Ahmadinejad: Israel 'will be removed'

[igloo]

Ahmadinejad: Israel 'will be removed'

Tehran (dpa) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the Palestinians and "other nations" will eventually remove Israel from the region.

Addressing a mass demonstration in Tehran - one of many organized throughout Iran to commemorate the 27th anniversary of the Islamic revolution - he once again questioned the Holocaust "fairy tale".

"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them," Ahmadinejad said in a ceremony marking the 27th anniversary of the Islamic revolution.

"Do the removal of Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations," the ultra-conservative president said. He once again called the Holocaust a "fairy tale" and said Europeans have become hostages of "Zionists" in Israel.

He also accused Europeans for not allowing "neutral scholars" to investigate in Europe and make a scientific report on "the truth about the fairy tale of Holocaust."

"How comes that insulting the prophet of Muslims worldwide is justified within the framework of press freedom, but investigating about the fairy tale Holocaust is not?" Ahmadinejad said.

"The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless," Ahmadinejad said.

The president said that the results of the parliamentary elections in Palestine and the victory of the Hamas group "clearly showed what the people really want."

"You (the West) want democracy but do not respect the outcome," Ahmadinejad said, referring to the election results in Iraq and Palestine.

"It seems that you (the West) only want that form of democracy whose results just repeat your standpoints and only follow your policies," he said.

Ahmadinejad once again called on the West to adopt the "simple option" and allow Palestinians to voice their political will through a referendum.

Mass demonstrations organized by the state were held throughout Iran on Saturday as the nation commemorated the 27th anniversary of the revolution that established the Islamic Republic in Iran.

According to state media, hundreds of thousands of people came into the streets to show their solidarity with the government over pursuing the country's nuclear programmes and voice their protest against publication of cartoons deemed insulting to the Prophet Mohammed.

While chanting "Death to America", "Death of Israel" and "Nuclear energy is our undisputable right", the crowd walked toward the Azadi (Freedom) Square in Tehran where Ahmadinejad held his annual speech.

In his speech the Iranian president warned that in case of harsh measures against Tehran over its controversial nuclear programme, the country would revise its commitment toward the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

"The policy of Iran has so far been pursuing nuclear technology within the framework of the NPT and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)," he said.

"But if you (the West) continue efforts to deprive the Iranian nation from this (nuclear) right, then we would reconsider this policy," he warned.

Ahmadinejad asked the crowd in the Azadi square to tell the world its message and show its willingness to continue the nuclear programmes despite Western pressure.

"The era of military force is over, today is the era of nations, logic and worshippers of God," the president said.

He also referred to remarks by United States President George W. Bush who had said that the Iranian people were different from the Islamic government in Tehran, saying there was no distinction.

"Look, this is the third generation standing here and they are even more religious, more informed, more enthusiastic and more resistant (than the first generation) to defend the ideals of the revolution," Ahmadinejad said.

The president also referred to the cartoons and called it a "Zionist plot" against not only Muslims but also those genuinely committed to Christianity and Judaism.

"Those who insulted the prophet should know that you cannot obscure the sun with a handful of dust. The dust will just get back and blind your own eyes," he said.

The crowd replied to his remarks with "Death to Denmark" slogans.

[igloo]

The question is how serious the WORLD will take these, and other, statements from this guy

[igloo]

Thousands would die if U.S. attacked Iran - study

Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:02 PM ET

By Chris Johnson

LONDON (Reuters) - Thousands of military personnel and hundreds of civilians would be killed if the United States launched an air strike on Iran to prevent it developing nuclear arms, a British think tank said in a report released on Monday.

The report by the independent Oxford Research Group said any bombing of Iran by U.S. forces, or by their Israeli allies, would have to be part of a surprise attack on a range of facilities including urban areas that would catch many Iranians unprotected.

"I think there is at least a 50:50 risk of some sort of real crisis, probably with military action, before the end of next year," said the report's author, Professor Paul Rogers of the University of Bradford.

"There is always the possibility that the Israelis do (it). I don't think you can rule that out," he told Reuters.

"For the Israelis, having an Iran which is getting anywhere close to a nuclear weapons capability is simply not acceptable."

An attack could eventually lead to a lengthy confrontation involving many other countries in the region, could mean the closure of the Gulf, and would probably have a "formidable" impact on oil prices, as well as spurring new attacks by Muslim radicals on Western interests, the report said.

"A U.S. military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation," the report said.

THOUSANDS OF DEAD

Such a confrontation would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon as well as the United States and Iran, with the possibility of Arab Gulf states being involved as well.

"Military deaths in (the) first wave of attacks against Iran would be expected to be in the thousands," it said.

"Civilian deaths would be in the many hundreds at least," it added. "If the war evolved into a wider conflict, primarily to pre-empt or counter Iranian responses, the casualties would eventually be much higher."

Western states suspect Iran of secretly aiming to build a nuclear bomb. Tehran says its nuclear facilities are intended to produce only electricity.

Washington and Jerusalem have said they would prefer to solve the dispute through diplomacy but have not ruled out military action.

