|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Apr 15th, 2006 06:17 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation..._Ambition.html Saturday, April 15, 2006 ยท Last updated 12:56 p.m. PT Not all in Iran back president's rhetoric By ALI AKBAR DAREINI ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's success in producing enriched uranium for the first time may have increased national pride, but hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is annoying predecessors by claiming the achievement in his name alone. And others, including some among the president's supporters, worry his tough rhetoric is intensifying international anxiety over the nuclear program and worsening the country's isolation. On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran successfully enriched uranium using 164 centrifuges, a significant step toward the large-scale production of a material that can be used to fuel nuclear reactors for generating electricity - or to build atomic bombs. Iran insists it is interested only in the peaceful use of nuclear power, but the United States and others suspect the regime wants to develop weapons and are demanding a halt to enrichment activities. Since his announcement, Ahmadinejad has been even more defiant in defending his country's decision to press ahead with its nuclear program over the U.N. Security Council's objections. Ahmadinejad rebuffed a request Thursday by Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, saying Tehran will not retreat "one iota." To those upset by that stance, he said, "Be angry at us and die of this anger." A day later, he turned up the heat in anti-Israel rhetoric that has brought international condemnation, calling the Jewish state a "rotten, dried tree" that will be annihilated by "one storm." He previously angered many world leaders by calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. Such talk has some in this conservative Islamic nation concerned. "The more Ahmadinejad confronts the international community, the more power he may show to his public in the short term but deny Iran a good life among world nations in the long term," said Hossein Salimi, a professor of international relations in Tehran. For now, it's a minority opinion. The president's tough talk resounds with many Iranians. "Ahmadinejad is a source of pride for resisting the U.S. and defending Iran's nuclear rights," said Ali Mahmoudi, a regular attendee of Friday prayers in this strongly religious nation. Still, the president may have alienated potential allies with this enrichment announcement because he didn't cite former Iranian leaders or thank them for their efforts in the program. "Ahmadinejad spoke as if production of enriched uranium was his work. He didn't mention that it was the outcome of more than two decades of clandestine work by previous governments," said political analyst Saeed Leilaz. In an apparent show of displeasure, ex-president Hashemi Rafsanjani tried to take some of the glory from Ahmadinejad by announcing the enrichment step several hours ahead of time. Reformist Mohammad Khatami, who preceded Ahmadinejad as president, publicly reminded Iranians that the nuclear achievement was "the outcome of efforts by competent Iranian scientists, a process that had begun by previous governments." Even some of Ahmadinejad's supporters are starting to question his tactics. "Ahmadinejad has forgotten why he won the presidential vote. The needy voted for him because he promised to bring bread to people's homes but nothing good has been done to improve living standards," said Reza Lotfi, a student at Tehran University. Mansour Ramezanpour, a construction worker, questioned why the government hasn't done more for the weak economy. "Previously, I went to work four days a week. Now, not more than two days. Recession is everywhere," he said. But Ahmadinejad appears determined to make the most of the nuclear card to bolster his standing among his people. It was no coincidence that he announced Iran had enriched uranium on April 9 - the date that the United States severed ties with Iran in 1980. He and other top leaders see the nuclear program as a level to get the United States to recognize Iran as a "big, regional power" and deal with it on that basis. "The key problem between Iran and the U.S. is that Washington treats Iran as a non-grownup person. The Iranian leadership is very unhappy with this. Tehran wants America to treat Iran as a regional superpower," Leilaz said. On Wednesday, Ahmadinejad sent a clear message that Iran expected to be treated as a peer. "Today, our situation has changed completely. We are a nuclear country and speak to others from the position of a nuclear country," he said. |
|
| Apr 15th, 2006 06:14 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
