Why is it even news? It doesnt justify his killing.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Iran Update: Failed IEAE inspection, Preemptive Strikes and SL declaring no nukes
- Thread starter el retorno
- Start date
- Status
Why is it even news? It doesnt justify his killing.
They mostly inspect their powerplants for safety reasons. The countries that NPT 'allows' to have nuclear weapons are supposed to be disarming their stockpiles, but there's not that much pressure to do that.
Dude Abides
Banned
People seem to place lot of weight on bellicose rhetoric from individuals in making claims about Iran's likely intentions. United States Congressman and former presidential candidate Tom Tancredo once said the US should nuke Mecca. Does that mean that the United States is a dire threat to Saudi Arabia?
So whats the point of the treaty then?
I left Iran when I was 17, but constantly travel back since my family still live there. Who said anything about Americans ruling Iran? You're implying that most Iranians support the current regime which is false. The government has supporters but they are definitely not the majority.
And I find your statement about Iranians that love the government to be disturbing. Unless you're Iranian and clearly a government supporter, stop talking about Iran like you know everything about Iranians and whatever happens inside Iran.
el retorno
Member
Sirpopopop
Member
Well that wraps it up. Proof. Bomb Iran away!
el retorno
Member
Where are people saying this?
All it shows is that there are questions and Iran playing games raises suspicion
Sirpopopop
Member
If Barack Obama or George W. Bush said that, then yes.
I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, but I think the logic is sound. A government bending over and revealing all of it's military secrets isn't... well something -any- government would do. If the site was a non-nuclear site, it would be unreasonable to expect Iran to willingly open it up to public audience, especially considering the amount of negative rhetoric they are already facing - I don't think they would be too happy to comply to every whim of the international audience.
el retorno
Member
Thats not what was happening
Suspicions of what? Some people believe its only for Nuclear power. Some, most, think they will develop their own nukes. The doubt was never "if" they are developing nukes, but rather should they be allowed to. I don't want more nations with more nukes, but Iran developing nukes doesn't change much. Iran isn't stupid enough to nuke Israel and Israel won't be stupid enough to nuke Iran.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Iran should just come out and say "Come at me bro!"
This seems like every excuse is trying to be made to go to war with 'em, so they might as well start building up
This seems like every excuse is trying to be made to go to war with 'em, so they might as well start building up
el retorno
Member
Suspicion that they are building nukes. Or the tech to do it.
Yea SA going nuclear after doesn't make the middle east a more dangerous place.
empty vessel
Member
Is your position that any country in which people protest is by virtue of that fact a dictatorship? Is it your position that the measured opinions of Iran is less important than these images?
Or do just hope that by posting these images you can create emotions that will cause people to think irrationally and disregard actual data?
While we're posting images, this one's from the US:
What emotions are you feeling now?
Manticore said:
I'm not implying that most Iranians support the Iranian government. I'm stating it explicitly, because that's what the empirical data reflect. There is a very significant reform element in Iran--not a revolutionary element, mind you--but it does not carry majority opinion inside Iran.
Manticore said:
That's all well and good, because no such statement was ever made. Undoubtedly Iranians love their government like Americans love theirs. Not at all. It doesn't mean they want or desire a revolution. And they sure as hell don't want the US to invade and install the government it thinks Iranians deserve. I don't think either of those statements are remotely disputable.
One thing that you have to understand is that all this talk about Iran by Westerners is specifically to create the conditions that will allow the US and Israel to attack Iran. Encouraging the demonization of the Iranian government--as if it were uniquely intolerable among governments on earth--won't do your family living inside Iran any favors unless they like bombs raining down upon them.
Fair enough, that did feel like a bit of a hyperbole - how about, if we assume there isn't a nuclear weapon program (for the sake of this argument) - Iran wouldn't want to reveal any information about their military they feel is unrelated?
The ME is already a dangerous place. When was the last time it was safe? The Palestinian Israeli conflict hasn't been resolved. That is the main reason for all these other conflicts. Israel has nukes, did that make the ME any safer? Any more dangerous? Pakistan and India have nukes. Does that make them more dangerous? Safer?
