse situation than some having nukes and some having not?

No, that would be a perfect situation! But we ain't gonna get that, are we?

So, what's the next best thing?
A) As few countries as possible have nukes, or
B) All countries who want them have nukes.

Take your time. ;)

[Eki]

No, that would be a perfect situation! But we ain't gonna get that, are we?

We would, if the nuke countries weren't so stubborn.

[EuroTroll]

We would, if the nuke countries weren't so stubborn.

Yes, naughty-naughty.

Do answer the question, though. ;)

[Eki]

Do answer the question, though. ;)
I want more options than "Do you want to be in sh!t or in deeper sh!t".

[EuroTroll]

I want more options than "Do you want to be in sh!t or in deeper sh!t".

Right... :rolleyes:

But given that these are the two options, which would you like better?
A) To be in sh!t, or
B) To be in deeper sh!t.

Me, personally... I would like to be in the shallower sh!t. ;)

[555-04Q2]

there may be no justification

Thats the problem. You always have to justify things. Imagine a world where there is no justification. Sadly, some countries (and I include the UN in this) dont give a rats arse about anything but themselves, and stuff what other countries want or should be entitled to also do :(

[555-04Q2]

Right... :rolleyes:

But given that these are the two options, which would you like better?
A) To be in sh!t, or
B) To be in deeper sh!t.

Me, personally... I would like to be in the shallower sh!t. ;)

I would prefer countries like France, America, Russia etc to say, "OK, we will dismantle all our nukes". Guess what? That will never happen :(

The crazy part is, what the hell does the USA think it is gonna need over 10000 nukes for? 100 is enough to wipe 90% of the world out, so why did they make so many in the first place?

[Eki]

Obama "gets it":

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/15/obama.iran/index.html


Iran maintains enriching uranium for nuclear energy is its right. Now the West seems to have come around to Iran's way of thinking. Last week during a speech on proliferation in Prague, Czech Republic, President Obama admitted as much when he said, "We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections."

And he has a nice new dog too, a Portuguese Water Dog, although I liked Bush's Scottish Whiskey Dog more.

[EuroTroll]

Thats the problem. You always have to justify things. Imagine a world where there is no justification. Sadly, some countries (and I include the UN in this) dont give a rats arse about anything but themselves, and stuff what other countries want or should be entitled to also do :(

Well, Iran is of course a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Would that count as justification? :)


I would prefer countries like France, America, Russia etc to say, "OK, we will dismantle all our nukes". Guess what? That will never happen :(

Exactly!


The crazy part is, what the hell does the USA think it is gonna need over 10000 nukes for? 100 is enough to wipe 90% of the world out, so why did they make so many in the first place?

I think the US and Russia both currently have about half that, so around 5000.. But you are of course right, it's an insane amount. I guess they wanted to be able to not only destroy the world, but do it X times over.. At least as many times as the enemy.

Recent decades have seen a reduction, though.

[555-04Q2]

Well, Iran is of course a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Would that count as justification? :)



Exactly!



I think the US and Russia both currently have about half that, so around 5000.. But you are of course right, it's an insane amount. I guess they wanted to be able to not only destroy the world, but do it X times over.. At least as many times as the enemy.

Recent decades have seen a reduction, though.

Just checked and the US still has 9960 nukes in their arsenal :s hock: but I cannot confirm 100% if that is correct. They could blow up half the universe :p : They are, as you mentioned, slowly reducing their stockpile though.

[Eki]

Just checked and the US still has 9960 nukes in their arsenal :s hock: but I cannot confirm 100% if that is correct. They could blow up half the universe :p : They are, as you mentioned, slowly reducing their stockpile though.
Probably they are slowly rusting away.

[Roamy]

I would prefer countries like France, America, Russia etc to say, "OK, we will dismantle all our nukes". Guess what? That will never happen :(

The crazy part is, what the hell does the USA think it is gonna need over 10000 nukes for? 100 is enough to wipe 90% of the world out, so why did they make so many in the first place?

we like overkill

But with that being said. How long does it take to build a nuclear weapon?
That would probably determine if trying to get rid of them was feasible.
Also how are you going to monitor the cheaters?

[EuroTroll]

How long does it take to build a nuclear weapon?

I'm guessing it depends on the number of centrifuges you have. Eki's CNN article states that 5500 centrifuges can produce about two weapon's worth of enriched uranium per year..



Also how are you going to monitor the cheaters?

An international agency?

[555-04Q2]

we like overkill

Thats an understatement!!! :p :

[555-04Q2]

An international agency?

And who runs/monitors the agency...

[EuroTroll]

And who runs/monitors the agency...

