What will Iran bomb first?

[RandFan]

...makes no difference to the people who are determined to believe that Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler.

You mean the guy that claims that there are no homosexuals in his country? A country that kills homosexuals. Do you mean the guy that believes in the Apocalypse and hopes for the return of the Mahdi? Do you mean the guy that says he needs nuclear energy because his nation is sitting on one of the largest energy reserves in the world? The man who has turned down offers of nuclear energy from other nations?

Hmmm....

 

[Oliver]

The photos show how the Iranian's themselves translated Khomeini's remarks (which Ahmedinejad quoted) into English, and the BBC link shows Ahmedinejad defending those remarks without once claiming he'd been misquoted due to translation error.

I'm pretty sure the Iranians can do a Farsi-English translation better than you can Oliver.

Wildcat, I have to work using Photoshop on a daily basis. So while
I don't believe that Iranians would put English slogans about the
destruction of Israel onto anything within their country - just like
Americans don't publish slogans in Farsi, I don't believe in Photos.

Provide factual evidence - or at least a Footage of the placards that
you believe to be real. Preferably about slogans like: "We will nuke Iran".

 

[FireGarden]

You mean the guy that claims that there are no homosexuals in his country? A country that kills homosexuals.

That means he's going to nuke Israel?

Do you mean the guy that believes in the Apocalypse and hopes for the return of the Mahdi?

That means he's going to nuke Israel?
He uses the story of the Mahdi for political gain, even saying that the Mahdi is guiding government, and gets criticised for doing so:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703587.html

"If, God forbid, Ahmadinejad means that Imam Zaman [Mahdi] supports the government's actions, this is wrong. Certainly Imam Zaman would not accept 20 percent inflation rates, nor would he support it or many other mistakes that exist in the country today," wrote Gholam-reza Mesbahi Moghadam, a cleric belonging to a powerful faction close to Iranian businessmen and established religious figures.

[...] Imam Mohammad al-Mahdi, the last of 12 Shiite holy figures or imams, is believed to have gone into occultation near what is now the Iraqi city of Samarra. Shiites say he will return when mankind reaches a state of spiritual perfection, rationality and morality.

Since Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005, he has made the "hastening of the coming of Imam Mahdi" an important political theme and used it, for example, to justify slashing interest rates in an effort to help poor Iranians.

Frightening stuff!

Do you mean the guy that says he needs nuclear energy because his nation is sitting on one of the largest energy reserves in the world? The man who has turned down offers of nuclear energy from other nations?

Hmmm....

So old.
The Shah pursued nuclear power, with the support of the USA. Here's the ad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shah-nukeIran.jpg

Even if the oil was going to last for a 1000 years, it makes sense to sell it rather than burn it. And that's ignoring the profit that can be made from the nuclear industry itself. Who will patent the power stations that will be built in 50 years time? Must it be America? Why not Iran? In the next 100 years, the nuclear industry will be big money.

And, finally, would you trust Russia to supply your power stations?

 

[RandFan]

That means he's going to nuke Israel?

You godwined the thread with a reference to hitler. I don't think Hitler nuked anyone. If Hitler is the emodiement of evil then I think murdering people because of their sexual orientation is a fair comparison.

That means he's going to nuke Israel?

That would be a strawman. I never said that Ahmidinejad was going to nuke Israel. It's my assertion that this guy is a religious nutcase who wants weapons grade nuclear fuel and has a stiffie for the elimination of Israel in a political powder keg that is Israel v Palestine.

Since Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005, he has made the "hastening of the coming of Imam Mahdi" an important political theme and used it, for example, to justify slashing interest rates in an effort to help poor Iranians.

And has rachted up his rhetoric against Israel and saught weapons grade nuclear fuel.

And, finally, would you trust Russia to supply your power stations?

If I were Iran? Damn straight. There is nothing that would prevent them from staring the program again.

FG: This isn't only a concern for GWB. The Russians are concerned. The UN is concerned. Washington Post.

Perhaps "it's no big deal" is a convenient rhetorical device but it's not based on an honest assesment of the situation.

 

[FireGarden]

You godwined the thread with a reference to hitler.