The report said an attack by the United States or Israel on Iran would probably spur Tehran to work as rapidly as possible toward developing a nuclear military option.

It said U.S. forces, already tied down in Iraq, would have a limited number of military options when dealing with Iran and would have to rely almost entirely on the air force and navy.

Any attack would have a "powerful unifying effect within Iran", bolster the Tehran government, and mean any future U.S. relationship with Iran would be based on violence.

The report concluded that a military response to the crisis would be a "particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further".

[barraquilla]

The question is how serious the WORLD will take these, and other, statements from this guy

I think Israel has already made a declaration against Iran, stating they would not allow Iran to have any nuclear weaponry whatsoever. The U.S. has been pointing to iran for violating the NPT for awhile and now that has been confirmed through the IAEA's report. So now gbr, ger, and frn are supporting the u.s., I think that proves they are being taken seriously. I think it is adequate for the moment, war isn't the only route. Iran does not have the technology to enrich uranium on their own, maybe it's best to look at the source first.

[destruction]

whacked.

[igloo]

I think Israel has already made a declaration against Iran, stating they would not allow Iran to have any nuclear weaponry whatsoever. The U.S. has been pointing to iran for violating the NPT for awhile and now that has been confirmed through the IAEA's report. So now gbr, ger, and frn are supporting the u.s., I think that proves they are being taken seriously. I think it is adequate for the moment, war isn't the only route. Iran does not have the technology to enrich uranium on their own, maybe it's best to look at the source first.

I respectfully disagree....Israel and the U.S. taking action does not mean the WORLD is taking it seriously....was U.S. and Israel activity even in doubt?....Thank God, no.......If Israel takes unilateral action, can any of us truly condemn that....think about it.......

And the fact that the Euro-3 are supporting the U.S. now , or voting to send the matter to the UNSC now, after their delusional hope of diplomacy working prior means shit as well......

All this shit going on is nothing but window dressing, and we have all seen this movie before......

Yes, war isn't the only route...and let's all hope it NEVER comes down to it....but as I said, when crunch time comes, the WORLD needs to stand up and not let this madman have nuclear weapons (unfortunately, I fear that time has already come and passed).

The Security Council must stand united, and that means Russia and China need to actually stand with the rest in this, and I should include India as well. The Security Council must show that they can pass a resolution with REAL TEETH and enforce it....ENFORCE it......don't think that is not a factor in Iran's thinking (they have seen how "well" the UN works).

I think it is time for the world to start taking the threats seriously made by this madman, as the West has made that mistake way too many times.......

I think McCain said it best, and I am paraphrasing because I don;t remember his actual words, but "the only thing worse that military action in Iran is a nuclear armed Iran"

[bigpoppanils]

The Security Council must stand united, and that means Russia and China need to actually stand with the rest in this, and I should include India as well. The Security Council must show that they can pass a resolution with REAL TEETH and enforce it....ENFORCE it......don't think that is not a factor in Iran's thinking (they have seen how "well" the UN works).

India will stand by the US and EU...but only after the US government apologizes for threatening them.

Russia will come around eventually....especially if an energy embargo is threatened by Iran. Russia has a lot to gain from that.

I have no faith that China will come on board. I just hope that they abstain, rather than vote no.

[igloo]

India will stand by the US and EU...but only after the US government apologizes for threatening them.

Russia will come around eventually....especially if an energy embargo is threatened by Iran. Russia has a lot to gain from that.

I have no faith that China will come on board. I just hope that they abstain, rather than vote no.

That is funny, some said the same about those countries and Iraq......

And that is my point--countries, including China, can't abstain....a YES vote is needed by all--and not just some watered down resolution that means nothing except giving Iran more time to do whatever they are doing.....

see bigpoops...no, insults.....

[barraquilla]

I respectfully disagree....Israel and the U.S. taking action does not mean the WORLD is taking it seriously....was U.S. and Israel activity even in doubt?....Thank God, no.......If Israel takes unilateral action, can any of us truly condemn that....think about it.......

And the fact that the Euro-3 are supporting the U.S. now , or voting to send the matter to the UNSC now, after their delusional hope of diplomacy working prior means shit as well......

All this shit going on is nothing but window dressing, and we have all seen this movie before......

Yes, war isn't the only route...and let's all hope it NEVER comes down to it....but as I said, when crunch time comes, the WORLD needs to stand up and not let this madman have nuclear weapons (unfortunately, I fear that time has already come and passed).

The Security Council must stand united, and that means Russia and China need to actually stand with the rest in this, and I should include India as well. The Security Council must show that they can pass a resolution with REAL TEETH and enforce it....ENFORCE it......don't think that is not a factor in Iran's thinking (they have seen how "well" the UN works).

I think it is time for the world to start taking the threats seriously made by this madman, as the West has made that mistake way too many times.......

