Iran's U.N. Mission Outraged at 300

[Guiscard]

I spoke to someone who has travelled extensively in Iran (as an archaeologist) a few weeks ago, and He believed that Iran is actually one of the most misunderstood countries in the world at the moment. Believe it or not women do have rights (they own businesses, are very relaxed with headscarves)... Two thirds of the population are under 30, and many really don't agree with their government and there is a significant reforming movement. What they DO feel, however, is patronised and insulted by the grand sweeping statements made by people such as Bush, and the that kind of rhetoric leads to ignorance like that expressed by jnd95:

but the government has made them to hate jews just like the Holocaust and the nazis

The government isn't brainwashing. Believe it or not Iranians can think for themselves just as Americans or British people can. Israel is a very disruptive force in the region, and they are (shock horror) occupying another country with strong ties to the Muslim world of which Iran is a major part. Firebrands like Ahmadinejad are going to here the harsh rhetoric and demonisation of the Muslim world by Western leaders and media and respond in kind.

I'm just saying all that because I get the impression that what the Iranian government says seems to get more publicised these days, which makes me wonder if it's all another process of softening us all up for war, or military action.

And this is spot on. Funny how our intelligence services claim to have known that Iran has been supplying insurgents all along, but it only comes out now when they need potential excuses for action.

[unriggable]

If the world was a school, Iran would be a nerd. They dont like many others company (except Jordan and Syria). Bu this "nerd" is not to be messed with. if you make fun of them (america) then they will come to school with a gun and kill you. Iran is a rascist, Anti-semetic country that should be left alone. If we dont pay attention, they will probably stop.

If the world was a school it would either be closed for vacation or be under school shootings every single day.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement, to say that Iran is a racist and anti-Semitic country? I get the impression that a lot of the population is actually pretty pro-American. You can't assume that just because the elected president comes out with racist remarks for electoral gain that the rest of the country is like that. If I did that, I'd assume that Americans were all brain-dead militaristic hicks.

I wouldn't say pro-american but most people disagree with the government when it comes to things such as theocratic rule.

[jay_a2j]

I'm 13 and think that Iran are not building nuclear weapons and just something to point out U.K are building nuclear weapons and U.S have nuclear weapons but are allowed
Isreal have them but are not allowed It's obvious favouritism here

Ok...there is a reason for this..... the UK, Israel and the US are NOT threatening their neighbors with their nukes. It ok to have them for DEFENSIVE reasons but not for OFFENSIVE reasons. Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. If Iran gets them... it's not hard to figure out what they will do with them.



NUKES 101..... class is now dismissed.

[nath21]

Yeah the two nukes the yanks dropped on the japs accidentally fell out of the plane.

You should have gone to Nukes 102

[jay_a2j]

Yeah the two nukes the yanks dropped on the japs accidentally fell out of the plane.

You should have gone to Nukes 102

That was to end the war quickly.... It wasn't an OFFENSIVE attack.... (that was discussed in NUKES 103)

[vtmarik]

Yeah the two nukes the yanks dropped on the japs accidentally fell out of the plane.

You should have gone to Nukes 102

That was to end the war quickly.... It wasn't an OFFENSIVE attack.... (that was discussed in NUKES 103)

Yeah, sure. An attack can be defensive.

Attack: At-tack [Uh-tack].
–verb (used with object)
1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.
5. to try to destroy, esp. with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation.
6. to set about (a task) or go to work on (a thing) vigorously: to attack housecleaning; to attack the hamburger hungrily.
7. (of disease, destructive agencies, etc.) to begin to affect.
–verb (used without object)
8. to make an attack; begin hostilities.
–noun
9. the act of attacking; onslaught; assault.
10. a military offensive against an enemy or enemy position.
11. Pathology. seizure by disease or illness: an attack of indigestion.
12. the beginning or initiating of any action; onset.
13. an aggressive move in a performance or contest.
14. the approach or manner of approach in beginning a musical phrase


Hm, I don't see the word "defend" or any of its synonyms in there. Strange.

[Fish Breeder Boy]

Yeah the two nukes the yanks dropped on the japs accidentally fell out of the plane.

You should have gone to Nukes 102

They also saved millions of lives, and probably the destruction of the Japanese race

[nath21]

My point was this was not a defensive move as most americans believe it was, but an offensive move. I agree totally with your point about saving american lives but my comment was in reference to the utterly wrong belief perpetrated by many americans that dropping a nuclear bomb was defensive for them and offemsive if anyone else in the world did it.

