Iran Must Resist Euro Pressure to Disarm

Question:

SdSD: == ==Iran isn’t arming to "defend itself". It’s arming to export it’s =="Islamic == ==Revolution". IG: == All you’ve proved by this statement is that you == unquestioningly believe everything force-fed == you by your federal government. ==I didn’t get that from "my federal government". I got that from statements ==in the news, from speaking with the dozens of Iranian-Americans I personally ==know, and with observations made over the last 20 years: == == ==Concept of Export of Revolution (Iran) ==The concept of exporting the Islamic Revolution derives from a particular ==worldview that perceives Islamic revolution as the means whereby Muslims and ==non-Muslims can liberate themselves from the oppression of tyrants who serve ==the interests of international imperialism. Both the United States and the ==Soviet Union are perceived as the two principal imperialist powers that ==exploit Third World countries. A renewed commitment to Islam, as the ==experience of Iran in overthrowing the shah demonstrated, permits oppressed ==nations to defeat imperialism. According to this perspective, by following ==Iran’s example any country can free itself from imperialist domination. Don’t see any "exporting" going on here. ==Although the political elite agrees upon the desirability of exporting ==revolution, no unanimity exists on the means of achieving this goal. At one ==end of the spectrum is the view that propaganda efforts to teach Muslims ==about the Iranian example is the way to export revolution. Material ==assistance of any form is not necessary because oppressed people demonstrate ==their readiness for Islamic revolution by rising against dictatorial ==governments. Don’t see any "exporting" going on here. ==Those who subscribe to this line of reasoning argue that ==Iranians received no external assistance in their Revolution but were ==successful as a result of their commitment to Islam. Furthermore, they cite ==Khomeini’s often stated dictum that Iran has no intention of interfering in ==the internal affairs of other countries. This view is compatible with the ==maintenance of normal diplomatic relations between Iran and other countries. Definitely no "exporting" going on here. ==At the opposite end of the spectrum is the view of Iran as the vanguard of a ==world revolutionary movement to liberate Muslim countries specifically, and ==other Third World countries generally, from imperialist subjugation. This ==activist perspective contends that the effective export of revolution must ==not be limited to propaganda efforts but must also include both financial ==and military assistance. Advocates of this view also cite Khomeini to ==justify their position and frequently quote his statements on the ==inevitability of the spread of Islamic revolution throughout the world. Don’t see any "exporting" going on here, either. ==Although various viewpoints fall between these two perspectives, since 1979 ==the two extreme views have been in contention in the formulation of foreign ==policy. In general, those who advocate exporting revolution solely through ==education and example have dominated the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while ==those who favor active assistance to nonstate revolutionary groups have not ==served in important government positions relating to foreign policy. Still don’t see any "exporting" going on here. ==Nevertheless, because the supporters of an activist approach include some ==prominent political leaders, they have been able to exercise influence over ==certain areas of foreign relations. This has been especially true with ==respect to policy toward Lebanon and, to a lesser degree, policy in the ==Persian Gulf. Doesn’t seem to be much "exporting" of revolution going on here, either. ==The earliest organization promoting the active export of revolution was ==Satja, established in the spring of 1979 by Mohammad Montazeri and his close ==associate, Mehdi Hashemi. Satja’s contacts with numerous nonstate groups ==throughout the Arab Middle East soon brought the organization into direct ==conflict with both the IRP leadership and the provisional government. Seems it’s not the Iranian *government* that’s promoting revolution, but some private group that’s in "direct conflict" with the government. ==Ayatollah Hosain Ali Montazeri, the father of Mohammad Montazeri, rebuked ==his son publicly, saying his son had been suffering illusions since being ==tortured by the former shah’s secret police. Satja was forced to disband, ==but Mohammad Montazeri and Hashemi then joined the Pasdaran, where they ==eventually set up within that organization the Liberation Movements Office. ==Mohammad Montazeri was subsequently killed in the June 1981 bombing of the ==IRP headquarters that claimed the