Nuclear facilities

[xmad]

Originally Posted by freddie

if they want to be taken seriously

If they want to be taken seriously??
I think there's no need to remind that Iran has so many things which the most important one is the OIL.

Originally Posted by intervolkov

the trouble is the new Iran President

This issue has been before the new president.

[freddie]

Originally Posted by xmad

If they want to be taken seriously??
I think there's no need to remind that Iran has so many things which the most important one is the OIL.

Which is exactly why they could be taken TOO seriously. As seriously as Iraq was. Catch my drift?

[xmad]

Do you compare Iran to Iraq?There are so much differences between them.

[freddie]

Originally Posted by xmad

Do you compare Iran to Iraq?There are so much differences between them.

Comparing them doesn't mean there aren't any dfferences between them.

[PowerPuff Grrl]

Originally Posted by Amber

Now in the Middle East it should also be a question of balance, Israel has nuclear weapons and is totally backed by the US, Middle Eastern countries know that Israel and the US can destroy them, but of course they can't destroy Israel or the US.
If Iran had nuclear weapons, it would create some balance between Israel and the rest of the region since each side would know that the other can destroy them.

But would it create a balance?
Arabs hate Persians (or more specifically; Sunnis hate Shiites) as much as they hate Israelis*. This will only make a huge demand for an Arab state to acquire nuclear weapons as well. Iraq was their only defense against Iran, now with that gone it only seems inevitable that an Arab country will be seeking weapons too.
Syria perhaps?
If that's the case, Israel's out-numbered.

In all honesty, nuclear weapons have only been used once against another country; US to Japan. And that was when nobody else had them, no threat of retaliation. The more countries have it the more they'll be reluctant to ever use it. Of course that all depends if leaders aren't crazy enough to use it.
So far so good... right?


*They all hate each other, really.

[freddie]

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

If that's the case, Israel's out-numbered.

Possibly. But Israel has a huge ally in the US, which is the first and the strongest nuclear force. I doubt any Arab country present or future would be stupid enough to nuke Israel or even threaten to do so. The result would be nothing but complete annihilation of the said country. I don't think any Arab leader, no matter how extreme is willing to go that far to achieve wishes of Allah.

[xmad]

Originally Posted by freddie

achieve wishes of Allah

wishes of Allah? Are you saying that God wants them to do that?

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

Iraq was their only defense against Iran

Who did start the war?(Iran-Iraq war) Iraq, because those days Iraq knew that Iran was weak because of the revolution.

[freddie]

Originally Posted by xmad

wishes of Allah? Are you saying that God wants them to do that?

That was sarcasm.

[PowerPuff Grrl]

Originally Posted by xmad

Who did start the war?(Iran-Iraq war) Iraq, because those days Iraq knew that Iran was weak because of the revolution.

Iraq started it in 1980; they claimed that some oil-rich part of Iran was originally under Mesopotamia and that the Ottoman Empire unfairly gave it to Persia. Though I'm not too sure, I think this conflict actually goes back for centuries and, as you said, Saddam saw an opportunity in the Iranian Revolution.

[xmad]

Originally Posted by freddie

That was sarcasm.

No offense, Dont you think what you said was ridiculous? and even offensive.

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

they claimed that some oil-rich part of Iran was originally under Mesopotamia and that the Ottoman Empire unfairly gave it to Persia.

Ooooooooooppppppppppssssssss,what are you saying?Before the Ottoman empire, Iraq was part of IRAN ruled under the Aq Qoyunlu dynasty.

[PowerPuff Grrl]

Originally Posted by xmad

Ooooooooooppppppppppssssssss,what are you saying?Before the Ottoman empire, Iraq was part of IRAN ruled under the Aq Qoyunlu dynasty.

Yeah, and after its partition under the Ottomans the Iraqis have been having issues with it since. Obviously Iraqis aren't too keen on remembering the Persian occupation back then, it must have further enraged them to know that the parts they were fighting for during the Gulf War was/is still inhabited by ethnic Arabs; remnants of Persia's occupation.

Not that they were justified or anything.

[freddie]

Originally Posted by xmad

No offense, Dont you think what you said was ridiculous? and even offensive.

What do you mean? In what way?

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

Yeah, and after its partition under the Ottomans the Iraqis have been having issues with it since. Obviously Iraqis aren't too keen on remembering the Persian occupation back then, it must have further enraged them to know that the parts they were fighting for during the Gulf War was/is still inhabited by ethnic Arabs; remnants of Persia's occupation.

On that point... I always wondered something. Aren't Persians today genetically much closer to Arabs than to Indo-european tribes? Inevitable mixing HAD to happen during the centuries. Or maybe they're a mix of the two.

[marina]

Originally Posted by xmad

I see many countries dont wanna let Iran has this kind of facilities even those top countries.
Why do they find it dangerous ?

