Iran Elected Vice Chair of U.N. Disarmament Commitee (1 Viewer)

[easyt65]

Yeah, you read the above headline right!

:ranton:

Since we went into Iraq we discovered the U.N.'s totally corrupt 'Oil For Food' Scandal, in which the U.N. was running a Black Market operation to keep Hussein well supplied for lots of cash. While the U.N. was publicly admonishing Hussein and sanctioning him, they were privately, under the table, breaking every one of those sanctions....for some 12 YEARS! The list of guilty parties runs long, to include French President Jacques Chirac, Kofi Annon's son, and even the U.N. leader HIMSELF! An investigation has already uncovered proof of them receiving MILLIONS from Hussein for their illegal operation. After being caught, Koffi even tried to raid the Iraqi people's money again claiming he had the right to use the Iraqi people's Oil Money, a program set up to raise money to help feed and support the Iraqi people, to fund the Legal Defense of those exposed as having a part in the scandal! AMAZINGLY enough, none of these guys are in jail, and Koffi the Criminal Clown still leads the U.N.!

The investigation into the U.N.'s activities prior to and during the war also exposed that Russia had troops on the ground supplying Hussein with GPS jammers specifically designed to jam OUR weapons. As a result, we had to send special ops teams in to take out certain targets, ending up costing several American's lives! The Russians finally pulled out when Bush threatened to launch strikes using 'dumb' bombs and would not make any effort to ensure russians were not among the casualties.

Now, with Iranian President Ahmadinejad professing his intention to usher in the Muslim equivalent to the Messiah through Armagedon touched off by Nuking Israel to eliminate them from the face of the planet, IRAN HAS BEEN FREAKIN' ELECTED AS VICE CHAIR OF THE U.N. DISARMAMENT COMMITEE, (one of) the watchdog commitee(s) that is supposed to be presiding over the whole on-going Iranian Nuke Conclict ! :shock:

If the U.N. had even an ounce of CREDIBILITY left, it was flushed down the cr@pper today! What a useless, criminal, :soap organization! Why do we even put up with them anymore?! Once and for all, let's kick the whole freakin' lot of them out of this country! If you still want a 'World Organization', of representatives, then start over, but THIS group has SERIOUSLY got to be Dis-banned!
:rantoff:

 

[cascadian]

Oh the hyprocisy of one nation developing nuclear weapons and asking others not too. The outrage! The shamefulness of it is undeniable.

Only fine upstanding nations that do not possess nuclear weapons or at least have ever used them should be on that committee. Like the US for example, um I mean...:3oops: only people who aren't currently threatening others with nuclear strikes, um wait, only people we like should be on that committee.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Iv'e been saying for a long time ... The US out of the UN - The UN out of the US.

This wouldn't surprise me at all actualy..... It just seems like something halfassed and stupid this organization would do. No doubt someones getting a few duckets for this little fiasco. This organization serves no real purpose that isn't being taken care of someplace else... time to break it up and ship itn out.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Oh the hyprocisy of one nation developing nuclear weapons and asking others not too. The outrage! The shamefulness of it is undeniable.

Only fine upstanding nations that do not possess nuclear weapons or at least have ever used them should be on that committee. Like the US for example, um I mean...:3oops: only people who aren't currently threatening others with nuclear strikes, um wait, only people we like should be on that committee.

When has the the US threatened someone with a nuclear strike?

So you see no problem with basically alowing anyone in the world to have these weapons. You don't see how utterly foolish your entire statement is do you... Thats the shame of it. How about we sell our nukes stright to the terrorist so they can come after us, cut out the middleman an all

 

[easyt65]

Oh the hyprocisy of one nation developing nuclear weapons and asking others not too. The outrage! The shamefulness of it is undeniable.

Only fine upstanding nations that do not possess nuclear weapons or at least have ever used them should be on that committee. Like the US for example, um I mean...:3oops: only people who aren't currently threatening others with nuclear strikes, um wait, only people we like should be on that committee.

