Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei today refused to make any changes in Iran’s nuclear program as a first step to end the nuclear standoff. On Friday, the six major powers had asked Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment activities as the first condition to start talks on a new economic and political incentive package for the country.
“Have you not tested the Iranian nation? We will vehemently continue our path and will not allow the oppressors to trample upon the nation's rights,” Khamenei said. “Our enemies assume that by masterminding economic sanctions they can bring our nations to its knees but to no avail.” [IRNA]
On Saturday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in Moscow that Iran’s uranium enrichment would have to be suspended. “Our first condition is the freezing, suspension of uranium enrichment,” Lavrov said. “The view of the six is that Iran must cease enrichment of uranium only for the period in which talks last.” [Itar Tass]
Ayatollah Khamenei’s steadfast support of the country’s current nuclear program does not leave much room for a diplomatic end to the standoff. Russia and China are now pushed to support the West in stopping Iran’s enrichment program.
Vatican and Iran join on belief ...
It shouldnt come as a surprise to those who know who is who in Iran. In a dictatorship like Iran, Mullah Khamenei has the last word and it is delusional to think that the executive branch can run the diplomatic machine. Khamenei is the dictator and he has the last word.
Khamanei has publicly adopted a position of moral courage. The issue of suspending uranium enrichment was performed in the past by Iran, with nothing to show for it. It does not appear likely that the Iranians will suspend again. What's more, they have recently been quite open with their nuclear technological gains, showing the world that they possess the technology and that these accomplishments, from the Iranian perspective, require formal acceptance.
Yeah, cuz they know the world doesn't give a fart to what they do and they are going full speed to make the A-Bomb and openly show the birdie to the world. These crazy maniacs in Tehran are not going to stop it.
Mark knows that I am of the old school, believing international relations are not based on principles but on one’s power and ability to form widest coalitions around issues vital to one’s national interests. By not showing any flexibility on the issue (the Russians wanted suspension for the duration of the talks only), the Iranians face the danger of loosing alliances (with Russia and China) that they had worked so hard to build. This is not the way to build coalitions. These are not the best days for Iranian diplomacy.
The leaders of Iran understand that they must complete their nuclear research and build their nuclear infrastructure now while the issue has not been decided. If the Iranians weaken whatsoever, and bow to the americans and israelis, even for a month, or a year, they will never be allowed to continue.
They also understand that in two or three years all of their remaining technical problems will have been solved. Once their nuclear processing capabilities are running at full production and their nuclear infrastructure is firmly established then they'll be happy to chat about agreements and treaties. But nuclear power technology is a fait accompli as far as the Iranians are concerned, and rightfully so.
Iran is an ancient civilisation. The public and leadership there recognise that what might be a serious issues one day has a way of becoming a faint memory five or ten or twenty years later. Thus they will perfect their nuclear technology now, while they can, and in a few years the utterly dishonest and hypocritical objections of the americans and the israelis will become quieter and even less interesting to the rest of the world than they are today.
Mark Konrad, what a load of crap. Iranian regime could have the best nuke facilities if they just ABANDON their suspicious uranium enrichment right the second. The fact is that they're not interested in CIVILIAN nukes. All they want is A-Bomb. Oh by the way, let me remind you that the Islamists have taken over that ancient civilization and there's no god-damn trace of it.
Winston My Good Friend,
The israelis have a nuclear reactor at dimona. israel does not produce electricity for public consumption via nuclear power. The israelis do not permit IAEA inspections of their nuclear facilities at dimona and elsewhere. What is the purpose of the israeli nuclear reactor at dimona?
Nonsensical anti-Israeli diatribe. Israel doesn't threaten their neighbors on a daily basis with another holocaust. Israel doesn't export terrorism around the world. Israel doesn't imprison dissidents, Israel doesn't kill gays, Israel doesn't do what a rogue, backward regime like the IRI does. There's nothing similar between these two nations. And again, just because they have it, allegedly, doesn;t mean crazy people can have it too. Iranians use the cranes, the most peaceful piece of equipment, to hang people. get your facts checked before ranting please. Another nonsensical argument trying to equate a democratic state with a theocratic backward regime? I am surprised...
