Ahmadinejad sounds defiant nuclear note
President Ahmadinejad has rejected George Bush's demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment as a precondition of talks between the two nations.
He is mining fertile ground. There is no secret to the fact that the current group of neo-Cons occupying the White House have an almost fanatical obsession with pleasing the Likud right in Israel, often it is said seeing no difference between American and Israeli interests."The efforts of some Western countries to deprive us will not bear any fruit," he said, according to the state news agency IRNA.
"The reason of their opposition is not their claim of concern over nuclear weapons, but Iran's access to the technology that means opening of the way for all independent countries, especially Islamic countries to the advanced technology," he said after talks with the head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
He said Iran has cooperated with the UN nuclear watchdog agency and indirectly blamed Israel for the pressure on Tehran to give up enrichment. "Unfortunately, some who have huge arsenals of nuclear weapons and are not members of NPT, are today in the position of decision making and want to deprive us from our inalienable rights," he said.
One has to wonder how long the Americans can get away with ignoring Israel's nuclear arsenal whilst condemning Iran for uranium enrichment, which is it's entitlement under the nuclear non-proliferation programme.
Hans Blix yesterday attempted to highlight the hypocrisy of the American position, whilst sensibly suggesting that a nuclear free Middle East was the way forward.
This is an anathema to the current occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who have simply pretended that they never heard him.
However, the points raised by both Ahmadinejad and Blix are valid ones.
There is a hypocrisy at the centre of the American argument. They continue to condemn and berate Ahmadinejad for actions that they condone from their allies.
This strengthens Ahmadinejad's position amongst Iranians who are all well aware of this fact.
So what does Georgie do now? Military attacks are not a serious option and Russia and China are highly unlikely to agree to punitive sanctions.
The only option left open to the idiot savant is to remove his silly precondition to talks taking place. The question now is, having dug himself into a hole will he have the sense to dig his way out?
Click title for full article.
Tags:
11 comments:
The Blix proposal is ridiculous. Given that Blix wasn't able to confirm or deny that Iraq had WMDs, it is absurd that he is advocating a position that would require complete verification among all parties to work.
Sorry. When weapons inspectors demonstrate they can actually perform verification successfully (and it would have to be 100% successful in the case of nuclear weapons, anything less would be extremely dangerous), he might be taken seriously.
As far as Israel having nuclear weapons: who cares? Israel has had them for a few decades now. It has not preemptively used them against neighboring nations. Israel hasn't threatened any other nation with nuclear weapons nor has it called for any other nation to be 'wiped off the map.' Iran, by contrast, seems rather fond of making existential threats against Israel, in case you hadn't noticed.
The Blix proposal is ridiculous. Given that Blix wasn't able to confirm or deny that Iraq had WMDs, it is absurd that he is advocating a position that would require complete verification among all parties to work.
Blix would easily have been able to verify whether or not Saddam had WMD and always said verification could have been done in a matter of months. Bush refused to allow him the time to do his job. And from the attitude you strike regarding the difficulty of verification regarding nuclear weapons am I to take it that you don't support the NNPT?
As far as Israel having nuclear weapons: who cares?
I would suggest her neighbours care very much and especially neighbours that Israel - in the supreme act of hypocrisy - has attacked at Osirak for wanting the very weapons that Israel herself possesses.
Israel hasn't threatened any other nation with nuclear weapons nor has it called for any other nation to be 'wiped off the map.' Iran, by contrast, seems rather fond of making existential threats against Israel, in case you hadn't noticed.
Nor has Iran. From Professor Cole, **He made an analogy to Khomeini's determination and success in getting rid of the Shah's government, which Khomeini had said "must go" (az bain bayad berad). Then Ahmadinejad defined Zionism not as an Arabi-Israeli national struggle but as a Western plot to divide the world of Islam with Israel as the pivot of this plan.
The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."
Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.**
Read Cole's article here.
He spoke of ending the occupation, not of wiping Israel from any map.
However, I see such facts will be lost on a Republican mind like yours who seem to think it's okay to have no consistency regarding such things as nuclear weapons just as long as you can keep them out of the hands of any perceived enemies of Israel. And then you act stunned that the Arab world regards you as hypocrites. You are hypocrites and you have just given a perfect example of the kind of hypocrisy you employ.
Oh, and whilst you're insisting that Iran give up it's right to enrich uranium under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, can you tell me when the US intend to keep her side of the bargain and disarm?
I must also say that the fact you choose to post this stuff anonymously really tempts me to remove the anonymous feature from this blog.
And from the attitude you strike regarding the difficulty of verification regarding nuclear weapons am I to take it that you don't support the NNPT?
The NNPT? Really what good has it done? It didn't stop North Korea either, now did it? It won't stop Iran either, I'm afraid. Israel, by contrast, has never signed the treaty. Neither did India or Pakistan. Maybe you can hold Pakistan's feet to the fire over the nuclear issue for a change if that upsets you. Iran is being deceptive about its nuclear ambitions. Israel has never made any commitments.
Nor has Iran. From Professor Cole
I cannot believe you are still quoting Cole about Iran. The man has been exposed as an idiot. Christopher Hitchens demolished him after his goofy apologetics on behalf of everyone's favorite Holocaust denier:
http://www.slate.com/id/2140947/fr/rss/
In fact, Cole was the butt of many jokes over his incoherent and absurd rebuttal of Hitchens (the article you are pointing me to):
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2006/05/juan_cole_the_f.html
You still think this clown is credible? You are desparate.
However, I see such facts will be lost on a Republican mind like yours who seem to think it's okay to have no consistency regarding such things as nuclear weapons just as long as you can keep them out of the hands of any perceived enemies of Israel.
Again, I stress that Israel (wisely) never forfeited its options as far as nuclear weapons are concerned. Iran did. That subtle nuance seems to be lost on Ahmadinejad apologists like yourself.
can you tell me when the US intend to keep her side of the bargain and disarm?
The U.S. will disarm about the time Russia, China, and the rest of the club disarm. Until then, forget it.
Oh, and wouldn't you know it. Here is a new development with Cole:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/179788.php
The NNPT? Really what good has it done? It didn't stop North Korea either, now did it?
North Korea were actually contained under Clinton. They had cameras installed in their processing plants and were no threat to anyone. It was only when Bush and Cheney refused all the concessions that Clinton had offered them that North Korea went off and manufactured a bomb. Another example of why Bush has turned out to the President of Nuclear Proliferation.
I cannot believe you are still quoting Cole about Iran.
And I cannot believe that you are quoting that drunken former Trotskyite Hitchens. However, Cole is not the only source that says there is no Persian phrase, "Wipe Isreal off the map". There are many translations which do not accord with Hitchens one. Indeed, Hitchens doesn't even speak Persian, so I'm mystified as to why you would rely on him.
http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=533717
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12758.htm
You will notice that neither translation contains the phrase "Wipe Israel off the map." That is simply a construct by people who want the US to attack Iran.
Again, I stress that Israel (wisely) never forfeited its options as far as nuclear weapons are concerned. Iran did.
You are either serious about reducing the spread of nuclear weapons or you are not. I see that you are not. You seem to want to play semantic word games that allow proliferation as long as it's your buddies who are proliferating.
The U.S. will disarm about the time Russia, China, and the rest of the club disarm. Until then, forget it.
I actually don't find that unreasonable. However, they should be talking about at least reducing some of their nuclear weapons. As things presently stand, Bush is talking about developing a new range of bunker busting nuclear weapons, which is a total breach of the NNPT.
He is also the first ever President to threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. If I was a non-nuclear state, that would make me want a weapon - FAST. So Bush is doing more than anyone else to enourage nuclear proliferation. By his every word and action.
Where to start? I'll just leave you with Juan Cole for now. He has no credibility whatsoever as far as I'm concerned.