Dude, we have laws that prevent psychos from legally getting guns in this country. Think of the U.N./World as this country for a minute - we don't want psychos who announce to the world that they want to bring about Armagedon by a genocidal nuclear strike on an entire population TO HAVE A 'GUN'!

I can NOT believe you just made the argument that we should be quiet and let the Psycho (who helped perpetrate 9/11) have a Nuke! :doh

 

[cascadian]

When has the the US threatened someone with a nuclear strike?

Well, threats are an interesting thing. No the US is not so forthright as Iran, but we have other more subtle ways of communicating consequences should an actor on the world stage take certain actions. First of all the US states openly that might use nuclear weapons before another combatant (unlike other nuclear powers such as Israel). Second of all we refuse to rule out the nuclear option in dealing with Iran. In the language of diplomacy, this is an implicit threat. Here's an article if you're interested in learning more.

So you see no problem with basically alowing anyone in the world to have these weapons. You don't see how utterly foolish your entire statement is do you...

Actually I said nothing of the sort.

 

[cascadian]

I can NOT believe you just made the argument that we should be quiet and let the Psycho (who helped perpetrate 9/11) have a Nuke! :doh

I'm glad you don't believe it, since I didn't make that argument.

 

[easyt65]

Well, threats are an interesting thing. No the US is not so forthright as Iran, but we have other more subtle ways of communicating consequences should an actor on the world stage take certain actions. First of all the US states openly that might use nuclear weapons before another combatant (unlike other nuclear powers such as Israel). Second of all we refuse to rule out the nuclear option in dealing with Iran. In the language of diplomacy, this is an implicit threat.

By informing the Iranians we have not ruled out the nuclear option the President DID HIS JOB! We have to make it perfectly clear to this PSYVHO that the United States will not allow Psychos intent on starting Armagedon and nuking other countries in order to eliminate them from existence to have nuclear weapons, especiallyPsychos who have already helped terrorists attack the U.S. To announce to an 'enemy' that there is a limit to which we will go for our own survival or the survival of our allies is STUPID! The Democrats have not learned this or do not believe in this, however, as they keep declaring that we should surrender and retreat from the war on terror/Al Qaeda.

Clinton declared to Bin laden and Al Qaeda that all military options were off the table after Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. Clinton did nothing, signaling all military operations were off the table. The result was Kobar Towers, USS Cole, and 2 African Embassy bombings - oh, and the 1st attempt on the World Trade Center! Nothing was ever done. Now you are criticizing the President for saying that we maintain the sovereign right to leave all options available to us on the table in order to defend ourselves from PSYCHOS who have already attacked us (or at least aided in the attack) and has declared they WILL nuke Israel?!


Sounds like Kerry's campaign speech when he stated he would check with the U.N. before defending America from future attacks! That from a self-professed 'Internationalist'!:roll: Whatever!

 

[easyt65]

I'm glad you don't believe it, since I didn't make that argument.

On the contrary....

Oh the hyprocisy of one nation developing nuclear weapons and asking others not too. The outrage! The shamefulness of it is undeniable.

Only fine upstanding nations that do not possess nuclear weapons or at least have ever used them should be on that committee. Like the US for example, um I mean... only people who aren't currently threatening others with nuclear strikes, um wait, only people we like should be on that committee.

- Translation: The U.S. is a hypocrit for developing nuclear weapons for the defense of their nation against enemies determined to use them for global domination. Having no credible leg to stand on in this debate, they should shut up, butt out, and mind their own business!

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Well, threats are an interesting thing. No the US is not so forthright as Iran, but we have other more subtle ways of communicating consequences should an actor on the world stage take certain actions. First of all the US states openly that might use nuclear weapons before another combatant (unlike other nuclear powers such as Israel). Second of all we refuse to rule out the nuclear option in dealing with Iran. In the language of diplomacy, this is an implicit threat. Here's an article if you're interested in learning more.
Actually I said nothing of the sort.