چاقو در دست زنگی مست خطرناک است. مقایسه کشوری ازاد و اباد مثل اسرائیل با جمهوری اسلامی که در صدر حامیان تروریسم هست اشتباهیست که فقط افراد ضد-اسرائیلی میکنند
The issue is that Iran is led by a theocracy that pursues a deliberate policy of human rights abuses and political disenfranchisement among its own people and support for terrorists abroad. These are not people who we want having nuclear weapons. It's bad enough that they have mortars and EFPs.
Who cares if Israel has nukes? Do you think they will ever use them for any reason other than a retaliatory strike? It certainly hasn't stopped Israel from continuing to experience the death of a thousand cuts from Palestinians, Iranian proxies, and Arab proxies when they could probably just wipe all of their adversaries from the planet. Would Iran exercise such restraint? I hope so, because I think we're going to find out.
Full disclosure: I don't give a hoot for Israel, Iran, or any other mideast faction. I think the entire area is a lost cause that will eventually consume itself rather than seeking to live in peace.
My Good Friend Winston,
Kindly name the facts I stated that are incorrect.
Regardless of the weak excuses you make for israel, that state has nuclear weapons and is not a signatory to the NPT. Iran has every bit as much right to nuclear technology that israel does. The Iranians permit IAEA inspections and israel does not. Why is that and what does israel have to hide?
The israeli government does not dispute the fact that it has nuclear weapons. The politicians are proud of it. It's their implied threat to every country in the region. It's a threat to the world actually since israel is developing ICBMs and submarine based delivery systems along with their existing fighter-bomber capability that extends well beyond the region.
israel uses its nuclear arsenal as a trump card to behave in any way it pleases, with impunity. They and their co-opted shabbos goyim in the West pay lip service to israel "being the only democracy in the region" even though the Arab civilians in Gaza and Palestine would certainly disagree with that claim. The israeli armed forces demand the submission of the Arab civilian communities in Gaza and Palestine then confront and kill civilians with modern military weapons of their own and American manufacture if those civilians resist. It sort of reminds one of Warsaw in 1943, except the soldiers and weapons in that case were German.
What the israelis fear is losing their nuclear monopoly. They want to hold a hammer they can use to implicitly threaten anyone they please, but the game is spoilt if someone else in the region has a hammer too. israel likes dishing it out but they don't like the thought of being on the receiving end. "Trust us" they say, "we're rational and honest and our nuclear weapons don't threaten anybody." Well, unfortunately israel has hardly proved itself rational and trustworthy throughout its existence, particularly in its dealings with the United States. See Pollard and Kadish recently, I can name several others who have spied on the United States on behalf of israel in recent years. In fact Kadish had the same israeli "handler," as Pollard. It's not necessary to look up his name at the moment. A "handler" supervises a network of agents inside a foreign country as you know of course.
In addition to spying on America in its own interests, israel regularly transfers restricted and sensitive American technology to various countries of the world, China to name one. You get the point -- no matter what the apologists would like us to believe israel is hardly America's bestest buddy. Every country has its own interests and israel's interests are not America's interests.
How many Iranian spies have been arrested in the United States, by the way? I can't think of any.
I remember well the israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 in which israeli forces murdered 34 American sailors in cold blood aboard a virtually unarmed American naval vessel in Mediterranean international waters. The israelis smirked about that attack as they released some preposterous excuse about making a "tragic mistake." Read Lt. Commander James Ennes' Assualt on the Liberty for details. He was aboard ship during the heroic israeli attack.
I trust israel about as far as I can throw a forty ton boulder.
Much of the world is held hostage by those neurotic, criminal lunatics who HAVE nuclear weapons today, and hide behind Uncle Shlomo for protection while they create mischief in the region and around the world. It gives me immense pleasure to see one country -- Iran -- tell both israel and Uncle Shlomo to take a hike.
