Ahmadinejad: THe US must apologize over nuclear issue

[BirraImperial]

Something I need to add here (for a few of you this will be old hat):

I have no respect for religious governments, dictators, or least of all religious dictators. I don't know if His Retardedness Ahmadinejad is both, but he's definitely a dictator, and that's good enough for me.

So, my response to everybody's yakking about respect for Iran's sovereignty? I don't give a flying damn. Dictatorships have no rights. The Iranian government has no rights. No right to nuclear weapons, no right to security against foreign intrustion, no right to privacy of business.

Once Iran's government is in the hands of the citizens, then I'll favor pulling out the inspectors and leaving Iran to research nuclear power (or nuclear weapons). Not before. Democracy is required first, and that is not negotiable.

The Iranian ppl elected Amahnidejad. So don't pull the dictator card here. Sure their system isn't entirely democratic, but Ahmadinejad is not planning to remain in office for longer as he is supposed to.

 

[skadistic]

The Iranian ppl elected Amahnidejad. So don't pull the dictator card here. Sure their system isn't entirely democratic, but Ahmadinejad is not planning to remain in office for longer as he is supposed to.

The people elected who the mullahs told them to elect. Thats like saying Saddam got elected with his 99% approval rating after he murdered his way to the top. Ahmadimadumbnuts will be the mouth piece for as long as the mullahs want.

 

[Photi]

Because if they don't, their nuclear research facilities are going to get bombed out of existence by Israel. I know this, because Israel has already bombed other nations' nuclear facilities at least twice.

highly unlikely, the cost for israel doing it alone would be too much. iran is not iraq. not only that, in order for israel to bomb iran, they have to violate jordanian (or saudi or syrian) airspace and fly over iraq, which means getting approval from the US, (not to mention the need for refueliing) and i don't think the US would give that considering that in effect it would be the US tacitly declaring on Iran, which would give Iran a whole lot of justification to influence the events in Iraq to the detriment of the US. not only that, but israel attacking iran would only give iran that much more justification to pursue nuclear weapons and advanced weapons research. israel is impotent without the US, and i don't think the US can afford an iranian maneuver, military or economic.

 

[Photi]

The people elected who the mullahs told them to elect. Thats like saying Saddam got elected with his 99% approval rating after he murdered his way to the top. Ahmadimadumbnuts will be the mouth piece for as long as the mullahs want.

this shows just about how much you know about iranian politics.

 

[skadistic]

this shows just about how much you know about iranian politics.

It shows I know what I'm talking about. So why don't you correct me then. Show me how the religious counsel that rules the country doesn't had pick who the president will be.

 

[Photi]

It shows I know what I'm talking about. So why don't you correct me then. Show me how the religious counsel that rules the country doesn't had pick who the president will be.

i don't have time atm to do a write up, but this text is selected from here, and is the transcript of recent testimony in front of the House Oversight Committee's National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, October 30, 2007. i

it is more complex than saying the 'mullahs control everything.' people vote for who they want to at the polls.

2. Tehran is not a microcosm of Iran.
One reason why Ahmadinejad’s 2005 election took analysts and observers by surprise is the
fact that Tehran is not a microcosm of Iran. Similar to urbanites around the world, Tehran’s
population is generally more progressive, more informed, and more politicized than the rest
of the country.
Rather than rely on official state television as its sole news source, Tehran boasts much
higher rates of Internet penetration, satellite television viewership, and newspaper
readership. Moreover, political discontent in the capital is exacerbated by exhausting traffic,
suffocating air pollution, and high inflation. This sense of alienation was apparent in the
2005 presidential election, as first-round voter turnout in Tehran was only 33% (as opposed
to 62% nationwide).
Outside of Tehran, Iranians are similarly dissatisfied with the status quo, but they are far less
politicized. Political discussion is usually centered on the lack of viable employment or the
high cost of “meat and onions” rather than a lack of political and social freedoms. This
presents a growing dilemma for journalists and analysts covering Iran.
Though Tehran is the country’s political heart and soul (where the 1979 Revolution took
place) and deserves the lion’s share of the focus, national elections are increasingly being
decided outside of Tehran, given the capital’s low voter turnout. While the seeming gulf
between middle-class north Tehran and working-class south Tehran was emphasized during
the elections, more difficult to reconcile for Iran watchers is the gulf between Tehran and
the rest of the country.

