The John & would be harlot

Fred
by Fred
29-Oct-2009
 

The sanitized version of an old joke goes like this:

A man approaches a woman in a bar and asks her "If I give you a million dollars will you sleep with me?"  The woman pauses and after some thought says "Yes, I will." The man responds "How about for five dollars?" indignantly she says "Of course not. What kind of a woman do you think I am?" The man replies "I thought we just settled that. I was just haggling over the price."

For the longest time, IRR, the Islamist Rapist Republic, its lobbies and some others were insisting U.S. should meet face to face with the Islamist Rapists and work things out.  Finally U.S. did it in the form of three days of talks between the five plus one and the representatives of the IRR which included a forty five minutes of one on one official meeting between U.S. and IRR emissaries.

Out of these talks came the mutually agreed to understanding that the IRR will deliver eighty percent of its known stockpile of illegally enriched uranium to the West and after further enrichment gets back the resulting fuels rods.

The hitch now is after a de facto acknowledgement of its nuke enrichment program which according to the United Nation Security Council resolutions is illegal, having settled that the IRR is haggling over the amount of the enriched uranium it is willing to part with.

Meanwhile back in Iran, men, women and children are being raped, tortured and murdered by the state and them spinning centrifuges producing more and more stockpiles of dual use materials.  

Before it is too late the sane world has to impose airtight sanctions and at the same time help the enslaved Iranians with material and moral support to overthrow the Islamist menace.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by FredCommentsDate
ادا اطوار اسلامی
5
Dec 05, 2012
مسجد همجنسگرایان
1
Dec 05, 2012
Iranians are legitimate target
10
Dec 04, 2012
more from Fred
 
kharmagas

Mammad I like Seinfeld too

by kharmagas on

Mammad, it seems both of us like Engineering,  both of us like Seinfeld .... and both of us dislike those "patriots" who 'beh khaater-e dastmaal, gheysarieh raa mikhaahand beh aatash bekeshand.' ....... although I am a mortad and you are not!


vildemose

ex-programmer: Great

by vildemose on

ex-programmer: Great Rebuttle series. I enjoyedi it thoroughly.

According to some hard core Iranian Toudehi leftists and Islamists communists (Shariati followers. i.e. Mr. Mammad), if Iran achieves a 'latent stage of nuclear-weapon readiness', it becomes "unattackable"  Is that really a valid argument?

That statement is only true if Iran ceases all of its transnational terrorist activities ( or in the language of Islamist's "true believers", global Shia crescent movement). I hardly think IRI will abandon those "projects" and for that reason it makes the IRI even more vulnerable to deadlier future attacks.

Unfortunately, the entire line of thinking among the Iranian left and Islamist communist  is premised upon false sense of patriotism and security.


ex programmer craig

...

by ex programmer craig on

Where you at, mammad? It's mischief night so don't pretend you are out on a date! And you are a bit old to be egging people's houses! Not to mention much too respectable, I'm sure.


ex programmer craig

by the way...

by ex programmer craig on

You quote Articles of the NPT as the proof of Iran's guilt?

That was really funny! As if there could be any better proof of a treaty violation than the articles of the treaty!

Damn! Think what would happen if people quoted the articles of the Geneva Conventions when they accused somebody of war crimes! How screwed up would that be!? Or how's about they sink so low as to quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when they accuse somebody of human rights violations!? As if that has any bearing on anything, right?


ex programmer craig

Mammad

by ex programmer craig on

 A nation violates the NPT if, (1) secretly makes a nuclear bomb. (2) Aids another member state to do the same. (3) Transfers its nuclear technology to a non-member state.

No, Mammad. A nation is in violation of a treaty when it violates any provision in that treaty. 

I think your willingness to evade the actual treaty text (some of which I provided!) and offer your own interpretation of what the treaty says pretty much says it all. You're dodging for all you are worth. 

I think it's kinda cute that you say Iran only had some minor violations 20 years ago, when the IAEA didn't even know about Iran's nuclear program until... what was it? 2004? And even then they only knew about it because of anti-regime informant. As if the IAEA has any way of knowing about violations  that occurred when only Iran and russia knew about that program! And as if IAEA has any way of knowing how much of IRI's nuclear program remains secret even now! Could you possibly be any more disingenuous?


Mammad

ex-programmer

by Mammad on

Come again! What the devil are you talking about? You quote Articles of the NPT as the proof of Iran's guilt? That is novel. I thought I had heard and read everything, but live and learn, I suppose!

Since you can read, read carefully:

The nuclear program of a nation is monitored by the IAEA through the Safeguards Agreement of a member state with the IAEA. Then, there is the Additional Protocol that gives the IAEA the authority to inspect any place in a country with short notice.

The SA covers all the DECLARED SITES. The AP covers ALL SITES, DECLARED OR NOT.

According to the IAEA Iran was in six minor (their words, not mine)non-compliance with its SA over a period of 20 years. That is it! All of them were addressed and resolved. In its report in February 2008 the IAEA declared that those issues are no longer under active consideration.

In October 2003 Iran signed the Sa'dabad Agreement according to which it carried out the provisions of the AP on a VOLUNTEER basis until February 2006. During that period the IAEA carried out the most exhaustive (their words, not mine) inspection of ANY MEMBER STATE IN ITS ENTIRE HISTORY, but found nothing, aside from the six minor non-compliances 

It is impossible for any nation to prove a negative. Iraq was demanded the same, and we know what happened. You are saying the same.

Iran has not violated the NPT. A nation violates the NPT if, (1) secretly makes a nuclear bomb. (2) Aids another member state to do the same. (3) Transfers its nuclear technology to a non-member state. These are what the NPT says. Iran has not done any of these. You can, of course, make any claim you want.

Again, we should accept your verdict simply because you can read?

Mammad


Mammad

Baraaye tanvir-e afkaar-e omoomi!!

by Mammad on

as they say in Iran!

1. Werner Heisenberg, father of quantum mechanics, Nobel Laureate for physics, and one of smartest people ever lived, together with many other top notch German scientists (including other Nobel Laureates), did try to make a nuclear bomb for the Nazi Germany. They lost the race. Heisenberg was not a Nazi, but a German patriot.

When they were arrested and jailed in a place in Scotland - called The Farm - the US detonated the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagazaki. Their conversations had been listened to at The Farm by the British intelligence. Heisenberg said at The Farm that (approximately, I don't remember the exact words, but can find it easily), "we had made mistakes. We tried the American's path. I did not think it could be done that way." The whole Copenhagen play, the conversation between Heisenberg and Niels Bohr, is about Heisenberg's intention. This is a hotly debated issue, and is still raging.

2. Dr. Ali Shariati's thoughts were for his era, not the present era. As I said in a recent article, many of his thoughts are outdated. But, he had two great achievements overlooked by those who have not read him, but simply attack him: (1) He created an ideology that could counter communism in Iran effectively. (2) He showed how the clerics can be so corrupt. He predicted what type of crimes a government based on religion could commit. He rejected speciaol role of the clergy, or any special rights for them. 

Unlike what uninformed people think (without reading his writings), he did not support a religious government.

And, of course, he also made many mistakes.

3. I do not wish to "bring anything on." I prefer a civilized debate based on facts - documented facts, not slogans. But, if a fight is imposed on me, watch out! 

Mammad


ex programmer craig

more

by ex programmer craig on

2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not
to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material,
or (b) equipment or material especially designed
or prepared for the processing, use or production
of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon
State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or
special fissionable material shall be subject to
the safeguards required by this Article.

More breaches. I can't even count em! Russia is also in violation. And not only that, IRI's counter proposal to BUY enriched uranium from China rather than following the safeguards outlined in this section of article III is the IRI telling the UN and the IAEA that it wants their blessing in breaching the NPT. Is that crazy or what? Maybe it's some type of Islamic Republic humor?

I can keep going if you like! I can read treaty text as well as anyone and better than most, since I was required to basically memorize several treaties in a past life. Just let me know! I'm here to help.


ex programmer craig

Mammad

by ex programmer craig on

http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

Article III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State
Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards,
as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and
concluded with the International Atomic Energy
Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International
Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards
system, for the exclusive purpose of verification
of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under
this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion
of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

And etc.

How can the IAEA establish those mandatory safeguards over a nuclear program it hasn't even been notified about? That's a breach.

The IAEA proposed (it isn't supposed to propose! It is supposed to require!) its most recent set of safeguards over the IRI's nuclear program last week. IRI declined to comply, yesterday. That's a breach.

If your nuclear experts are telling you otherwise, you should find better nuclear experts. because its pretty sad when a computer programmer can look at a treaty and find obvious breaches when somebody who claims to work in the field cannot. Then again, I don't have anyone paying me money to not find treaty violations. 

 


Mammad

Kharmagas

by Mammad on

As George Costanza used to say in Seinfeld show, "I am aware, I am aware!" Yes, I know what you are talking about.

But, the point of all of this is to give precise information to those who care to know. This is particularly true aboyt Iran's nuc program, because 99% of what is said about it is sheer disinformation, like saying that the UN Security Council declared Iran's enrichment program illegal. No, it did not, regardless of what anybody might think of it. Or, that Iran has violated the NPT. Those who say that do not know the difference between violating the NPT and breaching the Safeguards Agreement, or breaching the SA and being in non-compliance with it (there is a major difference), etc., etc.

Yes, there will always be some people who violently or non-violently object. That is fine. That is part of this whole thing. One does not enter the kitchen, unless one can take the heat.

Mammad


Mammad

ex-programmer

by Mammad on

If the Qom facility is the best evidence that you have, then you have no evidence at all. It is that simple.

First of all, Qom was not discovered. The IRI informed the IAEA about its existence, long before it was legally obligated to. The obligation is simply to let the IAEA know 180 days before introduction of any nuclear materials into the facility. The Qom facility is at least 18 months before becoming operational.

Every single IAEA report has said that there is no evidence that Iran has diverted nuclear materials. The NIE has said the same. True, the NIE said that Iran had a nuclear weapon program up to 2003, but it never presented any evidence.

I find it amazing that experts, such as the IAEA - the same IAEA that said that Iraq has no nuclear weapon program in 2003 right before the invasion - and 15 US intelligence agencies say that there is no nuclear weapon program, but people like you - who have no expertise whatsoever - expect the rest of us to believe you, rather than them.  

I hate the hardliners as much as anyone. But, in my view this is not about them. The Shah also wanted to make the bomb (I despised him too), and he was the one who started this whole thing.

Mammad


kharmagas

Mammad

by kharmagas on

Mammad, you have underestimated this guy. You are too decent to know these guys ....


Fred

Bring it on Doc!

by Fred on

Not that it matters but to let you know, you revealed your identity way before that particular slip up.  I honestly believe you do not get it, it is not about you, me or any one person, it is all about Iran. In that context I will not be shy about attacking anyone who I’m convinced of wittingly or otherwise helps the Islamist Rapists in any way. If I find out that I’ve been wrong will apologize and publicly ask for forgiveness otherwise will not.

Your defense of the nuke while the Islamist Rapists are in power, even under  Khatami that you like so much, is like if  fleeing German scientists who knew what Nazis were all about but still went ahead working diligently for Germany’s right to have nuclear facilities and capabilities. It is that simple.

After a revolution with so much hope for so many things that are well deserved and have been always denied Iran and Iranians, I firmly believe we are facing our darkest hour at the hands of homegrown Islamist cutthroats. I further believe with a democratic Iran the problems of the region if not totally but to a great extend will be eliminated.

The last thing needed is for the IRR being supercharged with nuke. You on the other hand see it as a matter of principle with what I suspect some ulterior motive in the form of Israel.

I’ve intentionally stayed away and do stay away from the childish charges made about Israel being against Iran and Iranians because I know history well enough to know Israel is the only true friend Iran and Iranians got in the entire region.

 That is why when people make up quotes, as you did about Sharon who I’m no fan of, I do not challenge them for I see people in Iran are way ahead of them and know who is friend or foe.  Only yesterday Khamenei and his sidekicks lamented about people not saying death to Israel no more.

So Doc to cut it short, your actual identity is safe and respected your nuclear activity while IRR is in power, claiming religion and democracy being compatible, charlatan Shariati  and other nonsenses  are not.  To quote your bestest buddy, bring it on!


kharmagas

I hope they cheat the b@$tards!

by kharmagas on

Most of my life I have hated Mollas, but if they are trying to cheat these b@$tards (AIPAC particularly), I wish them (Mollas) total success. Unfortunately with the existing divisions among them, they don't have much chance for cheating.


ex programmer craig

Mammad again

by ex programmer craig on

But, what evidence for a weapon program are you talking about? Show me,
or point me to a report, by the IAEA that says that they have
discovered such and such evidence for a weapon program.

Pretty sure another secret nuclear facility was just discovered a month ago and is being inspected as we speak. How many other secret facilities are there that have not been discovered yet? The fact that IRI's nuke program has been kept secret for decades is itself evidence of their deliberate intent to subvert the NPT and obtain nuclear weapons. Because, after all, the only thing that's banned by the NPT is weapons so what other reason could there be for IRI to keep its program from the eyes of the world?

As for what inspections have turned up... when IRI has months (or years) advance warning before inspections can be conducted and has the ability to intimidate inspectors and control what inspectors do or don't ahve access to, I'm not sure what good inspections do anyway?When Iran gives inspectors unrestricted access to any nuclear site or suspected nuclear site in Iran, without any advance notice given to IRI before inspections are conducted, let me know. Also, when IRI guarantees the safety of potential whistleblowers (not sure how they could do that! Even if they were granted asylum in exchange for evidence, tehir families would still be in Iran and at the mercy of IRI) let me know!

In the meantime I'll do what everyone else does and read the intent of the IRI from the actions of the IRI.

The National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007 said the same.

If that's the same intelligence report that claims IRI ended its weapons program in 2003, then you must know that IRI was already in breach prior to 2003. It isn't necessary to prove they are still in breach. The treaty has already been broken. If IRI wants to prove it is currently in compliance with the NPT the burden is on them since they weren't in compliance before. And I think you'd agree instead of making great efforts to demonstrate compliance, they are continuing to obstruct and obfuscate, while continuing their work in secret. That's hardly a show of good faith!

And lastly, I want to ask if you(Mammad) believe IRI has no intention or desire to build nuclear weapons? Because I have some great land in Lousianna that I have to sell for far below its market value due to unfortunate personal circumstances.

 


Mammad

You do have a point

by Mammad on

You do have a point and it is totally legitimate.

When I started commenting here, I only wanted to be known as Mammad. Then, after I wrote a long comment about Bush's legacy and converted it to an article and posted it, somebody found out, and called me by my complete name.

But, the issue is moot now, because anybody who cares about who I am knows who I am. It makes no difference.

You will see nothing from me bust respectful debate and disagreement (or agreement for that matter), if you treat me the same way. I don't look for confrontation. But, if I am forced into one, then I can definitely put up a good fight.

Mammad

 


ex programmer craig

Mammad

by ex programmer craig on

As you see, it REAFFIRMS the rights given to NPT member states, including Iran.

Have you read the NPT?


Fred

Speaking of fogging & traps

by Fred on

Fine you got me, you smart I on the other hand to put it in your description of sub-atomic or whatever it is that you think of the size of my brain.  So where did you exactly as in verbatim  publicly repeated the crux:

“The crux of the issue about Iran's nuclear program is, in my opinion, as follows: If Iran has the ability to make the bomb on a short notice, it becomes unattackable. That is not something that the US and Israel can tolerate. They want to be the hegemone of the Middle East.”

 

 As for your  fixation with the way you like to misinterpret, sorry interpret the UNSC resolutions, that too is fine with me, now go convince all those who are not Islamist Rapist Republic nuke lobbyists and the rumor is there are quite a few of them.

 

Ps. As for the “trap” you the smart one set to force yourself to quote an article from …, oh what can I say except to ask you to look up the definition of trap.

In deference to the site’s gentlemen’s agreement I will continue to play this ridicules screen name game you play. But don’t you think using one name here at the same time you refer to another one in the third person and at other times reference and cite that person  is just stretching it? Isn't it like the Islamists back in Iran who all have and use different names for different jobs?


Mammad

Fogging the issue!

by Mammad on

You reverted to your usual form, fogging the issues! I expected nothing less.

Uranium enrichment is not deterrent, if it does not give a nation the capability for making nuclear bomb on short notice. That is understood. That is why the US, Israel, and the West insist that Iran give up its enrichment, because they all know that having it implies the capability to make a nuclear bomb on a short notice.

So, everyone understands this, except you. That is not surprising, because your goal is not stating solid facts, and take it from there, rather misleading people, and if anyone opposes you, your only response is attacking, labeling, slandering, etc., just as you did in your "response."

I quoted the exact wording of the UNSC Resolution. I wanted to demonstrate that either you had not read the Resolution, or you had but chose to mislead. I also wanted see how you react. You had no response. So, you reverted to your usual form, i.e., ignoring what I said, and instead repeating your nonsense, i.e., falling with your head into the trap!

YES, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT ENRICHMENT GIVES IRAN THE CAPABILITY TO MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON SHORT NOTICE, WHICH WOULD MAKE IRAN UNATTACKABLE.

Nothing has vanished, except your ability to read and your capability to acknowledge your lies or misleading statements.

As a lobbyist for AIPAC and Israel, you do not act smartly. If you did, you would not have fallen into the trap. If you did, you would not have forced me to quote my own article to show to any fair-minded person here what the real issue and crux is: Israel's desire to impose its will on the Middle East.

As Ariel Sharon said, "Even if Iran becomes a complete democracy, it is still a too big of a country." That is, when Iran does become a democracy, Israel will still say the same. Otherwise, as Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barack have both said, Iran's (nonexistent) nuclear weapons are no threat to Israel.

So, you cannot fog the issue. Do not hide your true beliefs. Explain please what you mean by MATERIAL SUPPORT. Bomb? If not, what? Spell it out please.  

 

Mammad


Fred

The vanishing crux

by Fred on

Islamist Rapist Republic’s nuke lobbyist claims:

“Unlike you, I do not hide my beliefs.”

The “you” is I, Fred, and the one who is not hiding his belief is the nuke lobbyist. Fine lets see where except the crux statement below, the truth telling nuke lobbyist has used the crux statement verbatim?

Verbatim=in the exact words: word for word

Ps. your interpretation of the UNSC is as good as the other “legal” opinions coming out of the Islamist Rapist Republic. Your IRR is in breach of NPT which it is a signatory and that is why UNSC has passed resolutions against it, the Qom discovery is only the latest manifestation of this illegal activity.

It is about to hit the fan, go write another one of those creative essays of yours may be it might help hide the truth, you never know.  

“The crux of the issue about Iran's nuclear program is, in my opinion, as follows: If Iran has the ability to make the bomb on a short notice, it becomes unattackable. That is not something that the US and Israel can tolerate. They want to be the hegemone of the Middle East.”


AMIR1973

Craig

by AMIR1973 on

The reason some people point to Iraq when discussing possible sanctions against Iran is that the justifications offered are the same, i.e. accusations of an active WMD program. Moreover, Iraq is Iran's immediate neighbor and has some significant religious and historical links. The sanctions against S. Africa were NOT airtight (I oppose airtight sanctions for the reasons I have mentioned in my previous posts). As I mentioned on a previous post, a number of industrialzed countries had close diplomatic and trade relations with the apartheid regime, e.g. the U.S., U.K., Japan, Taiwan, and Israel. (For what it's worth, the Thatcher and Reagan administrations and right-wingers opposed sanctions against the S. African regime and favored "engagement" instead). The S. African premier who led the country during the Soweto massacre, John Vorster (a man jailed during WW2 for participation in a right-wing pro-Nazi Afrikaner group), paid an official state visit to Israel in the 1970s when Yitzhak Rabin was PM and was received by leaders of both Labor and Likud parties. The Shah's regime was the leading supplier of oil to apartheid S. Africa. I think the sanctions against S. Africa were justified, because they were not airtight (but targeted) and because the Black majority seemed supportive of them. When I visited my relatives in Iran several years ago, people generally told me in my conversations that they thought sanctions would hurt ordinary people more than their leaders. I know that it's anecdotal and not a "scientific" poll, but it's just my firstahand observation. For the record, my relatives LOATHE the regime, and these were private conversations, so there was no element of fear on their part. Would they feel different now? Perhaps, but I don't know that for a fact.

 BTW, what huge "hidden agenda" red flag do you suspect on my part? I'm an Iranian-American individual experssing my opinion. I don't belong to any organizations of any kind. I haven't received a red cent from anyone. I've denounced the IRI (e.g. "...life under the IRI is NOT okay and NOT heading in the right direction. And yes, Islamism has been a disaster for Iran"). You can read my posts below and see if you detect some "hidden agenda". I suppose I could also ask why you (as far as I know) a non-Iranian, who doesn't speak Persian and who has never been to the country (pre- or post-IRI) and who doesn't have any connections with the country come on Iranian.com? (I am NOT for one second disputing your absolute right to do so, but if someone implies a "hidden agenda" regarding me, then it raises my curiosity regarding your "agenda" as well). Regards.

 


Mammad

I told you so!

by Mammad on

As I had predicted, you have not read the UNSC Resolutions. If you had, you would not have declared the enrichment program "illegal," and would not have continued your nonsense. Just because you say so, does not make it so.

Here is how, for example, Resolution 1737 begins:

 Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination

This is repeated in every Resolution.

As you see, it REAFFIRMS the rights given to NPT member states, including Iran.

The Resolutions did not declare enrichment in Iran illegal. It only demanded its suspension.

Yes, that is indeed the crux of the issue. How many times should I repeat this? I had said it long before I stated it here, and repeated it afterwards. You act as if you caught me off guards! You did not. People who act according to their beliefs and principles are not caught off guards, at least not by people like you!

Here is what I said in an article entitled, "What's Netanyahu really afraid of?"  in May

http://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2009/05/19/whats-netanyahu-really-afraid-of/.,

The crux of the issue is that, Netanyahu, Israel’s political/military establishment, and the War Party in the U.S. all believe that an Iran equipped with the technological capability for enriching uranium will have a credible nuclear deterrent and, therefore, will be unattackable. That scenario, as Thomas P.M. Barnett, the author of The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century, www.amazon.com/Pentagons-New-Map-Twenty-first-Century/dp/0425202399  has put it, “would level the playing field by finally allowing the Muslim Middle East to sit one player at the negotiating table as Israel’s nuclear equal.” www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/003035.html Thus, Israel will no longer be able to dictate its will on its neighbors, a prospect that is not acceptable to Israel’s political/military establishment, as well as the War Party in the United States

There, you have it AGAIN!

Unlike you, I do not hide my beliefs.

Mammad


Mammad

ex-programmer

by Mammad on

That the IRI is not believable is a given.

But, what evidence for a weapon program are you talking about? Show me, or point me to a report, by the IAEA that says that they have discovered such and such evidence for a weapon program. Every single IAEA report has said that there is no evidence for a diversion. There is none.

The National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007 said the same. It was reaffimed four weeks ago. Again there is no evidence. Does that mean that there might not be a weapon program? No, but as ElBaradei has said repeatedly, "We cannot measure the intention of a nation. We can only deal with facts on the ground."

As for South Africa and sanctions: It is a myth that South Africa apartheid regime collapsed because of sanctions. No. The whites gave up power because they recognized that if they do not, they will also lose through the struggle the immense economic power that they had.

Indeed, 15 years after the first democratic government, it is the whites that control practically all aspects of the economy, which is why dissidents within the African National Congress got the upper hand recently.

Sanctions did not make Cuba, North Korea, and Iraq democratic. Sanctions killed at least 500,000 Iraqi children, and eventually led to war.

 

Mammad


Fred

IRR nuke lobbyist & truth

by Fred on

In defense of the Islamist Rapist Republic’s nuke, the nuke lobbyist tries to split hairs. His argument comes down to:

  “What the Security Council has demanded is SUSPENSION of the program, which by itself implies the legitimacy of the program in the framework of the NPT and its article IV. “  

So according to the IRR nuke lobbyist the UNSC has passed number of resolutions to affirm his IRR’s illegal full cycle dual purpose nuke program which was hidden for nearly two decades as being  “legitimate” and has done this via implication. That is not how things work in the sane world.

  And as far as the asinine statement:

 “The fact that there is a rapist regime in Iran - I give you that, although it has nothing to do with Islam - does not mean that we should ignore Iran's rights. “

  Rest assured you giving it to me or not has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with reality, it is what it is.

As for Iran’s rights which you pretend to be so concerned about, Iran and Iranians have many more urgent life and death rights which are all trampled by your IRR. The fact that you’ve chosen the nuke part which in the order of priorities is way down the list, and according to your own crux statement is about bomb, to be the one you are most passionate about speaks volumes.

  Your very own crux statement says: “The crux of the issue about Iran's nuclear program is, in my opinion, as follows: If Iran has the ability to make the bomb on a short notice, it becomes unattackable. That is not something that the US and Israel can tolerate. They want to be the hegemone of the Middle East.”

Ps. Citing that person’s amature legal interpretation essay as well speaks volumes about you.


ex programmer craig

Mammad

by ex programmer craig on

To the contrary, both the Resolutions and the IAEA have recognized Iran's right to complete nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment.

But not including nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapons program is a breach of the NPT, since the NPT is by definition meant to prevent the production of nuclear weapons. And no, a country doens't need to actually have made a nuclear weapon before they are in breach... a weapons program alone is a breach. The problem IRI has is it says it has no weapons program, and has never had a weapons program - but nobody believes them. And because all the available evidence suggests that they do have a nuclear weapons program... why would they keep programs secret if they were legal? But the main reason nobody believes them (about anything) is because they've never told the truth about anything, in the 30 years they have been in power. Instead they tell bold faced lies and laugh about it whenever they get caught.


ex programmer craig

...

by ex programmer craig on

What effect did "airtight sanctions" have on Iraq?

How come when it comes to sanctions, everyone says "look what happened in Iraq?" instead of "look what happened with South Africa?" or "Look what happened with Libya?".

Sanctions are a very tough sell for me, but when I see stuff like that it's a huge "hidden agenda" red flag for me.

AMIR1973, are you willing to go on record stating that you opposed sanctions on South Africa?


Mammad

Either misrepresentation or outright lies

by Mammad on

Either you have not read the UNSC Resolutions, in which case you are talking nonsense, or you have, in which case you are lying outright. 

There is not a single word in all the Security Council Resolutions that says, or can even be interpreted as such, that Iran's uranium enrichment program is illegal. To the contrary, both the Resolutions and the IAEA have recognized Iran's right to complete nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment.

What the Security Council has demanded is SUSPENSION of the program, which by itself implies the legitimacy of the program in the framework of the NPT and its article IV. Had the UNSC considered the enrichment as illegal, it would have demanded its DISMANTLING. There is not a single word that the Resolutions are demanding anything like what you say.

I suggest to those who are interested to read

www.payvand.com/news/07/dec/1044.html

to see why the Resolutions themselves are, in fact, illegal, with 100 references to many cases considered by international courts, and full of complete quotes by scholars of international laws.

The fact that there is a rapist regime in Iran - I give you that, although it has nothing to do with Islam - does not mean that we should ignore Iran's rights.

Mammad


Fred

the regimes are alike

by Fred on

Perhaps the misunderstanding is caused by me; I do not compare the two countries of S. Africa and Iran, countries are like finger prints, no two are alike. It is rather the ruling regimes. In that sense, yes I do see more commonality between the long gone Apartheid regime and the Islamist Rapists than with any other repressive system.

I see it in their exclusionary dogma, policing measures, brutality, press control, regional interference and alike. After all the Islamist Rapists are the problem and not their primary victim, Iran and Iranians.


AMIR1973

To Fred

by AMIR1973 on

Fred, you dismiss any comparison with the Shah's regime (and yes, I realize that the IRI is far more dictatorial and brutal) or with Saddam's regime, but you see an analogy to S. Africa--a country that Iran has virtually nothing in common with historically, other than being ruled by a rotten regime?


masoudA

I don't know if Obama will go along

by masoudA on

But a successful sanction on imports of refined Petrolium will certainly cause serious gasoline shortage and a massive public uprising and eventually the collapse of the regime.   In Tehran alone there are millions of full time and part time taxis who live on their daily income.   These are people whom by IRI design, are usually too busy to make ends meet - seldom have anything to do with politics or any social issues.   

Now the questions are:  

1- Will Obama veto this bill?

2- What should we do - or what should the world do to minimize impacts on the population.   I can think of several ways..... 

PS - Stop comparing Iran to Iraq - Stop comparing Iran to anywhere.