Hanging people from cranes -- ha, whatever. How about shooting innocent civilians with .22 caliber target rifles and M16s, as the israelis do? Oh, wait, are you promoting the phony kosher ideology of tikkun olam (meddling) that the beanie babies use as a cover story to spy and interfere in the affairs of their next door neighbors as well as people in far-off nations? If you are promoting tikkun olam you'll want to have a word with your israeli cousins about their psychotic and sociopathic treatment of the Arabs in Gaza and Palestine.
israelis target innocent civilians, including kids, and explode them with military weapons. I'll bet that bothers you every bit as much as homosexuals being harassed by police in Iran. Well, nah, I bet it doesn't.
After all one million Arabs are not worth one Jewish fingernail, right? I presume the israelis feel the same way about Persians. They certainly felt that way about thirty-four American sailors they murdered in cold blood.
I'll say this to the people and leaders in Iran: regardless of the political grandstanding by cowardly and compromised western politicians, the people of the world are on your side.
Go get another six pack. While you're out, stop by the library and pick up a copy of James Ennes' book Assault on the Liberty. He was aboard ship when the israelis attacked it and killed 34 American sailors.
I can promise you'll give a hoot after you read that.
The timing of your comment was impeccable, as I just purchased a sixpack of Sam Adams this afternoon.
Are you implying that Israel having nukes is a concern? You think they will use them for reasons other than retaliation? And you base this upon the incident with the USS Liberty?
I suspect that I would need to shotgun this sixpack before listening to your rationale in order for it to make any sense.
I understand the frustration that many have towards Israel. But to twist whatever evils they may have committed into a belief that they pose a threat to anyone by having nuclear weapons is pretty wacky.
Your rationale as applied to israel can be applied to Iran in exactly the same manner. israel has 200+ nuclear weapons today. Iran has none. If technicians in Iran managed to cobble together one, or three or five nuclear weapons in the next ten years the Iranian leadership would hardly launch them against israel, a state that has over 200 warheads now and they're building more. The Iranians are not suicidal. That is why the so-called ABM "shield" the United States wants to build in Europe to supposedly protect European nations against an Iranian first strike is almost comical.
Iran attack Europe, or the USA? No person outside of a mental health clinic would take that possibility seriously. One French, or British or American nuclear missile submarine -- ONE submarine, not to mention all the other delivery systems available -- could flatten Iran's hundred largest cities within thirty minutes of an Iranian attack. The Iranians are perfectly aware of that fact and they would conduct themselves accordingly if they had a few nukes. This neocon fantasy scenario that the Iranians might be able to build ten nuclear warheads in the next ten years then they would launch them against Europe is absurd. I would question the intelligence and logical thinking ability of anyone who genuinely fell for that ridiculous suggestion. But that's another subject for another time.
The Iranians have stated that their intention is to develop nuclear technology in order to generate electricity. The IAEA has found them in compliance on that claim. However, if they did develop nuclear warheads in the future I would presume the Iranians would regard them as defensive weapons. israel has nukes, everybody knows it, but the hypocrites in the West look the other way. israel uses its nuclear arsenal to subtly and implicitly threaten every Muslim state in the region. Iran has decided to develop its own nuclear program to counter that threat, and it doesn't need anyone's permission to do it. Especially with a rogue nuclear weapons program five hundred miles down the road in israel. israel's nuclear weapons development was never "approved" by anyone. So the Iranians are perfectly justified in advancing their own nuclear program and ignoring protestations from the West. The Western powers didn't say a thing, and in fact assisted israel in its nuclear weapons development, sometimes consciously, sometimes through israeli duplicity and espionage.
The Iranians ask the perfectly legitimate question "What makes israel a special case? israel has not even signed the NPT which Iran has done. What exactly is the purpose of the NPT if certain states friendly to the United States are not required to sign it?"
The Iranians will likely have nukes of their own eventually. That would be their way of cautioning israel that an attack on Iran, no matter how devastating, will result in mortal damage to israel in response.
Distrust of israel is wacky? Given israel's history of espionage against the United States and murder of American citizens the people who consider israel to be Our Friend are pretty wacky. It makes me despair for our country that so many Americans don't see israel for what it is, a lying, duplicitous, criminal, murderous, self-centered little entity that would gladly watch or help America disappear if it meant the salvation of israel. Fortunately there are millions of Americans who do understand that.