I couldn't really tell why,xmad . Maybe it's something to do with the Mullah-ruled , extremist country , which don't want their women rising above the rank of house pets, they don't want to contend with alternative lifestyles, a competetive capitalist consumer culture, or a world where they don't have a death strangle on their people. Dangerous in another words .
No ?

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by marina

I couldn't really tell why,xmad . Maybe it's something to do with the Mullah-ruled , extremist country , which don't want their women rising above the rank of house pets, they don't want to contend with alternative lifestyles, a competetive capitalist consumer culture, or a world where they don't have a death strangle on their people. Dangerous in another words .
No ?

No. The creation of the Islamic Republic and the anti-Western sentiment was a reaction towards the American-UK led coup against the people's elected prime minister of Iran which reinstated a former dictatorial regime backed by the aforementioned superpowrers - which went against the people's will, crashing civil liberties etc.
Actually, 20th century world politics are quite simple: the U.S. and their close allies would crash democratic regimes whenever it suited their own interests. 21th century world politics would see the U.S. undoing their own doings in a pledge to fight for democracy.
The propaganda on how extremist the Irani goverment is, and how the people of Iran suffer, may serve Bush just right if he decides to invade Iran to "liberate" them - despite the fact that Iran was always in the receiving end in recent history and never showed any territorial claims over its neighbours - as, other, former U.S. allies did.
What we're doing, in reality, is creating even more enemies in the Arab world, an area in the world which is in our best interest to have only friends.
As for Iran's development of nuclear technology, it's perfectly ok, as long as it is developed as a source of energy; that is what they claim anyway. Nuclear energy will become a priority in this century as the recources of natural energy are being exhausted and the pollution of the environment continues to the same dramatic acceleration.


Our so much celebrated "competetive capitalist consumer culture" is actually destroying our planet.

[haku]

Originally Posted by freddie

On that point... I always wondered something. Aren't Persians today genetically much closer to Arabs than to Indo-european tribes? Inevitable mixing HAD to happen during the centuries. Or maybe they're a mix of the two.

This is a very sensitive topic in Iran, officially Iranians consider themselves as of pure Indo-European descent, the country was renamed from Persia to Iran precisely to assert their Aryan origin. I doubt any Iranian government as ever allowed any genetic research to determine exactly the part of Indo-European heritage in modern Iranians.

That being said, modern Iranians are probably like modern Europeans, a mix-up of Indo-European tribes who came from the Indo-European homeland and prehistorical indigenous populations, the Semite influence seems relatively marginal to me as modern Iranians are physically rather close to Indians and don't exhibit the typical Semite facial traits.

[PowerPuff Grrl]

Originally Posted by marina

I couldn't really tell why,xmad . Maybe it's something to do with the Mullah-ruled , extremist country , which don't want their women rising above the rank of house pets, they don't want to contend with alternative lifestyles, a competetive capitalist consumer culture, or a world where they don't have a death strangle on their people. Dangerous in another words .
No ?

Iranians aren't expansionists so they pose no threat to any else. It doesn't matter if a country is terrible to its people. You have China, not exactly a shining beacon of human rights executing more journalists than any one else and they have their eye on Taiwan. By your reasoning they shouldn't have any nukes either.

Originally Posted by spyretto

No. The creation of the Islamic Republic and the anti-Western sentiment was a reaction towards the American-UK led coup against the people's elected prime minister of Iran which reinstated a former dictatorial regime backed by the aforementioned superpowrers - which went against the people's will, crashing civil liberties etc.
Actually, 20th century world politics are quite simple: the U.S. and their close allies would crash democratic regimes whenever it suited their own interests. 21th century world politics would see the U.S. undoing their own doings in a pledge to fight for democracy.
The propaganda on how extremist the Irani goverment is, and how the people of Iran suffer, may serve Bush just right if he decides to invade Iran to "liberate" them - despite the fact that Iran was always in the receiving end in recent history and never showed any territorial claims over its neighbours - as, other, former U.S. allies did.
What we're doing, in reality, is creating even more enemies in the Arab world, an area in the world which is in our best interest to have only friends.
As for Iran's development of nuclear technology, it's perfectly ok, as long as it is developed as a source of energy; that is what they claim anyway. Nuclear energy will become a priority in this century as the recources of natural energy are being exhausted and the pollution of the environment continues to the same dramatic acceleration.

Mohammed Mossadegh, the former elected leader of Iran, was a communist. Had the Iranian Revolution actually been about the deseating of Mossadegh than Iran would have reverted back to communism. Iranians were angry about the Shah, yes, but the Fundamentalists manipulated all of the political parties involved in the Revolution and after it was won the Ayatollah arrested every single one of them. This was a tragic case of Iranians getting more than what they bargained for. As well, the exact same result happened with the past election of Ahmednijad (sp?); all of the moderates protested the election by refusing to vote, they argued that the leaders that they elected never actually did anything. Once again they got more than what they bargained for.

