open Democracy News Analysis - Iran and the bomb, - Comments

Ttrryosborn on "Iran and the bomb"

Ttrryosborn — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:27:11 +0000

ttrryosborn now refers to Owly as Scowly. Why? simple. The Brits Without wits cannot name crits who are twits

brolly3 on "Iran and the bomb"

brolly3 — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:52:38 +0000

Brendon_too, I endorse Candace's comment, a very good post and one which Scowly Owly, as ttrryosborn now refers to him as, will find difficult to reasonably challenge. You have taken the wind out of both his sails and that of Nick Cohen, who is a fifth rater in intellectual terms.

tanyagregory24 on "Iran and the bomb"

tanyagregory24 — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:50:56 +0000

Hi I read through this very long discussion. I would like to simply reply to the starter of the thread as not to offend anyone who had later given their personal opinion and so on. Camron, there are many contravercial opinions based on this topic and similar topics. But you should not be simply asking about the nuclear weapons factor, instead, as i read in a politics section at another forum and one person asked (and i quote) Why would Washington and Tel Aviv object to the Iranians having an air defense system, do you think ? Maybe it's because the SA-15 missile system is optimised to destroy small stealthy objects flying at low/medium altitudes (10m to 6Km altitude), such as cruise missiles...? or maybe not...what do you guys think? refferance to - www.shoutingzone.com now this was a question based on http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=84362007 so you see its not just nuclear weapons people are rambling on against. They simply are attempting to prevent iran from arming itself in anyway. Even air defence or anything else. Clearly the reason why everyone is upset about this is that it will be more difficult for 'them' (not mentioning names) to invade Iran, or attempt to destroy their nuclear facilities (which they have already established)... either of which would be a massive mistake anyway. Iran is merely protecting themselves against a perceived threat, as well as putting them in a much better negotiating position from a diplomatic perspective Message was edited by: tanyagregory24

owly on "Iran and the bomb"

owly — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:35:03 +0000

brolly, Don't be so damned impertinent. You are forbidden to agree with me. :)

brolly3 on "Iran and the bomb"

brolly3 — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 04:00:27 +0000

owly, ["I think it is time we left Iraq as quickly as possible and left them to it. This is Islams war, not ours".] I think that your remark will upset a few people on OD but I am in total agreement with it.

Eduardo Ferreira on "Iran and the bomb"

Eduardo Ferreira — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:00:32 +0000

Owly, Iran fuelling the civil war on Iraq? How? Did they send portable anti-aircraft missiles like the US supplied the Mujahedin in Afghanistan? Did they send anti-tank missiles like the ones they supplied Hezbollah in Lebanon and where used against the Israeli? What is exactly the support Iran provides? Is the problem about the border with Iran? If that is the case then I should remember that it is badly guarded in both sides! That is how concerned the US forces are with Iran. And the present Lebanon situation is Iran's fault?! If you said something about it 18 months ago, let us remember what I said in 05-Sep-2006: The "war of Lebanon" created a new problem: the probable rise of Hezbollah as a political force. Or do you believe the Lebanese are going to trust the pro-US politicians, when the US boycotted any attempt to cease-fire? You may have forgotten that, but sensible persons cannot. And the Lebanese under the bombs will never forget it. So you may get Hezbollah disbanded to merge with the Lebanese regular army, under a Hezbollah Government. Then, I guess, you will no longer have a "terrorist group", but a "rogue nation" and a part of the "axis of evil". Nice going for a military action aimed at destroying Hezbollah.

owly on "Iran and the bomb"

owly — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:01:42 +0000

Brolly, There is a difference between Hitler and Ahmadenajad, but before his death President Von Hindenberg also had the ability to dismiss Hitler. He died and Hitler was able to become all powerful. However I think that what Ahmadenajad says in relation to Israel etc ought to be listened to a bit more closely because he might actually mean what he says. It is now perfectly clear that Iran is fueling the civil war in Iraq, something I said it was doing 18 months ago and you refused to believe. It seems Iran is also behind what is going on in the Lebanon. What I see is an attempt by the Iranians to not only protect, defend and advance the interests of their Shia faith, but also an attempt to gain leadership in the Middle East. Even the Shah dreamt of this. The problem is the point where the Sunni powers start to help their Sunni co-religionists can't be far off. I think it is time we left Iraq as quickly as possible and left them to it. This is Islams war, not ours.

brolly3 on "Iran and the bomb"

brolly3 — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:48:29 +0000

owly, ["As to attacking Iran and the destruction of these facilities it would seem that the way they have been built would mean it would be very difficult. I do feel that what the Iranian President says ought to be studied and listened to with a bit more care. He might actually mean it. After all Hitler did2.] There is a very significant difference between Ahmadenajad and Hitler. The former doesn't have the complete authority that Hitler had. There are people in Iran that can overrule and even remove him, if they deem it necessary. That is not to say that they will do this anytime soon but his status is not on a par with that of Hitler after 1933.