lives of over seventy prominent ==politicians. Following that development, Hashemi emerged as the principal ==leader of those advocating both moral and material support for ==revolutionaries around the world. Still no *government* or other official exporting of revolution from Iran. Hmmmm . . . wonder where all that exporting went to. . . . ==Under Hashemi’s direction, the Liberation Movements Office operated ==autonomously of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and maintained contact with ==opposition movements in several countries. Inevitably, its goal of promoting ==revolution abroad conflicted with the government’s objective of normalizing ==relations with at least some of the governments that the Liberation ==Movements Office was helping to overthrow. Well, lookee here . . . the government of Iran is in conflict with a private group’s attempts to promote revolution. == Control over the direction of ==foreign policy was eventually resolved in favor of the Ministry of Foreign ==Affairs. In 1984 the Liberation Movements Office was removed from the ==jurisdiction of the Pasdaran, and its functions were transferred to the ==Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Information and Security. ==Dissatisfied with these arrangements, Hashemi resigned from his posts and ==went to Qom. There he obtained a position within the large bureaucracy of ==Ayatollah Montazeri, who supervised six seminaries, several charitable ==organizations, a publishing house, and numerous political offices. Having ==lost none of his zeal for exporting revolution, Hashemi succeeded in setting ==up the Office for Global Revolution, which, although nominally part of ==Montazeri’s staff, actually operated independently. My, my. Would-be exporters of revolution, stymied by *government* opposition, withdraw and resign themselves to operating "independently." == By 1986 Hashemi’s ==activities had once again brought him into conflict with the Ministry of ==Foreign Affairs. In October he and several of his associates were arrested, ==and the Office for Global Revolution was closed. During the summer of 1987, ==Hashemi and some of his colleagues were tried for "deviating from Islam"; ==Hashemi was found guilty and subsequently executed. Well, gollee gee. Lookee here. One of Iran’s main proponents of exporting revolution, a non-government private-citizen fanatic, *executed* by the Iranian government for becoming too much of a pain in the ass, and his revolution-backing group padlocked. OK, Stan. I’m convinced. Iran’s government exports revolution and is "arming" itself to do so. In your dreams, anyway. (Jeeezuz — you even fail to understand the material you yourself post in aid of your argument. But then, you’re a Repuglican propagandist, so I’m not surprised. You, however, should give your head a shake, dumbass.) IG: == As I said earlier, one man’s terrorism is another == man’s resistance. It’s understandable that the == powers in the United Snakes slander any == sovereignty movement anywhere in the word as == "terrorism," but that doesn’t mean people who == still have the ability to think for themselves need == to accept the definition of those in charge of what == is indisputably the world’s premier terrorist nation. ==Killing civilians (especially your own) is NOT "resistance" – it’s ==terrorism, clear and simple. Yes. From My Lai through Kent State to Afghanistan and Iraq (to name only two places in which the U.S. has recently killed civilians), the homicidal activities of the U.S. government easily earn the United Snakes the designation as a terrorist nation — by your own definition. SdSD: == ==any sane, rational person would come to the conclusion that they == ==need to be stopped. IG: == Actually, the sane, rational attitude towards Iran == (and every other country not actually engaged in == aggression against another country) is to leave == it the fuck alone to solve its own problems without == interference from lackeys doing the bidding of the == American corporate oligarchy. ==When terrorists start attacking us, it’s our business. Absolutely. But that business would be conducted more effectively if the response was actually aimed at the attackers — instead of a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with it. (Next time there’s a terrorist attack on the U.S. perhaps you should attack Belgium, which is also an easy target [which is the only kind of target your chickenshit government dares. attack.]) [snip] SdSD: == ==Our nuclear arsenal keeps the kooks on this planet from doing even more == ==harm == Uh . . . have a look who’s in charge in Washington == these days: People who believe Jesus Christ is == about to come back to Earth and spirit them up == to heaven; ==Heck, there are people who also believe that socialism is a viable economic … read more »