I agree the iranians need to be stopped they are the only member of the un that has every openly threatened with genocide another member but guess what america hasent won a war since 1945 (even then the russians basically tied up the majority of german forces whilst you mopped about a 1/3). You tried a few times but your not good at it anymore unless the rest of the world helps.

[Guiscard]

Ok...there is a reason for this..... the UK, Israel and the US are NOT threatening their neighbors with their nukes. It ok to have them for DEFENSIVE reasons but not for OFFENSIVE reasons. Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. If Iran gets them... it's not hard to figure out what they will do with them.

Iran doesn't want to wipe Israel off the map with Nukes. What they DO want (and have openly said) is that the Israeli state should not exist as a separate entity to Palestine, which is a view held by many all over the world. Put yourself in the position of an Iranian and look at the Israel-Palestine conflict... There's harsh rhetoric on both sides.

Whatever your views on the Israel-Palestine matter, surely it isn't hard to see why they'd want to develop nukes in the first place! Firstly, it takes away the rather real risk of their country being invaded by the Americans, which is especially potent due to Iran's extensive oil reserves and the example set by Iraq. it also decreases the very real risk of attack by Israel... this is an interesting article which falls neither pro- or anti- Iran


Secondly, the major hostile power in the region, Israel, has 200-400 nukes and a well-developed delivery system. Why do we have nukes? As a deterrent. Iran, as the other major power in the region, would (with nukes) act as a deterrent were Israel ever to consider using nuclear weapons on any country in the near east. Remember that a plan was recently leaked which from Israel detailing targets in Iran for nuclear strikes. Surely it is hypocritical for the US and the UK to freely develop and renew our nuclear arsenals in the name of a maintaining security when we condemn other countries from doing the same!

I don't want to sound like an Iranian apologist, and believe me I'm not (nuclear weapons are wrong in every case for whatever reason, in my opinion), but it really annoys me that a lot of the media and public opinion seems to revolve around Iran developing nukes so it can nuke the hell out of Israel and anyone else it doesn't like! They do have a pretty extremist government at the moment, but they're not stupid enough to forget that if they launched nukes at Israel their own country would be destroyed in the process. There is no realistic way for Iran to use nukes offensively in the current world climate, but defensively their reasons for development are only contradicted by Western hypocrisy.

On a further note, as for anti-semitism it is not ingrained in Iranian culture (as I've said before, I've spoken to people who have spent a lot of time in Iran, including a girl born and raised there). Ahmadinejad has made some pretty anti-semitic remarks, and that conference thing was a joke (not in the funny sense but in the pathetic sense) intended to show that Judaism wasn't immune from the immense criticism Islam receives. Obviously that was wrong, but Khamenei (the power behind the state, really), whilst still very anti-Israeli, has publicly stated that he acknowledges the holocaust, and that it should never happen again, but that it should not be used as an excuse to ignore Israli brutality.

[mr. incrediball]

any day now George will release a new ad:


"this is the sound of a nuclear missile launched by a western nation" (angels singing)

"and this is the sound of one launched by anyone else" (BOOM!)

"listen to the sounds again" (sounds play again)

"now, many people will wonder why westeners are allowed to use nukes but no-one else is, the answer is because it sounds right."

(sounds play again)

"why should we have nukes? because it sounds right."

[max is gr8]

I'm 13 and think that Iran are not building nuclear weapons and just something to point out U.K are building nuclear weapons and U.S have nuclear weapons but are allowed
Isreal have them but are not allowed It's obvious favouritism here

Hardly. The point is not to universally disarm, it's to stop even more people from having the capability to blow up the earth. Favouritism doesn't come into it.

5 nuclear bombs would destroy the world because of the dust blown into the air I think we should send them into space and destroy some of the asteroids in the asteroid belt

I also think that If one countries allowed all of the others w
should be too Isreal has them and so do some other countries yet we're not complaining about them this truely has become a battle for oil

[Dmunster]

My point was this was not a defensive move as most americans believe it was, but an offensive move. I agree totally with your point about saving american lives but my comment was in reference to the utterly wrong belief perpetrated by many americans that dropping a nuclear bomb was defensive for them and offemsive if anyone else in the world did it.

I agree the iranians need to be stopped they are the only member of the un that has every openly threatened with genocide another member but guess what america hasent won a war since 1945 (even then the russians basically tied up the majority of german forces whilst you mopped about a 1/3). You tried a few times but your not good at it anymore unless the rest of the world helps.