I think McCain said it best, and I am paraphrasing because I don;t remember his actual words, but "the only thing worse that military action in Iran is a nuclear armed Iran"

Oh, I agree that Iran and any country under international investigation knows how to stall, particularly with un bureaucracy. however, this is about as close to a world response are going to get w/o eminent threat from Iran. we (the u.s.) lost a bit of our credibility internationally after not finding wmd in Iraq. unfortunately, that will be the first thing other nations will point to when discussing Iran. i also agree, russia will probably support the u.s./west because they want to stay in the g8 and perhaps because of their internal issues with chechnya (sp?).

but again, if Iran always had the ability to build labs and enrich uranium, they would have done so earlier. If I recall correctly, they were so desperate for weapons 15 or so years ago, during the iran/iraq war, that they took weapons from Israel. so how is it that in the last five - seven years they managed to do this? There definitely needs to be more investigation.ya know, who is the source of their technoological leap forward?

[barraquilla]

whacked.

you disagree or just think what i wrote was whack?

Mass demonstrations organized by the state

this point is also important to consider. because most people of iran are generally unaware of the outside world, it is the government that spurs, or forces, them to participate in these "demonstrations". notice there are no mass demonstrations against poverty or for a republic. the government in iran only rules by force and religion. if the government declared war on the west, i think they would be surprised by how quickly the average iranian may turn on them in actual war. i mean, they saw what happened to saddam, so i'm guessing if they attacked anyone it would be israel.

[igloo]

Oh, I agree that Iran and any country under international investigation knows how to stall, particularly with un bureaucracy. however, this is about as close to a world response are going to get w/o eminent threat from Iran. we (the u.s.) lost a bit of our credibility internationally after not finding wmd in Iraq. unfortunately, that will be the first thing other nations will point to when discussing Iran. i also agree, russia will probably support the u.s./west because they want to stay in the g8 and perhaps because of their internal issues with chechnya (sp?).

but again, if Iran always had the ability to build labs and enrich uranium, they would have done so earlier. If I recall correctly, they were so desperate for weapons 15 or so years ago, during the iran/iraq war, that they took weapons from Israel. so how is it that in the last five - seven years they managed to do this? There definitely needs to be more investigation.ya know, who is the source of their technoological leap forward?

Well, if this is the best "world response'" we are going to get, than Israel, the region, and the world is in serious trouble.....We CA NOT wait for the threat to become imminent---that is too late, and tragically flawed and irresponsible thinking....

Perhaps the U.S. lost credibility with the WMD debacle in Iraq publicly, but behind closed doors, they all believed Iraq had WMD, in some shape or fashion. Now, while I understand your logic and how that applies in this situation, I dont think that it will be as influential as people think, or are saying it may be.......

Not sure why you believe that Iran does not have the capability to build labs or enrich unranium......the IAEA certainly believes they do, and Iran just announced yesterday they will resume the process of enrichment...the IAEA also claims to have evidence of a "military dimension" to Iran's capabilities.....not sure what you mean about more investigation--we are WAY past that at this point....

To answer your question about where Iran is getting their technology--plenty of places.....N Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China, AQ Khan and the black market, etc....the fact that the IAEA is so out in front of this thing is downright scary......remember, The U.S. completely missed Pakistan and India's capabilities , completey underestimated Iraq's capabilities prior to the 1991 war, took forever to expose/attack the AQ Knan network, etc......

And let's not forget one important thing---the Iranian mouthpiece has made more than his share of threats to Israel, and a few years ago, the Grand Ayatollah said (paraphrasing) " it is their duty under God to get a nuke and destroy Israel, even if it means retaliation that destroys Iran, because they will be matyrs....."

These are not idle threats or barking, and can not b edismissed. To do so would be to repeat the very same mistakes made by those who discounted the threats of Hitler and UBL.......

[barraquilla]

iran does not have a base of nuclear scientists to draw from, they have indeed received help from other countries. i have no data/facts to back up where i think they got the technology from, so i won't speculate. however, i do know that you don't go from begging for stinger missiles to building atomic weapons in 10-15 years. especially not in a country where people have to leave to get a decent education.

also, i am not saying they are idle threats. but, when it is time for action, not saying there will be, expect to hear "but remember... iraq... wmd, etc.". it is never to late to have a concurrent investigation into the source, while trying to find out the level of technology iran has, in a sense, one follows the other. imo, of course.

[igloo]

iran does not have a base of nuclear scientists to draw from, they have indeed received help from other countries. i have no data/facts to back up where i think they got the technology from, so i won't speculate. however, i do know that you don't go from begging for stinger missiles to building atomic weapons in 10-15 years. especially not in a country where people have to leave to get a decent education.

also, i am not saying they are idle threats. but, when it is time for action, not saying there will be, expect to hear "but remember... iraq... wmd, etc.". it is never to late to have a concurrent investigation into the source, while trying to find out the level of technology iran has, in a sense, one follows the other. imo, of course.

10-15 years ago, was , well 10-15 years ago......what took a decade to build at that time, has drastically been reduced today.....again, not sure why you are so skeptical of how close they are, or what in terms of investigations you are looking for..it is unrealistic to expect Iran to open up their "whatever" so we can prove they have a nuke program with military intentions....and from everything I read, they have done a hell of a job (based on others mistakes and experience) in fortifying/protecting their program/capabilities....