Response:

Lemme guess – you keep on changing your handle as not to get killfiled, you anti-Semitic retard…

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – == Iran should not let itself be bullied by either == Europe or the United Snakes. == == As a sovereign nation, it has every right to arm == itself in any way its leaders see fit, and that == includes nuclear weapons. == == America has nukes. Britain has nukes. France == has nukes. Russia has nukes. Israel has nukes. == India has nukes. North Korea has nukes, or soon == will have. == == What’s missing? Oh, yes — not a single Islamic == country in the entire world except Pakistan has == nuclear weapons, and Musharraf has become == an American lap dog (note that there is no == U.S.-led move to force Pakistan to divest itself == of its nukes). == == We can see the result in Iraq, whose oil, sovereignty == and national pride were stolen by the United == Snakes in its continuing campaign for world == domination. == == Would Washington have been able to turn Iraq into == the 51st state and enslave its people, had Iraq been == armed with nuclear weapons and the means to == deliver them? ==We always suspected that nut-cake lefties such as yourself were in ==solidarity with Islamofascists and terrorists, but thanks for confirming ==that anyway… :O| So . . . people who believe every nation has a natural right to arm itself to discourage aggression are "nut-cake lefties?" Iran isn’t arming to "defend itself". Thats a Stupid statement…where the "hell" did U come from big boy?? Iran as a Country which been Attacked "viciously", must DETER _ANY_ Repeats of what has GONE ON for the last 25 years. We are COMING to KICK yOUR FUCKING "COLLECTIVE ASSES", whoever the Fuck U R! It’s arming to export it’s "Islamic Revolution". SUCK a REVOLUTIONARY DICK….isn’t that how the Machine makes MONEY? KikeWAD! Given that they are clearly supporters and exporters of terrorism, Compared to ISRAEL and the US, they have been "babies", wait for Whats coming2getchA…Fucking "useless" mullahs!…They are ARAB SHIT, whom have been SUCKING JEW DICKS….They are Gonna go to HELL like the rest of the RELIGIOUS JUDO_XTIAN_MOSLEMIC BULCRAP? Are U religious btw?? any sane, rational person What would a "mad Barking Kike" know about "sanity" now…and since "when" exactly….can U prove that Jews have been anything other than a "CULT"?? and a Genetic Deformity?? would come to the conclusion that they need to be stopped. So do the Jews, even more so….Everyone, with a Couple of "working neurons", can of course see that…except, a Genteically mis firing brains, with a HUGE BLIND SPOT for Seeing Woods for the Trees….to coin a Phrase, which I am sure is lost on a mono sylabic moron like U and the "group" u Spew ZIO CRAP from!!? Of course, the converse also explains why you would support their efforts, but that’s a different issue altogether. Thanks for clearing that up. When is America going to start destroying its nuclear arsenal? Our nuclear arsenal keeps the kooks on this planet from doing even more harm – which makes it clear why you would wish to see it destroyed. The only people with whom I’m "in solidarity" are those who yearn for freedom, those who resist oppression and dictatorship, those who oppose brutality and persecution, those who hate lies. So you now support our liberation fucking Robots, repeating the SAME CRAP.."liberation" with "poisonous" Heavy Metals….Genetic BOMBS ala Plenty in Iraq and of course the Abu TEL_GHARIB…where Israelis, have Prefected the ART of SEXUAL DEVIANCE and Thaught the Americans how to "WIN the Hearts and Minds of Ancient Civilisations" (( of Iraq from Saddam Hussein? That’s quite a switch… I wish to SWITCH U "OFF"!!!XIII… Of course, there is always a "time_delay" from command to "action"…so Rabbit on….

Response:

I didn’t get that from "my federal government". I got that from statements in the news, from speaking with the dozens of Iranian-Americans I personally know, and with observations made over the last 20 years: Concept of Export of Revolution (Iran) The concept of exporting the Islamic Revolution derives from a particular worldview that perceives Islamic revolution as the means whereby Muslims and non-Muslims can liberate themselves from the oppression of tyrants who serve the interests of international imperialism. Both the United States and the Soviet Union are perceived as the two principal imperialist powers that exploit Third World countries. A renewed commitment to Islam, as the experience of Iran in overthrowing the shah demonstrated, permits oppressed nations to defeat imperialism. According to this perspective, by following Iran’s example any country can free itself from imperialist domination. Although the political elite agrees upon the desirability of exporting revolution, no unanimity exists on the means of achieving this goal. At one end of the spectrum is the view that propaganda efforts to teach Muslims about the Iranian example is the way to export revolution. Material assistance of any form is not necessary because oppressed people demonstrate their readiness for Islamic revolution by rising against dictatorial governments. Those who subscribe to this line of reasoning argue that Iranians received no external assistance in their Revolution but were successful as a result of their commitment to Islam. Furthermore, they cite Khomeini’s often stated dictum that Iran has no intention of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. This view is compatible with the maintenance of normal diplomatic relations between Iran and other countries. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the view of Iran as the vanguard of a world revolutionary movement to liberate Muslim countries specifically, and other Third World countries generally, from imperialist subjugation. This activist perspective contends that the effective export of revolution must not be limited to propaganda efforts but must also include both financial and military assistance. Advocates of this view also cite Khomeini to justify their position and frequently quote his statements on the inevitability of the spread of Islamic revolution throughout the world. Although various viewpoints fall between these two perspectives, since 1979 the two extreme views have been in contention in the formulation of foreign policy. In general, those who advocate exporting revolution solely through education and example have dominated the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while those who favor active assistance to nonstate revolutionary groups have not served in important government positions relating to foreign policy. Nevertheless, because the supporters of an activist approach include some prominent political leaders, they have been able to exercise influence over certain areas of foreign relations. This has been especially true with respect to policy toward Lebanon and, to a lesser degree, policy in the Persian Gulf. The earliest organization promoting the active export of revolution was Satja, established in the spring of 1979 by Mohammad Montazeri and his close associate, Mehdi Hashemi. Satja’s contacts with numerous nonstate groups throughout the Arab Middle East soon brought the organization into direct conflict with both the IRP leadership and the provisional government. Ayatollah Hosain Ali Montazeri, the father of Mohammad Montazeri, rebuked his son publicly, saying his son had been suffering illusions since being tortured by the former shah’s secret police. Satja was forced to disband, but Mohammad Montazeri and Hashemi then joined the Pasdaran, where they eventually set up within that organization the Liberation Movements Office. Mohammad Montazeri was subsequently killed in the June 1981 bombing of the IRP headquarters that claimed the lives of over seventy prominent politicians. Following that development, Hashemi emerged as the principal leader of those advocating both moral and material support for revolutionaries around the world. Under Hashemi’s direction, the Liberation Movements Office operated autonomously of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and maintained contact with opposition movements in several countries. Inevitably, its goal of promoting revolution abroad conflicted with the government’s objective of normalizing relations with at least some of the governments that the Liberation Movements Office was helping to overthrow. Control over the direction of foreign policy was eventually resolved in favor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 1984 the Liberation Movements Office was removed from the jurisdiction of the Pasdaran, and its functions were transferred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Information and Security. Dissatisfied with these arrangements, Hashemi resigned from his posts and went to Qom. There he obtained a position within the large bureaucracy of Ayatollah Montazeri, who supervised six seminaries, several charitable organizations, a publishing house, and numerous political offices. Having lost none of his zeal for exporting revolution, Hashemi succeeded in setting up the Office for Global Revolution, which, although nominally part of Montazeri’s staff, actually operated independently. By 1986 Hashemi’s activities had once again brought him into conflict with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In October he and several of his associates were arrested, and the Office for Global Revolution was closed. During the summer of 1987, Hashemi and some of his colleagues were tried for "deviating from Islam"; Hashemi was found guilty and subsequently executed. http://www.country-studies.com/iran/concept-of-export-of-revolution.html == Given that they are clearly supporters and exporters of ==terrorism As I said earlier, one man’s terrorism is another man’s resistance. It’s understandable that the powers in the United Snakes slander any sovereignty movement anywhere in the word as "terrorism," but that doesn’t mean people who still have the ability to think for themselves need to accept the definition of those in charge of what is indisputably the world’s premier terrorist nation.

Killing civilians (especially your own) is NOT "resistance" – it’s terrorism, clear and simple. ==any sane, rational person would come to the conclusion that they ==need to be stopped. Actually, the sane, rational attitude towards Iran (and every other country not actually engaged in aggression against another country) is to leave it the fuck alone to solve its own problems without interference from lackeys doing the bidding of the American corporate oligarchy.

