Iran Gone Nuclear? Who Decides? Who is Afraid, Why? (II)

True democracy must be given time to develop and grow in orderly manner, with due attention and r...Read the full article.

[fxo]

Sir, may I say again that I don not buy into your idea that maybe because America is wrong, then Iran is right.
At the end of the day you are asking us to replace one tyrant with another.

A tyrant in whose culture a Blackman is still sub-human, a woman is still sub-human, the other man's faith is the faith of an infidel and a man who is convinced that because he supports one side in a land dispute the other side does not have the right to exist and the history of that side is fiction.
What are the facts here because you do not like America we should throw all sense of responsibility to the wind and allow the world to go crazy without a maintenance of order.

Sir, democracy is an inherent human right, it is not subject to a cultural identity or a religious ideology. So I don't understand the idea of democracy growing with time according to local customs.
When a man is hungry in Europe, Africa, Asia or America, it feels the same way.
When a personal rights are trampled upon and an individual is humiliated it feels the same whether it is Burma, USA, Nigeria or China.
When wrong choices are made by unqualified leaders and the economy suffers the social fabric that suffers from generation to generation is not delineated by culture or tradition.

Any community that would not grow and transform would subsequently die, then should we allow those who have a suicide wish to drag the rest of us down.

Certain things in human experience are the same, please do not insult me by telling me that I am not sophisticated enough to choose a competent leader, or to decide on what the rule of engagements should be between the state and the people, or to decide on how much tax I should pay, or what the school curriculum should be in the schools in Lagos or what minimum level of education is required of a parliamentarian.

Maybe Bush is wrong, maybe America is wrong, maybe France and the EU are wrong.
But don't tell me Ahmedinajjad is right, The Mynamar Generals are right, Hugo Chavez is right, Osama Bin Laden is right.

The Greeks, the Romans, The Persians, The Macedonians, The Othomans at one time in history have occupied the position the Americans occupy today.

There has never been a vacume at the top.


Today the stake is different and the challenges are out there in diversity,science, commerce, human right, tolerance, equity, global reach and anti-repudiation
( this last bit is a term used in Info Security).

As a Nigerians lets get to work, the Chinese and the Indians did not become major players by hating the USA or capitalism.
Lets get to work, work on our culture, work on our society, work on our schools, work on our economy, work on our laws, work ...
That is the only way to conquer the world now, I don't want Nigeria seating on the security council if we haven't earned it.
Do you?

[Fjord]

In criticising George Bush on Iraq, it is easily forgotten that not only America (including George Bush and the awful Clinton before him) and the rest of the world, including most Western countries, were convinced of Saddam's stash of dangerous weapons. the same mistake is being made with Iran; except that it's on a much larger scale. Iran needs to be engaged; the Us shouldn't do it; it's a job better suited for Israel; but that's perhaps not pragmatic enough for other reasons.

Iran needs to be confronted; and it is 'unfortunate' that the US may have to do it.

.

[mulan]

Why must Iran be confronted? Because it has ambitions for nuclear power? Beacause America wants to control the world? Because Iran president dares to speak out against the US and its policy in the middle east? Beacause Ahmadinejad supports Palestine rather than Isreal? Because Bush is a war monger? Abegy...

[Celticologist]

Originally Posted by mulan

Why must Iran be confronted? Because it has ambitions for nuclear power? Beacause America wants to control the world? Because Iran president dares to speak out against the US and its policy in the middle east? Beacause Ahmadinejad supports Palestine rather than Isreal? Because Bush is a war monger? Abegy...

A nuclear powered Iran is a danger even for Nigeria. Read about some dude called Ibrahim El-Zakzaki for a start.
The only restraint on an impending Israeli raid on Iran is the United States. Just like the Syrians, Iran has no major card to pull if the Israelis ever rained something down from the air.

[mulan]

Are you a war monger? Already salivating for the time the bombs will start to fall? Or are you just a bushphiliac? Why should the US or for that matter Isreal have WMD and not Iran or even Nigeria?

OK let me go and read about El-Zakzaki. Meanwhile can you please try answering some of my questions...

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by mulan

Why must Iran be confronted? Because it has ambitions for nuclear power? Beacause America wants to control the world? Because Iran president dares to speak out against the US and its policy in the middle east? Beacause Ahmadinejad supports Palestine rather than Isreal? Because Bush is a war monger? Abegy...

Because the government of Iran is just as hypocritical as those whom she confronts.

Auspicious.

[Oghre]

Mulan,

But of course you may very be a Muslim so it’s easy to understand your mentality on this.

No one is afraid of Iran getting nuclear weapons if they can convince the world they don’t need it to blow up other countries they think should be wiped from the face of the earth.

While we are there why don’t we allow the Taliban to exercise their right to nuclear weapons?

How about Al-Qaeda? They too are humans like me and you; surely they must have good intentions for wanting atom bombs.

Daft, incoherent write-ups and opinions make the art of sane thinking and expression harder by the day.

What normal human (apart from hard-line fundamentalists) will want Iran to develop nuclear bombs?

Is this even worth discussing?

[JAGA-JAGA]

Paul,
Before we digress on this topical issue, just to let you know that Francois Mitterand was not the immediate past president of France who opposed the US/British and so called 'coalision of the willing' invasion of Iraq. The president of France then was Jacques René Chirac. This information is alluded in paragraphs 7 and 8 of your message.

On the issue at stake, much as I won't hold brief for both US and the state of Israel on the way they execute their foreign policies but I need to make it clear that Ahmadinejad is the root cause of his own problems. Here is a president who abandoned his campaign promises to the electorate but is obsessed with power just for the sake of it. He keeps on boasting to the whole world whoever cares to listen that he is going to crush all enemies of the Islamic republic of Iran. Not done with he also denies the existence of the holocust of which living witneses abound. Indeed the Germans the perpetrators of this atrocities had made restitution and continue to pay other necessary compensations as they arise so as to address this evil. Yet Ahmadinejad says he is going to wipe out the state of Israel from the earth and went as far as hosting a conference in Teheran on holocust denial. This is outrageous and only a tree would remain in same state after being fore warned of its demise!

Ahmadinejad has started on the same path of futility by luring his country into a friutless confrontation with the west. He boasts about his nuclear plant program just the same mistake that Saddam did with WMD which never existed but he displayed attittude that was suspect.

Coming to the issue of developing nuclear bomb, is that a priority for Iran now? The basic developemental institutions are still underdevolped, yet he wants to make the world believe in this bogus programe. Does he want to be like Pakistan who is following the footsteps of India. However, India is far ahead in developmental instutional establishments than Pakistan. At least India has a functional democracy and a robust economy independent of oil/gas. I think Ahmadinejad has nothing to offer the Iranians and should just vacate his office after what he promised to deliver and could no longer accomplish it. With defeat staring him on the face he now looks outside to generate attention that would give him local/international support in order to hide his incompetence.

For the attainment of the so called MAD(Mutaul assured destruction) status in armament, this is a ruse and will never work!. Both NATO and the WARSAW PACT countries then, knew that this was not attainable and was one of the basic reasons that led Gorbachev to dismantle the former USSR. To date, no country has that advantage because the submarine based nuclear missiles could provide up to 3rd strike capabilities not to mention the recent race into space with lots of unknown in place.

Finally, let Iran be assured that the US does not have the courage/capacity to go into another full scale protracted war as 'their nose is already bloodied' in Iraq to borrow the language of Robert Mugabe on his recent UN general Assembly address. Talking of invasion of Iran by the US now is not feasible. The worst case is that they the US may hit some opportunity targets in order to dismantle whatever progress Iran has made on it's nuclear facilities. Israel did exactly that to Iraq under Saddam's regime and I believe this is avoidable if Iranian government would negotiate it's way out of the deadlock or face the actions of the UN nuclear watch agency.

[Auspicious]

Let me guess: Paul I. Adujie (the author of this article) is not afraid of Iran acquring "nukilar" weaponry. Ah, good for him. Me I am.

Sometimes, I think Paul loves to take this views on issues in general - race relations, international politics, pro-OBJ issues (he now appears reformed in that department though) and what's-not just for the sheer attention it gets him.

My opinion. My Guess. Not that it matters, anyways..

Auspicious.

[I Love Nigeria]

Auspicious, I write about issues that are important to me... issues that are burning and actually cause me to be very irritated..... I agonize about these issues and I accordingly, spent time, energy/efforts, writing tomes about them.

I have a long history of this, it did not start with the highly esteemed and equally highly reputable Nigeria Village Square and it will not end here.

I am unimportant.... I am hair-thin, in importance when compared with Nigerian issues or issues that concern Nigeria, Africa, and peoples of African descent.


Aug Aug 27, 2003, 07:47 PM 27, 2003, 07:47 PM
Let Us Ask The Americans The Same Questions Asked Of Nigeria

http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/...d-nigeria.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Before the war in Iraq… we asked the question below
http://www.amanaonline.com/Articles/art_341.htm
No Tears For Saddam? How About The Principle?
http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/...ing-hamas.html

[I Love Nigeria]

As it turns out, it is not just me talking about Iran.

Here below is an American journalist doing exactly the same thing!

September 30, 2007
New Seymour Hersh Article On Iran
Here are the most important parts:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...8fa_fact_hersh

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001768.html

This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism...

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, "Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives." The former intelligence official added, "There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President"...

The revised bombing plan for a possible attack, with its tightened focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon. The strategy calls for the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks and bombing strikes, including plans to destroy the most important Revolutionary Guard training camps, supply depots, and command and control facilities.

I bolded the sentence about Pentagon support for this plan because that's critical. I'm working on a piece about congressional opposition to an attack on Iran, and let me tell you, there is essentially none. The only thing that might stop Bush and Cheney is the military. It's extremely significant if their resistance is weakening.

AND: Hersh will be on CNN's Late Edition today (meaning at some point between 11 am-1 pm ET) talking about the article.

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz at September 30, 2007 10:50 AM | TrackBack

[I Love Nigeria]

Here is another excerpt of someone else's opinion on this Iran nuclear subject

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...w.cgi/66/23964
By Seymour M. Hersh

The view that there is a nexus between Iran and Iraq has been endorsed by Condoleezza Rice, who said last month that Iran "does need to understand that it is not going to improve its own situation by stirring instability in Iraq," and by the President, who said, in August, that "Iran is backing armed groups in the hope of stopping democracy from taking hold" in Iraq. The government consultant told me, "More and more people see the weakening of Iran as the only way to save Iraq."

The consultant added that, for some advocates of military action, "the goal in Iran is not regime change but a strike that will send a signal that America still can accomplish its goals. Even if it does not destroy Iran's nuclear network, there are many who think that thirty-six hours of bombing is the only way to remind the Iranians of the very high cost of going forward with the bomb - and of supporting Moqtada al-Sadr and his pro-Iran element in Iraq." (Sadr, who commands a Shiite militia, has religious ties to Iran.)

In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neoconservative, argued that the Administration had little choice. "Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office," he wrote. The President would be bitterly criticized for a preëmptive attack on Iran, Muravchik said, and so neoconservatives "need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes."

The Administration's planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency. (The C.I.A. declined to comment on this story.)

The White House's dismissal of the C.I.A. findings on Iran is widely known in the intelligence community. Cheney and his aides discounted the assessment, the former senior intelligence official said. "They're not looking for a smoking gun," the official added, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning. "They're looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission." The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency also challenged the C.I.A.'s analysis. "The D.I.A. is fighting the agency's conclusions, and disputing its approach," the former senior intelligence official said. Bush and Cheney, he added, can try to prevent the C.I.A.
assessment from being incorporated into a forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities, "but they can't stop the agency from putting it out for comment inside the intelligence community."

The C.I.A. assessment warned the White House that it would be a mistake to conclude that the failure to find a secret nuclear-weapons program in Iran merely meant that the Iranians had done a good job of hiding it. The former senior intelligence official noted that at the height of the Cold War the Soviets were equally skilled at deception and misdirection, yet the American intelligence community was readily able to unravel the details of their long-range-missile and nuclear-weapons programs. But some in the White House, including in Cheney's office, had made just such an assumption - that "the lack of evidence means they must have it," the former official said.

Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, under which it is entitled to conduct nuclear research for peaceful purposes. Despite the offer of trade agreements and the prospect of military action, it defied a demand by the I.A.E.A. and the Security Council, earlier this year, that it stop enriching uranium - a process that can produce material for nuclear power plants as well as for weapons - and it has been unable, or unwilling, to account for traces of plutonium and highly enriched uranium that have been detected during I.A.E.A. inspections. The I.A.E.A. has complained about a lack of "transparency," although, like the C.I.A., it has not found unambiguous evidence of a secret weapons program.

Last week, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced that Iran had made further progress in its enrichment research program, and said, "We know that some countries may not be pleased." He insisted that Iran was abiding by international agreements, but said, "Time is now completely on the side of the Iranian people." A diplomat in Vienna, where the I.A.E.A. has its headquarters, told me that the agency was skeptical of the claim, for technical reasons. But Ahmadinejad's defiant tone did nothing to diminish suspicions about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"There is no evidence of a large-scale covert enrichment program inside Iran," one involved European diplomat said. "But the Iranians would not have launched themselves into a very dangerous confrontation with the West on the basis of a weapons program that they no longer pursue. Their enrichment program makes sense only in terms of wanting nuclear weapons. It would be inconceivable if they weren't cheating to some
degree. You don't need a covert program to be concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions. We have enough information to be concerned without one. It's not a slam dunk, but it's close to it."

[mulan]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Because the government of Iran is just as hypocritical as those whom she confronts.

