At U.N. General Assembly
U.S. President Barak Obama, addressing the annual gathering of world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly in New York today, spoke of Iran and the U.S.-Iran relationship. Following are his remarks on Iran. To read the full text of his speech, published by The New York Times, please click here.
“In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors. But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government props up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad. Time and again, it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.
Let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited. We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That is why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Photo Credit: President Barak Obama addressing the U.N. General Assembly. (Yahoo)
Go to yahoo by typing: Reason why U.S. & Israel don't mess with Iran.
Whatelse could he do, Israelis were there watching !
What are your specific objections to Obama's remarks? Any?
The best part was the reference to their bad behavior - so true : "In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads."
Nader Uskowi...Off topic.
For the past five days Pars TV broadcasts to Europe have been cyber attacked.
The US and other superpowers had enough time to give example to the world and eradicate their nuclear weapons. It has been envisioned by already signed international treaties, but they (the West..) have chosen not to do so...
They tolerated and even helped others to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.
Allegations against Iran, are pretexts intended to replace the political system with the one, which will serve the jewish and western goals.
It would be very danger for the West and their puppets' systems, in the PG or ME, when the Islamic Republic would achieve superior scientific and economical developments by the current Islamic system on its own.
They (enemies of Iran) would wither themselves from a jealousness in a case where the Islamic Republic would manage to send its astronauts into the space...
"What are your specific objections to Obama's remarks? Any?"
No objections Nader, however I would note, Israel developed a nuclear weapon program and then denied it existed for 20+ years, then transitioned to a policy of ambiguity for another couple decades- I have believed that Iran will do same- develop capability but never test, and never admit to weapon- maintaining like Israel ambiguity. I am not defending regime, but suggest that a very good set of evidence had best be ready to substantiate an attack- difficult to make legit an attack based on ambiguity.
... and certainly not the President laughing it off later to press corp as "not there, nope, no weapons of mass destruction over there either" re Iraq 01'-10'
Politics is not about jealousness; it’s not a game for children. Politics is about power and the exercise of power. Nothing much to be jealous of the current leaders of Iran; much to be desired however that they exercise their power responsibly and have the long-term interests of the nation in mind. Going back to my original question, what are you specific objections to Obama’s remarks on Iran, or for that matter his remarks on the situation in the Arab world? Appreciate to hear your view.
Well reasoned, understood. I have a hunch Iran might even go further and announce, directly or indirectly, that it's pursuing the so-called Japan option, when they are ready. That's the only reason they insist on enriching so much uranium, no other use for that volume in today's Iran.
Nader Uskowi 4:25PM
I believe that larger part of my comment explains what I think about Obama's remarks on Iran.
I am saying, one can draw conclussion (like I tried), that those remarks are not motivated by a good will, but by continuing strategy of dominance over other nations and systems of the world.
Because over last several decades american policy is influenced by lobbies that want to strenghten israel, Obama's remarks convey also that intention.
Iran, as the only country in region, with its developed culture, sciences and economical potential might set example for an independent development to other countries of the region. If this possibility could come through; without interference, it would prompt changes in other countries to follow an Iranian model of the development.
Because that development, the West might lose some followers (countries) in that region.
Therefore there has been action to hamper Iran's development by continuous sanctions or by regime's change.
Since the Iranian opposition is too weak; - in numbers and the public support, the West has resorted to harsher sanctions in order to worsen economical situation and incite public discontent.
For all these western hostile action, the PRETEXT is needed to neutralize uneducated and naive public opinion.
Obama's remarks use those pretexts (the WMD's fear and exageration of human rights issues) to justify West's strategies again Iran.
My words "jealousness" were used as a secondary meaning -metaphore, so please don't amplify them and substitute them for conclusions like I tried to explain now and before. On the other hand i still believe that there are actions (related to "jealousness"); in politics too, where sanctions are meant to harm other means of countrie's developments in order to deny a possibility that certain ideology could succseed.
Since you use word "children", I would like to mention that your blog published photo with incorrect information that it presents Gen. Pourdastan (among other persons), and so far nobody was interested to correct or investigate that matter. Is this a childish or another kind of ignorance?
-- " Iran, as the only country in region, with its developed culture, sciences and economical potential might set example for an independent development to other countries of the region."--
Iran is NOT the ONLY country in the region with those things and it fares a REALLY distant second to India....and Iran's regime is not doing anything that's strengthening the economy.
Please repost your comment minus the words "negro" and "dick" and it will be published.
Btw this kind of racism is outdated in the 21st century, even by Iranian standards.
In this case I'm not even sorry for not publishing.
India has got over billion people and huge territory with many arable lands, so even if you compare industrial output per number of people you will find that Iran is ahead of India in some fields...
India was not sancioned but helped by other countries, so it have had easier way to achievements.
If you check poverty levels it will tell you that bigger percentage of the population, that lives under poverty levels, is located not in Iran but in India.
Iran does whatever is possible to do in its situation, concentrating its focus on defense industries.
For instance,India just started manufacturing of submarines for its navy and Iran commenced its production of small submarines several years agou...
Anon 4:04---- the question was about economic potential and India's economy is developing much better than is Iran's and India's potential is much greater.
That iran's economy and development are hampered by the policies of the Iranian regime which has led to sanctions, and which has also led to iran's concentrating their industrial development on weapons of war rather than other things that would accelerate development more than weaponry is not really something to advance as a defense for Iran's lagging behind india.
The economies of some countries could develop (for while) for better, if they would join Hitler or declare neutrality in the past...
India's income per capita (per person) is fourfold smaller than that of Iran despite long time of democracy and peaceful times.
I would like to supplement my 6:08PM comment and add my other impressions such as - that Mr. Obama may consider changes in his policy toward Iran; which are not considered at present time, after he will be elected for the second term.
At present, he presents a dogmatic line of thoughts, which will not give too much chances for an attack from the conservatives.
After he will be elected again, Mr. Obama will know that it is his final term and he will not pay any price for pragmatic changes.
He knows that his Nobel Prize's distinguishment obliges him to leave a positive image to the next generations, therefore he might seek a compromise, if events would still give him more time.
He already signaled possibilities for compromises in other critical matters like during ("confidential") conversation with Mr. Medvedev.
That posibility may not come if the israel manages to eradicate it with a provocation, which would drag the US against its "will" into that provocation.
more disingenuous Dysentery.
Obama is not the party unwilling to compromise and all but lackeys of the theocracy understand that.
Post a Comment