When terrorists start attacking us, it’s our business. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ==. Of course, the converse also explains why you would ==support their efforts, but that’s a different issue altogether. Whatever the hell this means. IG: == Thanks for clearing that == up. When is America going to start destroying its == nuclear arsenal? ==Our nuclear arsenal keeps the kooks on this planet from doing even more ==harm Uh . . . have a look who’s in charge in Washington these days: People who believe Jesus Christ is about to come back to Earth and spirit them up to heaven;

Heck, there are people who also believe that socialism is a viable economic system – isn’t that just as silly? people who think evolution is an atheist’s fairy tale; people who think the problems of AIDS, over-population and poverty can be solved by advising people not to fuck so much

Some of them can be solved that way… (and by depriving them of information about contraception and abortion), people who believe global warming is a myth, despite the warnings of virtually every reputable scientist on the planet;

Bullshit – plenty of scientists dispute the various global warming theories, despite the efforts of the left-wing media to pretend otherwise. people who are convinced that the only reason anyone would want to attack the U.S. is because they "hate our freedoms."

That would explain the Islamic world quite nicely, so there must be some substance there… What I’m saying, Stan, is that the United Snakes is already being run by some of the biggest kooks on this chunk of space rock,

Not compared to you… and to hold that these nutbars are qualified to dictate which of Earth’s people should be allowed to defend themselves and which must abjectly disarm and obey the dictates of the stone-stupid motherfuckers in Washington is absurd.

Yet, outside of 2 atomic bombs we dropped during wartime (which prevented a feared bloody invasion of the Japanese mainland and in effect saved US AND Japanese lives) we haven’t used a nuke in nearly half a century of having such technology available. Then again, we aren’t willing to be martyrs for any cause. Given that Islam PROMOTES martyrdom, what’s to stop such people from using nukes once they get them? == The only people with whom I’m "in solidarity" are == those who yearn for freedom, those who resist == oppression and dictatorship, those who oppose == brutality and persecution, those who hate lies. ==So you now support our liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein? That’s quite ==a switch… You didn’t "liberate" Iraq from anyone, boyo.

And … read more »

Response:

Thats a Stupid statement…where the "hell" did U come from big boy?? Iran as a Country which been Attacked "viciously", must DETER _ANY_ Repeats of what has GONE ON for the last 25 years. We are COMING to KICK yOUR FUCKING "COLLECTIVE ASSES", whoever the Fuck U R! It’s arming to export it’s "Islamic Revolution".

SUCK a REVOLUTIONARY DICK….isn’t that how the Machine makes MONEY? KikeWAD! Given that they are clearly supporters and exporters of terrorism,

Compared to ISRAEL and the US, they have been "babies", wait for Whats coming2getchA…Fucking "useless" mullahs!…They are ARAB SHIT, whom have been SUCKING JEW DICKS….They are Gonna go to HELL like the rest of the RELIGIOUS JUDO_XTIAN_MOSLEMIC BULCRAP? Are U religious btw?? any sane, rational person

What would a "mad Barking Kike" know about "sanity" now…and since "when" exactly….can U prove that Jews have been anything other than a "CULT"?? and a Genetic Deformity?? would come to the conclusion that they need to be stopped.

So do the Jews, even more so….Everyone, with a Couple of "working neurons", can of course see that…except, a Genteically mis firing brains, with a HUGE BLIND SPOT for Seeing Woods for the Trees….to coin a Phrase, which I am sure is lost on a mono sylabic moron like U and the "group" u Spew ZIO CRAP from!!? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Of course, the converse also explains why you would support their efforts, but that’s a different issue altogether. Thanks for clearing that up. When is America going to start destroying its nuclear arsenal? Our nuclear arsenal keeps the kooks on this planet from doing even more harm – which makes it clear why you would wish to see it destroyed. The only people with whom I’m "in solidarity" are those who yearn for freedom, those who resist oppression and dictatorship, those who oppose brutality and persecution, those who hate lies. So you now support our liberation

fucking Robots, repeating the SAME CRAP.."liberation" with "poisonous" Heavy Metals….Genetic BOMBS ala Plenty in Iraq and of course the Abu TEL_GHARIB…where Israelis, have Prefected the ART of SEXUAL DEVIANCE and Thaught the Americans how to "WIN the Hearts and Minds of Ancient Civilisations" (( of Iraq from Saddam Hussein? That’s quite a switch…

I wish to SWITCH U "OFF"!!!XIII… Of course, there is always a "time_delay" from command to "action"…so Rabbit on….

