Iran

Don Karnage The policy toward nuclear armanent which began in 1998 with enriching nuclear energy past a civilian use level predates Ahmadinejad's administration - however there was always the hope that Iran would "democratize" and "the people" who are supposedly this freedom loving, western minded liberal crowd would abandon the hardliner policies.

Thats what you call a bourgeois illusion. There's this conception that most Iranians are just waiting to overthrow their government at the US's request.

I remember when he was elected Iranians emailing the BBC website said that it was important to remember that Iran was more than just down town middle class Tehran.

salafThats what you call a bourgeois illusion. There's this conception that most Iranians are just waiting to overthrow their government at the US's request.

I remember when he was elected Iranians emailing the BBC website said that it was important to remember that Iran was more than just down town middle class Tehran.

Yes, and without this bourgeois illusion there is little to no reason to believe Iran is any different than the hostile anti-american revolutionaries of 1979.

Iran must therefore be considered more than just a potential threat.

Don Karnage

salafThats what you call a bourgeois illusion. There's this conception that most Iranians are just waiting to overthrow their government at the US's request.

I remember when he was elected Iranians emailing the BBC website said that it was important to remember that Iran was more than just down town middle class Tehran.

Yes, and without this bourgeois illusion there is little to no reason to believe Iran is any different than the hostile anti-american revolutionaries of 1979.

Iran must therefore be considered more than just a potential threat.

I think its a little unfair to describe Iran as anti-american as if they just chose america randomly to be their enemy. America had previously supported the Shah.

And I doubt most people in Iran are anti-american. I was just questioning the often heard assertion that they're all liberal and westernized.

salafI think its a little unfair to describe Iran as anti-american as if they just chose america randomly to be their enemy. America had previously supported the Shah.

Do considerations of whether it is fair or who started it make any substantive difference for US and western security?

The fact of the matter is from their inception the revolutionary regime was both belligerent and anti-american. And present circumstances indictate that neither of these two situations has changed. This must therefore be considered a legitimate threat to the United States.

salafAnd I doubt most people in Iran are anti-american. I was just questioning the often heard assertion that they're all liberal and westernized.

You cannot accept they are illiberal based on his popular support and reject their anti-americanism by refusing to accept his popular support as evidence. It's all one policy that got him elected. They elected a government that is very vocally in line with the mullahs policies toward the United States, the West, Israel and supports the mullahs advancements toward nuclear armament.

The only reason popular opinion was a concern - was as a crutch to assert that Iran has the potential to not be a threat and that the leadership represented an "old guard." The policy toward the United States, Israel, the West and nuclear proliferation would remain the same even without popular will - but the hope that a "New Iran" was on it's way is now dashed. It makes the threat even more real.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4647956.stm]BBC News[/url]US warns India over Iran stance

Washington has warned India a landmark deal giving it US nuclear technology may fall through if Delhi does not back a UN motion against Iran.

The deal could "die in Congress" if India does not vote against Iran at a meeting of the UN nuclear watchdog, US Ambassador David Mulford said.

The US is pursuing action against Iran over its apparent nuclear ambitions.

India says it rejects any attempt to tie its stance on Iran to its deal with the US on acquiring nuclear know-how.

'Test of credibility'

Washington agreed last year to share advanced civilian nuclear technology with Delhi, lifting sanctions triggered by India's nuclear tests in 1998.

The deal was struck by President George W Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh but must be approved by the US Congress in order to be implemented.

US Ambassador to India David Mulford said the US is keen to have India's support when UN atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, meets to discuss Iran.

"India has arrived on the world stage and is a very, very important player in the world," he told the Press Trust of India.

"And if it opposes Iran having nuclear weapons, we think they should record it in the vote."

India's failure to do so, he said, would have a "devastating" effect on US Congress members who have yet to approve the nuclear deal.

"I think the Congress will simply stop considering the matter. I think the initiative will die in the Congress - not because the US administration would want it to.

"This should be part of the calculations India will have to keep in mind."

Mr Mulford also said the US had doubts about Indian assurances on the clear separation of its civilian and military nuclear programmes - a key condition of the technology-sharing deal agreed last year.

Ideas set out by India did not meet the "test of credibility", Mr Mulford is quoted by the AFP news agency as saying.

Negotiations on the issue must be completed by the time President Bush visits the country in March, he said.

Iran sanctions threat

Responding to the US ambassador's remarks, Indian foreign ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna said his country's agreement with the US on "civil nuclear energy co-operation... stands on its own merits".

The stance Delhi adopts towards Iran before the UN nuclear watchdog would be determined by its "own independent judgement", Mr Sarna said.

The IAEA meets next week to discuss referring Iran to the Security Council for possible sanctions.

Several Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons. Tehran maintains its nuclear programme has a purely civilian purpose.

BBC News

stupid bullies. :evil:

Much anger do i sense in you

Hayder on HolidayMuch anger do i sense in you

and who r u, seraph v2.0? :roll: 😛

but come on, y shouldnt i be angry - the american government is doing what it (apparently) does best: bullying sovereign states! :roll:

oh you can be angry, i havnt even read the discussion

Version 10.0.1.4 am i. gone has the serpah of old

Hayder on Holidayoh you can be angry, i havnt even read the discussion

lol. i wasnt referring to the entire discussion, just that article posted by admin, above my post. 😛

Bush backs Russian plan for Iran

"The Iranians have said 'We want a weapon' and it's not in the world's interests that they have a weapon," Mr Bush said in Washington.

It was not immediately clear to what Iranian statement the US leader was referring.

hillbilly :roll:

In the recent furore about the cartoons, I believe this subject has been largely ignored.

Today we are alot closer to the endgame. The endgame may be war.

Today Iran was referrred to the Security Council.

In retaliation Iran has ended snap inspections of their nuclear sites, and also say they will (immediately I think) start the enrichment process, which was previously on hold.

Salam

The word of the High street is that these cartoons were designed to provoke Iran into issuing another death fatwa. Fatwas are their specialaility. To invade Iran, any excuse would do.

Mullahs of Tehran can be now expected to get angry and say something similar ordering death of all newpaper editors across Europe. That would really piss off the entire EU.

They had already issued one back in 1989 when the book Satanic Verses was published.

I did not agree with that fatwa either. It is simply wrong to kill an author for writing bad things.

Omrow

you what? 12 when that was issued?

Times change.

Iran has called for a boycott of goods linked to these illustrations in any way. I support that move.

lol Iran hasn't changed they've just become more dangerous. The same people who led the revolution in 1979, are the same people who issued the death warrant against Rushdie in 1989 and the same people who secretly began nuclear enrichment in 1999 and are the same people who will slip dirty bombs to terrorists in Israel in 2009.

And the international community, castrated by this useless Iraq war and by cries of "unbalanced justice" will do nothing to stop them.

Admin. Someone altered my post again. Can you find out why.