You know just as a subtle remark because I think it's an interesting note: From what I've heard automobiles that are hybrid, function off of natural gas or run off of those hydrogen fuel cells are ridiculously expensive to Fuel, produce and/or maintain(from what I understand all of those options except maybe the hybrid get shitty gas mileage). As such that makes Oil the most economically viable option, at the present. |
|
| Apr 15th, 2006 05:18 AM | ||
| Rez |
Quote:
|
|
| Apr 14th, 2006 04:01 PM | ||
| ziggytrix | My VW diesel is supposed to get its first services at 5,000 and 10,000 then again every 10,000 miles thereafter. | |
| Apr 14th, 2006 03:50 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
Burb - Unless David Copperfield works for the State Department, there's no way we can pull off that trifecta. It's a fool me once, fool me twice type of thing. Rather then read prophetic insiders guess what we're planning for Iran, just keep an eye on what we're doing with Syria instead. In simple terms, Syria's next door to Iraq, they have a Baathist government, and Hizzballah are Iranian funded, groomed to create a second line of battle. Iran sent their ex-President out to Syria on Tuesday for a diplomacy trip. The other thing - supposedly Iran's Neyshabour site was started in 2003, and it's a year away from nukes, hidden underground under farmland. A lot of these articles are focusing on Natanz. geggy - i think it's safe to say "lord of war" has little if anything to do with zionism one way or another but you know, WE ARE EVERYWHERE AND WE DO CONTROL HOLLYWOOD. lefty as they may be, they're not spending millions marketing to socialist worker subscribers, now are they? i know you're working that "LORDS OF war.....LORDS OF ZION, get it? get it? Jewelry, JEWelry" angle into this, and you thought Lords of Dogtown was about a bunch of Heeb skateboarding bankers ....but newsflash, a story about a russian gentile smuggling weapons doesn't really offend my zionist sensiblities. the one scene portraying palestinians shows them being executed in lebanon....and since you're suddenly lebanese, you know you can take that up with the phallanges. oh but hey, how's that zionist curse i put on you coming along? |
|
| Apr 14th, 2006 10:56 AM | ||
| Geggy |
Italian, I may be crazy but what am I supposed to do? I'm part lebanese. I've got the crazy people gene. Besides, with all the crazy shit going on in this world can you really blame me for going batshit? ABCD, it's safe to say that zionists had nothing to do with the movie, either. I was told by a friend who is currently attending UTI, a mechanic school, and he was told that "oil change every 3000 miles" is the currently biggest scam in auto industies, espcially for the newer car models. If you've gone past 3000 miles since the last oil change, the risk it poses to the car is very slim. The reason for the scam is it's helps auto industries and oil companies pull in a lot more moolah, obviously. It's true that older car models may needs oil change every 3000 miles. But newer car models, from 2000 to prresent specifically, can go on for at least 5,000 miles until the next oil change, because of the improvements made around the engine that takes in larger mass of cold air flow hence oil are burned off less. Oil ceo's know this and they're afraid to let the truth out purely for the fear of profit cuts. So why not let truth out and start drilling for oil in Alaska, instead of fighting in wars, putting the US economy at risk and sending the world into turmoil over somethingas diminutive as oil? Oh right, they put profits before people's lives. Of coiurse it never crosses the idiot mind of the oil-lord, Bush's that we could work something out to make us less dependable on oil and use the money that's spent on wars to build more hybrid automobiles. |
|
| Apr 14th, 2006 10:14 AM | ||
| mburbank |
You shoud read the Hersch article. It's kind of chilling. The occupation of Iraq wasn't/isn't really a physical possability either, (certainly not with thr troupe commitment we made) but there we are. Hersch says there are strong factions in the administration that firmly beleieve if we bomb Iran for a good long time, the religous leaders will loose face and a unfified people will rise up and overthrow the government. I think that's boobery. But it's just the kind of Boobery this adminsitration is in love with. |
|
| Apr 13th, 2006 06:45 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
1)occupation is a physical impossibility. 2)a lot of countries have interest in getting their mitts on irans oil, but the us of a is at the back of that line. |
|
| Apr 13th, 2006 05:48 PM | ||
| ItalianStereotype | is it a little too right wing for you here, ranxer? not enough matrix references? | |
| Apr 13th, 2006 05:40 PM | ||
| ranxer |