As for your more serious charges:
North Korea were actually contained under Clinton. They had cameras installed in their processing plants and were no threat to anyone. It was only when Bush and Cheney refused all the concessions that Clinton had offered them that North Korea went off and manufactured a bomb.
LMAO. Wow. You really are gullible, then!
From Wikipedia article:
'North Korea and weapons of mass destruction'
"However, with the abandonment of its plutonium program, North Korea secretly began an enriched uranium program. Pakistan, through Abdul Qadeer Khan, supplied key technology and information to North Korea in exchange for missile technology around 1997, according to U.S. intelligence officials."
1997. Got that? When did Bush come into office? Three years later. That was NK acting in 'good faith' with the Clinton Administration.
Furthermore, oil shipments were stopped in December 2002, North Korea hinted it had a nuclear weapon in August 2003. You really believe they were acting in good faith while still being able to go from a useless light water reactor to a functioning nuclear weapon in about 8 months? North Korea, BTW, stated it had a nuclear arms program in October 2002 according to the NYT. Musharraf confirmed in August 2005 that AQ Khan had supplied centrifuges for NK back in the 90's and had also possibly supplied NK with uranium hexafluoride.
All under Clinton's watch, I'm afraid.
I see that you are not. You seem to want to play semantic word games
Treaties are not word games. Sorry.
However, they should be talking about at least reducing some of their nuclear weapons.
Why silly? Why now? What is the purpose of reducing nuclear arsenals at this time? Will you really feel any safer if the US is only able to destroy the world five times over instead of ten times over?
So Bush is doing more than anyone else to enourage nuclear proliferation. By his every word and action.
More unsubstantiated nonsense. Every intelligence source out there says that Iran has been engaging in ongoing nuclear research many years before Bush ever got into office.
Where to start? I'll just leave you with Juan Cole for now. He has no credibility whatsoever as far as I'm concerned.
It's as well you do. When you attack Kerry for flip-flopping then find yourself relying on the evidence of a drunken former Trotskyite, you really aren't on solid ground.
Likewise, you are not on strong ground when you find yourself quoting Wikipedia, a encyclopedia that is made up by random contributers who's contributions seem always subject to debate.
However, even from the article you quote one finds that "By October 1997, the spent fuel rods were encased in steel containers, under IAEA inspection."
From John Kerry in the first Presidential debate: "With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power. Colin Powell, our Secretary of State, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialogue of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here. And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn‘t talk at all to North Korea. While they didn‘t talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea. That happened on this president‘s watch."
The simple fact is that it was on Bush's watch that NK acquired nukes and it is because Bush reversed Clinton's policy that North Korea obtained them. You can talk about previous intentions all you like, but you cannot back away from that central fact. Whilst Bush was continuing his insane policy of not negotiating with North Korea, North Korea acquired nukes.
Indeed, Bush has recently offered the very face to face talks with North Korea that we were all saying he should have offered years ago. Only now he's offering it to a NK with nukes! Talk about locking the barn door when the horse has bolted!
And your claim that it is unsubstantiated nonsense when I say that Bush has encouraged nuclear proliferation can be amply demonstrated by the threats against Iran that are not being made against North Korea. Why? Because North Korea has the bomb.
If you were a tinpot dictator and a President like Bush is invading country's without UN approval, wouldn't you want one? It sems to be the only thing that holds him back.
However, even from the article you quote one finds that "By October 1997, the spent fuel rods were encased in steel containers, under IAEA inspection."
Sure. While NK continued to do the preliminary research that would ultimately lead to a nuclear weapon.
And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power.
More Kerry foolishness. Clinton badly underestimated the extent of NK's nuclear ambitions.
Your arguments just get weaker and weaker. The bottom line is this: the Clinton Administration indicated that giving NK light water reactors would end its development of nuclear weapons. Clearly, it did nothing of the sort. If providing such reactors to Iran means that Iran can pursue nuclear development covertly and can turn around, and in a matter of only months, develop multiple nuclear weapons, then negotiating with Iran is foolish.