3. Ahmadinejad has failed to deliver on campaign promises, but his fate is uncertain.
Ahmadinejad has failed to deliver on his lofty electoral pledges, namely that he would “put
the oil money on people’s dinner tables.” On the contrary, since his inauguration in August
2005 the country has experienced massive capital flight, a precipitous drop in foreign
investment, rampant inflation, and increased unemployment.
4
There are clear signs that his popularity is fading. In last December’s municipal elections the
president’s political allies were trounced by more moderate and pragmatic politicians. Absent
any drastic occurrence (i.e. a military attack on Iran), this is a trend that should likely
continue in the March 2008 parliamentary elections, as well as the June of 2009 presidential
elections, when Ahmadinejad is up for re-election.
Aware that he lacks support among the urban middle and upper classes, however,
Ahmadinejad has courted economically disenfranchised Iranians in far-off provinces,
promising loans and debt relief. Cognizant of the fact that he lacks favor among the
country’s elite—technocrats, business mangers, journalists, academics and even senior
clerics—he has aimed to curry favor with the country’s paramilitary groups, such as the
bassij, and attempted to co-opt the country’s top military force, the Revolutionary Guards,
by granting them lucrative construction and development projects.
So while popular opinion in Tehran and other urban areas is not sympathetic to
Ahmadinejad, the electoral behavior of the bassij and the IRGC, as well as the opinions of those residing outside the capital, will play an important but unpredictable role in deciding
his fate.

 

[skadistic]

No where did I read that the mulla's don't pick who the people can vote for in that comparison between Tehran and the rest of the country. Bottom if the mulla's want him there he will stay there, if they want him gone they will put some one else in his place who they want. Its not like moderates or liberals are ever barred from elections...... oh wait they are. Because the elections are controlled by not the people but the ruling mullas.

 

[Ramius75]

Will Ahmadinejad apologise for his remarks about Israel?

that will be cool. but he might loss his job.

 

[bhsup]

I think rather than trusting the IAEA, I'll just trust Israel. If they ever end up bombing and destroying an Iranian nuclear plant used to make weapons or weapons grade "stuff", I'll just assume that Iran was guilty.

 

[Trajan12]

Something I need to add here (for a few of you this will be old hat):

I have no respect for religious governments, dictators, or least of all religious dictators. I don't know if His Retardedness Ahmadinejad is both, but he's definitely a dictator, and that's good enough for me.

So, my response to everybody's yakking about respect for Iran's sovereignty? I don't give a flying damn. Dictatorships have no rights. The Iranian government has no rights. No right to nuclear weapons, no right to security against foreign intrustion, no right to privacy of business.

Once Iran's government is in the hands of the citizens, then I'll favor pulling out the inspectors and leaving Iran to research nuclear power (or nuclear weapons). Not before. Democracy is required first, and that is not negotiable.

Something I need to add here.

I have no respect for infidels, democracies or least of all, democratic infidels. I don't know if his phonetically challenged-ness Mr. Bush is both, but he's definitely an infidel, and that's good enough for me.

So my response to everyone yakking about respect for the infidel's sovereignty? I don't give a flying damn. Infidels have no rights.
the American infidel government has no rights. No right to stability in Iraq, no right to homeland security, no right to the safe return of their hostages.

Once America's government is in the hands of Allah, then I'll favour allowing Iraq to return to stability. Not before. Islam is required first and that is not negotiable.

 

[Ramius75]

I think rather than trusting the IAEA, I'll just trust Israel. If they ever end up bombing and destroying an Iranian nuclear plant used to make weapons or weapons grade "stuff", I'll just assume that Iran was guilty.

Thats rather bias isnt it ???
Its like believing in USA when they accuse Iraq of developing WMD and then they proceed to invade the country, killing thousands or more..

History to repeat itself ??