One chapter of James Ennes' book Assault on the Liberty is online. The link to it is below. I would recommend you read it, then go get the book and read the whole thing. If, after finishing that book you can still consider israel to be "Our Friend" I'll buy you a cyber six pack of your favorite beer.
Chapter 6: Air Attack
Again, some load of Islamist-Leftist anti-Israeli crap here. Israel is a democracy and Iran is not. It's a simple reason not to trust Iran with forks and spoon, let alone nukes.
So this blog is for the Iranian regime having nukes? hmmm, another propaganda outlet for the mullahs? cool to know
My Good Friend Winston,
Iran has the same right to nuclear technology that israel does.
You addressed your comment to me and your tone implies that you are arguing against a statement that I made. In reality, you are choosing other convenient arguments to attack. What is your point?
You wrote: “Your rationale as applied to Israel can be applied to Iran in exactly the same manner.”
Oh really? Let’s look again at my reasoning again: “The issue is that Iran is led by a theocracy that pursues a deliberate policy of human rights abuses and political disenfranchisement among its own people and support for terrorists abroad.”
You asked, “Iran attack Europe, or the USA? No person outside of a mental health clinic would take that possibility seriously.”
That is nice. But you are the one who posed the question - not me. My position stands that Iran places little value on human life, based upon the human rights abuses that occur in Iran as a matter of state policy, and that Iran supports terrorists abroad. That does not need to materialize into an attack upon the US or Europe for it to be a concern. I would be troubled if a nuke detonated in the Mideast and I would be troubled if Iran used its nuclear capability as a large bargaining chip for the Mullahs to gain negotiating power in the Mideast. Political rhetoric aside, Iran’s government is composed of many people who are evil.
I have no idea how you can rationally respond to anything that I wrote by going off on a diatribe against “neocons” or against whatever group of people think that Iran will nuke Europe. But if you enjoy slaying that straw man, then have a good time.
I do agree with this statement: “Iran has decided to develop its own nuclear program to counter that threat, and it doesn't need anyone's permission to do it.”
They do, however, need to recognize that there are consequences. And those consequences will not likely be pleasant because most people do not trust theocrats who engage in widespread human rights abuse, who support terrorist organizations, and who fuel insurgencies against emerging democracies.
You pointed out: “The Iranians ask the perfectly legitimate question ‘What makes Israel a special case?’”
It is not a special case. That is why India and Pakistan now have nukes. And we live with those three having nukes because it seems manageable and we have little other choice. Iran is a special case because their leaders are insane. We don’t want insane people to have nukes. Does that sound crazy? I know it sounds crazy to Iran. But, then again, they’re insane.
You asked, “Distrust of Israel is wacky?”
Again, this is not what I wrote or suggested. I’m not sure if you’re attempting a response to what I wrote or if you’re simply assailing another straw man. I asserted that Israel does not pose a threat by having nuclear weapons. As evidence, I would point out that they have not used them or even come close to using them and that we have no reason to believe that they ever will. With Iran, who knows? They’re insane.
You continually discuss this issue in terms of Iran vs Israel, rather than one of simple trust. Most people do not trust Iran. Apparently you do, but your opinion is clearly far outside of the mainstream. Your opinions are based upon information that most people would regard as highly debatable. This does not mean that you are wrong (though I think you are) - it simply means that you have a much tougher job ahead of you, if you want people to agree with you. Setting up straw men and attacking them does nothing for your case. Insisting that Iran is led by sane people and that Israel is somehow a threat are two arguments that will go nowhere because they are unbelievable on their face, unless you've got some convincing evidence. A book that presents one side of the story regarding a mishap off the coast of Israel is not what many would consider convincing.
Joe: The issue is that Iran is led by a theocracy that pursues a deliberate policy of human rights abuses and political disenfranchisement among its own people and support for terrorists abroad.
Mark: israel is led by state-religionists who pursue a deliberate policy of human rights abuses and political disenfranchisement of non state-religionists and the most recent historical inhabitants of the region. They also support terrorists abroad. See Gaza and Palestine, as well as the work of the Mossad outside the borders of israel. You'll like this one: Mossad Agents Arrested In Attempt To Bomb Mexican Congress. It's a relatively benign description of a Mossad operation in Mexico. I have some better ones after that if you ask. If you doubt the story because it's from Voz, here is a link showing a photograph of the actual newspaper and here's the official bulletin released by the Mexican government.