Response:

[snip] ==Iran isn’t arming to "defend itself". It’s arming to export it’s "Islamic ==Revolution". All you’ve proved by this statement is that you unquestioningly believe everything force-fed you by your federal government. Seeing as how those in charge of your federal government are proven serial liars, and seeing as how you’ve offered nothing to substantiate the above claim, this assertion merits no consideration whatsoever. == Given that they are clearly supporters and exporters of ==terrorism As I said earlier, one man’s terrorism is another man’s resistance. It’s understandable that the powers in the United Snakes slander any sovereignty movement anywhere in the word as "terrorism," but that doesn’t mean people who still have the ability to think for themselves need to accept the definition of those in charge of what is indisputably the world’s premier terrorist nation. ==any sane, rational person would come to the conclusion that they ==need to be stopped. Actually, the sane, rational attitude towards Iran (and every other country not actually engaged in aggression against another country) is to leave it the fuck alone to solve its own problems without interference from lackeys doing the bidding of the American corporate oligarchy. ==. Of course, the converse also explains why you would ==support their efforts, but that’s a different issue altogether. Whatever the hell this means. IG: == Thanks for clearing that == up. When is America going to start destroying its == nuclear arsenal? ==Our nuclear arsenal keeps the kooks on this planet from doing even more ==harm Uh . . . have a look who’s in charge in Washington these days: People who believe Jesus Christ is about to come back to Earth and spirit them up to heaven; people who think evolution is an atheist’s fairy tale; people who think the problems of AIDS, over-population and poverty can be solved by advising people not to fuck so much (and by depriving them of information about contraception and abortion), people who believe global warming is a myth, despite the warnings of virtually every reputable scientist on the planet; people who are convinced that the only reason anyone would want to attack the U.S. is because they "hate our freedoms." What I’m saying, Stan, is that the United Snakes is already being run by some of the biggest kooks on this chunk of space rock, and to hold that these nutbars are qualified to dictate which of Earth’s people should be allowed to defend themselves and which must abjectly disarm and obey the dictates of the stone-stupid motherfuckers in Washington is absurd. IG: == The only people with whom I’m "in solidarity" are == those who yearn for freedom, those who resist == oppression and dictatorship, those who oppose == brutality and persecution, those who hate lies. ==So you now support our liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein? That’s quite ==a switch… You didn’t "liberate" Iraq from anyone, boyo. You removed a ruling cabal that, nasty as it unquestionably was, at least provided stable government and domestic peace, and you plunged the country into civil war, chaos and what looks certain to be perpetual occupation and showed the Iranian people that Americans are just as competent torturers and killers as the regime they supplanted. That’s some "liberation" you got there, pal. Where can the rest of us get some? And you wonder why I advise people to arm themselves with whatever it takes to avoid being "liberated" like that? Give your head a shake, Stan. Maybe it will nudge your brain out of neutral. . — Three weeks ago, The New Republic reported that the Bush administration was pressuring Pakistan to announce a major terrorist capture during the Democratic convention. Hours before Mr. Kerry’s acceptance speech, Pakistan announced, several days after the fact, that it had apprehended an important Al Qaeda operative.

Response:

Iran isn’t arming to "defend itself". It’s arming to export it’s "Islamic Revolution". Given that they are clearly supporters and exporters of terrorism, any sane, rational person would come to the conclusion that they need to be stopped. Of course, the converse also explains why you would support their efforts, but that’s a different issue altogether. Thanks for clearing that up. When is America going to start destroying its nuclear arsenal?

Our nuclear arsenal keeps the kooks on this planet from doing even more harm – which makes it clear why you would wish to see it destroyed. The only people with whom I’m "in solidarity" are those who yearn for freedom, those who resist oppression and dictatorship, those who oppose brutality and persecution, those who hate lies.