Whilst Bush was continuing his insane policy of not negotiating with North Korea, North Korea acquired nukes.
Well then, I'm curious as to what you would say if bribing NK had continued and then NK announced it was going to do exactly what it did anyway - kick the IAEA out and process the fuel rods? I'm sure you would still find a way to say that it was Bush's fault. The reality is that Clinton failed to stop NK's nuclear weapons development and it was only a matter of time before NK reached the point of developing nuclear weapons. If you were a tinpot dictator, wouldn't you want a nuclear weapon? Wouldn't that put you in a stronger negotiating position internationally? Iran knows this to be the case, which is why it has rejected every offer thus far.
You want face-to-face talks with Iran. Why? What is the US going to be able to offer Iran that it hasn't accepted already?
More Kerry foolishness. Clinton badly underestimated the extent of NK's nuclear ambitions.
Your arguments just get weaker and weaker.
I'm afraid the argument that has collapsed is your own. The idea was to prevent NK from acquiring nukes. Clinton put in cameras and IAEA inpsectors.
Bush did literally bugger all. Nothing.
And you still find a way to make this Clinton's fault. You are simply not a serious person.
Let's look at Bush's comments from the same presidential debate. Note. He doesn't say "Clinton gave him water reactors so we're buggered and it's only a matter of time." His plan as we all know was to get others to negotiate for the US.
And so I decided that a better way to approach the issue was to get other nations involved, just besides us. And in Crawford, Texas, Jiang Zemin and I agreed that the nuclear-weapons-free peninsula, Korean Peninsula, was in his interest and our interest and the world‘s interest. And so we began a new dialogue with North Korea, one that included not only the United States, but now China. And China‘s got a lot of influence over North Korea, some ways more than we do. As well, we included South Korea, Japan and Russia. So now there are five voices speaking to Kim Jong Il, not just one. And so if Kim Jong Il decides again to not honor an agreement, he‘s not only doing injustice to America, he‘d be doing injustice to China, as well. And I think this will work.
It didn't work.
Nothing to do with Clinton. Bush reversed Clinton's policy and failed to stop NK getting nukes.
Only a ridiculous partisan like yourself could ever attempt to put that on to Clinton.
NK didn't even acquire nukes until Bush's SECOND term, and you still find him innocent. What the Hell was he doing for his entire first term? Oh that's right, ignoring them and hoping that would work as they kicked out cameras and IAEA inspectors.
The bottom line is this: the Clinton Administration indicated that giving NK light water reactors would end its development of nuclear weapons. Clearly, it did nothing of the sort.
As a man who uses duplicitous arguments to defend the indefensible, you have actually excelled even by your low standards.
If Clinton thought giving him water reactors would have ended his ambitions he would hardly have insisted on cameras and IAEA inspectors.
It was against this background of suspicion that Bush did nothing. Nothing - as the inspectors were ejected and as the cameras were dismantled.
Clinton put in place methods of verification. Bush pulled out and replaced these methods with nothing.
So your "bottom line" is nothing but a mandacious lie.
Well then, I'm curious as to what you would say if bribing NK had continued and then NK announced it was going to do exactly what it did anyway - kick the IAEA out and process the fuel rods? I'm sure you would still find a way to say that it was Bush's fault.
Clutching sadly at straws, buddy. Let's stick with what actually happened.
You want face-to-face talks with Iran. Why? What is the US going to be able to offer Iran that it hasn't accepted already?
You know what they want. Exactly what North Korea wants. An agreement from the US that Bush will not attack.
Oh, and when you say, If you were a tinpot dictator, wouldn't you want a nuclear weapon? Wouldn't that put you in a stronger negotiating position internationally? That's actually strengthening my argument that Bush, by naming his axis of evil, sent people scurrying about looking for nuclear weapons.
There is a method the US used to employ when dealing with the Soviets. Trust, but always demand verification.
Bush removed Clinton's verification programme from NK with disastrous results.
Iran must be talked to and new methods of verification must be implemented.
Otherwise there's nothing to stop them leaving the NNPT and emulating North Korea. Because let's be serious, attacking them is not an option. With the first bomb you dropped Iraq would explode.
As a man who uses duplicitous arguments to defend the indefensible, you have actually excelled even by your low standards.
How typically liberal. When a liberal cannot win an argument with facts, they get nasty. Attacking the nature of my arguments is one thing; attacking me personally is another. How about some manners, please.
I assert the following to be true:
1) North Korea never ceased its nuclear weapons ambitions since initially pursuing them. This pursuit began at least as early as the mid-90's.
2) When North Korea made a deal with Clinton, it was not in good faith. North Korea continued nuclear weapons development while cameras and IAEA officials looked the wrong way.
And I believe the following to be true:
3) Once North Korea had reached the point where it could produce a nuclear weapon, it would have with withdrawn from the IAEA anyway.
If you do not believe (1) and (2) to be factual, then tell me why. If you don't believe there is good reason to believe (3) then tell me why.
NK didn't even acquire nukes until Bush's SECOND term
Actually, North Korea hinted it had weapons in August 2003, as I noted earlier.
If Clinton thought giving him water reactors would have ended his ambitions he would hardly have insisted on cameras and IAEA inspectors.
Stop mischaracterizing what I am saying. I've already made clear that North Korea simply went around these measures and continued developing nuclear weapons. You seem to be implying that I believe that North Korea just wanted nuclear energy and could be trusted without any sort of verification. I have not said anything of the sort, quite the opposite. What I am stating is that while the IAEA was busy watching North Korea's right hand, the left hand continued nuclear weapons research covertly. I don't think you can accept the fact that North Korea did not cease its nuclear weapons development with Clintn's agreement.
You know what they want. Exactly what North Korea wants. An agreement from the US that Bush will not attack.
I do believe I know what they want. It isn't an agreement, but rather a nuclear weapon. I am certain that if the U.S. promised not to attack, Iran would reject the offer as insincere. Of course, it might use such offers to stall for time.
-----------------------------
From an AP report back on 10/16/2002
WASHINGTON (AP) - North Korea has told the United States it has a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of an agreement signed with the Clinton administration, a senior administration official said Wednesday night.
North Korea also told U.S. diplomats it is no longer beholden to the anti-nuclear agreement, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity. ...
The source said [Assistant Secretary of State James] Kelly also raised with North Korea evidence that North Korea may have a uranimum-enrichment program. The program, which the United States believes would only be used to develop a nuclear bomb, began under the Clinton administration, according to the official.
Surprisingly, North Korea confirmed the allegation.
The administration has not decided how to respond. "We're going to keep talking," the official said.
------------------------------
By the way, if the following story is true, the Clinton administration's CIA may have also given a serious boost to Iran's nuclear development:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551976/posts
Of course, I won't leap to conclusions, but if the Bush administration had been accused of doing this, the leftists would be all over him regardless of the verifiability of this story.
Kel, I would also encourage you to read a book by Soviet defector Ken Alibek called "Biohazard." He was a top biological weapons scientist. It details the fact that despite signing international agreements to cease development of biological weapons (and providing for verification), the Soviets flagrantly violated the treaty and pursued biological weapons anyway.
The Soviet Union also had a long history of violating the ABM treaty.
Let's assume that every single thing you say about North Korea's intentions is correct.
What was achieved by Bush discontinuing contact with them?
And even if the left hand was doing things that the right hand didn't know about, didn't we have more chance of finding this out with IAEA inspectors in place?
Bush's policy was reckless. And you have failed to explain why an action that took place in Bush's second term remains the responsibility of Clinton.
You are not being rational.
The President of the United States is the most powerful man in the world. You make it seem as if he was impotent for his first term in office.
Post a Comment