It sounds like the IAEA is fairly convinced that there is at least "troublesome" findings...and again,just like Iraq--it is incumbent upon Iran to PROVE they are not developing n-weapons, not the U.N. or the investigations that you are seeking.....

Now, I am sure the "but ...Iraq...WMD..will come up", as it already has....but it does seem like you are the one who is being influenced by the fialure of WMD finds in Iraq with the Iranian issue....understanbly so---however, be careful---the extra step, or the "investigation", or the "wait until it is imminent" is dangerous, and would probably be used by the Iranians to further their efforts, and bring all of us one step closer to the point of no return.....

Again, I hope and pray the military option is not used. And the only way to ensure that is the world get serious about a true united front and serious repurcussions for Iraninan uncooperation, and stand by it....anything less invites the worst...

All this shit aside--do you believe the Iranians are building a nuke?.......personally, I have no doubt they are. I suspect the Israeli's, Americans, Europeans, Chinese, Indians, and Russians have no doubt as well. It will once again come down to how to deal with it. That is what needs to be the focus now.

In the past I have posted some pieces on this issue--feel free to do a search to read them. Anyway, good discussion

[barraquilla]

10-15 years ago, was , well 10-15 years ago......what took a decade to build at that time, has drastically been reduced today.....again, not sure why you are so skeptical of how close they are, or what in terms of investigations you are looking for..it is unrealistic to expect Iran to open up their "whatever" so we can prove they have a nuke program with military intentions....and from everything I read, they have done a hell of a job (based on others mistakes and experience) in fortifying/protecting their program/capabilities....

It sounds like the IAEA is fairly convinced that there is at least "troublesome" findings...and again,just like Iraq--it is incumbent upon Iran to PROVE they are not developing n-weapons, not the U.N. or the investigations that you are seeking.....

Now, I am sure the "but ...Iraq...WMD..will come up", as it already has....but it does seem like you are the one who is being influenced by the fialure of WMD finds in Iraq with the Iranian issue....understanbly so---however, be careful---the extra step, or the "investigation", or the "wait until it is imminent" is dangerous, and would probably be used by the Iranians to further their efforts, and bring all of us one step closer to the point of no return.....

Again, I hope and pray the military option is not used. And the only way to ensure that is the world get serious about a true united front and serious repurcussions for Iraninan uncooperation, and stand by it....anything less invites the worst...

All this shit aside--do you believe the Iranians are building a nuke?.......personally, I have no doubt they are. I suspect the Israeli's, Americans, Europeans, Chinese, Indians, and Russians have no doubt as well. It will once again come down to how to deal with it. That is what needs to be the focus now.

In the past I have posted some pieces on this issue--feel free to do a search to read them. Anyway, good discussion

i don't know how close iran is to a nuclear weapon. if they are close to finishing one, they won't finish it at this point. if one were finished, they would have a completely different attitude/swagger with the west. the conditions inside iran are so bad, i cannot imagine that they believe the people would fight. many are starving, sick, illiterate, etc., they are a theocracy, yes. but that only goes so far when the people are suffering and the government wants war.

anyway, the reason i suggest there be an investigation, is because perhaps one of the biggest contributors to iran's program could be on the security council itself. why attack iran for violating the npt, without holding those who helped accountable as well? i'm sorry but technological advance take more than 10 to 15 years, especially when you consider the level of education the populace has and which subjects are taught most.

and i have read some of the other articles you posted, i often find them one sided. i think it would help me if you posted like a little sentence explaining what you feel about the article is relevant and to what. cause a few of them have been, to my mind, on the hate/fear mongering side. which is fine, but i choose not to read or comment on those. btw, just cause i am posting does not mean i am attacking you, your stance, or anyone else's. i respect a difference of opinion.

k, bye bye, i'm done posting for the day.

[igloo]

i don't know how close iran is to a nuclear weapon. if they are close to finishing one, they won't finish it at this point. if one were finished, they would have a completely different attitude/swagger with the west. the conditions inside iran are so bad, i cannot imagine that they believe the people would fight. many are starving, sick, illiterate, etc., they are a theocracy, yes. but that only goes so far when the people are suffering and the government wants war.

anyway, the reason i suggest there be an investigation, is because perhaps one of the biggest contributors to iran's program could be on the security council itself. why attack iran for violating the npt, without holding those who helped accountable as well? i'm sorry but technological advance take more than 10 to 15 years, especially when you consider the level of education the populace has and which subjects are taught most.

and i have read some of the other articles you posted, i often find them one sided. i think it would help me if you posted like a little sentence explaining what you feel about the article is relevant and to what. cause a few of them have been, to my mind, on the hate/fear mongering side. which is fine, but i choose not to read or comment on those. btw, just cause i am posting does not mean i am attacking you, your stance, or anyone else's. i respect a difference of opinion.

k, bye bye, i'm done posting for the day.

Yes, we do not know how close Iran to to a n-weapon.....but they are close apparently to a lot or reports, and close of course is measured in years..maybe one, two--that is close.