damn i don't know why i come back here.. laughs i guess, gotta give yas credit for often being hilarious. regarding attacking iran... profiteering surely, but still, as in iraq II, the conversion of the oil money into euros and other currencies instead of dollars is a huge reason for moving on Iran. Without the currency threat, i don't think we will attack them. |
|
| Apr 13th, 2006 04:23 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx | it's a fine film. it just doesn't have the one dimensional message you think it does geggy. in other words, oliver stone didn't direct it. | |
| Apr 13th, 2006 04:22 PM | ||
| ItalianStereotype | geggy, if you weren't so batshit this forum would be a much less interesting place. | |
| Apr 13th, 2006 04:21 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | You better pray we don't attack Iran. Comparing Iraq to Iran would be like comparing a Corsica to a Benz. | |
| Apr 13th, 2006 04:02 PM | ||
| Geggy |
When you say blue pill, do you mean by cnn and wash. post? Iran-Iraq II?? http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US...ring_0413.html This article further shows why I think it's all about profiteering. People in the white house are probably setting up their retirement funds by inciting wars in the middle east because this could go on for the rest of their lifetime, thus assload of money will flow back home. People in the middle east are crazy enough to kill each other so why not arm them with weapons? Why not arm the people seeking protection with weapons? This will make Bush and his buddies very very rich. When there aren't many left of the people in the middle east, whoever survives can inherit the land and use up all the oil! You guys really should see Lord of War with Nicolas Cage 
|
|
| Apr 13th, 2006 03:42 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
i'm sorry, Geggy. I must've taken the blue pill.
|
|
| Apr 13th, 2006 02:52 PM | ||
| Geggy |
Kevin, I don't want to invade Iran either. Kevin, you're right, it isn't about oil, it's not about uranium either...it's about profiteering. Kevin, will you stop sayin' that already? |
|
| Apr 13th, 2006 02:25 PM | ||
| mburbank | I hope and pray the next Liberal who comes to power has fallen out of love with air campaigns, since they have never ever worked even one time. Probably not though. | |
| Apr 13th, 2006 02:21 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
No, we should simply bomb the hell out of them and leave, because that's what a responsible liberal would do.  That certainly wouldn't bite us in the ass, and in the long run, we'd be safer for it i'm sure..... I agree that we shouldn't even entertain the idea of invading. There are far too many options right now to even jump the gun on that. Maybe Pharaoh is right, maybe it's just sabre rattling. This administration unfortunately burned all its bridges in the way it handled Iraq, and would have no recourse but to invade completely alone, with the entire global community booing and hissing. |
|
| Apr 13th, 2006 02:10 PM | ||
| mburbank |
But if we happened to invade Iran and made a huge mess out of it, failure would no longer be an option and we'd have to stay until they had a stable democracy up and running, right? I don't think this current gang of fuck ups should be allowed to even toy with the idea. Donald Rumsfeld is still secretary of defense! Tennet has a medal of freedom around his neck! The current administration shouldn't have a drivers liscence, let alone control of the armed forces. Part of the problem is that as an administration, they have no credability at all, so it's impossible to assess the current level of threat from Iran. The BEST slant you could take is that W as a CEO leader has consistently rewarded failure. If a bus plunge is unavoidable, I want a new driver first. |
|
| Apr 13th, 2006 01:58 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Geggy, I don't want to invade Iran. Geggy, if we were to invade Iran, it wouldn't be over oil. Geggy, you shouldn't believe everything you read and hear. |
|
| Apr 13th, 2006 12:59 PM | ||
| Geggy |
Quote:
|
|
| Apr 13th, 2006 12:48 PM | ||
| Johnny Couth | Hasn't Ahmadinejad said multiple time that he will see America in a sea of flames. Those are good old fashioned fighting words. | |
| Apr 13th, 2006 12:44 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | And if there's one thing we know about you, it only takes one (insert supposed expert, such as a physicist or an engineer) to sum things up for you. | |
| Apr 13th, 2006 12:42 PM | ||
| Geggy |
Ha, very funny. It appears you have skewed perception of how I think or it's just wishful thinking. I choose to believe in nuclear analysts with experience than that lying scumbag Bush whom I have great mistrust in. |
|
| Apr 13th, 2006 11:55 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