So in other words the US never said anything of the sort and you made the statement up to exagerate a situation to try and make a bad point about we have so everyone should... OK ... next time just prefrence your sentence with "This sentence is not true and hold absolutlely no merit or fact. I am using it only to prove a twisted point and want you to see thinkgs in the general disfunctionary way that I do"

Problem solved continue to exagerate and make false claims

 

[cascadian]

- Translation: The U.S. is a hypocrit for developing nuclear weapons for the defense of their nation against enemies determined to use them for global domination. Having no credible leg to stand on in this debate, they should shut up, butt out, and mind their own business!

The fact that you had to put a "translation" disclaimer on this should be proof enough for that it's not what I said. :lol:

 

[easyt65]

The fact that you had to put a "translation" disclaimer on this should be proof enough for that it's not what I said. :lol:

You called the United States a Hypocrit for having nukes and being wrong in trying to tell anyone, like the INSANE Iranian President who wants t start Armagedon while committing genocide of the Jews, that they can NOT have nukes. Therefore, you made the case that America should butt out and let Iran have nukes. Have an opinion, and when you voice it, don't apologize for it later or try to deny it! If you do, you just look silly.

 

[cascadian]

So in other words the US never said anything of the sort

Threats do not require words. If someone was to hold a gun to your head, without saying a word, would you consider that a threat? In fact, the existence of a threat can exist simply by someone feeling threatened, which I'm sure Iran does as a result of US posturing.

The US is a nation with ICBM's that can reach a target anywhere in the world inside of minutes, we have stealth planes that can drop bombs anywhere within hours. The slightest nuances get the job done very well, we don't have to jump up and down like Iran to get noticed.

Problem solved continue to exagerate and make false claims

:roll: The easiest way to "win" an argument is to plug your ears. Looks like you've figured that out.

 

[cascadian]

You called the United States a Hypocrit for having nukes and being wrong in trying to tell anyone, like the INSANE Iranian President who wants t start Armagedon while committing genocide of the Jews, that they can NOT have nukes.

Wow, I keep saying new things each time you reference my original post. :lol: If you're going to accuse me of saying something I didn't, at least keep your story straight.

Therefore, you made the case that America should butt out and let Iran have nukes..

This is obviously your inference.

Have an opinion, and when you voice it, don't apologize for it later or try to deny it! If you do, you just look silly.

It's a lot easier to present a case when people aren't making false accusations about what you've said already.

 

[easyt65]

The slightest nuances get the job done very well, we don't have to jump up and down like Iran to get noticed.

Bush never jumped up and down. All he did was answer a question by saying the nuclear option had not been removed from the table.

 

[easyt65]

Oh the hyprocisy of one nation developing nuclear weapons and asking others not too. The outrage! The shamefulness of it is undeniable.

Only fine upstanding nations that do not possess nuclear weapons or at least have ever used them should be on that committee. Like the US for example, um I mean... only people who aren't currently threatening others with nuclear strikes, um wait, only people we like should be on that committee.

EASY: You called the United States a Hypocrit for having nukes and being wrong in trying to tell anyone, like the INSANE Iranian President who wants t start Armagedon while committing genocide of the Jews, that they can NOT have nukes.

Cascadian: I didn't say that.

REALLY? :shock: "Oh the hypocrisy...." followed by the rest of the ridiculous satirical condemnation of the US......Maybe it is just ME, but it sure sounds like you were just saying that!


I am not trying to say that you called the U.S. a hypocrit and are stannding up for Iran being elected to the VICE CHAIR of the very commitee thatis supposed to stop rogue states and PSYCHOS, like Iran, from acquiring nukes....you already did it yourself above!

You can keep denying, and I can keep putting your own words back up if ya want. Like I said, pick a side, 'John Kerry', and stick to it.

 

[cascadian]

Bush never jumped up and down.

Exactly. He doesn't have to.

Oh the hypocrisy...." followed by the rest of the ridiculous satirical condemnation of the US......Maybe it is just ME, but it sure sounds like you were just saying that!

It's looks like you're trying support a small section of what you said that I said, namely that I called the US hypocritical.