But to say they would have a different swagger if they had one is ludicrous. You mean a swagger more arrogant than the one they have now? Are you sure about what you are stating--they are sticking their middle finger at everyone, and threatening to wipe Israel off the map--I think that is a pretty confident swagger. They do not deny they have nuclear capabilitiies (albeit peaceful ones), and have significant overt investment in the capabilities, and significant covert investment as well....

And here is the point---IT IS TOO LATE to wait for them to have finished their task, or wait for your investigations. Think it through. How would you feel if the final conclusion was an attack on Israel, as their President and Grand Ayatollah have promised? Would you take their swagger more seriously then?

Now, in terms of investigation into their activities, and it may find the Security Council itself complicit in their program---would that surprise you?

And you are right, if they are, they should held be accountable--I could not agree with you more. Funny though--does the same apply to the U.N. and those Security Council members who were complicit in the Oil for Food Scandal? And those who were against a war against Hussein because of financial reasons?

And I think you fail to understand how quickly a nucelar program can accelerate today than compared to 10-15 years ago--that is my point and you should understand that---technological advances, access, proliferation, etc all factor in to capabilities being ramped up quicker than a decade ago.....you act like everything Iran is doing is homegrown in a cave without outside help....again, you are contradictory in your statements--you talk about complicity in teh Security Council, yet assume know-how is only coming from the Iranian populace...

and BTW--overall, the Iranian populace are not the the backward, starving, uneducated lot you make them out to be--not sure where you get your information from, but you are wrong.

If you think the articles I post are one-sided, that is your opinion. I like to post articles I believe are more objective than 95% of the bullshit that is posted here. But to say they are fear/hate mongering is absurd, and one-sided on your part. You may not agree with them, but hate mongering is a ridiculous characterization. The problem is people who have your view do not like straight talk, or are blinded by political correctness, or afraid of reality, or quite frankly, ignorant. And if you think that, them provide a comment, or point out where you think there is hate mongering, and I will gladly respond.

But usually those who fasely claim something is hate mongering are the ones that have nothing to contribute to the debate, so then they throw that word around to kill the discussion.

BTW- As a suggestion, you may want to be more concerned about the hate mongering coming at us and the West, or in this case Iran towards Israel. That is hate.

[barraquilla]

Yes, we do not know how close Iran to to a n-weapon.....but they are close apparently to a lot or reports, and close of course is measured in years..maybe one, two--that is close. But to say they would have a different swagger if they had one is ludicrous. You mean a swagger more arrogant than the one they have now? Are you sure about what you are stating--they are sticking their middle finger at everyone, and threatening to wipe Israel off the map--I think that is a pretty confident swagger. They do not deny they have nuclear capabilitiies (albeit peaceful ones), and have significant overt investment in the capabilities, and significant covert investment as well....

i believe if Iran had nuclear weapons at this very moment, their relationship with all other nations would change immediately. arrogance is one thing, a show of force is another.

And here is the point---IT IS TOO LATE to wait for them to have finished their task, or wait for your investigations. Think it through. How would you feel if the final conclusion was an attack on Israel, as their President and Grand Ayatollah have promised? Would you take their swagger more seriously then?

i didn't say wait for anything, there hasn't been a decision yet. (that's why i used concurrent)

in the meant time, more investigation wouldn't hurt, if there is serious danger, the outcome will strengthen that theory, if there isn't, it is better to know now vs. later.

Now, in terms of investigation into their activities, and it may find the Security Council itself complicit in their program---would that surprise you?

nothing surprises me.

And you are right, if they are, they should held be accountable--I could not agree with you more. Funny though--does the same apply to the U.N. and those Security Council members who were complicit in the Oil for Food Scandal? And those who were against a war against Hussein because of financial reasons?

imo, accountability applies to everyone.

And I think you fail to understand how quickly a nucelar program can accelerate today than compared to 10-15 years ago--that is my point and you should understand that---technological advances, access, proliferation, etc all factor in to capabilities being ramped up quicker than a decade ago.....you act like everything Iran is doing is homegrown in a cave without outside help....again, you are contradictory in your statements--you talk about complicity in teh Security Council, yet assume know-how is only coming from the Iranian populace...

and BTW--overall, the Iranian populace are not the the backward, starving, uneducated lot you make them out to be--not sure where you get your information from, but you are wrong.

i fail to understand or assume nothing. my point was, the majority of iranians are undereducated, it benefits the state. there are brilliant iranian doctors and scientists, in iran as well. however, most have been educated (and live) in the west. that was my argument as to why i felt iran could not develop nuclear capabilities alone or in 10 years or less.

If you think the articles I post are one-sided, that is your opinion. I like to post articles I believe are more objective than 95% of the bullshit that is posted here. But to say they are fear/hate mongering is absurd, and one-sided on your part. You may not agree with them, but hate mongering is a ridiculous characterization. The problem is people who have your view do not like straight talk, or are blinded by political correctness, or afraid of reality, or quite frankly, ignorant. And if you think that, them provide a comment, or point out where you think there is hate mongering, and I will gladly respond.