That American-style showboat "concern" for the rights of citizens under this government or that government is complete bilge of course. It's not a concern about human rights it's about finding a convenient excuse to use for attacking America's latest geopolitical enemy. If rights was the issue America would have invaded North Korea and China thirty years ago except America likely would have got its teeth kicked in trying it. "Rights" is the cover story used when the American leadership thinks it can attack another country and get away with it without too much of a fight. The Americans sure miscalculated in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan though.
Those reference links above are the last I'm going to provide since you're not interested in checking them nor are you interested in facts. We'll just chat from now on. If you find any facts I present to be unbelievable, then you disprove them. I'm not going to spend time posting references.
Joe: My position stands that Iran places little value on human life, based upon the human rights abuses that occur in Iran as a matter of state policy, and that Iran supports terrorists abroad.
Mark: My position stands that israel places little value on human life, based upon the human rights abuses that occur in Gaza and Palestine as a matter of state policy, and that israel supports terrorists abroad. You may have heard of the Mossad.
Joe: ....Iran’s government is composed of many people who are evil.
Mark: That's a subjective judgement. I make the same claim about israel, and America for that matter. See Gaza, Palestine and Iraq.
Joe: I have no idea how you can rationally respond to anything that I wrote by going off on a diatribe against "neocons' or against whatever group of people think that Iran will nuke Europe.
Mark: Hardly a diatribe, more like a passive voice argument addressing the standard boilerplate neocon and israel-firster claim that Iran must be vanquished because the possibility exists that someday Iran will attack israel or Europe or America or whoever. That is the primary claim used to justify the ridiculous, multi-billion dollar ABM shield the United States wants to build on Czech and Polish soil. The suggestion that Europe or israel, with their collective nuclear arsenals need an ABM system to protect them from Iran is ludicrous on its face.
Joe: I do agree with this statement: "Iran has decided to develop its own nuclear program to counter that threat, and it doesn't need anyone's permission to do it." They do, however, need to recognize that there are consequences.
Mark: We'll see. I don't think the USA or israel has the nerve or the resources to confront Iran militarily. But, be that as it may, as you mention India and Pakistan and israel developed nuclear technology and didn't suffer consequences. Why should Iran?
To head you off at the pass in case you might bring up the tiresome so-called quote from Ahmadi Nezhad and his supposed threat "to wipe israel off the map":
First off, Ahmadi Nezhad never said any such thing.
Second of all, no Iranian leader, including Ahmadi Nezhad has ever publicly threatend israel. Ahmadi Nezhad has publicly INSULTED israel, and predicted it will disappear, but he has never THREATENED israel.
Third, Ahmadi Nezhad is a bombastic orator who often makes ridiculous statements for the benefit of the hardline clerics and nationalists inside Iran. It's political rhetoric, and is recognized as such by most diplomats. Khruschev banged his shoe on the desk at the U.N. almost fifty years ago and it was privately laughed at. Very few people took his comments about the USSR "leaving America in the dust" (often mistranslated as "we will bury you") as a literal threat. There was no serious talk of attacking the Soviet Union. The fact that the Soviet Union had its own nukes at the time probably dissuaded anyone in the American government from even considering it. The Iranians probably appreciate that last point.
Ahmadi Nezhad evokes similar scorn and ridicule throughout the Western world, and, unfortunately, he does play into the Western media and political propaganda efforts. He unwittingly allows Western politicians to grandstand for the press and pretend to be truly frightened by his statements. However, the reality is Iran has zero nuclear weapons today, and it's doubtful they can produce more than one a year in the near future. That won't even be theoretically possible until two or three years from now.
The fact is, Iran is hardly in a position to seriously frighten any state that possesses nuclear weapons now. States such as israel or the USA, with their hundreds or thousands of stockpiled nuclear warheads are only giving a vaudeville performance when they whimper about the threat from Iran. It sort of reminds me of the (non) threat of WMDs from Iraq.