I will be more than happy to address that particular claim, but first, are you dropping the rest of your allegations or just not supporting them?

 

[easyt65]

I will be more than happy to address that particular claim, but first, are you dropping the rest of your allegations or just not supporting them?

Not at all, just pointing out how you are defending Iran's election as vice chair to the very commitee sworn to stopping IRAN from developing nukes, and in turn defending Iran getting nukes! Saying Iran has a right to be on this panel with what is going on is declaring you think it is ok for Iran to get nukes because that is EXACTLY what is going to happen as a result of Iran being elected to this cimitee! Their election to this comitee, the U.N. allowing them to be Vice chair is Koffi and the U.N. giving a middle finger to Israel, who Iran has sworn to erase from the planet, and the U.S., Israel's ally and the country Iran helped attack on 9/11, and giving Iran the U/N.'s 'blessing' to continue down the path of developing nukes!

 

[Deegan]

It's o.k to be hypocritical sometimes, just like when a policemen wears a gun on his side, and I don't. Or when the military can own a Submarine, stocked with nuclear weapons, but I can't. We are hypocritical, we can own them, and we decide who can, and who can not, someone has to do it, this world is far from rational, responsible, or trustworthy.

When I hear statements like that, I just have to roll my eyes.:roll:

 

[vibeeleven]

I can't believe you guys even responded to that pathetic argument.

Hey there champ, would you appoint a burglar to your neighborhood watch? I didn't think so. Nobody buys the commie crap you spew about if someone has something, than everyone else has a right to it also.

 

[cascadian]

Not at all, just pointing out how you are defending Iran's election as vice chair to the very commitee sworn to stopping IRAN from developing nukes, and in turn defending Iran getting nukes!

Sigh... I didn't say Iran has a right to be on the committee or to get nukes. If you're not sure what my stance is, you should try asking a question. Starting a whole argument with a straw man leads me to believe that you're not listening to me to begin with.

 

[cascadian]

I can't believe you guys even responded to that pathetic argument.

You mean the argument that they made up in their heads? I wouldn't believe it either if I didn't see it.

Hey there champ, would you appoint a burglar to your neighborhood watch? I didn't think so. Nobody buys the commie crap you spew about if someone has something, than everyone else has a right to it also.

Oy. Now I'm a commie too. :shock: This gets richer by the minute. Next thing you know I'll be a Nazi (Godwin's law and all that).

 

[oldreliable67]

There are certainly some good reasons to not attempt to take out the nascent Iranian nuke capability. But, as you read these following quotations from and about the Iranian leadership, consider whether America specifically and the rest of the ME in general would be more or less safe if these people had access to nukes...

"You should make the world understand that Israel is the oppressor and that Israel must be destroyed." -- Ayatollah Ali Meshkini

"The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm." -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world – and this is attainable." -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews', and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves." -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"(I)f someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can." -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world" -- Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

"Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world. The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world." -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"Iran's hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.

In yet another sign of Teheran's stiffening resolve on the nuclear issue, influential Muslim clerics have for the first time questioned the theocracy's traditional stance that Sharia law forbade the use of nuclear weapons.

One senior mullah has now said it is "only natural" to have nuclear bombs as a "countermeasure" against other nuclear powers, thought to be a reference to America and Israel.

The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." -- The Telegraph

"After his U.N. speech in September, Ahmadinejad was caught on videotape telling a cleric that during the speech an aura, a halo, appeared around his head right on the podium of the General Assembly. "I felt the atmosphere suddenly change. And for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. . . . It seemed as if a hand was holding them there, and it opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic Republic." -- Charles Krauthammer on Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad

"To shouts of “Death to America,” Iran’s parliament unanimously approved the outline of a bill Sunday that would require the government to resume uranium enrichment, legislation likely to deepen an international dispute over Iran’s nuclear activities." -- Associated Press Via Little Green Footballs

"Relations between the west and the hardline Iranian regime are set to worsen after a Tehran-based group claimed yesterday it was trying to recruit Iranians and other Muslims in Britain to carry out suicide bombings against Israel.