I already said I don't want Iran, or any nation for that matter, to have nukes but Iran building nukes won't do shit. Is SA in retaliation develops nukes it won't change shit. Both of these nations would ensure their own destruction by the hands of their own people if they ever even thought of attacking each other. If you measure "danger" simply by who has nor doesn't have nukes, then yeah more dangerous. But if you actually look past the weaponry to the politics or even common sense in terms of using nukes, it doesn't make the region any more dangerous than it is already.
Solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and you resolve all these other conflicts and make the ME safer.
el retorno
Member
You're a joke. In the US elections are not fradulent. Iran they are. And the green revolution was more than just a "protest"Is your position that any country in which people protest is by virtue of that fact a dictatorship? Is it your position that the measured opinions of Iran is less important than these images?
Or do just hope that by posting these images you can create emotions that will cause people to think irrationally and disregard actual data?
While we're posting images, this one's from the US:
What emotions are you feeling now?
Sirpopopop
Member
1. This isn't 2003.
2. Complying with the IAEA and showing that you aren't developing nuclear weapons would shut everyone up. Since, after all this isn't 2003, and no one wants to invade Iran (It's a much more difficult task than invading Iraq) in an incredibly costly ground war.
3. On the other hand, if you think the logic is sound , let's extend the analogy out a bit - Would you agree that it's a good reason for Iran to not show their sites because of the SECRET ISRAELI SPY IN THE IAEA THAT WE HAVE NO PROOF EXISTS AT ALL? Would you then agree that it's absolutely unacceptable to think Iran might be hiding nuclear weapon research because they've continued along their present path despite a UN censure, and, questionable compliance with the IAEA?
el retorno
Member
No first of all the SA v. Iran is sunni Shia and has nothing to do with Israel.
And yes more nukes is dangerous. It emboldens the non-democratic regimes to act without facing consequences. I'm not saying nukes would ever be used.
Voter suppression counts as fraud right? What about lobbyists buying out politicians? Millionaire/billionaire donors whose causes see their way into bill?
Though I do agree that the Iranian youth does want a change in government, maybe even closer in model to the western democracies, but it definitively does not want any US led assistance. They might dislike their current leaders, but there is no great love for the US and western powers for some of their past actions against Iran.
did u miss the quote about Saudi arabia saying they'll get nukes if Iran does? How bout Kuwai, Oman, and the UAE follow?
what does the intention of the scientist have to do with the intention of the government? a lot of the manhattan project scientists were against the actual use of the bomb.
Right it has nothing to do with Israel. But Iran getting nukes has everything to do with Israel. And if in return SA wants nukes, then its all connected.
Iran as a Shia nation only has legitimacy in the majority Sunni Muslim world for its strong stance against Israel, especially in light of some of their own nations cowardice and non support for the Palestinians. If Iran ever decided to attack SA, it would lose any credibility or sympathy within the Muslim world.
This is such BS. US approved non-democratic and democratic nations and leaders have been doing whatever the fuck they want for decades in the ME. Not having nukes didn't stop them. The SA royal family gets way with murder, literally and figuratively, daily simply because of the strong alliances with the west and no retribution for its actions against its own people.
empty vessel
Member
In the US, a court of nine people installed a president in the year 2000.
Why are you ignoring data about Iran and how Iranians feel about the legitimacy of their government? Do you not care about data when forming opinions?
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php
Compare to:
New Low: 17% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed
Sirpopopop
Member
1. Voter suppression in the U.S. is what I consider a "first-world" problem. Yes, it's an issue. Yes, some people are being unfairly disenfranchised as a result of it. However, it's not fraud. No phantom votes are being counted. No votes are being changed in the computers to reflect a desired result.
2. Lobbyists buying out politicians isn't a reflection of our voting system. It's a reflection of the fact that we elect morons into office who aren't fully educated on all the issues. Their idea of research is to just get their information from a lobbyist.
3. Again, this isn't an issue with the system to elect our leaders. By that, I mean the concept of voting for our leaders isn't why these causes see their way into the bill. It's an issue with our two-party system (not mandated by law, but exists just the same), the way the American public gets their information, and the effectiveness of soundbite based political advertising.
This is why the U.S. isn't getting involved in the Iranian revolution.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Wow I didn't realize the Syrian president is killing his own people because of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Is it safe to assume that the impending Iraq civil war and Egypt's military crackdowns are because of Israel/Palestine as well. Sunnis and Shia must be at odds soley because of the Israeli/Palestian conflict.