Joe: And those consequences will not likely be pleasant because most people do not trust theocrats who engage in widespread human rights abuse, who support terrorist organizations, and who fuel insurgencies against emerging democracies.
Mark: I'm not sure what "most" people believe about state religion. I suspect "most" people are actually quite suspicious of a state that requires adherence to a particular religion in order to receive full citizenship benefits. As in israel I mean. I bet those same most people, most of your friends maybe, do not trust state religions that promote religious supremacy. Nor do they trust religious supremacist politicians who treat residents who are not of the approved religion and ethnicity as interlopers and beneath humanity -- and often kill them. See, again, Gaza and Palestine.
Joe: Iran is a special case because their leaders are insane.
Mark: Are you using "insane" as a simple pejorative, or is that some sort of clinical diagnosis? Which leaders in particular? Speaking pejoratively, and in some cases clinically I consider israeli military commanders who order attacks on virtually unarmed American vessels in international waters to be insane. So are the military commanders who order or approve of their troops murdering Arabs in Palestine and Gaza.
Joe: I asserted that Israel does not pose a threat by having nuclear weapons.
Mark: That's your opinion. I disagree. Given their history of behavior I consider the israeli leadership to be every bit as mentally unstable as you claim the Iranian leadership is.
Joe: As evidence, I would point out that they have not used them or even come close to using them and that we have no reason to believe that they ever will. With Iran, who knows? They’re insane.
Mark: Again, that's merely your opinion. How would you possibly know how close israel has come to using nukes? In fact, it's been reported and generally agreed amongst Western military professionals that israel DID consider using nukes during the 1973 so-called Yom Kippur war.
Joe: Most people do not trust Iran.
Mark: Ho hum. More opinion. Who are these "most" people ? Most of your friends? Americans in general? Does "most" mean 51% or more? How would you know what "most" Americans in general think about this issue? If you spend much time in Europe, and I manage to get back there every couple of years to visit my family, I can promise you'll find a far greater distrust of israel there than you will of Iran.
Joe: Your opinions are based upon information that most people would regard as highly debatable.
Mark: What opinions specifically, and what "most" people? "Most" of your friends?
Joe: This does not mean that you are wrong (though I think you are) - it simply means that you have a much tougher job ahead of you, if you want people to agree with you.
Mark: Thanks. I'll consider that a concession on your part. I'm not trying to maneuver people into agreeing with me. I haven't any time for or interest in that. What I'm doing is pointing out hypocrisy, in this case the standards demanded of Iran versus the standards demanded of israel.
Joe: Insisting that Iran is led by sane people and that Israel is somehow a threat are two arguments that will go nowhere because they are unbelievable on their face, unless you've got some convincing evidence. A book that presents one side of the story regarding a mishap off the coast of Israel is not what many would consider convincing.
Mark: "A book that presents one side of the story regarding a mishap off the coast of Israel is not what many would consider convincing."
Ha, that pretty much says it all doesn't it. American sailors murdered by isreal and you reflexively do not want to hear about it. Take my word for it, you had better NOT read that book. It'll ruin everything for you.
I can provide you reams of evidence that israel is thoroughly untrustworthy, they're proven murderers of Americans, they have a history of spying against America, they have a solid history of passing American technology on to potential enemies, they're a very plausible threat to America from several different points of view, and you won't examine it. So I won't bother. You do not really want facts anyway, you want to cling to your beliefs, to steal a line from Barack Obama.
Joe, you can type out all the long screeds you like, but if they're like this I'll knock them down in fifteen minutes as I did this one. I spent most of my time posting html tags around my name and your name to make the text bolder. This opinion stuff and unsupported "most people think this or that" doesn't prove a thing, or mean a thing.
you mention India and Pakistan and israel developed nuclear technology and didn't suffer consequences. Why should Iran?
Because we don’t want our enemies to acquire nukes. Pakistan, Israel, and India are not our enemies. Iran is. You cannot justify indifference to Iran having nukes by pointing fingers at another country. If Venezuela attempts to acquire nukes, I don’t think any rational person will say, “oh, who cares? Israel has them.” That makes no sense.
