Iran 'to keep enrichment program'

[Pasi Nurminen]

Bold by me.


And you know this how? Iran isn't exactly a stable country nor is it known for it's tolerance of other nations or other viewpoints. What about when the next set of Iranian leaders come to power? Who will they be? Will you trust them too? When it comes to nuclear weapons I think erring on the side of caution is a good policy.

Iran is so much more stable than you're led to believe by Western politicians and media. How can you judge a people you've never seen or interacted with? It's like going to Dallas and expecting to walk into a Western movie. Drop the mullah stereotypes and realize there are just as many progressive politicians in Iran as there are conservatives. In fact, there are a lot more theocrats and warhawks in American government than Iranian.

The only thing I can do is repeat the fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent, and by definition deterrents aren't used in agression. How difficult is it to grasp that Iranians want nuclear weapons because they feel seriously threatened by the American nation-building freedom-bringing juggernaut?

 

[Irish Caesar]

Admittedly, that's pretty difficult to understand when Iran has said it seeks a peaceful power generation program only, refuses any help in doing so, and voices "death to Israel" sentiments.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Iran is so much more stable than you're led to believe by Western politicians and media. How can you judge a people you've never seen or interacted with? It's like going to Dallas and expecting to walk into a Western movie. Drop the mullah stereotypes and realize there are just as many progressive politicians in Iran as there are conservatives. In fact, there are a lot more theocrats and warhawks in American government than Iranian.

The only thing I can do is repeat the fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent, and by definition deterrents aren't used in agression. How difficult is it to grasp that Iranians want nuclear weapons because they feel seriously threatened by the American nation-building freedom-bringing juggernaut?

Bold by me.


I judge them to be unstable because they just had a revolution in 1979 and aren't exactly a democratic nation. I have never been to Iran, but my degree is in Political Science so I have done some study of the topic. It's quite presumptuous of you to assume I have never seen or interacted with anyone from Iran as you are very wrong.

You don't know the statement in bold above to be a fact as you claim it is. It is only your opinion. You may think it is just a deterrent, as is your right to believe as you see fit. I stand by my earlier statement that "When it comes to nuclear weapons I think erring on the side of caution is a good policy."


EDIT - Read your above statement. How was your trip to Iran?

 

[JohnRM]

I'm still waiting for you, happy, to get the basic concept that Iranian nukes are for deterrent purposes only, mostly against American agression, in much the same fashion as North Korea. The lesson is simple: stop being such imperialistic pricks and "rogue nations" will stop developing nuclear weapons. Stop thinking you can do whatever you want in the world and the rest of us just have to take and maybe then you won't be hated so much.

A nation whose stated goal to wipe another nation and, in fact, an entire people off the face of the planet is not a nation that should have access to nuclear arms. We won't even get into their record of supporting and taking part in worldwide terrorist activities.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ Pasi - Quote from your 'stable' government:

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Oct. 26, 2005

 

[amadeus]

I'm still waiting for you, happy, to get the basic concept that Iranian nukes are for deterrent purposes only,

Mostly to deter the Jews from living, right? It's Stalinist radicals like you that always blindly repeat that George Bush is a dangerous lunatic, yet you believe that Iran would not use such a capability when they have demonstrated repeatedly they are not.

The gist of it is, and will always be: white capitalist Christians bad, everybody else good.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

@ sakhunder, John HSOG...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, those words and stated goals of destroying Israel are nothing more than rhetoric designed to keep the Western world on its toes and to ward off an American terrorist attack. The Iranian people must be constantly on guard, because the possibility of American agression against them is very real. I'll say that one more time for effect, there stands a good chance that America will invade Iran in the near future. If your nation was being threatened by a power that has a track record of attacking those who pose no threat whatsoever to itself, what would you do? Would you comply? No! You'd stand up and take whatever measures necessary to defend yourself and prevent an invasion. If any of you were in the same situation, you wouldn't let other nations dictate the path of yours; you'd arm yourselves to the teeth and tell them to waste themselves on your defenses if you felt like it. Americans, would you tolerate Russia, the EU, or even China treating you the way Iran is being treated? Don't you want self determination? The Iranian people do, and you hypocrites are just the kind of people trying to deny it to them and thus further inflame the situation.

 

[Xshayathiya]

And you know this how? Iran isn't exactly a stable country nor is it known for it's tolerance of other nations or other viewpoints. What about when the next set of Iranian leaders come to power? Who will they be? Will you trust them too? When it comes to nuclear weapons I think erring on the side of caution is a good policy.

I hope you're referring to the country strictly for the last 30 years.

 

[Xshayathiya]

Mostly to deter the Jews from living, right?

So is that why Iran has the largest jewish population in the middle east? (outside isreal) so we can kill them all at once conveniently?

 

[Xshayathiya]

@ Pasi - Quote from your 'stable' government:

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."

Iranian Figurehead* President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Oct. 26, 2005

Fixed

:ten chars:

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ Pasi -

You have eloquently justified why Iran should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Fine. I don't agree that Iran harbors no ill-will toward Israel or that it is just rhetoric as you claim, but let's set that aside for a moment.