But usually those who fasely claim something is hate mongering are the ones that have nothing to contribute to the debate, so then they throw that word around to kill the discussion.

indeed, anything i post is my opinion. as such, it isn't a false claim because there is no standard by which it can be judged, other than more opinion... like my opinion being "one-sided" is your opinion. i believe that i have commented on some articles, whether i comment or not, does not change my belief that some are biased and did not promote a equal view of an issue. for example, earlier i wrote someone failed to mention the fatwa issued for peace.

i am not ignorant (usually), politically correct (ever) - don't mind straight talk and have no reason to kill a debate. if i ever wanted to not post about something, i would stop typing and the discussion can go on without my presence. simple as that.

BTW- As a suggestion, you may want to be more concerned about the hate mongering coming at us and the West, or in this case Iran towards Israel. That is hate.

i concern myself with hate mongering on all sides. one type is no better than the other, as long as it remains non violent.

[igloo]

i believe if Iran had nuclear weapons at this very moment, their relationship with all other nations would change immediately. arrogance is one thing, a show of force is another.

igloo: I don't think anyone saying they have a nuke right now--I already pointed out reports vary as to when they may have weaponized capabilities. I think you keep missing the point. The only level of arrogance above the one they have now is when they blow up Israel. Their relationships with other nations HAS ALREADY began to change. Arrogance is not one thing, and a show of force is another. Their arrogance is alarming and shoudl be taken serious. A show of force is too late. Quite frankly, I have no idea what you are talking about here because it makes ZERO sense.

i didn't say wait for anything, there hasn't been a decision yet. (that's why i used concurrent)

in the meant time, more investigation wouldn't hurt, if there is serious danger, the outcome will strengthen that theory, if there isn't, it is better to know now vs. later.

igloo: Another area we will have to agree to disagree. What investigation are you looking for? Iran is not going to allow any investigation that is worthwhile, or yields the results you are looking for. Why can't you understand that? And any "investisgation" that even yields the results you desire would still only give the Iranians more time to reach their intended goal.

Time is not on our side. To repeat, the focus now needs to be on stopping them, not trying to prove what everyone already seems to know. Concurrent--not happening. It removes leverage on our side--it is an unrealistc thought.

nothing surprises me.

imo, accountability applies to everyone.

i fail to understand or assume nothing. my point was, the majority of iranians are undereducated, it benefits the state. there are brilliant iranian doctors and scientists, in iran as well. however, most have been educated (and live) in the west. that was my argument as to why i felt iran could not develop nuclear capabilities alone or in 10 years or less.

igloo: Again, where do you get your information from????? The Iranians happen to be, compared to others in the region, very well educated. I have a personal friend from Iran, who has plenty of family there, and the disconnect between perception and reality is enormous. And again, who tis saying the Iranians developed nukes alone??????? I think I have been clear they have undoubtedly recieved help. You seem to be issuing statements for the sake of saying shit, without thinking. BTW--the Pakistani's did OK for themselves in the nuke game, didn't they? I think that is the benchmark you should be using.

indeed, anything i post is my opinion. as such, it isn't a false claim because there is no standard by which it can be judged, other than more opinion... like my opinion being "one-sided" is your opinion. i believe that i have commented on some articles, whether i comment or not, does not change my belief that some are biased and did not promote a equal view of an issue. for example, earlier i wrote someone failed to mention the fatwa issued for peace.

i am not ignorant (usually), politically correct (ever) - don't mind straight talk and have no reason to kill a debate. if i ever wanted to not post about something, i would stop typing and the discussion can go on without my presence. simple as that.

igloo: If you want to throw around the hate mongering comment, be prepared to defend it--which you did not. If you want to throw around the hate mongering comment, show some perspective-which you did not. If you want to throw around the hate mongering comments, realize this is REAL hate mongering, and there is no room for moral equivalency. If you want to throw around the hate mongering comment, apply it to where it belongs, and that is not my posts

i concern myself with hate mongering on all sides. one type is no better than the other, as long as it remains non violent.

responses above

[igloo]

France Says Iran Seeks Nuke Weapons

Feb 16 9:30 AM US/Eastern

Email this story

By GEORGE JAHN

Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria

France accused Iran on Thursday of seeking nuclear weapons in Europe's bluntest criticism to date of Tehran's uranium enrichment plans, while Russia urged its erstwhile ally to re-impose an indefinite freeze on enrichment.

While the United States routinely accused Iran of trying to make such arms, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy's bold statement appeared to reflect mounting exasperation and a tougher stance than European negotiators had previously maintained in their efforts to persuade Iran to suspend nuclear activities.

"No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. It is a clandestine military nuclear program," Douste-Blazy said on France-2 television.

"The international community has sent a very firm message in telling the Iranians to return to reason and suspend all nuclear activity and the enrichment and conversion of uranium, but they aren't listening to us."

France, Britain and Germany have been negotiating with Iran on behalf of the European Union. Europe and the United States fear that Iran is using its nuclear program to build weapons, and the U.N. Security Council will consider Iran's efforts next month.

The council has the power to impose economic and political sanctions. Amid mounting tensions, Iran resumed small-scale uranium enrichment last week.

"Now it's up to the Security Council to say what it will do, what means it will use to stop, to manage, to halt this terrible crisis of nuclear proliferation caused by Iran," Douste-Blazy said.

Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani responded to those comments by saying: "We want civilian nuclear energy, we don't want to have the bomb."

Russia, too, applied pressure.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow's proposal to host Iran's enrichment program was only on the table if Tehran re-imposed a moratorium on such activities at home. He spoke ahead of Monday's meeting in Moscow on the proposal, meant to allay fears Tehran might misuse the technology for weapons.

The meeting is crucial in determining whether international tensions over Iran's program diminish or balloon.

Lavrov, who met with senior EU officials in Vienna on Wednesday, suggested that Russian backing of enrichment on Iranian soil was a long way off.

"When confidence in the Iranian nuclear program is re-established ... we could come back to the possible implementation of the right that Iran has to develop a nuclear energy sector full scale," Lavrov said.

Russia, a traditional ally of Iran, backed Tehran's referral to the Security Council earlier this month on condition the council take up the issue no earlier than March and based on a report being prepared by International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei on the agency's probe into Tehran's nuclear program.

An Iranian official said Wednesday that Tehran would like to avoid having the Security Council take action on its nuclear program and believes Russia's proposal could provide the basis for an immediate short-term solution.

But Iran will not abandon its right to full nuclear technology, including enriching uranium, which is guaranteed under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, said the official, who is knowledgeable about the country's nuclear negotiations.

Iran's deputy nuclear negotiator, Javad Vaeidi, will lead the team heading to Moscow for talks with the Russians, the Iranian official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

"But we have said there are prospects for the proposal to become acceptable and to be implemented," the official said. "We will do our best in good faith to reach that positive conclusion."

Iran confirmed Tuesday it has resumed small-scale uranium enrichment, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited the Natanz plant Wednesday, Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Ahmadinejad's visit to the central Iran plant was widely seen as a gesture of support for scientists involved in the enrichment program. Activities at Natanz had been suspended since October 2003.

"What enemies fear is not production of an atomic bomb, because in today's world atomic bombs are not efficient," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying. "The main fear and concern of enemies is the self-reliance and knowledge of the Iranian nation and the fact that Iranian youth are acquiring peaceful nuclear technology."

The Iranian official said it is a matter of national pride that the country has developed or copied the technology to produce and run centrifuges and the materials used in the centrifuges despite Western efforts to deprive it of nuclear technology.

Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium. Uranium enriched to low level is used to produce nuclear fuel for reactors, while further enrichment makes it suitable for weapons.

Iran had 164 centrifuges in Natanz sealed by the IAEA in 2003. The seals were removed last month when Iran resumed nuclear research. Iranian officials have indicated that Tehran may possess up to 2,000 centrifuges. For large-scale enrichment, Iran has to build up to 60,000 centrifuges.

The official stressed that Iran wants to use nuclear technology purely for peaceful purposes, that it opposes all weapons of mass destruction and favors all countries getting rid of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

U.N. sanctions could damage Iran's economy, and pressure will only strengthen the resolve of the Iranian people to advance their peaceful nuclear technology, the official said.

The official said the Russian proposal could pave the way for negotiations on a longer-term solution that would allow Iran to enrich uranium under the strictest monitoring the IAEA has ever conducted.

___

Associated Press reporters Ali Akbar Dareini in Tehran, Iran, and Angela Charlton in Paris contributed to this report.

[obby]

Russia Warns U.S. Against Striking Iran

Feb 16 11:29 AM US/Eastern

Email this story

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV

Associated Press Writer

MOSCOW

Russia's top military chief on Thursday warned the United States against launching a military strike against Iran and a top diplomat voiced hope that close cooperation with China could help resolve the Tehran nuclear crisis.

With tension mounting over Iran's nuclear programs, Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of Russia's general staff, warned the United States against attacking Iran.

"A military scenario can't be ruled out," Baluyevsky was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.

He said that while Iran's military potential cannot compare to the United States', "it is hard to predict how the Muslim world will respond to the use of force against Iran."

"This may stir the whole world, and it is crucial to prevent anything like that," Baluyevsky was quoted as saying.

Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alekseyev, meanwhile, said that cooperation with China could help push Iran toward accepting Moscow's offer to host Iran's uranium enrichment program.

The Russian proposal has become a centerpiece of international efforts to defuse tensions over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

"We are counting on the continuation of close contacts with our Chinese colleagues and other interested countries," Alekseyev was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency. He added, however, that the Iranian nuclear issue recently had become "sharper," and "it is too early to assess the effectiveness of our joint steps to resolve it."

Iran's ambassador to Moscow said Thursday that Tehran hoped Russia would be able to help resolve the international crisis surrounding the Iranian nuclear program.

"Taking into account the good relations between Russia and Iran, I hope that together we can overcome this crisis which has arisen recently," Gholamreza Ansari said at a meeting with Russian lawmakers.