So you now support our liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein? That’s quite a switch…

Response:

== Iran should not let itself be bullied by either == Europe or the United Snakes. == == As a sovereign nation, it has every right to arm == itself in any way its leaders see fit, and that == includes nuclear weapons. == == America has nukes. Britain has nukes. France == has nukes. Russia has nukes. Israel has nukes. == India has nukes. North Korea has nukes, or soon == will have. == == What’s missing? Oh, yes — not a single Islamic == country in the entire world except Pakistan has == nuclear weapons, and Musharraf has become == an American lap dog (note that there is no == U.S.-led move to force Pakistan to divest itself == of its nukes). == == We can see the result in Iraq, whose oil, sovereignty == and national pride were stolen by the United == Snakes in its continuing campaign for world == domination. == == Would Washington have been able to turn Iraq into == the 51st state and enslave its people, had Iraq been == armed with nuclear weapons and the means to == deliver them? ==We always suspected that nut-cake lefties such as yourself were in ==solidarity with Islamofascists and terrorists, but thanks for confirming ==that anyway… :O| So . . . people who believe every nation has a natural right to arm itself to discourage aggression are "nut-cake lefties?" Thanks for clearing that up. When is America going to start destroying its nuclear arsenal? The only people with whom I’m "in solidarity" are those who yearn for freedom, those who resist oppression and dictatorship, those who oppose brutality and persecution, those who hate lies. One man’s "terrorist" is another man’s "freedom fighter." — Where religion rules, truth is an outlaw. -Ivan Gowch

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Iran should not let itself be bullied by either Europe or the United Snakes. As a sovereign nation, it has every right to arm itself in any way its leaders see fit, and that includes nuclear weapons. America has nukes. Britain has nukes. France has nukes. Russia has nukes. Israel has nukes. India has nukes. North Korea has nukes, or soon will have. What’s missing? Oh, yes — not a single Islamic country in the entire world except Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and Musharraf has become an American lap dog (note that there is no U.S.-led move to force Pakistan to divest itself of its nukes). We can see the result in Iraq, whose oil, sovereignty and national pride were stolen by the United Snakes in its continuing campaign for world domination. Would Washington have been able to turn Iraq into the 51st state and enslave its people, had Iraq been armed with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them?

We always suspected that nut-cake lefties such as yourself were in solidarity with Islamofascists and terrorists, but thanks for confirming that anyway… :O|

Response:

== == Iran should not let itself be bullied by either == Europe or the United Snakes. == == As a sovereign nation, it has every right to arm == itself in any way its leaders see fit, and that == includes nuclear weapons. ==Iran agreed not to arm itself with nuclear weapons by treaty. If so, it can simply abrogate that treaty. Abrogating treaties has now been made respectable by the current administration in Washington, so why shouldn’t Iran avail itself of the same privilege? Are you saying Iran must play by rules that the United Snakes may ignore at will? Why is that? Because Iran is a Muslim state and America is run by Bible-blasted born-again nutbars? IG: == America has nukes. Britain has nukes. France == has nukes. Russia has nukes. Israel has nukes. == India has nukes. North Korea has nukes, or soon == will have. == == What’s missing? Oh, yes — not a single Islamic == country in the entire world except Pakistan has == nuclear weapons, and Musharraf has become == an American lap dog (note that there is no == U.S.-led move to force Pakistan to divest itself == of its nukes). ==Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for decades. "Decades"? 1998 is a decade ago? That’s when Pakistan first tested a nuclear weapon. Why would that matter, anyway? == The goal is to keep the ==nuclear club small so that there is less likelihood of nuclear weapons ==being used or lost. Whose goal would that be? It is certainly in Iran’s interest to join that "nuclear club" as soon as possible. In fact, it’s the only way it can safeguard itself from U.S. dictates and domination, and you know it. — All ambitions are lawful except those which climb upward on the miseries or cruelties of mankind. -Joseph Conrad

Response:

Iran should not let itself be bullied by either Europe or the United Snakes. As a sovereign nation, it has every right to arm itself in any way its leaders see fit, and that includes nuclear weapons.

Iran agreed not to arm itself with nuclear weapons by treaty. America has nukes. Britain has nukes. France has nukes. Russia has nukes. Israel has nukes. India has nukes. North Korea has nukes, or soon will have. What’s missing? Oh, yes — not a single Islamic country in the entire world except Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and Musharraf has become an American lap dog (note that there is no U.S.-led move to force Pakistan to divest itself of its nukes).

Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for decades. The goal is to keep the nuclear club small so that there is less likelihood of nuclear weapons being used or lost. — He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn’t; yes, you did" type–conversation which, though fascinating to those who are engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others. -+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"

Response:

Iran should not let itself be bullied by either Europe or the United Snakes. As a sovereign nation, it has every right to arm itself in any way its leaders see fit, and that includes nuclear weapons. America has nukes. Britain has nukes. France has nukes. Russia has nukes. Israel has nukes. India has nukes. North Korea has nukes, or soon will have. What’s missing? Oh, yes — not a single Islamic country in the entire world except Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and Musharraf has become an American lap dog (note that there is no U.S.-led move to force Pakistan to divest itself of its nukes). We can see the result in Iraq, whose oil, sovereignty and national pride were stolen by the United Snakes in its continuing campaign for world domination. Would Washington have been able to turn Iraq into the 51st state and enslave its people, had Iraq been armed with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them? Since the retarded thug George W. Bush labelled Iran part of his mythical "Axis of Evil," Iran must know that it is next on Amerika’s hit list of countries whose regime it will change and territory it will seize as soon as it can amass enough manpower to do so. Bush will likely lose the November election, but that will not produce a fundamental change in America’s corporate-driven agenda of "pacifying" the world to make it safe for exploitation by General Motors, Wal-Mart and McDonald’s. "People the world over who value their freedom, and nations that prize their sovereignty, must arm themselves and prepare to defend against Washington’s inevitable attempt to enforce its will on anyone who objects to being turned into a Halliburton branch plant. That means all nations must develop their own nuclear arsenals to counter nuclear extortion from Washington." -Ivan Gowch, April 18, 2004. Iran should not allow itself to be turned from its path of self-protection by weasel-words from Europeans doing the bidding of imperial America. (Iranians — do you see the irony of your government being told by Britain and France that it’s OK for them, but not for you, to have nuclear weapons? What does one call people who are fobidden to defend themselves? Slaves.) The Muslim world needs nukes, and Iran is its best hope of getting them. History will not be kind to the present generation of Iranian leaders if they blow the opportunity to safeguard their nation with the only weapons that can discourage crusader nations from subjugating it through nuclear extortion. That’s what it says here, anyway. === EU Trio Talks with Iran Set for Paris – Diplomats Wednesday, July 28, 2004 PARIS (Reuters) – Britain, Germany and France will meet Iranian officials in Paris Thursday to discuss Tehran’s nuclear program, Western diplomats said Wednesday. The three countries are pressing on with talks with Iran, which they fear wants to develop atomic weapons. Media reports suggest Tehran is close to securing the materials needed for a nuclear bomb, although it insists its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer urged Tehran to stick to its agreements with the EU trio. The trio brokered an agreement with Iran last year under which the Islamic Republic agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and to allow snap inspections of its nuclear facilities. But Tehran was angered last month by a tough resolution sponsored by the three states which rebuked Iran for poor cooperation with the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran accused the trio of reneging on last October’s agreement and said it would resume the manufacture and assembly of uranium enrichment centrifuges. "I hope Tehran understands that in the interest of Iran and of peace and stability in the region, no miscalculations are made and that they walk through the door we opened," Fischer told the German n-tv channel. "Given the most recent news I am very worried. I hope Tehran understands that this is the wrong path to take." Thursday’s talks, grouping senior Foreign Ministry officials, are expected to take place Thursday afternoon at the French Foreign Ministry, several Western diplomats said. The meeting will be at a higher level than talks in the last few months, with policy directors taking part, they said. The diplomats gave no other details and said it was not clear whether any announcements would be made after the meeting. A French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman declined to say whether there would be a meeting in Paris, but noted that French, German and British officials had made clear they were ready to pursue negotiations. "It is in that context that discussions continue with the Iranian authorities, with a view to providing all guarantees on the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program," she said. The Times newspaper in London said Tuesday that Iran was "months away" from having the capability to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb. ===

Response:

Filed under: Activist Movement

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism