As predicted - obligatory "Iranians in exile" story on BBC...

[Backatcha Bandit]

Of course it's the USA's fault.

Ahmedinejad's desire to possess nuclear weapons has nothing to do with it.

Same shite regurgitation of bullshit, hysterical, warmongering propaganda; different war.

Tell us one good reason that Iran shouldn't have it's own nukes, then Johnny? The doctrine of 'Mutally Assured Destruction' saw us through the cold war - why should we believe is shouldn't work now? More to the point - Why should the Iranians???

I hope you've got a good answer, JC2, cos I hate it when you espouse opinions that appear to be based on some fundamental illogical belief based on middle eastern peoples supposed 'inferiority', whether spiritual, moral or otherwise.

Iran has not broken the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The USA has.

Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently as of 2006 resumed development of its uranium enrichment program, ostensibly for its civilian nuclear energy program, as it is entitled to do under the terms of the NPT...

..Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. [13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Nonproliferation_Treaty

In fact, not to explore nuclear technology would be in contrevention of Article 3 - 13 of Iran's constitution, which states that:

...the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has the duty of directing all its resources to the following goals:..

..13.the attainment of self-sufficiency in scientific, technological, industrial, agricultural, and military domains, and other similar spheres;

That's the same 'Islamic Republic of Iran Constitution' that got 98.2% in the 1979 referendum - you know, just after the Islamic Revolution where they kicked out the guy who the US/UK installed in 1953.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Same shite regurgitation of bullshit, hysterical, warmongering propaganda; different war.

Tell us one good reason that Iran shouldn't have it's own nukes, then Johnny? The doctrine of 'Mutally Assured Destruction' saw us through the cold war - why should we believe is shouldn't work now? More to the point - Why should the Iranians???

At least you're being a little more honest. Recently, your argument was that the Iranians wanted nuclear reactors in order to generate electric power. Now, you at least admit that they're building nukes.

So before, your defence of the activities of the Iranians was based upon their right to gain nuclear power, so long as they did so within the bounds of the non proleiferation treaty.

Now, your argument is that they have the right to expect that MAD, Part 2, will help to restore world order, and therefore, Iranian nukes are ok.

So what changed with you? Were you merely being dishonest before, or is there some new information about the state of the world, forthcoming in the last couple of weeks, that made you conclude that Iranian nukes were fine, and the NPT be damned?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I hope you've got a good answer, JC2, cos I hate it when you espouse opinions that appear to be based on some fundamental illogical belief based on middle eastern peoples supposed 'inferiority', whether spiritual, moral or otherwise.

The reasons to keep nukes out of the hands of the iranians are self evident. Most all the world govts agree: they just disagree on what should be done about it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That's the same 'Islamic Republic of Iran Constitution' that got 98.2% in the 1979 referendum - you know, just after the Islamic Revolution where they kicked out the guy who the US/UK installed in 1953.

98.2. Impressive number. About what you'd have gotten in a USSR election about the same time. Or maybe Albania.

In any real democratic vote, you'll never get 98.2% agreement. And for you to quote such a bogus number reveals your credulity or your duplicity.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

At least you're being a little more honest. Recently, your argument was that the Iranians wanted nuclear reactors in order to generate electric power. Now, you at least admit that they're building nukes.

So before, your defence of the activities of the Iranians was based upon their right to gain nuclear power, so long as they did so within the bounds of the non proleiferation treaty.

Now, your argument is that they have the right to expect that MAD, Part 2, will help to restore world order, and therefore, Iranian nukes are ok.

So what changed with you? Were you merely being dishonest before, or is there some new information about the state of the world, forthcoming in the last couple of weeks, that made you conclude that Iranian nukes were fine, and the NPT be damned?

I asked you a question.

Instead of a answer, I get one of your deluded fantasies.

My position has not changed, I am merely seeking to understand whether your desire for Iran not to develop nuclear weapons is based on anything other than simple prejudice.

Strike 1.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

The reasons to keep nukes out of the hands of the iranians are self evident. Most all the world govts agree: they just disagree on what should be done about it.

Self evident to you, maybe. But then you uncritically ingest crass, hysterical, warmongering propaganda and call for the summary execution of Iraqi hospital staff.

If the reasons are 'self evident', state them.

Stike 2.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

98.2. Impressive number. About what you'd have gotten in a USSR election about the same time. Or maybe Albania.

In any real democratic vote, you'll never get 98.2% agreement. And for you to quote such a bogus number reveals your credulity or your duplicity.

Have you read the constitution? Have you another source that quotes another statistic?

The people of Iran at the time had just relieved themselves of a corrupt, oppressive puppet regime installed by US/UK. They had from '53 to '79 to think about it.

Strike out.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I asked you a question.

Instead of a answer, I get one of your deluded fantasies.

My position has not changed, I am merely seeking to understand whether your desire for Iran not to develop nuclear weapons is based on anything other than simple prejudice.

Strike 1.

My desire to prevent nuclear proliferation in Iran is based on the instinct of self preservation.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I asked you a question.

Instead of a answer, I get one of your deluded fantasies.

My position has not changed, I am merely seeking to understand whether your desire for Iran not to develop nuclear weapons is based on anything other than simple prejudice.

Strike 1.

You didn't answer my question. Do you now accept that Iran is working on nukes? It seems to be implied in your answer above.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Self evident to you, maybe. But then you uncritically ingest crass, hysterical, warmongering propaganda and call for the summary execution of Iraqi hospital staff.

If the reasons are 'self evident', state them.

Stike 2.

And you uncritically ingest any crass antiamericanism that comes along, no matter how harebrained.

That being the case, you would argue for Iranian nukes, no matter how dangerous that might be, just because it would work against american interests.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Have you read the constitution? Have you another source that quotes another statistic?

The people of Iran at the time had just relieved themselves of a corrupt, oppressive puppet regime installed by US/UK. They had from '53 to '79 to think about it.

Strike out.

BTW, it appears that the vote was 98% of 50%. i.e. no women voters.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/print.php?storyid=587

 

[nino_savatte]

You didn't answer my question. Do you now accept that Iran is working on nukes? It seems to be implied in your answer above.

Interesting as you never answer anyone's questions yourself. How about practicing what you preach for a change?

 

[TAE]

The reasons to keep nukes out of the hands of the iranians are self evident. Most all the world govts agree: they just disagree on what should be done about it.

Iran is not developing nukes.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Iran is not developing nukes.

You're the only one who thinks that.

 

[tangentlama]

You're the only one who thinks that.

Oh No, he isn't! (boo)

 

[TAE]

You're the only one who thinks that.

After the Iraq saga? No way.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Do you know who A Q Khan is?

What was he doing in Iran?

 

[nino_savatte]

Do you know who A Q Khan is?

What was he doing in Iran?

More propagandising. I hope the State Dept or the Heritage Foundation are paying you well to spread this filth.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Good to see that everyone's up on their recent history...

 

[TAE]

Do you know who A Q Khan is?

What was he doing in Iran?

Do you know?

 

[tangentlama]

Iran is not developing nukes.

Wonder who is 'developing' Johnny CanNukeIran?