Pressure mounts on defiant Iran

[Scholar in training]

In Iran JEws (a minority, 0.3%) are garuanteed 1-2 seats in the parliament, regarldless of their numbers. Jews other wise don't have majority in a single electoral district of Iran.

Got a link? How many seats are in Iran's parliament altogether?

and iran is slaughtering israeli citizens, huh? deep thinking.

If Iran's surprisingly recent statements are any indication of how they will act, then I would not feel unreasonable in saying that they will.

Yet you miss the point in the comparison. We have not said or done any of those things about or to Iraq.

iraq has no legitimate government. that's not a government of the people by the people.

You should provide "empirical evidence" when providing a statement like this. The voter turnout for last December's national elections says, at the very least, that the people do not "mind" having a democratic govt.

the elections are still being contested because the winners aren't the ones that WE wanted winning.

A priori assumption.

 

[k]

The US has a history of using Nukes and other WMDs specifically and purposefully on civillian populations. History does repeat itself. I just don't understand how in the WORLD Christians can justify the use of those horrible, anti-Christ weapons?

 

[CCGirl]

The rest of the world needs to stop the USA and its bullying people/nations into doing what is best for themselves, not the people!

Iran has the right to nuclear fuel.

 

[awesome liver]

Got a link? How many seats are in Iran's parliament altogether?


If Iran's surprisingly recent statements are any indication of how they will act, then I would not feel unreasonable in saying that they will.

Yet you miss the point in the comparison. We have not said or done any of those things about or to Iraq.


You should provide "empirical evidence" when providing a statement like this. The voter turnout for last December's national elections says, at the very least, that the people do not "mind" having a democratic govt.


A priori assumption.

yeah, voter turnout was high -- they voted for the people we didn't want winning. the guy running for office whom we tried to get elected didn't even get one percent. a priori reasoning, indeed.

 

[Scholar in training]

yeah, voter turnout was high -- they voted for the people we didn't want winning. the guy running for office whom we tried to get elected didn't even get one percent. a priori reasoning, indeed.

Then it will be a bit difficult for "us" to successfully "contest" the vote, will it not?

 

[bless_sins]

Salam (Peace),

Did you read the link I provided?
Yes, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill did meet in Iran, but that was closer to the end of the war, when the writing was on the wall, so to speak. Will you also deny that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Yasser Arafat's uncle) was an admirer of Der Fuhrer? No, my friend. There is a connection between Naziism and today's muslim shenannigans. I don't for a moment believe that all muslims are psychotic murderers; but I do believe that such a harsh religion engenders violence.

So after I prove you wrong by showing what a close freind of the U.S. Iran used to be ....you jump on to the Palestinians.

How does one man (with a very small following) in Palestine making the entire Palestinians Nazi???
Please answer that.

That man was not the leader of PAlestinians.

Infact PAlestinians had been demanding democratic election right before world war II. In 1936, PAlestinians demanded democracy thru the great uprising of (1936-39). How did Britain respond ??

In the end Britian had killed, handicapped, imprisoned and deported 10% of the PAelstinian male population.
This is what the PAletinians got for demanding democracy.

SO yeah. PAlestinians were without a leader thruout W W II.

Ofocurse your last sentence explains your outlook on Islam. I can see why you are soo anti-Irani, anti-Paleatinian, anti-arab etc...
Its cause you don't like the religion of Islam.

 

[bless_sins]

Salam (PEace),

yeah, voter turnout was high -- they voted for the people we didn't want winning. the guy running for office whom we tried to get elected didn't even get one percent. a priori reasoning, indeed.

You are 100% correct. Infact a little too correct.

The democratic gov of IRaq, is made of teh party of Aytoallah Sistani, the same people that want the U.S. out of IRaq.

This democratic gov has also delivered statements in Cairo (not in IRaq, for obvious reasons), that the IRaqi insurgency is justified, but not when it kills IRaqis or civilians....

SO what if the Iraqi insurgency kills American soldiers??? The democratic gov - condemning attacks on civilians - is silent to that question.

Democracy speaks for itself.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Got a link? How many seats are in Iran's parliament altogether?

Presently (since 2000 election), the Islamic Consultative Assembly has 290 seats.

The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran, Chapter VI (The Legislative Power), Section One (The Islamic Consultative Assembly), Article 64:

There are to be two hundred seventy members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly which, keeping in view the human, political, geographic and other similar factors, may increase by not more than twenty for each ten-year period from the date of the national referendum of the year 1368 of the solar Islamic calendar. The Zoroastrians and Jews will each elect one representative; Assyrian and Chaldean Christians will jointly elect one representative; and Armenian Christians in the north and those in the south of the country will each elect one representative. The limits of the election constituencies and the number of representatives will be deter-mined by law.