 

[bhsup]

Israel does actually have a track record of destroying actual nuclear programs, though.

 

[cubsfan6506]

highly unlikely, the cost for israel doing it alone would be too much. iran is not iraq. not only that, in order for israel to bomb iran, they have to violate jordanian (or saudi or syrian) airspace and fly over iraq, which means getting approval from the US, (not to mention the need for refueliing) and i don't think the US would give that considering that in effect it would be the US tacitly declaring on Iran, which would give Iran a whole lot of justification to influence the events in Iraq to the detriment of the US. not only that, but israel attacking iran would only give iran that much more justification to pursue nuclear weapons and advanced weapons research. israel is impotent without the US, and i don't think the US can afford an iranian maneuver, military or economic.

What if they fly around through saudie arabia with permision into Iraq. Also I think Iraq would likely denounce the U.S in said move.

 

[Ramius75]

Israel does actually have a track record of destroying actual nuclear programs, though.

And Iran never invade anyone in its republic history.

but looking into the history of Israel air strike on Palestinian target, how many civilian they killed ?

 

[bhsup]

Honestly, I don't know. But if we're going to be comparing strikes, it would make more sense to look at their strike in Pakistan.

 

[George2816]

No where did I read that the mulla's don't pick who the people can vote for in that comparison between Tehran and the rest of the country. Bottom if the mulla's want him there he will stay there, if they want him gone they will put some one else in his place who they want. Its not like moderates or liberals are ever barred from elections...... oh wait they are. Because the elections are controlled by not the people but the ruling mullas.

Hmm what about the USA the population actually doesn't elect no1!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

And Iran never invade anyone in its republic history.

Iran's also never been in a situation where it COULD invade someone, either.

but looking into the history of Israel air strike on Palestinian target, how many civilian they killed ?

Palestine doesn't have a real "military," they're a militia, and they don't have any sort of military complex to put stuff; their buildings are interwined with the civilian homes and shops. Also, Palestine is what, the five miles across, and housing something like two million people. Of course people are going to die who are uninvolved and innocent. But looking at that and saying that Israel hasn't the capability to go on the offensive without massive civilian deaths, or saying that the Israelis have little to no regard for the lives of civilians is terribly narrow-minded and downright ignorant.

I would be the equivalent of putting a SWAT officer on a rooftop, asking him to shoot a lone terrorist* in a densely packed crowd of people sitting on a rooftop across the street. We know he could hit the guy if it were less densely packed with people, but because of the situation, he's more likely to hit a civilian than the terrorist.

*Note that I only used those terms for generic antagonist/protagonist roles, not to imply anything about either Levantine party.

 

[skadistic]

Hmm what about the USA the population actually doesn't elect no1!

Was the double negative done with intent? As you wrote it I can't disagree. So what exactly is your point?

 

[Ramius75]

Honestly, I don't know. But if we're going to be comparing strikes, it would make more sense to look at their strike in Pakistan.

Who strike Pakistan ??

Iran's also never been in a situation where it COULD invade someone, either.

So its good isnt it ??? With a small military that could'nt invade anyone ?

Palestine doesn't have a real "military," they're a militia, and they don't have any sort of military complex to put stuff; their buildings are interwined with the civilian homes and shops. Also, Palestine is what, the five miles across, and housing something like two million people. Of course people are going to die who are uninvolved and innocent. But looking at that and saying that Israel hasn't the capability to go on the offensive without massive civilian deaths, or saying that the Israelis have little to no regard for the lives of civilians is terribly narrow-minded and downright ignorant.

I would be the equivalent of putting a SWAT officer on a rooftop, asking him to shoot a lone terrorist* in a densely packed crowd of people sitting on a rooftop across the street. We know he could hit the guy if it were less densely packed with people, but because of the situation, he's more likely to hit a civilian than the terrorist.

*Note that I only used those terms for generic antagonist/protagonist roles, not to imply anything about either Levantine party.

Or they can choose not to pull the trigger at all. And plan another strike.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

This guy can kiss my ass, that rat fuvck and his country have the blood of some of my friends on there hands. Enough for me to make up my mind, imho.