Should we just sit back and just let it happen? Do we not have the same rights of self-defense of our interests as you just presented for Iran?

I would truly hate to have us simply do nothing as you suggest and be wrong after a mushroom cloud rises from a city full of civilians.

For the third time now: ""When it comes to nuclear weapons I think erring on the side of caution is a good policy."


May I encourage you to no longer include the insults and name-calling as part of your presentation.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Fixed

:ten chars:

Agreed. Figurehead is indeed appropriate, but a figurehead speaks the words approved by his masters.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I hope you're referring to the country strictly for the last 30 years.

Indeed I am. This is part of the tragedy of this situation is that the vast potential of your country is being wasted under the current regime.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

@ Pasi -

You have eloquently justified why Iran should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Fine. I don't agree that Iran harbors no ill-will toward Israel or that it is just rhetoric as you claim, but let's set that aside for a moment.

Should we just sit back and just let it happen? Do we not have the same rights of self-defense of our interests as you just presented for Iran?

I would truly hate to have us simply do nothing as you suggest and be wrong after a mushroom cloud rises from a city full of civilians.

For the third time now: ""When it comes to nuclear weapons I think erring on the side of caution is a good policy."

May I encourage you to no longer include the insults and name-calling as part of your presentation.

Well I disagree, and as both of us have clearly stated our positions, let us agree to disagree and leave the matter to those in power.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Well I disagree, and as both of us have clearly stated our positions, let us agree to disagree and leave the matter to those in power.

Fair enough. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[boarder]

Mostly to deter the Jews from living, right? It's Stalinist radicals like you that always blindly repeat that George Bush is a dangerous lunatic, yet you believe that Iran would not use such a capability when they have demonstrated repeatedly they are not.

The gist of it is, and will always be: white capitalist Christians bad, everybody else good.

If Iran had a nuclear weapon that would make them safe from invasion, which is currently being threatened. They also have 3 nuclear neighbours.
If they used a nuclear weapon they know they would get wiped off the face of the earth themselves. Amongst other reasons.
MAD has been 100 per cent succesful so far and i see no reason why this would not continue if Iran had the bomb. They want to stay in power not get wiped out.
Looking from a perspective where you neither care for either side or not it makes perfect sense for them to want to aquire a nuke for selfr defence. I also dont believe that they would give it to any terrorist organisations for the above reasons as well.
I think alot of what Pas said makes sense, oh and im a white capitalist christian as well

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ boarder -

MAD only works if both sides are rational and actually fear death.

A nuke would make a very impressive weapon for someone with a suicide-bomber's lack of rationality and lack of fear of death.

If you're willing to die to kill others and wanted to kill as many as possible, wouldn't seeking a nuclear weapon be an obvious goal?

 

[boarder]

@ boarder -

MAD only works if both sides are rational and actually fear death.

A nuke would make a very impressive weapon for someone with a suicide-bomber's lack of rationality and lack of fear of death.

If you're willing to die to kill others and wanted to kill as many as possible, wouldn't seeking a nuclear weapon be an obvious goal?

Yes i'd agree regarding MAD eg you wouldnt want Bin laden having a nuke.
But id also say that the Mullahs are the ones that control Iran not the president he is just a puppet for them, I cannot remember the link but I believe they put out a statement that they do not wish the destruction of Israel, also there foreign minister on orders from the mullah's stated that the president was mis quoted, which i do not to believe the case.
And also from what i have read the Mullahs do not want to go to war and are increasingly getting tired of the country being financially troubled by his statements and actions.
But they also feel that they have a inaleable right to nuclear energy, which by international law they are entitiled to therefore the huge fuss they are creating.
Which (some of his statements) can be attributed to the financial situation that the country is finding itself in which he promised to help the lower end of the social economic group but has failed to do this as has bus driver strikes over the last few weeks showen. Therefore he says these things because thats also what got him voted in and he can keep his support with these comments.
Of course this could all be a ploy, but I cannot think that the last thing the Mullah's want to do is to die and lose there grip on power.
And those are alot of my reasons for thinking that they would want to acquire nuclear weapons for self defence reasons. Amongst other things of course as well, like the power they could wield being part of the nuclear club.
They have everything to lose and nothing to gain by a first nuclear strike or giving it to a terror group imo.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ boarder -

We seem to be in complete agreement as to why they would want to have nuclear weapons.


My concerns would be:

1. A terrorist group may gain access to a weapon without the Iranian government's approval or permission.

2. Radical elements in the current government claim a weapon was stolen and let some terrorist organization have one to set off somewhere without the government being held responsible.

3. The situation in Iran destabilizes to the point where the current government, on the verge of losing their grip on power, decides to allow the use as a distraction for their domestic problems. They could claim the weapon was not theirs and any response against them would only serve to unite the Muslim world and thus prop up the embattled government.

4. The current government falls and in the ensuing chaos a terrorist organization gains access to a weapon.

 

[Bugfatty300]

From some of the stuff coming out of Iran, I can say that the mullahs are collectively no better than the president.