Auspicious.

So what right does the hypocritical government of the US have to threaten military might against another soverign state for aspiring to the same position?

I think that is the essence of this article and makes a lot of sense to me. Everything must not be achieved by violence and war and definitely not by two-faced America...

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by I Love Nigeria

Auspicious, I write about issues that are important to me... issues that are burning and actually cause me to be very irritated..... I agonize about these issues and I accordingly, spent time, energy/efforts, writing tomes about them.

I hear you, Paul.

If any offense is taken, accept my apologies.

Auspicious.

[mulan]

Originally Posted by Oghre

Mulan,

But of course you may very be a Muslim so it’s easy to understand your mentality on this.

No one is afraid of Iran getting nuclear weapons if they can convince the world they don’t need it to blow up other countries they think should be wiped from the face of the earth.

While we are there why don’t we allow the Taliban to exercise their right to nuclear weapons?

How about Al-Qaeda? They too are humans like me and you; surely they must have good intentions for wanting atom bombs.

Daft, incoherent write-ups and opinions make the art of sane thinking and expression harder by the day.

What normal human (apart from hard-line fundamentalists) will want Iran to develop nuclear bombs?

Is this even worth discussing?

Oghre,

Sorry to dissappoint you but I am not a muslim and you do not have to label me before disagreeing with my 'mentality' on this issue. Religion unfortunately is not the be all and end all of world affairs no matter how much we may wish it so. And maybe less people need to take the track of 'we' christains against 'them' muslims sometimes.

Why does Iran have to convince the world or in this case the US about their intentions for their nuclear ambitions? Does the US ask the world permission to increase their stock of nuclear warheads. When they placed their nuclear shields on the doorstep of Russia, who sanctioned it?

You ask about the taliban and Al-qaeda and forget that the same US at a time funded their armies and guerillas to help them in the cold war and push the soviets back. And now they have become monsters abi?

Anyway, I will leave the matter for matthias as they say...

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by mulan

So what right does the hypocritical government of the US have to threaten military might against another soverign state for aspiring to the same position?

I think that is the essence of this article and makes a lot of sense to me. Everything must not be achieved by violence and war and definitely not by two-faced America...

Well, thank goodness America is yet to resort to war.

It is NOT only America who is challening Iran on this

But every person who dreads the idea of a "Nukilar" Iran

ILN may be unafraid all he wants, but me I am petrified:

It is bad enough that America has Her's, amongst others

But with Iran under a Raving Mohmoud owning one

The Armageddon we dread might just be here already..

As a Mullah may shout "Allahu Akbar!" and hit the button.

PS: There is a thin line between fighting for equality and justice amongst the comity of nations AND unknowingly encouraging a raving looney in Persia. Same goes for the Bush suporters as well. We can debate this issues without appearing to help either of the two extremists in Tehran or Washington.

Auspicious.

[fxo]

Madam, maybe you would rather Iran controls the world.
Maybe we should issues AK47s to the area boys in Lagos and the Almajiris in Kano, we shouldn't deny them their rights to power.
Get real, we can't have everybody running crazy acquiring weapons, creating problems that would eventual we will all have to pay dearly for.
Hitler started the 2nd world war, but millions who had nothing to do with it died. because he did'nt like Jews and everyone who was'nt of the Aryan stock.
Ahmadinajjadd does not really like anybody who is not Iranian and Muslim.

He does not like Jews, he does not like Palestine's ( he arms Hamas aganist Fatah), he does not like Iraqis ( he is sending weapons to criminals who are tearing Iraq apart), he does not like Sunnis ( he sponsors shiitte militias aganist sunnis), he obviously does not like women
( read about the rights Iranian women have), he does not like scholars ( he imprisons them), he does not like American, Europeans, certainly not Africans. Who in history does he remind you most of,... does the name Adolf Hitler come to mind.

Get real madam, you don't like the US and George Bush, big deal.
In primary school I knew a lot of kids who do not like the rich kid whose parent gave everything they wished they had.
Does the image appear familiar to you.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by fxo

In primary school I knew a lot of kids who do not like the rich kid whose parent gave everything they wished they had. Does the image appear familiar to you.

LOL!

That is one hell a funny (and somewhat true) analogy!

Auspy.

[I Love Nigeria]

Fxo wrote:

In primary school I knew a lot of kids who do not like the rich kid whose parent gave everything they wished they had

My response to you is that in my primary, in many primary schools in Nigeria and in America.. majority of the kids were intimidated, brutalized and tortured by school-yard bullies and most among such kids were too afraid, too petrified to challenge the class-bully or school-yard bullies

Does that make bullies a good thing?