The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign, which claims to be independent but has the backing of the regime, said it is targeting potential recruits in Britain because of the relative ease with which UK passport-holders can enter Israel." -- The Guardian

"The first target is Israel. For us, that is the battlefield. All the Jews are targets, whether military or civilian. It's our land and they are in the wrong place. It's their duty to pay attention to safety of their own families and move them away from the battlefield." -- Mohammad Samadi, spokesman for The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign

"Some 10,000 people have registered their names to carry out martyrdom operations on our defined targets. Our targets are mainly the occupying American and British forces in the holy Iraqi cities, all the Zionists in Palestine, and Salman Rushdie." -- Mohammad Samadi, spokesman for The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign

"The world of Islam has been mobilized against America for the past 25 years. The peoples call, "death to America." Who used to say "death to America?" Who, besides the Islamic Republic and the Iranian people, used to say this? Today, everyone says this." -- Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

"God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism" -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Source.

 

[cascadian]

I went to a conference recently to see Thomas Schelling speak about nuclear proliferation.

He seemed to feel that Iran actually would be very hesitant to use a nuclear weapon on Israel. It is a holy site for Islam as well, and undoubtedly it would be devastating to Palistinians too. I hope he's right on that. Threatening Israel is nothing new and it plays well for Arab politicians.

The primary driving force that Schelling saw was the threat posed by the US. Being in the "Axis of Evil" hardly makes Iran feel secure. A nuclear threat would be an excellent way to demand respect and some assurance of not being attacked by the US.

Now, that being said, beyond the general consequences of nuclear proliferation to any country, the world is not so sure that Iran has the sophistication to insure that the bomb can be kept under adequate security. This actually worries me more than them using it intentionally, believe it or not.

This is a very sticky situation though. Most countries would not like to bear the effects of sanctioning Iran. Iran has refused some rather tasty carrots as well. My guess at this point is that the security council will find some way to hedge until the US actually bombs Iran (to the council's secret relief).

This will have bad consequences for the US though. I'm certain of it. Iraq has put our backs to the wall in terms of international good will and the capacity to carry out police-like actions within the context of some kind of global order. Furthermore if we have to use nuclear weapons to destroy their nuclear capacity, we will shatter a 60 year old moratorium on their use. The consequences of that cannot be measured.

If there's any carrot we can offer that they would accept, I think we should consider it.

 

[oldreliable67]

If there's any carrot we can offer that they would accept, I think we should consider it.

Anyone who spends half an hour looking at Iranian foreign policy over the last 27 years sees five things:

1. contempt for the most basic international conventions;
2. long-reach extraterritoriality;
3. effective promotion of radical Pan-Islamism;
4. a willingness to go the extra mile for Jew-killing (unlike, say, Osama);
5. an all-but-total synchronization between rhetoric and action.

When considering carrots, one writer put it quite well when he wrote:

So the question is: Will they do it?

And the minute you have to ask, you know the answer. If, say, Norway or Ireland acquired nuclear weapons, we might regret the “proliferation,” but we wouldn’t have to contemplate mushroom clouds over neighboring states. In that sense, the civilized world has already lost: to enter into negotiations with a jurisdiction headed by a Holocaust-denying millenarian nut job is, in itself, an act of profound weakness—the first concession, regardless of what weaselly settlement might eventually emerge.

Conversely, a key reason to stop Iran is to demonstrate that we can still muster the will to do so. Instead, the striking characteristic of the long diplomatic dance that brought us to this moment is how September 10th it’s all been. The free world’s delegated negotiators (the European Union) and transnational institutions (the IAEA) have continually given the impression that they’d be content just to boot it down the road to next year or the year after or find some arrangement—this decade’s Oil-for-Food or North Korean deal—that would get them off the hook. If you talk to EU foreign ministers, they’ve already psychologically accepted a nuclear Iran. Indeed, the chief characteristic of the West’s reaction to Iran’s nuclearization has been an enervated fatalism.[emphasis added]

Source