On the third point - I am not specifically talking about mossad having an operative or anything, but it's not in the nature of a government to reveal their military secrets - if this location has a non-nuclear related secret, then they wouldn't want to show it. Heck, it might be biological warfare.
I'm not specifically saying any situation is happening, like Iran is making a Nuke, or Mossad is behind the IAEA or anything, I'm just trying to think of other possibilities here, because it's all conjecture at this point.
really now... you seem-- just a little naive.
el retorno
Member
They didn't install a president. The stoped a recount which left Bush as the winner. Those 9 people were also indirectly selected by the people. And public opinion doesn't make government's legitement when they have an unelected leader and opress their people.
Seriously? Enough with your false comparisions. The US the people select the government Iran they don't. People being brainwashed into thinking that its democratic doesn't change the fact that it wasn't. And some of the polls used where done by and Iranian university. And others were done by people calling into Iran, people giving their actual opinion.
I'm sure Gaddafi's numbers were high 2 years ago.
yes really. votes count in the US. the people are allowed to select their leaders fairly.
Sirpopopop
Member
Yes, but my initial post wasn't referring to the nature of governments and military secrets. On that point I can see where you are coming from in most situations. I would say that I agree with your point.
My post was referring to theories such as the Secret Israeli Spy theory. I feel that if you are going to demand proof from Western governments, then you should equally apply the same logic before floating out theories like the Secret Israel Spy Theory.
Dude Abides
Banned
Why? It doesn't seem wise to take such statements at face value, even less so to go to war over them. Leaders say a lot of things, a lot of it posturing, and a lot for domestic consumption.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
shinobi602
Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PCaN2KBXnc&feature=channel_video_title
Barring the insipid music and empty words of the author of this video, are all these pro-goverment citizens fakers?
TheContact
Member
It's not really fair to compare the Manhattan project to what Iran's intentions are today...but I'll bite. So what you're saying is that scientists in the Manhattan project didn't want the bomb to be used, yet it was still used. So then by your logic you're saying that another scientist in today's world who WANTS to use the bomb will not use it? Maybe you should re-think your statement.
And let's just assume for arguments sake that he was the ONLY nuclear scientist in Iran who wanted a bomb. I'm pretty sure in America if one of our top nuclear scientists came out and said he wanted to a nuke to wipe out another country, he wouldn't be employed anymore.
Sirpopopop
Member
No one went to war over Ahmadinejad's statements. We can all agree that no one would go to war over statements.
However, since the "leader" (yeah yeah, I know his true position) of Iran said such statements, it is certainly an alarming suggestion that should raise alarms. He has more influence than someone like Tom Tancredo.
What a joke. How in the world can you type such tripe with a straight face? You even have a natural born Iranian telling you to your face that you're delusional, yet you continue on.
Dude Abides
Banned
But the suggestion is that the US or Israel should go to war if Iran does not demonstrate that it is not developing nuclear weapons, and proof of Iran's ill intent is Achmadinejad's statements. I don't think those statements are very probative as to what Iran would actually do.
empty vessel
Member
Probably so, one was developed with the intent to use it and kill civilians. The other to deter invasion.
Phantast2k
Member
So how many innocent people died or were crippled in the 2000' US election fraud protests?
You're right, the US system is exactly like Irans and equally as corrupt! We have no room to talk guys.
el retorno
Member
Its not happening.
It's not happening.
el retorno
Member
Didn't happen when I worked at a polling station.
TacticalFox88
Banned
We elect our leaders fairly and without fraud? Bwahahhahahaha. Holy shit, were you born after the 2000 elections?
Something Wicked
Member
And this further proves that some people in Iran have completely bought into the regime's propaganda and such people desire to put the propaganda into action. This makes the IRG far more dangerous than any other government organization in the world- more than Pakistan's ISI or North Korea's military.
...And yeah, yeah, "no, the US/Israeli militaries and the CIA/Mossad are the most dangerous"... What a wonderful perspective on the world when one can simply blame the US and or Israel for all the world's problems...
The United State's foreign policy towards the ME has drastically changed over the last couple decades, particularly after 9/11. The US has and will continue to take a far more pro-active role in transforming the region into pro-American, secular, democratic states and most importantly not having safe havens for terrorist groups willing to attack US soil.
And to Manticore : I'm curious as to what your feelings are on the rivalry between the regular army and Revolutionary Guard?
- Status