Robert_15 on "Iran and the bomb"

Robert_15 — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:20:26 +0000

chris, "I was actually heartened to see that a Western leader had the courage to break free from the American and Israeli led propaganda attack on Iran, Unfortunately he must have later realized the political price for voicing an independent thought and withdrew it". I am afraid it is more senility than courage which caused Chirac latest 'gaffe': "Ever since a mysterious vascular accident hospitalised Jacques Chirac in September 2005 amid rumours of a minor stroke, the media have been searching for signs that his age is finally catching up with Frances septuagenarian president. His latest gaffe, evoking the apocalyptic image of Iran firing a nuclear bomb at Israel and Tehran being razed to the ground, during an interview with two US newspapers and a French magazine this week, added to the impression of carelessness bordering on senility".(http://tinyurl.com/3bvb7h) Although his animosity against the USA is long known--and inherited from de Gaulle--up to now, he was smart enough to let his side kick De Villepin air it, but now that all is lost for him he lets his hair down.

chris9234 on "Iran and the bomb"

chris9234 — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:52:10 +0000

['French President Jacques Chirac said in an interview with two US newspapers and a French magazine that Iran's possession of a nuclear bomb would not be "very dangerous" and that if it used the weapon on Israel, Tehran would be immediately "razed."'] Robert, I was actually heartened to see that a Western leader had the courage to break free from the American and Israeli led propaganda attack on Iran, Unfortunatley he must have later realized the political price for voicing an independent thought and withdrew it. Here's a good clip for people like Owly. Skip ahead to 12:30 minutes once the video starts. http://tinyurl.com/uvr5b [Edited by: oD Forum Moderator. Shorter link included.]

Robert_15 on "Iran and the bomb"

Robert_15 — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:29:33 +0000

Chirac makes an ass of himself, again. French President Jacques Chirac said in an interview with two US newspapers and a French magazine that Iran's possession of a nuclear bomb would not be "very dangerous" and that if it used the weapon on Israel, Tehran would be immediately "razed." A day later, he called the trio of reporters from the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune (IHT) and Le Nouvel Observateur back to his office and said he thought he had been speaking off the record and withdrew many of his remarks, the reporters said. The IHT quoted him as saying: "It is I who was wrong and I do not want to contest it. ... I should have paid better attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on the record." The paper said it was not clear if Chirac's initial remarks reflected what he truly thought about Iran or whether he had misspoken. As I wrote before 'What is certain, however, is that Chirac has been the worst French President ever'(The arrogance of the French Posted: 22-Jan-2007) Message was edited by: Robert_15

chris9234 on "Iran and the bomb"

chris9234 — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:32:46 +0000

['Possibly owly is drawing his conclusions from the President of Iran's public comments... items like this:'] Steven, Well at least you've properly identified Owl's problem.

chris9234 on "Iran and the bomb"

chris9234 — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 13:29:52 +0000

['Thgis is true, but these revelations are relatively recent, and were not nearly so clear when the controversy began as they are now.'] Sorry Steven, but those revelations are not recent nor have they ever been unclear for anyone taking the time to do a little research on Iran.

Steven Rogers on "Iran and the bomb"

Steven Rogers — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 07:42:06 +0000

I think that Chris made that remark with a qualification of the 'little red button' in his post. You should really react to what is said, not what you think is implied. Perhaps you should direct that comment at Chris, since the "little red button" notion was neither present nor implied in the post to which he responded. The Iranian President has been shown as a weak and unsupported character in Iran that, regardless of US demonisation, is not capable of what he preaches. Thgis is true, but these revelations are relatively recent, and were not nearly so clear when the controversy began as they are now. The US has not "demonised" the Iranian President. He demonised himself, with his own big mouth: that's why his people are disowning him, they see clearly that he's brought the scorn of the world on his head, and they don't want that scorn - or sanctions, or bombs - on their heads as well.

Brendan 2 on "Iran and the bomb"

Brendan 2 — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 05:39:32 +0000

Steven, I think that Chris made that remark with a qualification of the 'little red button' in his post. You should really react to what is said, not what you think is implied. The Iranian President has been shown as a weak and unsupported character in Iran that, regardless of US demonisation, is not capable of what he preaches. If you think he has despotic abilities, or controls Iran in any verifiable way, shape, or form, let us know.

Iran and the bomb,

Cameron — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:47:55 +0000

What's the big deal if Iran gets nuclear weapons? It is not as if it could use them, it would be razed out of existence. There must be other reasons for the current saber rattling, as there were other reasons behind the WMD rhetoric preceding the invasion of Iraq.