Ansari confirmed that a delegation is expected to travel to Moscow on Monday to discuss the proposal. He would not say who will lead it, but the Interfax news agency quoted Vyacheslav Moshkalo, a spokesman for the Russian embassy in Tehran, as saying that the team will be headed by Javad Vaeidi, Iran's deputy nuclear negotiator.

Konstantin Kosachev, the head of Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee, said after his discussions with the ambassador that he was satisfied that the Iranians would be coming in good faith.

"Iran understands the seriousness of the situation and is ready to continue discussions between experts to reach a compromise on the Russian proposal," he said. He said he had received assurances that "the delegation is getting ready for talks and will have all the necessary authority for conducting negotiations."

Kosachev also sharply criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks in which he called for Israel's destruction and questioned whether the Holocaust occurred.

"Such statements don't help strengthen Iran's international prestige," he said with Ansari standing at his side.

A Western diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the strong international consensus developed so far, including Russia, "is probably the strongest instrument we have going right now in trying to influence Iranian behavior."

Moscow is deeply concerned about the current Iranian regime's prospects for acquiring nuclear weapons, not only because Russia is geographically located close to Iran, but also because of the impact that could have on other Middle East players' nuclear aspirations, including Saudi Arabia's, the diplomat said.

The diplomat also noted that by aspiring to a central role in resolving the Iran crisis, Russia wanted to show that it could use the contacts it has built up over the years _ including direct communications with the Iranians _ to advance the concerns of the international community.

[igloo]

Reports: China, Iran Near Huge Oil Deal By ELAINE KURTENBACH, AP Business Writer

Fri Feb 17, 8:13 AM ET

SHANGHAI, China - China and Iran are close to setting plans to develop Iran's Yadavaran oil field, according to published reports, in a multibillion-dollar deal that comes as Tehran faces the prospect of sanctions over its nuclear program.

ADVERTISEMENT

The deal is thought potentially to be worth about $100 billion.

According to Caijing, a respected financial magazine, a Chinese government delegation is due to visit Iran as early as March to formally sign an agreement allowing China Petrochemical Corp., also known as Sinopec, to develop Yadavaran.

The Wall Street Journal also reported in Friday's editions that the two sides are trying to conclude the deal in coming weeks before potential sanctions are imposed on Iran for its nuclear ambitions. The report cited unnamed Iranian oil ministry officials familiar with the talks.

The deal would complete a memorandum of understanding signed in 2004.

In exchange for developing Yadavaran, one of Iran's largest onshore oil fields, China would agree to buy 10 million tons of liquefied natural gas a year for 25 years beginning in 2009, the Caijing report said, citing Sinopec board member Mou Shuling.

Chinese and Iranian officials in Beijing said they could not confirm the report.

"I know nothing about this. I can't answer your questions," said Ma Li, a spokeswoman for the National Development and Reform Commission, the planning agency in charge of China's energy and resources industries that Caijing said would dispatch officials to Iran.

Staff at Iran's embassy in Beijing said they were aware of the report but had not heard Mou's remarks, which Caijing said were made at a recent embassy event.

A written statement from the Iranian Embassy noted that the two countries have been working together in various energy fields, "following the rule of mutual benefits and respect in all bilateral cooperation."

Calls to Sinopec's headquarters were not answered late Friday.

The Caijing report said Chinese and Iranian officials met in December for talks on the project. It cited Mou as saying the two governments and companies involved were moving ahead with the deal despite the controversy over Iran's nuclear program.

According to the Caijing report, Sinopec would hold a 51 percent stake in the Yadavaran project, with India's Oil and Natural Gas Corp., or ONGC, taking 29 percent. The remainder would go to Iranian companies and possibly to Royal Dutch Shell PLC, which has also expressed interest, it said.

The report said there was some disagreement over intended capacity, with Iran asking China to agree to daily output of 300,000 barrels of oil, while Sinopec preferred to set a target of 180,000 to avoid excess production.

Sinopec, Asia's largest refiner, has shares traded in New York, London, Hong Kong and Shanghai.

China, seeking oil and gas to fuel its booming economy amid stagnant production at home, has been snapping up energy resources in places as far flung as Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Nigeria and Australia. Its investments in Iran and Sudan have prompted complaints it is undermining diplomatic efforts to bring recalcitrant regimes in line.

Beijing has strongly urged that a diplomatic solution be found to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program.

Western nations fear that Iran plans to develop nuclear weapons, but Iran insists its intentions are purely for generating electricity. Growing international concern about its aims contributed to Tehran being reported to the U.N. Security Council by the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.

On Thursday, France's foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, accused Iran of secretly making nuclear weapons.

The Security Council is due to consider Iran's nuclear activities next month. The council has the power to impose economic and political sanctions on Iran, but members China and Russia could exercise their veto power against such measures.

[barraquilla]

definitely not good timing.

well, except for iran and china, i am interested to see the reaction and how it plays out though. seriously, i doubt there's any danger, i mean we all know both of those governments are headed by sound leaders, who are all about the freedom and well being of their people.

and its okay about my reading comprehension, it was never good.

i am below average in intelligence and use of ellipsis' throw me off.