I don't think that's fair.
Ahmadinejad is compared to Hitler.
Via Google:
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3427247,00.html

Next time someone mentions Ahmadinejad, I might say they Godwined the thread.

If I were Iran? Damn straight. There is nothing that would prevent them from staring the program again.

If you were Iran?
What if you were America? Would you trust the Russians to supply American power stations?

Perhaps "it's no big deal" is a convenient rhetorical device but it's not based on an honest assesment of the situation.

Who said no big deal? Of course it's a big deal. Iran already has the technology to build a nuclear bomb. It would take them time and resources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Estimate#2007_NIE_on_Iranian_nuclear_program

I'm sure if they are attacked they will build a nuke. How would America stop it? Reduce Iran to the level of North Korea and then below? And expect China to watch as its investments and oil supply gets hit?

 

[RandFan]

I don't think that's fair.

In this instance it is.

If you were Iran?

Yes.

What if you were America? Would you trust the Russians to supply American power stations?

The dynamics aren't the same. If America had a relationship with Russia like Iran, didn't have nuclear weapons, wasn't a super power, was a theocratic dictatorship then yeah. Sure.

Of course it's a big deal. Iran already has the technology to build a nuclear bomb. It would take them time and resources.

And fuel. Don't forget they need to stock pile the fuel.

I'm sure if they are attacked they will build a nuke. How would America stop it? Reduce Iran to the level of North Korea and then below? And expect China to watch as its investments and oil supply gets hit?

Seems like a good reason to use every effort to keep it from happening.

 

[Oliver]

Seems like a good reason to use every effort to keep it from happening.

"Every effort" like what?

The point is that an attack on Iran will give them the ULTIMATE reason/
excuse to finally go and build that damn thing so all the fanatics on the
other side of the isle [US and Iran] are finally going to shut the hell up,
leaving Iran alone.

And then? ... Popcorn?

 

[Ziggurat]

The point is that an attack on Iran will give them the ULTIMATE reason/
excuse to finally go and build that damn thing

What on earth makes you think that the lack of an excuse would ever keep the Iranians from building nuclear weapons?

 

[RandFan]

The point is that an attack on Iran will give them the ULTIMATE reason...

I don't claim to know what the solution is. To think that doing nothing will avert a crisis or that doing something like a pre-emptive strike will start the crisis is just a bunch of speculation. I'm not so presumptious.

I do know that the dumbest thing Iran can do is build a bomb. It will get orders of magnitude numbers of bombs pointed at them for every one they deploy.

Given Ahmadinejad I doubt he cares.

It's really unfortunate becuase Iran could dial down the rhetoric and work with the international community and resolve this issue. When America acts the way Iran is now they are rightly critisized. When Iran does it it's applauded.

 

[Ziggurat]

Please do, since any nation can withdraw from any treaty any time

Actually, they cannot. They must give notice before leaving the treaty. Doing so indicates to the world that they intend to become a nuclear power, and the world will likely respond (as they have with North Korea) unfavorably. But for a signatory to simply violate the treaty would mean that the world wouldn't know who was and wasn't a nuclear power. It undermines the entire basis of the NPT, and could lead to rapid proliferation as countries would have little incentive to abide by the treaty and lots of incentive not to.

What is wrong with Iran, having a deterrent weapons against a US attack?

Rather a nonsequitor from the point under debate (whether or not Iran would stop at one or two nukes).

Pakistan?

Pakistan (and India) was never an NPT signatory. How is it that you don't know this?

If an eight-fold increase in two years is not a rapid growth, God knows what a rapid growth is..

I didn't say it wasn't rapid growth. But you claimed more than that. You claimed that "World is quickly moving to thin-film solar panels energy". Well, it isn't. Even with this increase, solar power makes up a pittance of the world's energy supply. And it will continue to make up a pittance for a long time to come.

Safety against who? Those countries themselves?

Among others. Aren't you familiar with the tanker wars of the 1980's? But also against terrorists, who have struck against shipping before, and will likely try to do so again.

 

[Dragoonster]

I don't claim to know what the solution is. To think that doing nothing will avert a crisis or that doing something like a pre-emptive strike will start the crisis is just a bunch of speculation. I'm not so presumptious.

I do know that the dumbest thing Iran can do is build a bomb. It will get orders of magnitude numbers of bombs pointed at them for every one they deploy.

If I were Iran I'd much rather have things pointed at me than be invaded.

Was getting nukes the dumbest thing Pakistan ever did?

Given Ahmadinejad I doubt he cares.

It's really unfortunate becuase Iran could dial down the rhetoric and work with the international community and resolve this issue. When America acts the way Iran is now they are rightly critisized. When Iran does it it's applauded.

If by "resolve this issue" you mean Iran loses the capacity to build nukes, then you're ignoring their simple concerns beyond the saber-rattling. Iran spews rhetoric yeah, but America spews rhetoric and acts on it. America isn't criticized so much for its rhetoric about Saddam being a madman, terrorist, false claims, etc., we're criticized because we invaded the country.

Can you guarantee that if Iran ceases working for nukes the US will neither invade, nor foment internal strife for say, the next 20 years?

Take away all the rhetoric and all the ideology. A country already allied with one of two nuclear powers in your area quickly allies with the other one (which is a dictatorship at the time), and invades a non-nuclear country on your border as a result of an attack on them. During the following year it calls you one of an "Axis of Evil", another member of which, also on your border, it invades using dubious justification, against most international wisdom. It begins testing the waters for similar justifications it just used to invade your neighbor. It puts part of your armed forces on its FTO, which move could be argued to give justification for an invasion. Surely there's a rather simple national security equation to make here. Get nukes.

 

[Oliver]

What on earth makes you think that the lack of an excuse would ever keep the Iranians from building nuclear weapons?

Because they have a real energy crisis. You would know that
reading international news. They actually have to shut down
major cities due to not being able to supply enough energy.
And "oh boy", the Iranian Citizens aren't happy about that. [Pointing
to next years elections here]

So why do you think they would attack Israel with nukes
given the fact that this is self-destruction. It's stupid to
assume, Iran is going to destroy themselves. There is no
reason whatsoever to think that Iranians are that dumb.

Is there?

 

[Oliver]

I don't claim to know what the solution is. To think that doing nothing will avert a crisis or that doing something like a pre-emptive strike will start the crisis is just a bunch of speculation. I'm not so presumptious.

I do know that the dumbest thing Iran can do is build a bomb. It will get orders of magnitude numbers of bombs pointed at them for every one they deploy.

Given Ahmadinejad I doubt he cares.

It's really unfortunate becuase Iran could dial down the rhetoric and work with the international community and resolve this issue. When America acts the way Iran is now they are rightly critisized. When Iran does it it's applauded.

No. You don't get the point. Israel won't get destroyed by Iranian
Nukes. They're [the Iranians] not going to destroy themselves.

Simple as that.

So all the whining is irrelevant in the first place.

And in contrast to Iran, others do say something stupid and act
on that by invading a country. Iran, on the other Hand, didn't
do that in it's current form of regime since the Iranian Revolution.
So Iran actually is the innocent Regime till today.

And if you're trying to mention support for Hamaz or Hezbollah
here, so what? Your country does it as well to undermine the
Iranian Regime. I don't see how Iran acts more evil than the US
here. It's the same stinking thing.

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat, I have to work using Photoshop on a daily basis. So while
I don't believe that Iranians would put English slogans about the
destruction of Israel onto anything within their country - just like
Americans don't publish slogans in Farsi, I don't believe in Photos.

Provide factual evidence - or at least a Footage of the placards that
you believe to be real. Preferably about slogans like: "We will nuke Iran".

Maybe you should start a thread in Conspiracy Theories about how the New York Times is photoshopping pics of billboards in Tehran. And also, how the BBC mistranslated Ahmedinejad who didn't bother to correct the translation and instead actually defended it!

The sources are reliable, your denial of reality in desperate defense of the Iranian Mullahs is noted.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because they have a real energy crisis.

That's not an answer. That suggests a reason for pursuing nuclear power generation regardless of what they decide to do with weapons. But nothing about your response indicates that they would stop their pursuit of weapons if only they lacked an excuse.

So why do you think they would attack Israel with nukes
given the fact that this is self-destruction.

Did I ever say they would? No, I did not. I've said before, and I'll say again, the threat from a nuclear-armed Iran extends FAR beyond the threat of them using nuclear weapons directly. Suppose, for example, Iran sponsored a 9/11 scale terrorist attack. What would be the response? As it stands now, we would probably attack them and topple their government. But if they had nuclear weapons, would we risk it? Likely not. Nuclear weapons would allow Iran to VASTLY increase their sponsorship of terrorism without fear of their regime being toppled in response. They could also reprise the tanker wars to prop up oil prices, which would be VERY bad for the global economy but great for them. Do you honestly not understand why a nuclear-armed Iran is a serious risk? Are you really so blinded by your reflexive anti-Americanism that you refuse to recognize the danger?

 

[Oliver]

Maybe you should start a thread in Conspiracy Theories about how the New York Times is photoshopping pics of billboards in Tehran. And also, how the BBC mistranslated Ahmedinejad who didn't bother to correct the translation and instead actually defended it!

The sources are reliable, your denial of reality in desperate defense of the Iranian Mullahs is noted.

No, a photo means nothing in todays photoshopped world. As a Skeptic,
you shouldn't buy that at all. You remember that this is what skepticism
is all about, don't you?

Footage would be much harder to fake.

And despite of all of that. A placate in Iran says nothing about the
Iranians Regime. Just like a "Kill Jews" placate in the US says nothing
about the regime.

But I'm sure, being a skeptic yourself, you know that ... Don't you?

So what about the point I made: Nuking Israel is self-destruction to
Iran. You agree?

 

[Oliver]

That's not an answer. That suggests a reason for pursuing nuclear power generation regardless of what they decide to do with weapons. But nothing about your response indicates that they would stop their pursuit of weapons if only they lacked an excuse.

Did I ever say they would? No, I did not. I've said before, and I'll say again, the threat from a nuclear-armed Iran extends FAR beyond the threat of them using nuclear weapons directly. Suppose, for example, Iran sponsored a 9/11 scale terrorist attack. What would be the response? As it stands now, we would probably attack them and topple their government. But if they had nuclear weapons, would we risk it? Likely not. Nuclear weapons would allow Iran to VASTLY increase their sponsorship of terrorism without fear of their regime being toppled in response. They could also reprise the tanker wars to prop up oil prices, which would be VERY bad for the global economy but great for them. Do you honestly not understand why a nuclear-armed Iran is a serious risk? Are you really so blinded by your reflexive anti-Americanism that you refuse to recognize the danger?

No, "What if Doomsday scenarios?" isn't any factual point to act on
suspicions. Iran does have every right to have nuclear Powerplants
and enrich their own nuclear fuel. That's their IAEA-given right, period.

Also, given the fact that they have the right to get Nukes like everyone
else, being a sovereign state, what is your problem with that other than
having no evidence whatsoever for them trying to get their hands on a
nuke?

Even if: It's not your god-damn business. Especially when your country
owns nukes as well. It's no basis for any valid argument - well, besides
racist arguments, of course.

 

[WildCat]

No, a photo means nothing in todays photoshopped world. As a Skeptic,
you shouldn't buy that at all. You remember that this is what skepticism
is all about, don't you?

Footage would be much harder to fake.

Oliver, the Khomeini remarks Ahmedinejad quoted were translated as "wiped off the map" for nearly 3 years without anyone, much less Ahmedinejad, claiming it was mistranslated. All of a sudden an Iranian apologist claims it was a mistranslation, and you automatically decide that is what it really is, solely because it fits your agenda. That's not very skeptical, is it?

Now you're claiming that the pics from the Tehran conference last March were photoshopped! Of course, you provide no evidence at all for this claim...

Why don't you start by showing us the original pics you claim were photoshopped? Be sure to provide the source...

eta: BTW Oliver, the pics from the March 9 conferernce in Tehran were taken by Reuters photographer Morteza Nikoubazl. I eagerly await your expose on how he faked the pics...

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So your evidence for a threat for Israel are photos? Aren't truthers supposed to do that?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1110748deefa7eb37a.jpg[/qimg]

Why does anyone take Oliver seriously?

 

[WildCat]

Why does anyone take Oliver seriously?

No, I just want to see how far he'll go defending his translation fantasy. As it stands, the New York Times and Reuters are faking photographs according to Oliver...