We all? :)

No but the reduction in the number of nukes is currently very much the issue between the US and Russia only, isn't it. As the others have significantly fewer. So I guess a joint American-Russian effort?

[555-04Q2]

We all? :)

No but the reduction in the number of nukes is currently very much the issue between the US and Russia only, isn't it. As the others have significantly fewer. So I guess a joint American-Russian effort?

American-Russian effort...maybe. But remember that France and China (to name a few) also have quite a few nukes, so it would have to involve a lot more countries then just the Americans and Russians.

I wish nukes had never been invented in the first place, but the technology has done a lot of good in other areas of modern development/human society.

[Eki]

we like overkill

Yes, I have sometimes wondered how it's possible in the US to get a prison sentence of several hundred years. Do they think it's a harsher penalty than life in prison if they leave the prisoner to rot in his cell for decades or even centuries after he's dead?

[EuroTroll]

Do they think it's a harsher penalty than life in prison if they leave the prisoner to rot in his cell for decades or even centuries after he's dead?

Now, are you absolutely sure that they do that? :)

[555-04Q2]

Now, are you absolutely sure that they do that? :)

They do it in Zimbabwe :s hock:

[Roamy]

Yes, I have sometimes wondered how it's possible in the US to get a prison sentence of several hundred years. Do they think it's a harsher penalty than life in prison if they leave the prisoner to rot in his cell for decades or even centuries after he's dead?

I am not sure but I think in this country you can get life in prison but be eligible for parole in 15 to 20 years - by sentencing for 200 years they won't be eligible for parole til they are 100 years old

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, Iran is of course a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty


I think the US and Russia both currently have about half that, so around 5000.. But you are of course right, it's an insane amount. I guess they wanted to be able to not only destroy the world, but do it X times over.. At least as many times as the enemy.

Recent decades have seen a reduction, though.

The fact Iran signed the Non-Proliferation treaty and is ignoring it now once again shows the UN's authority is pretty much useless if no member nations do anything to enforce it.

As for why the US has so many and the Russians do, it is pretty simple. The theory was both sides would target each other's silo's and as time went on, the thinking was no matter what the other side wasn't going to be allowed to wipe your side out without being wiped out themselves. MAD, mutually assured destruction, and it is the reason why the USA and USSR were so careful to not really aggravate the other past a certain point. The Cuban Missle Crisis basically scared the heck out of both sides.

I actually think in a way the world is MORE dangerous with a few less stable nations having the bomb if the main powers don't have the bomb. That is why Obama's desire to get rid of all the nukes is a nice thought, but just that. HE wont get rid of them all, any more than the Russians will.

AS for the crack Eki said about them rusting? Maybe in Russia, but the Americans are very careful with how they store these things, and all weapons are maintained to be ready if required. The US military is of the opinion that they are more dangerous if they are not kept under strict lock and key and fully maintained.

The Nuclear club is an ego trip for many of these smaller nations, or in the case of Israel, an insurance policy....

[Eki]

AS for the crack Eki said about them rusting? Maybe in Russia, but the Americans are very careful with how they store these things, and all weapons are maintained to be ready if required. The US military is of the opinion that they are more dangerous if they are not kept under strict lock and key and fully maintained.


True. The US uses duct tape instead of regular office tape to patch them up:

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/ts_20081031_1519.php


U.S. Discloses 5-Month-Old Fire at Nuclear Silo
Friday, Oct. 31, 2008

A fire at a U.S. nuclear missile facility went undetected for five days in May before repair crews discovered $1.03 million in damage, the Air Force announced yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 6, 2007).

(Oct. 31) - A fire inflicted major damage to a U.S. silo facility housing a Minuteman 3 ballistic missile, like this one (U.S. Air Force photo).
Spokeswoman Maj. Laurie Arellano said the Air Force did not disclose the incident at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., until now because the investigation was only just completed. The fire joins a string of embarrassing nuclear management lapses for the Air Force, including last year’s accidental transfer of nuclear weapons (see GSN, Sept. 5, 2007), the mistaken shipment of nuclear warhead fuses to Taiwan in 2006 and the roadside ditching of a Minuteman III missile being transferred to its silo (see GSN, Aug. 12).
These events led to wholesale restructuring of the Air Force’s nuclear management plans (see GSN, Oct. 27).
The May 23 incident was caused by a faulty battery charger that caught fire at Minuteman III silo facility 40 miles east of Cheyenne, Wyo., and 100 miles north of Denver, Colo. The fire did not enter the missile’s launch tube, Arellano said, and did not threaten to ignite the missile’s solid-rocket fuel. Following standard U.S. policy, she did not say if the missile was currently armed with any nuclear warheads.
Repair crews responded to a bad-wiring indicator five days later and found the fire evidence, determining that it had burned for one or two hours (Dan Elliott, Associated Press/Google News, Oct. 30).
Yesterday’s Air Force report indicated that some duct tape had been used in the silo, drawing criticism from one nuclear-weapon expert.
“The notion that you’re patching up your H-bombs with duct tape is not encouraging,” said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org. “You also have to wonder if you have this sloppy activity that is revealed by a fire happened, how much other sloppy activity has not been detected?” (Tom Roeder, Colorado Springs (Colo.) Gazette, Oct. 30).

[Mr Peppermill]

Israel is going to attack Iran any day now, and rightfully so!

The airforce is ready and just waiting for goverment order.

You gotta love the Israelis.

[Eki]

You gotta love the Israelis.
No we don't. There's no law saying that we've got to love the Israelis.

[Mark in Oshawa]

No we don't. There's no law saying that we've got to love the Israelis.

As usual...you don't understand sarcasm...

[Eki]

As usual...you don't understand sarcasm...
Are you sure it wasn't you?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Touche Eki...maybe so...

[markabilly]

Nukes are good, and we can be tranquil, and thankful, and proud,
For mans' been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud.
And we know for certain that some lovely day
Someone will set the spark off, and we will all be blown away.
They're rioting in Africa, there's strife in Iran.
What nature doesn't do to us, will be done by our fellow man.

From out very own website ad:
http://diplomacy.norwich.edu/masters-diplomacy-nc/?gclid=CIaOodOy_ZkCFRKLxwodQCacGQ
hey I want one of these, an MA in diplomacy--where mr. :eek: (i) got his no doubt

[Mark in Oshawa]

The nuclear bomb is by far man kind's worst scrouge potentially, but I would also wager in some ways it has tempered many nations by making us realize that another large war is the end of man kind and maybe making people take a sober second thought at war. It hasn't stopped the petty thugs and dictators from war, but for the most part, the major powers have learned not to fight each other and work through negotiation to end disputes. So there is hope.

[Hondo]

The nuclear bomb is by far man kind's worst scrouge potentially, but I would also wager in some ways it has tempered many nations by making us realize that another large war is the end of man kind and maybe making people take a sober second thought at war. It hasn't stopped the petty thugs and dictators from war, but for the most part, the major powers have learned not to fight each other and work through negotiation to end disputes. So there is hope.

On the morbid flip side, nuclear weapons may be a scourge to man by preventing large, multi-national wars. Large wars held the populations down and created the economic boom that followed WW II. Many of the problems in the news today are in part caused by overpopulation. More people competing for fewer jobs, more people achieving retirement and old age and straining social budgets, more people requiring fuel and energy causing more pollution, etc.

Nuclear weapons may have done their job too well.

[Mark in Oshawa]

On the morbid flip side, nuclear weapons may be a scourge to man by preventing large, multi-national wars. Large wars held the populations down and created the economic boom that followed WW II. Many of the problems in the news today are in part caused by overpopulation. More people competing for fewer jobs, more people achieving retirement and old age and straining social budgets, more people requiring fuel and energy causing more pollution, etc.

Nuclear weapons may have done their job too well.


Fiero...what would stop population growth is prosperity. Western Nations have almost zero population growth and that is a consequence of peace, freedom, sexual equality (women are in control of their wombs now) and prosperity. If much of the 3rd world wasn't run by such corrupt clowns, and princples of economic and personal freedom were left alone, within a few generations a control of population would start to show itself. People with things to do, jobs and lives to work on don't just have 10 babies to keep the generations going. Poor people with no hope do that because having babies is the only thing they can do to hopefully survive into old age.

I would hate to grow up in a time where we need a major war to kill off millions. As you look at history, as awful as WW2 was, the loss of 60 million people around the world really doesn't mean much in light of the growth of the world's population despite those losses.....

[Roamy]

take em out NOW !!

[Hondo]

Mark don't forget WW II came about approx one generation (20 years) after WW I. At the time of WW II, the world population was much less than it has become now and 60 million was a signifigant figure. As far as responsible people practicing birth control and keeping family size down to what they can afford while admirable, doesn't offset the poor breeding like rabbits and creating ever larger social budgets that never go away.

[Roamy]

If I were Israel I would start using the Nuke threat. Saying "Well it looks like we are going to have to Nuke our way to respect in the Middle East" Start issuing radiation suits to your people. Then just then the world may get off their dead asses and take care of this Iran crap once and for all.

[555-04Q2]

If I were Israel I would start using the Nuke threat. Saying "Well it looks like we are going to have to Nuke our way to respect in the Middle East" Start issuing radiation suits to your people. Then just then the world may get off their dead asses and take care of this Iran crap once and for all.

Why :?: Iran is doing nothing wrong.

[steve_spackman]

Why :?: Iran is doing nothing wrong.

Any country in the middle east that does not comply with the wishes of the US or Israel is deemed a threat to world peace!

All Iran has done wrong, is not comply with the wishes of the US and Israel. A prime example can be taken from the Iraq war.


www.aipac.org (http://www.aipac.org)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0323-09.htm

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

[chuck34]

Why :?: Iran is doing nothing wrong.

Perhaps some would see them going against the non-proliferation treaty they signed as doing something wrong. Or perhaps going against UN sanctions compelling them to cease their Uranium enrichment processes.

I suppose some don't see that as being wrong. But most do. Even other countries in the Middle Ease see Iran as a huge threat if they have nukes.

[Eki]

Even other countries in the Middle Ease see Iran as a huge threat if they have nukes.
Such countries as? According to whom?

[schmenke]

Why :?: Iran is doing nothing wrong.

Iran is a threat to the stability of affordable petroleum resources.

[chuck34]

Such countries as? According to whom?

From your favorite source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Middle_Eastern_views

The New York Times newspaper reports Iran's nuclear program has spurred interest in establishing nuclear power programs by a number of neighboring countries, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt. According to the report, "roughly a dozen states in the region have recently turned to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna for help in starting" nuclear programs.[199] The article also described neighbouring states as very hostile to any nuclear weapons program Iran might embark on, stating "many diplomats and analysts say that the Sunni Arab governments are so anxious about Iran’s nuclear progress that they would even, grudgingly, support a United States military strike against Iran."

[airshifter]

Any country in the middle east that does not comply with the wishes of the US or Israel is deemed a threat to world peace!

All Iran has done wrong, is not comply with the wishes of the US and Israel. A prime example can be taken from the Iraq war.


www.aipac.org (http://www.aipac.org)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0323-09.htm

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

Aside from the fact that you are completely out of touch with reality, your usual rambling is at least brief! :laugh:

[anthonyvop]

Any country in the middle east that does not comply with the wishes of the US or Israel is deemed a threat to world peace!



And the problem is?

[Eki]

And the problem is?
Apparently beyond your comprehension.

[Roamy]

One part of me in truth wants to see Iran get nukes. They won't be able to get them over here for a long time if ever. They will be able to get them to the EU.. As soon as this happens the TIRE's will be pissing down both legs trying to figure out how to deal with the problem. And course if they pop Israel you guys are only a few notches up the missile launch angle.

[Eki]

One part of me in truth wants to see Iran get nukes. They won't be able to get them over here for a long time if ever. They will be able to get them to the EU.. As soon as this happens the TIRE's will be pissing down both legs trying to figure out how to deal with the problem. And course if they pop Israel you guys are only a few notches up the missile launch angle.
I can't see any reasons why Iran would want to launch their nukes to the EU, so I won't be pissing down neither of my legs.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Such countries as? According to whom?

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the Emirates, Yemen. Basically any Sunni Muslim state with oil. The Iranians are NOT Arab, and that means something to many in this part of the world. The Shiites are seen as heretics to a lot of Sunni's, and the Iranians are just not Shiite, they are Persians.

There is no love lost between Iran and the rest of the Arab world. They may not always show the dislike, but you didn't see any Arab nations complaining when Iraq and Iran were going at it either.

[555-04Q2]

Iran is a threat to the stability of affordable petroleum resources.

Get a smaller car or a motorbike then, even better, get a bicycle ;)

[chuck34]

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the Emirates, Yemen. Basically any Sunni Muslim state with oil. The Iranians are NOT Arab, and that means something to many in this part of the world. The Shiites are seen as heretics to a lot of Sunni's, and the Iranians are just not Shiite, they are Persians.

There is no love lost between Iran and the rest of the Arab world. They may not always show the dislike, but you didn't see any Arab nations complaining when Iraq and Iran were going at it either.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Get a smaller car or a motorbike then, even better, get a bicycle ;)


Easy for a guy in South Africa to advocate. Fly to Calgary in Febuary and ride the bike to work......or try downtown Toronto in a snowstorm.

Don't be daft man.....modern reality is oil isn't going anywhere and THAT is why people get so nervous when maniacs start threatening other oil producing nations in the Persian Gulf.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

You notice he hasn't replied on that one yet either Chuck. There is no diversion he can make and he hasn't figured a way to hijack the thread....