This comming from an Aussie, LOL. You would be speaking Japanese right now if it wasnt for our Nukes. Oh, and, what was the last war you fought, let alone won?

[Dmunster]

any day now George will release a new ad:


"this is the sound of a nuclear missile launched by a western nation" (angels singing)

"and this is the sound of one launched by anyone else" (BOOM!)

"listen to the sounds again" (sounds play again)

"now, many people will wonder why westeners are allowed to use nukes but no-one else is, the answer is because it sounds right."

(sounds play again)

"why should we have nukes? because it sounds right."

We dont mind China having nukes. We dont mind Pakistan having nukes. We dont mind India having nukes. Are these countries in the west? No. They are ruled by a, relatively, sane populace and government. I dont think geography has anything to do with it.

[unriggable]

any day now George will release a new ad:


"this is the sound of a nuclear missile launched by a western nation" (angels singing)

"and this is the sound of one launched by anyone else" (BOOM!)

"listen to the sounds again" (sounds play again)

"now, many people will wonder why westeners are allowed to use nukes but no-one else is, the answer is because it sounds right."

(sounds play again)

"why should we have nukes? because it sounds right."

We dont mind China having nukes. We dont mind Pakistan having nukes. We dont mind India having nukes. Are these countries in the west? No. They are ruled by a, relatively, sane populace and government. I dont think geography has anything to do with it.

It has to do with he instability of the Mideast. I think since the beginning of civilization it has been one of the worst places to live. There have been so many empires that have gone through it.

[DIRESTRAITS]

My point was this was not a defensive move as most americans believe it was, but an offensive move. I agree totally with your point about saving american lives but my comment was in reference to the utterly wrong belief perpetrated by many americans that dropping a nuclear bomb was defensive for them and offemsive if anyone else in the world did it.

I agree the iranians need to be stopped they are the only member of the un that has every openly threatened with genocide another member but guess what america hasent won a war since 1945 (even then the russians basically tied up the majority of german forces whilst you mopped about a 1/3). You tried a few times but your not good at it anymore unless the rest of the world helps.

How many wars have the Aussies won, ever? And you're forgetting Korea ad Gulf War 1

[Stopper]

We dont mind China having nukes. We dont mind Pakistan having nukes. We dont mind India having nukes. Are these countries in the west? No. They are ruled by a, relatively, sane populace and government. I dont think geography has anything to do with it.

I don't think there's very much point trying to come up with a coherent intellectual argument as to why the USA should have nukes, and Iran shouldn't, because there isn't one.

It's all very well Americans pointing at Iran's government and calling it insane and theocratic - but unkind people might say that was the pot calling the kettle black.

The fact of the matter is, no-one wanted India and Pakistan to have nukes. The situation over Kashmir had been highly unstable for years, with about 700,000 soldiers on both sides of the border (and quite often shelling each other). But no-one did anything about it, either because they couldn't or they wouldn't.

[DIRESTRAITS]

For those of you who wonder why it's ok for the US to have nukes and not Iran, I have a little story for you.

Back in WW2, 5 countries made up the Allies who fought the Axis powers. They were the Us, the UK, France, the Soviet Union(now Russia), and China. After the war, these countries were the only ones given the right to own nukes by the U.N.

[unriggable]

For those of you who wonder why it's ok for the US to have nukes and not Iran, I have a little story for you.

Back in WW2, 5 countries made up the Allies who fought the Axis powers. They were the Us, the UK, France, the Soviet Union(now Russia), and China. After the war, these countries were the only ones given the right to own nukes by the U.N.

That's pretty stupid, considering how they also made up the security council.

[DIRESTRAITS]

For those of you who wonder why it's ok for the US to have nukes and not Iran, I have a little story for you.

Back in WW2, 5 countries made up the Allies who fought the Axis powers. They were the Us, the UK, France, the Soviet Union(now Russia), and China. After the war, these countries were the only ones given the right to own nukes by the U.N.

That's pretty stupid, considering how they also made up the security council.

That was part of it. The winning nations got the power.

[vtmarik]

For those of you who wonder why it's ok for the US to have nukes and not Iran, I have a little story for you.

Back in WW2, 5 countries made up the Allies who fought the Axis powers. They were the Us, the UK, France, the Soviet Union(now Russia), and China. After the war, these countries were the only ones given the right to own nukes by the U.N.

That's pretty stupid, considering how they also made up the security council.

