Time to kick Iran

[Pardalis]

And round and round we go and do-si-do.

 

[Oliver]

And round and round we go and do-si-do.

You're always welcome to provide evidence that Iran is
a threat. That's what this thread is about.

 

[Pardalis]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3039073&postcount=1735

 

[Ziggurat]

Because Iran is no warmongerer.

Wrong. They are warmongers. They just fight those wars with proxies.

And more importantly, they agree to the rules of the IAEA

They can "agree" to them all they want to, they aren't abiding by them. Do you not understand that? Honestly, how clueless are you? How much are you determined to ignore so that you don't have to confront uncomfortable realities?

 

[Oliver]

Wrong. They are warmongers. They just fight those wars with proxies.

They can "agree" to them all they want to, they aren't abiding by them. Do you not understand that? Honestly, how clueless are you? How much are you determined to ignore so that you don't have to confront uncomfortable realities?

Inasmuch aren't they abiding? I thought the discussion is
about a -quote- "Nuclear Holocaust" - not about nuclear
power.

There is no evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons,
and until then, I'm not willing to play the "Saddam-Scapegoater"
again. And you surely still remember the "could come in form of
a mushroom cloud"-Lies. The Iran-Mongering is the same BS again.

 

[Ziggurat]

Inasmuch aren't they abiding?

You're not using that first word correctly, but no, they aren't abiding by IAEA regulations.

There is no evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons,

You confuse evidence with proof. There is no proof, there is evidence.

and until then, I'm not willing to play the "Saddam-Scapegoater"
again.

Of course not, Mr. Chamberlain. Peace in our time.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Because Iran is no warmongerer. And more importantly, they agree
to the rules of the IAEA and therefore: Have the right to build as
many nuclear plants as they like to.

So, If Bush said 'They shout 'DEATH TO HOMOSEXUALS'' you would defend him because he doesn't have a history of putting homosexuals to death? You wouldn't see any chance of a future threat in his statements?

 

[Matteo Martini]

And I agree that this was a pretty slippery slope for even
mention it. But that's no evidence for Iran's plans to have
nuclear weapons, is it?

I never said that there is evidence of Iran' s plans to have nukes.
But, we agree that we can be very unconfortable to have the President of a country with possession of full cycle of enrichment to shout " [..] death to Israel!! ", in front of a crowd which replies " death to Israel!! "
We agree on that?

I disagree - sanctions only fuel the fire of distrust towards the
west. After all - Iran has every right to have nuclear energy since
this is what the IAEA is about - and Iran is playing to the rules.

I think you could/should even be expelled from the U.N. for shouting " [..] death to Israel ".
Let alone having the right of full nuclear enrichment.
I also disagree with you that " sanctions only fuel the fire of distrust towards the
west ", as I see sanctions as the only way to handle the confrontation without having a war.

To say that everyone is allowed to have nuclear power but Iran
isn't - is like saying: According to the constitution, White people
have the right to bear arms, blacks don't have the same right.

Blacks who shout " death to the whites " should have their right revoked.

So to me the whole controversy is about discrimination - not about
facts, logic and international agreements. The Iranians are
playing to the rules. When will the west start to play to the
rules they set up in the first place?

See above.

 

[Oliver]

Two new Articles today that mocks all the wet dreams
of the War-Mongerer out there...

The Big Lie: “Iran Is a Threat”

Former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter tears down the arguments frequently used to build the narrative of Iran as the new enemy. These points are self-evident under minimal scrutiny, and frequently mentioned by informed analysts—yet the cable news stations chronically avoid these arguments completely, broadcasting instead a continuous stream of uncorroborated rhetoric.

Iran’s nuclear energy program:


On every point, the case made against Iran collapses upon closer scrutiny. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mandated to investigate Iran’s nuclear programs, has concluded that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, the IAEA......

Full Article: http://irancoverage.com/2007/10/09/the-big-lie-iran-is-a-threat/

Putin rejects Iran nuclear claims


Moscow has no information that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

But he said Moscow shared the West's concerns that Tehran's nuclear programme had to be "transparent". Mr Putin was speaking after talks in Moscow with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who said the two countries had made progress on the Iran issue. Iran denies accusations that it is seeking to build a nuclear bomb, saying its programme is for civilian use. "We do not have data that says Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons. We do not have such objective data," Mr Putin said at a joint news conference with Mr Sarkozy.


Full Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7037390.stm

 

[jsiv]

Putin is a poopy head.

 

[WildCat]

Two new Articles today that mocks all the wet dreams
of the War-Mongerer out there...

Who's lying Oliver? From the IAEA site:

Fourth, while the Agency so far has been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, Iran and the Secretariat agreed last month on a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues. These verification issues are at the core of the lack of confidence about the nature of Iran´s programme, and are what prompted actions by the Security Council. Iran´s agreement on such a work plan, with a defined timeline, is therefore an important step in the right direction. Naturally, Iran´s active cooperation and transparency is the key to full and timely implementation of the work plan. If the Agency were able to provide credible assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran´s past and current nuclear programme, this would go a long way towards building confidence about Iran´s nuclear programme, and could create the conditions for a comprehensive and durable solution.

Oh, that really inspires confidence! Reminds me of when N. Korea agreed to cooperate and scrap their nuke program. But that Iran agreement is set in stone, right Oliver? No way would they renege on their agreements!

 

[Oliver]

Who's lying Oliver? From the IAEA site:

Oh, that really inspires confidence! Reminds me of when N. Korea agreed to cooperate and scrap their nuke program. But that Iran agreement is set in stone, right Oliver? No way would they renege on their agreements!

Well, I don't know who's lying - besides the
current White House. But maybe you would
rather prefer that Iran withdraws within three
months from the IAEA-Treaty?

Guess what - that's what I would have done a
long time ago if I would eager to wipe Israel
off the map.

There is no evidence for a Threat! Everything
else is WOO!!! By the way: The same type of
wishful WOOing as in "Inside Job".

Did you read the Articles?

The Big Lie: “Iran Is a Threat”

Former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter tears down the arguments frequently used to build the narrative of Iran as the new enemy. These points are self-evident under minimal scrutiny, and frequently mentioned by informed analysts—yet the cable news stations chronically avoid these arguments completely, broadcasting instead a continuous stream of uncorroborated rhetoric.

Iran’s nuclear energy program:

On every point, the case made against Iran collapses upon closer scrutiny. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mandated to investigate Iran’s nuclear programs, has concluded that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, the IAEA......

Full Article: http://irancoverage.com/2007/10/09/t...n-is-a-threat/

Putin rejects Iran nuclear claims

Moscow has no information that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

But he said Moscow shared the West's concerns that Tehran's nuclear programme had to be "transparent". Mr Putin was speaking after talks in Moscow with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who said the two countries had made progress on the Iran issue. Iran denies accusations that it is seeking to build a nuclear bomb, saying its programme is for civilian use. "We do not have data that says Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons. We do not have such objective data," Mr Putin said at a joint news conference with Mr Sarkozy.

Full Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7037390.stm

[SIZE=-1]Iran says will work with IAEA to avert sanctions [SIZE=-1]
Reuters South Africa

[/SIZE][/SIZE]TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will continue its cooperation with the U.N. atomic watchdog to defuse a row over its nuclear programme, an Iranian official said on Sunday, accusing some Western states of trying to disrupt the process.

Six world powers agreed on Friday to delay a vote on tougher U.N. sanctions on Iran until late November at the earliest, to wait for reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and European Union negotiator Javier Solana.

The United States and France had sought swifter action to step up economic and political pressure on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment, which the West suspects is aimed at developing nuclear arms. Iran denies those charges...

Full Article: http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnBLA029148.html

The President Has Accepted Ethnic Cleansing

"Oh yeah. They've done a better job since. But back then, they blew it. When you have a guy like Bush who's going to move the infamous Doomsday Clock forward, and he's going to put everybody in jeopardy and he's secretive and he doesn't tell Congress anything and he's inured to what we write. In such a case, we (journalists) become more important. The First Amendment failed and the American press failed the Constitution. We were jingoistic. And that was a terrible failing. I'm asked the question all the time: What happened to my old paper, the New York Times? And I now say, they stink. They missed it. They missed the biggest story of the time and they're going to have to live with it."

Full Article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...508394,00.html

See? No threat. Not even for paranoid Israeli.
...or Canadians.

 

[jsiv]

Admit it, Oliver,
you're not actually
interested in any
sort of debate or
you'd have answered
the countless
questions people
have asked rather
than ignore half of
them and respond
with "LOL!!!11 UR
CRAZEE I BET U THK
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE
JOB 2!!" to the other
half. All you want to
do is paste your
(primarily Anti-
American, Anti-
Israel) links and have
everyone silently
agree with you with
no protest.

Well, when you're not
outright lying and
assigning people
opinions (like us all
advocating that Iran
be bombed back into
the stone age
tomorrow) they do
not hold, anyway.




(I've heard that more
and more people are
using their cell
phones to browse
the internet, so I
have decided that
22 columns is the
ideal line length.)

 

[Oliver]

Provide evidence for a threat and we can actually have a
factual debate beyond "Woodoo", Propaganda and Paranoia.

The Big Lie: “Iran Is a Threat”
Full Article: http://irancoverage.com/2007/10/09/t...n-is-a-threat/

Putin rejects Iran nuclear claims
Full Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7037390.stm

[SIZE=-1]Iran says will work with IAEA to avert sanctions [/SIZE]
Full Article: http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnBLA029148.html

BUSH Has Accepted Ethnic Cleansing
Full Article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...508394,00.html

 

[jsiv]

I don't think you quite understand what the word threat means, especially when combined with other words like potential.

I have explained my standpoint and opinion numerous times before, as has most people in this thread, so I see little point in repeating it yet again. You choose to not even consider what people are telling you because you've already made up your mind and decided that anyone that stands up to the United States can do no evil and should be defended.

Are you going to at least acknowledge that the majority of people here are not advocating immediate military intervention like you seem to imply that we are? I consider the deteriorating situation with Russia a threat that has to be taken seriously as well (for reasons I have explained before), but that still does not mean that I think we need to start dropping bombs on Moscow tomorrow.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Why do you insist on trying to make your opponents appear more extreme than they are? It is not true that Iran poses an immediate threat to world peace and is intending to start a nuclear war as soon as possible, but neither is it true that the country poses no potential threat to anyone and should be ignored. That's your biggest problem, Oliver. You aren't capable of discussing nuances. It has to be all or nothing with you.


(Also, as a side note, there is little reason for you to force a certain line length on us. It's more annoying than helpful.)

 

[WildCat]

Did you read the Articles?

I also understand them. Your claim that Iran is cooperating with the IAEA is simply wrong. It is clear from the IAEA statement from my last post that Iran has not cooperated, but promised to cooperate some time in the future. They also have a bridge to sell, the Brooklyn model...

 

[Elizabeth I]

Two new Articles today that mocks all the wet dreams of the War-Mongerer out there...

Oliver, the word is warmonger (one who promotes or encourages war), not war-mongerer.

And inasmuch means "in like degree; in like manner; seeing that; considering that; since," and it should be followed by the word as. The correct phrase is "inasmuch as."

As in:
"Inasmuch as you have followed your lazy brother's example and made nothing of yourself, you are also disinherited."

 

[plumjam]

How many of you here going on about how bad Iran/Ahmadinejad is would be willing to pick up a gun and a helmet and walk across the Iranian border to commence the killing?

 

[WildCat]

How many of you here going on about how bad Iran/Ahmadinejad is would be willing to pick up a gun and a helmet and walk across the Iranian border to commence the killing?

I'm guessing the same number that have advocated an invasion - 0. You have picked your avatar well.

 

[Darth Rotor]

How many of you here going on about how bad Iran/Ahmadinejad is would be willing to pick up a gun and a helmet and walk across the Iranian border to commence the killing?

My name is not Jesus Christ, I can't walk on water. Therefore, from here in Texas, I don't think I can walk across the Iranian border and commence the killing. I am also a bit old for that, and at least three months worth of training to get in something approaching the shape to get involved in such an enterprise.

That said: even if you could get me to the Iraq/Iran border (or on an Amphib in the Persian Gulf with a MEU) and trained up, I am still of the opinion that invading Iran isn't a particularly good idea. I allow that I have a short list of prize a-holes in Iran I'd like to see feeding worms as of tomorrow morning (and likewise a few in other places) but that does not require anything resembling an invasion.

Happily for world peace, the NCA does not use my short list as its targeting list.

DR