Ha, that pretty much says it all doesn't it. American sailors murdered by isreal and you reflexively do not want to hear about it.
Actually, I’ve known about the USS Liberty for quite a while already. It’s kind of a big deal. The problem is that I do not view this as evidence that Israel is our enemy or that it will use nuclear weapons for anything other than a defensive retaliation (see my original post). In Operation Desert Storm, almost half of our casualties were from friendly fire. Does this mean that the US Army is the enemy of America? There is an expression in the military: sh*t happens. Unfortunately, when it happens with high explosives, people die.
Those reference links above are the last I'm going to provide since you're not interested in checking them nor are you interested in facts.
Thank you. As for a lack of interest in your facts, it is only to the extent that they’re irrelevant to concerns over Iran having nukes. You may as well provide links to articles about global warming – it’s equally irrelevant. To say that Israel has nukes and therefore Iran should have nukes is not a logical justification. You can only justify it by explaining why Iran should not be regarded as a threat. I would prefer that China not have nukes. But they’ve got them. We cannot realistically undo that. Ditto Israel. But Iran does not have them yet. We should try to prevent it from happening.
You ask how I know what “most” Americans think. Then you followed it immediately with your observation Europeans public opinion. Just as you get a general feel for Europe, I get a general feel in the US. And, yes, I think that many Iranian leaders are insane, in the clinical sense. To think that their regime could somehow be one that is divinely inspired or virtuous in its actions is insane.
This opinion stuff and unsupported "most people think this or that" doesn't prove a thing, or mean a thing.
I agree that it does not prove a thing. But it does mean something. America is a superpower, at least in the near future. For better or worse, what people in this country think has global consequences. (Trust me – I don’t like that any more than you do, but it is reality.)
I'm not trying to maneuver people into agreeing with me.
So you’re content to simply watch things unfold in a manner that you think is unjust? If you do not change opinions, then you will not change any policies. If that is what you want, congratulations. You are well on your way. I never realized how enjoyable it could be to be right while the rest of the world is wrong and to sit off to the side and point out all of the errors. If you do not care about changing opinions, then that is all that you are doing. Have fun. And congrats on knocking down my screed in 15 minutes.
Joe: Because we don’t want our enemies to acquire nukes. Pakistan, Israel, and India are not our enemies. Iran is.
Mark : Who says Iran is our "enemy" neocon Jo-Jo, aside from you? Who? Why? I can make the case that buddying up with oil-rich Iran makes an helluva lot more sense than buddying up with useless israel.
Joe: I've known about the USS Liberty for quite a while already.
Haw, Oh really. I'm sure you get all pissed off about israelis killing Americans.
If the IRGC (the Iranians) had murdered 34 American sailors you would be screaming bloody murder. You would consider that an excuse to kill the entire population of Iran of course. You're a phony.
Joe: Thank you. As for a lack of interest in your facts, it is only to the extent that they’re irrelevant to concerns over Iran having nukes.
Mark Not MY facts Jo-Jo. Simple Facts, available to everyone. If you do not want to examine those facts that's your business. I'm a Catholic. I am beginning to suspect that you are jewish. Am I wrong?
Joe: You ask how I know what "most" Americans think. Then you followed it immediately with your observation Europeans public opinion. Just as you get a general feel for Europe, I get a general feel in the US.
Mark I'll flat out tell you that most Europeans consider the American "leadership" to be mentally unbalanced and dangerous. Please provide sources for your comments regarding what "most americans think." I'm not a pollster but if you question what the average European, from Finland to Spain thinks you will find that there is considerably less fear of Iran than there is of israel. Select any poll that you please that's taken in Europe.
Have fun. And congrats on knocking down my screed in 15 minutes.
You're welcome. Let's take it outside Joe. Nader Uskowi and Mark P. own this blog. They are both gentlemen and I don't want to bother either of them anymore with our personal disagreements. Pleas write me at this e mail address and we'll further discuss these issues. You're an israel-firster and I always enjoy chatting with israel-firsters. By the way, if you don't trust me, I'm sending an eMail from psglv @ sms.at, that's my European address, to Nader and he can verify that it's my email address.
Post a Comment