Kalevalatar

 

[bless_sins]

Thanks Kalevaltar,

Furthermore even if the Jews made up 1 % or 2 % of the pop. they still wouldn't have a majority in any single riding. They would be dispersed in many ridings, and therefore unable to win a seat.

We must note that these rights are not extended to Jews or Muslims or Hindus, in the U.S., Canada, Britain etc...

 

[jsn112]

How is it that the U.S, Britain, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel can have nukes but Iran can't? What exactly gives these nations the right to not only possess nukes but the right to deny that same right to Iran?

I hope Iran gets nukes, it'll ensure they won't be next on America's 'liberation' list.

Why is this type of thinking prevalence among the liberals? A rogue state with nukes...yeah...great idea. NOT!!!

 

[jsn112]

The US has a history of using Nukes and other WMDs specifically and purposefully on civillian populations. History does repeat itself. I just don't understand how in the WORLD Christians can justify the use of those horrible, anti-Christ weapons?

Again, I don't understand this use of logic. It is quite sad, actually. I often wondered about Michael Savage's saying that, "Liberalism is the disease of the mind." He is spot on. If you go back in history, if the US didn't use nukes, it would have to invade Japan in which over 1,000,000 people would have died on both sides with conventional weapons. Since nukes were used, only about 140,000 died. I not thrilled about the number of the dead, but it could have been a lot worse.

 

[bless_sins]

Again, I don't understand this use of logic. It is quite sad, actually. I often wondered about Michael Savage's saying that, "Liberalism is the disease of the mind." He is spot on. If you go back in history, if the US didn't use nukes, it would have to invade Japan in which over 1,000,000 people would have died on both sides with conventional weapons. Since nukes were used, only about 140,000 died. I not thrilled about the number of the dead, but it could have been a lot worse.

BUt that's where you are wrong!!!

Why does the U.S. have to invade countries. COuldn't the U.S. leave Japan be??

The reason for using nukes is that the U.S wanted to win a total victory.

I'm sure Iran won't use nukes unless in a war situation when it wants to win.

 

[jsn112]

BUt that's where you are wrong!!!

Why does the U.S. have to invade countries. COuldn't the U.S. leave Japan be??

The reason for using nukes is that the U.S wanted to win a total victory.

I'm sure Iran won't use nukes unless in a war situation when it wants to win.

No, I don't think I am wrong. Leaving Japan be is like leaving Hitler be after he was defeated. If so, he will be back for more, except that he will come back with a bigger gun. Japan was given numerous times to surrender unconditionally and sign a peace treaty. They refused. Then you know the rest...

Also, Iran may or may not use. But their Hezbollah may. On second thought, they will.

 

[Scholar in training]

Why does the U.S. have to invade countries.

Why does Iran have to invade countries?

COuldn't the U.S. leave Japan be??

No. Japan had attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor unprovoked. They had been on the side of the Axis for years and still intended to keep the countries they had "won" in the Pacific thanks to their imperial ventures.

The reason for using nukes is that the U.S wanted to win a total victory.

No.

I'm sure Iran won't use nukes unless in a war situation when it wants to win.

Iran shouldn't "win". The context is completely different from that of WWII.

 

[awesome liver]

No. Japan had attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor unprovoked. They had been on the side of the Axis for years and still intended to keep the countries they had "won" in the Pacific thanks to their imperial ventures.

ahahahahaha .... no.

the idea that japan was unprovoked is a construct made up in text-books of school children. japan was far from being unprovoked. the sanctions and unfavorable trade as a result of japan invading china was a carefully crafted plan to provoke them into just such thing. while the actual attack was a surprise in the sense that no one picked up the warning signs that particular day, the actual event was wanted and therefore expected.

 

[awesome liver]

Again, I don't understand this use of logic. It is quite sad, actually. I often wondered about Michael Savage's saying that, "Liberalism is the disease of the mind." He is spot on. If you go back in history, if the US didn't use nukes, it would have to invade Japan in which over 1,000,000 people would have died on both sides with conventional weapons. Since nukes were used, only about 140,000 died. I not thrilled about the number of the dead, but it could have been a lot worse.

the use of the nuclear weapon was stupid and set up the conditions for the cold war (though former secretary of defense robert macnamara states it was actually a "hot war" on the grounds that on more than one occasion, there could have been an actual war between the main countries). since the use of the bomb, and the end of the second world war, the cold was began. countries that hitler had dominated were split between east and west and basically appeased stalin to avoid another prolonged war, but that is what we got anyway. the cold war didn't spare the millions of lives of japanese and americans because it cost millions of lives elsewhere through proxy wars in countries around the world where we propped governments because they were "against" communism, but were quite notorious themselves. tens of millions in africa in their countless civil wars were a direct result of using the nuclear weapons.

 

[Scholar in training]

ahahahahaha .... no.

Laughing at yourself? I think you're pretty funny too.

the idea that japan was unprovoked is a construct made up in text-books of school children. japan was far from being unprovoked. the sanctions and unfavorable trade as a result of japan invading china was a carefully crafted plan to provoke them into just such thing.

*FDR conspiracy theory goes here.

 

[jsn112]

the use of the nuclear weapon was stupid and set up the conditions for the cold war (though former secretary of defense robert macnamara states it was actually a "hot war" on the grounds that on more than one occasion, there could have been an actual war between the main countries). since the use of the bomb, and the end of the second world war, the cold was began. countries that hitler had dominated were split between east and west and basically appeased stalin to avoid another prolonged war, but that is what we got anyway. the cold war didn't spare the millions of lives of japanese and americans because it cost millions of lives elsewhere through proxy wars in countries around the world where we propped governments because they were "against" communism, but were quite notorious themselves. tens of millions in africa in their countless civil wars were a direct result of using the nuclear weapons.

Hindsite is wonderful, isn't it? Let's that you are right, how could the US possibly say to themselves that "this is not good for the future?" B.S. The US built the bomb not because of Japan. It was to beat Hitler to the punch for the bomb.

 

[bless_sins]

Why does Iran have to invade countries?

When did Iran ever invade a country???

On the contrary, the U.S. invaded IRaq unprovoked.

Furthermore, Pearl HArbour hardly justifies killing innocent civilians. Please come up with something better to justify the massacre of Japanese by Americans.

The fact is: U.S. is the only country that has nuked innocent civilians.
These bombings were also a form of terrorism, as the U.S. killed innocent people to force the government into accepting its conditions (kinda like terrorist hijacking a plane and making demands, else they kill everyone).



There is no solid evidence, that Iran intends to nuke civlians.

Furthermore, I think that the argument about WMDs is useless. The US killed tens of thousands of civilians, each in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc... using conventional weapons.

It must be remembered that the Rwada genocide happened only with machetes ( atype of knife).

 

[cavymom]

U.S. dilemma in Iraq has made it unable to attack Iran militarily in the near future, on the contrary, it might need Iran's help. Iranian decision-makers will definitely not miss such a hard-to-come opportunity to develop its nuclear technology. From last August to January, within only 4 months, Iran has resumed uranium enrichment and conversion, "seizing the hour, seizing the day."

Sanctions are actually double edged. It strikes the punished, but hurts the punisher too.

Iran is the world's No. 4 oil producer and No. 2 oil exporter in Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). In case of sanctions on Iran, major European oil companies such as Total, Shell and BP would all have to withdraw from Iran and the EU and Japan, which heavily rely on Iranian oil, would face severe shortage of oil.

Russia would also have to stop its cooperation with Iran in nuclear technology and its high turnover sales of weapons to Iran. International oil price would soar and world economy would be affected.

It's also predictable that once being sanctioned, Iran would immediately withdraw from the NPT and freely develop its nuclear technology. Once isolated, Iran and its people would oppose America and other western countries with a stronger anger, and a more extreme political force would be pushed onto the political stage.

Many more possible chain effects of sanctions will be unpredictable. Therefore, the EU and the U.S., with strong words on Iran, are still at the stage of threatening to impose sanctions to deter Iran. Before the "big stick" is wielded, the issue is subject to the IAEA's voting. If the EU and the U.S. can't get a majority here, there will be no way for the issue to be referred to the UN Security Council.

Even if the IAEA passed the resolution, it would remain difficult to predict if the Security Council will pass a resolution. Meanwhile, Iran is not pressure to waiting idly to be sanctioned. It's already used its oil weapon to impose pressure on the EU, Japan and many other Non-Aligned Movement countries.

http://english.people.com.cn/200601/16/eng20060116_235853.html

Putting more pressure on Iran means people all over the world will suffer economically and oil prices will sky-rocket, that's pretty hefty.

(bold lettering was put there by me but you can read the original article at the address)