Though the West may have been implicit in Iranian politics back then, what is happening now has nothing to do with them. Iran is so pro-West that if Bush had in fact invaded Iran rather Iraq, the troops would have actually been greeted as liberators.

Originally Posted by Amber

the country was renamed from Persia to Iran precisely to assert their Aryan origin

Actually it was the other way around, it is now called Iran to assert their Islamic origin and deny everything else.

[xmad]

Originally Posted by freddie

On that point... I always wondered something. Aren't Persians today genetically much closer to Arabs than to Indo-european tribes? Inevitable mixing HAD to happen during the centuries. Or maybe they're a mix of the two.

OH MY GOD,Are you brave enough to say this in Iran?I got really angry when I read your post.

some countries that now exist, were part of Iran.(not only Iraq)

Originally Posted by marina

Maybe it's something to do with the Mullah-ruled , extremist country , which don't want their women rising above the rank of house pets,

Do you mean in Iran women are not allowed to do anything??If so,I'd say that's so not true.(I hate our current regime but what you are saying is wrong)

Originally Posted by spyretto

The propaganda on how extremist the Irani goverment is, and how the people of Iran suffer, may serve Bush just right if he decides to invade Iran to "liberate" them -

No,I personally dont want this to happen,how can you say this,when you dont know what the war is?I've seen and lived the war and I know how terrible it is.

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

Actually it was the other way around, it is now called Iran to assert their Islamic origin and deny everything else

Really??As an Iranian I didnt know this.
PowerPuff Grrl, you dont have to talk this sure about something that you dont have enough information,cuz in all of your posts I see so many wrong Information.

[spyretto]

Mohammed Mossadegh, the former elected leader of Iran, was a communist.

Not at all. He wanted to end the British exploitation of Iranian oil and nationalize the industry so as to be run by the Iranians themselves. The Brits forced an embargo on Iranian oil and when that didn't work tried to make the Americans involved in the first place, and what best way than to spread the rumour that Iran's leader is moving towards the Soviet influence. Then the Americans started accusing Mossadegh of being harmful to its people, in an efford to turn the Iranian public and the international community against him. Finally, the US and UK forces led the coup backed by pro-monarchy elements and Mossadegh was left stranded. He was arrested and the former Shakh was rushed back to the country. ( he left the country on his own, afraid that Mossadegh would prevail the coup )

For more information, you can look in any historical book/encynclopedia available.

Though the West may have been implicit in Iranian politics back then, what is happening now has nothing to do with them. Iran is so pro-West that if Bush had in fact invaded Iran rather Iraq, the troops would have actually been greeted as liberators.

This is perhaps what the West wants to believe then. Maybe that's what they thought of Iraq too. It makes no sense whatsoever though.

[freddie]

Originally Posted by xmad

OH MY GOD,Are you brave enough to say this in Iran?I got really angry when I read your post.

some countries that now exist, were part of Iran.(not only Iraq)

So you have a different opinion? Okay. Lets hear it.
And I don't know what connection countries being a part of Iran has with what I was saying.

Originally Posted by xmad

Do you mean in Iran women are not allowed to do anything??If so,I'd say that's so not true.(I hate our current regime but what you are saying is wrong)

I wouldn't go that far but they sure aren't considered equal in that sociaty. Not that this is anything unusual in middle-eastern cultures.

We're straying off-topic here, though. We were talking about Iran's nuclear facilities and their right in having it I believe.

[PowerPuff Grrl]

Originally Posted by xmad

Really??As an Iranian I didnt know this.
PowerPuff Grrl, you dont have to talk this sure about something that you dont have enough information,cuz in all of your posts I see so many wrong Information.

Info I get of Iran are from people who have lived there, much like yourself. The chances of them being wrong is just about the same as yours. Rather than pointing to different posts and dictating what is right and wrong based on the authority of your nationality I suggest just giving another explanation for it. Your nationality doesn't give you a final say on things even if you're only one here that is actually Iranian. History is always up for debate (such as the racial make-up of your country), especially when viewed from other countries as exemplified in this forum. Just ask the Americans and the Turks in this forum.

Originally Posted by spyretto

This is perhaps what the West wants to believe then. Maybe that's what they thought of Iraq too. It makes no sense whatsoever though.

Once again I got this from Iranians. The last direct image the West, particularly the States, received from Iran was from the Revolution so most people across N. America believe its all just the typical run of the mill fundamentalism.
The impression I get is quite the opposite. Iran has a huge demographic of overeducated youth that are increasingly becoming more disaffected with the current government. The pro-West attitude is merely a reaction to this government.