That was part of it. The winning nations got the power.

The people who made the rules are the only ones allowed to have nukes. Do you understand that it's that kind of power that causes the rest of the world to seek nukes? Why does Iran want nukes, because we've got them and they want to have some knowledge that they've got MAD on their side as well.

A country without nukes that has no allies among those nations that have nukes is going to try and get them. It's inevitable.

[Stopper]

For those of you who wonder why it's ok for the US to have nukes and not Iran, I have a little story for you.

Back in WW2, 5 countries made up the Allies who fought the Axis powers. They were the Us, the UK, France, the Soviet Union(now Russia), and China. After the war, these countries were the only ones given the right to own nukes by the U.N.

That's pretty stupid, considering how they also made up the security council.

That was part of it. The winning nations got the power.

Also, the problem with that story is, that Britain deliberately leaked information & materials to France about producing nukes without anyone's (including the US's) consent.

It looks like Britain did the same for Israel as well (although without the government's knowledge). Now, I don't know how South Africa managed to produce nuclear weapons back in the '80's, but they did. Also, India and Pakistan have them too. All these countries have close ties to...er...Britain.

I think we know who the worst proliferators are. I think we should nuke 'em. But not before I get an American passport, first.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

My point was this was not a defensive move as most americans believe it was, but an offensive move. I agree totally with your point about saving american lives but my comment was in reference to the utterly wrong belief perpetrated by many americans that dropping a nuclear bomb was defensive for them and offemsive if anyone else in the world did it.

I agree the iranians need to be stopped they are the only member of the un that has every openly threatened with genocide another member but guess what america hasent won a war since 1945 (even then the russians basically tied up the majority of german forces whilst you mopped about a 1/3). You tried a few times but your not good at it anymore unless the rest of the world helps.

This comming from an Aussie, LOL. You would be speaking Japanese right now if it wasnt for our Nukes. Oh, and, what was the last war you fought, let alone won?

By most objective accounts, the war was already over, barring some mopping up in Japan. The only reason why we dropped the bomb is because we knew Russia was almost finished with theirs. We wanted to show them that we had the will to drop it and ability to produce an effective bomb.

Moreover, the Australians have fought in both World Wars (ANZAC and Gallipoli anyone? Declaring war on Germany nearly 2 years before the United States?), but irrespective of this dodged fact, it does not invalidate what he has to say.

[jay_a2j]

Yeah the two nukes the yanks dropped on the japs accidentally fell out of the plane.

You should have gone to Nukes 102

That was to end the war quickly.... It wasn't an OFFENSIVE attack.... (that was discussed in NUKES 103)

Yeah, sure. An attack can be defensive.

Attack: At-tack [Uh-tack].
–verb (used with object)
1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.
5. to try to destroy, esp. with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation.
6. to set about (a task) or go to work on (a thing) vigorously: to attack housecleaning; to attack the hamburger hungrily.
7. (of disease, destructive agencies, etc.) to begin to affect.
–verb (used without object)
8. to make an attack; begin hostilities.
–noun
9. the act of attacking; onslaught; assault.
10. a military offensive against an enemy or enemy position.
11. Pathology. seizure by disease or illness: an attack of indigestion.
12. the beginning or initiating of any action; onset.
13. an aggressive move in a performance or contest.
14. the approach or manner of approach in beginning a musical phrase


Hm, I don't see the word "defend" or any of its synonyms in there. Strange.

What you and some others are failing to recognize is that we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. The USA was not sitting around and then dropped nukes on Japan unprovoked. And whoever brought up dropping the bombs on Japan sort of implied this. So far, all nations with nukes have them for defensive or "deterrent" reasons. Oh, and stop being a buttmunch.

[vtmarik]

What you and some others are failing to recognize is that we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. The USA was not sitting around and then dropped nukes on Japan unprovoked. And whoever brought up dropping the bombs on Japan sort of implied this. So far, all nations with nukes have them for defensive or "deterrent" reasons. Oh, and stop being a buttmunch.

Yeah, the reason we used the nukes was A) because we didn't want to risk our fighting boys in a land invasion and B) we wanted to put the fear of God into the USSR.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have done it, I'm just saying that phrases like "It wasn't an offensive attack" are incredibly stupid and that you shouldn't be ashamed to call it like it is. It was the last great offensive in the Pacific theater and it ended that half of the war pretty damn fast. There is no such thing as a defensive attack, and someone your age should be able to come to grips with that.