Iran to announce nuclear progress: Ahmadinejad

Comments (55)
kenradke11 wrote:

Ohhhhh I am sooooooo exited.
They made a nuclear gyroscope lol….

Feb 11, 2012 4:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
Sinbad1 wrote:

It is hard to know with Iran, this could be a bluff or it could be that they have nukes, who knows.

Feb 11, 2012 6:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
T.M. wrote:

Iran says its nuclear program has only peaceful purposes. Yeah right and they want to be buddy’s with Israel too. Plus I got beach front property on the moon for sale. I’m sorry but we need to just send a atomic care package over and turn that place into a quite neighborhood for a few hundred years.

Feb 11, 2012 6:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
StevenFeldman wrote:

Perhaps the alchemist Ahmadinejad has found a way to turn uranium into wheat.

He had better do so soon if the Iranian people are not to starve.

Feb 11, 2012 6:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
apk44 wrote:

lets hope they are doing great ,
seems they want to end the world so lets get it over with

Feb 11, 2012 7:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
GRRR wrote:

The irony is, any sort of announcement of “progress” speeds up an attack.

Feb 11, 2012 7:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
bill1942 wrote:

This strutting little peacock is really starting to get on my nerves. Bring back the Shah.

Feb 11, 2012 7:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

The preceding four comments seem to see the world – as “we demand” and you capitulate or else. Somewhere the idea that laws should be based on equity and some notions of fairness has been lost on them.

If they are representative of the thinking of the “international community” then it has nothing to offer really but the demands of an ignorant and brutal tyrant. And presently it can’t even claim to dominate a prosperous or particularly stable world economic order.

It is not generally acceptable practice for a “court”, in this case the so-called international community, to treat the defendant according to popular prejudice. An it must also act in a way that clearly shows that it does not pick favorites or show special consideration to, or make unexplained exceptions for its “friends”. Otherwise it isn’t really acting like a court at all, but more like a lynch mob.

The Security Council is not acting like a just judge either. It isn’t actually a Court of law. It is really only a supranational committee. In short – Iran is being lynched.

Feb 11, 2012 8:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
haroldburbank wrote:

no nukes.

usa, uk, and israel out of iran affairs. end western and other ‘act of war’ iran sanctions v the iranian people.

Feb 11, 2012 8:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
blogoleum wrote:

Even the CCCP couldn’t match America’s defense spending. Iran is decades behind. This does not mean that we will accept you pointing a nuclear weapon at us.

History will refer to the Supreme Council as being the ones responsible for the self-genocide of Persia.

You literally have ZERO chance of surviving.

Feb 11, 2012 9:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
Andao wrote:

“Demonstrators carrying Iranian flags and pictures of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei chanted “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.”"

Oh, good.

Feb 11, 2012 9:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
MetalHead8 wrote:

I get the US can be pretty bad at times, but i can’t wrap my head around these people that defend Iran. Iran controls their people through fear and hatred. They justice system is the worst. And there leaders… and we think our leaders suck, look at them! whoa.

I love how they will say that US is the one the screws up talks.
Ahmadinejad said. “The Iranian nation will not withdraw even one iota from its path.” – That sounds like they dont want to put the nuclear program on the table (which is why this crisis is happening in the frist place). So they can accuse the US of screwing up negatioations all they want, but that quote says it all. Nuclear Program > feeding people.

Feb 11, 2012 9:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
MetalHead8 wrote:


Nukes are not the awsner. Its a cheap way to win, it destroys the envorment, causes mass human suffering. To say we should nuke iran to stop them from building nukes is a bit… well.. you know.

Feb 11, 2012 9:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
Anthonykovic wrote:

Yes, Iran wants nuclear technology for “peaceful” purposes.
Their vision of a “peaceful” Middle East is one where Israel has been wiped off the face of the planet. For religious fanatics, weapons of mass destruction are indeed the road to “peace.”

Feb 11, 2012 9:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
kurmudgeon wrote:

All bs aside, Iran sure seems to want to provoke an attack. When it comes, I hope we have a qualified Commander in Chief at the helm. We don’t need our present flim-flam artist at the wheel. Maybe they cloned Reagan.

Feb 11, 2012 9:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
chrissky wrote:

I love this misleading headline. CNN was even worse with “Ahmadinejad talks nukes.”

Since when does a public announcement of “nuclear progress” automatically be a proclamation of weapons development? Did anybody think for a second the more likely scenario that he may declare that a new nuclear power facility may be operational? Some good news for the people as criminal sanctions take hold of the country.

And yes, the sanctions ARE criminal. The USA and especially Israel has no right to try and dictate what type of technology a sovereign nation can develop, for a few very simple reasons. 1) USA and Israel have attacked EXPONENTIALLY more nations than Iran in the last few decades. In fact Iran has not attacked anybody in longer than the USA has existed. 2) USA and Israel both have nukes! so the “We can and you can’t because we said so” argument is sad at best. And people wonder why Iran seems so “defiant?”

Nobody has even PROVEN Iran is close to finishing a nuke. If they really wanted one, they could easily obtain it on the black market from countries like Russia. This is another pathetic propaganda attempt to take over a countries BANKING SYSTEM and secure their resources, just like Libya, or Vietnam or etc etc etc…. Yet Iran are the “aggressors.” rigggghhhhht.

Feb 11, 2012 9:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
GRRR wrote:

Paintcan, no one ever said laws were based on equity or fairness. Laws are based on ethics and morals, both of which are derived from a society’s prevalent opinion on matters — with the exception of autocracies and their ilk.

Any given judicial system is derived from locally-popular concepts of what is fair, but what you might think is fair in Iran, is not what is considered fair in France, Russia, Mexico, the US or South Korea. The burden of proof, the weight of evidence (and so on) are not the same in any two nations.

But what we have seen of the prosecution of three American hikers at the border of Iran, I think it’s fair to say, Iran has a judicial system whose own prejudices outweigh any evidence, or a lack thereof.

Feb 11, 2012 10:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
BCerentano wrote:

Iran has been found, numerous times, to be in violation of the NPT as it relates to ‘peaceful energy’ activities.

A sampling of violations:

- Failure to disclose the Natanz processing facility (until US intelligence uncovered it).

- Environmental samples at multiple locations revealing the presence of high enriched uranium particles and low enriched uranium particles which were not consistent with the nuclear material in the declared inventory of Iran.

- Not reporting the importation and processing of nuclear material.

- Supplying information to the IAEA that was in contrast to what they previously gave them.

- Declaring depleted uranium was lost during processing. When waste analysis discovered otherwise, Iran finally admitted it.

- Claiming material had been lost due to leaks in gas centrifuges then, later admitting that wasn’t true. The material had actually been used in experiments.

The list goes on and on and on. I can’t imagine why the West is suspicious of Iran’s intentions. If they are only interested in ‘peaceful energy’, why do they consistently try to lie about, and conceal, their nuclear activities to the IAEA inspectors?

Feb 11, 2012 10:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
Life1 wrote:

@kurmudgeon: That is the ultimate bs right there. How low have we gone to say that unless Iran the independant country, walks the line of the US, it is ‘provoking’ a war?

@MetalHead: why should Iran put up its nuclear program for discussion? Does Israel negotiate its right to nuclear weapons or power? Does the US? How about France, the UK, or Russia? Does China discuss its nuclear program?

Do you see a pattern there, or not? How anyone can believe that Iran should ‘for one iota’ stray away from its rights under the NPT is incomprehensible.

Feb 11, 2012 10:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
MetalHead8 wrote:

@ Life1 … Im simply going to point out the massive differences between Iran, and the listed countries. enough said.

@chrissky Did you ever consider for a second there just saying this to upset the west? If you follow Iran, you’ll see this is common procedure in the forgin politics. “Yet Iran are the “aggressors.” rigggghhhhht”… Iran sponsored terrorism that has killed both Americans and Iserals. to imply the US is the sole aggressor, is just as arrogant as claiming we should nuke iran. Most Goverments are Aggressive.

@ Anthonykovic “For religious fanatics, weapons of mass destruction are indeed the road to “peace.”” I like how you worded that.


Feb 11, 2012 11:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
MetalHead8 wrote:

@ chrissky “If they really wanted one, they could easily obtain it on the black market from countries like Russia”

I missed that! Holy Smokes, Do you Realize if there was a nuke on the black market, it would have been used already! Many Nations around the world, work there butts off to ensure this never happens and we ALL owe them our thanks. Russia’s Putin is an A-hole, but he would never allow a nuke to go on the black market, with Russia’s history with terrorism. That statement indicates you have a severe lack of proper information. theres alot of people here with a wealth of imformation. I’d hit up Life1 or BCerentano

Feb 11, 2012 11:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
swschrad wrote:

Iran’s major nuclear announcement: for once, instead of “random events” taking out their nuclear scientists one by one, a nuclear accident took out a whole slug of ‘em ;)

a good start…

Feb 11, 2012 11:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
masterofnone wrote:

Scientist claim that Molten Salt Reactors using Thorium are much more efficient and safer. Plus, they have the added benefit that they can’t be used to produce weapons grade material. If that is true, why doesn’t the world tell Iran that they will support them in making that type of reactor. If Iran is truly interested in nuclear for peaceful energy they will take the deal. If not we will have called their bluff and now know what their goal is.

Feb 11, 2012 11:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
txgadfly wrote:

And exactly why is Iran having a nuclear weapon a problem for the USA? Note that I say “USA” not “Israel”. No nuclear weapon possessing State is submissive to the USA anyhow, especially Israel and North Korea. They are about equally friendly, but the North Koreans have not managed to infiltrate the American Government. Letting Israel run the USA is not the act of patriotic Americans.

Feb 11, 2012 11:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
xcanada2 wrote:

“Death to America”, “Death to Israel”. What do you expect Iranians to say, as Israel/America lay on the Siege of Iran, attempting to starve the people into submission, and demand they abrogate their nuclear power rights, and kowtow to the West. And does anybody believe nuclear weapons is the real issue? They were already declared part of the Axis of Evil ten years ago.

The Project of the New American Century began in 1997, claiming “adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea” were rushing to develop nuclear weapons”. The only one they got right, seems to hardly get a thought these days. Otherwise, it is just the same old Bush/Chaney/Kriston/Kagan Neocon perversions. Is America actually going to be duped again?

Feb 11, 2012 12:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chrissky wrote:

@ Metal head “If there was a nuke on the black market, it would have been used already. Many Nations worked their butts off to ensure that never happened.” REALLY? Who would use a nuclear weapon and on who? and why? An “independent group” using a nuke on a US city would be just as suicidal as their host country’s government doing the same thing. You can’t drop a nuke on a city and have nobody claim responsibility; So that’s a ridiculous assertion, flying in the face of logic. As for the second part of your quote… It’s funny you mention Russia. I believe if you do a little bit of research on the collapse of the Soviet Union you will find there are NUMEROUS nuclear weapons that “were not accounted for” The reason no faction would ever use them, is the same reason MOST governments won’t use them… They know their faction and host country would be obliterated. dumb statement.

Metalhead: “did you ever consider Iran is just saying this to upset the west”…. LOL So Iran is the “Bad guy” for saying something the west might not like?

now you’re comparing antagonizing words from Iran, to crippling economic sanctions, asset freezes, massing of troops and daily “we will bomb you rhetoric”

I love your debate posture. So full of arrogance and so lacking in logic and facts.

Feb 11, 2012 12:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
shep5558 wrote:

This is where we in the US need a strong pro American President, not a pro Islamist President. As the protector in chief, obama needs to error on the side of caution and assume Iran has more capabilities than ahmindenijhad is reporting. That’s assuming he even wants to protect America, and its allies. His past actions of helping the Islamists build the caliphate would indicate otherwise. Hey, let’s help Hamas and Hezbollah topple the Syrian government (like we did in Libiya) so the Islamist can be that much closer their goal. What’s that you say? The Syrian government shouldn’t be killing their own citizens. Wait until Egypt,Syria,Lebonon,Libiya,Yemen,elements in Iraq,and other Muslim countries coalesce with Iran to form their caliphate. Then you will see real destruction. Hey obama, this is Mohamad, can we count on you to provide air support again? SIGNED: The Muslim Brotherhood.

Feb 11, 2012 12:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
thebruce wrote:

When a country’s people are chanting “Death to — ” the whole world should be more than a little suspicious, don’t you think?

xcanada2, the Iranian Gov’t took this course knowing well what was in store and instead of shelving their pride, they put their own people’s needs last.
and you can’t be on this board and not recognize that the the middle east would be thrown into a nuclear race as soon as Iran announces it has the most powerful weapon in the world – that’s what made North Korea different, besides a strong backing by China.

Feb 11, 2012 1:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
shep5558 wrote:

The way to judge a person’s future behavior is to look at their past behavior. Ahmadinejad and Imams have historically financed, trained, harbored terrorists of Hezbollah, Hamas, and their counterparts. So are you willing to bet the lives of millions of people on the possiblity that Ahadinejad/Imams are mysteriously going to turn around and say,”We were just bluffing”? You people who are kind to a fault are placing the rest of us in grave danger. Thank you very much.

Feb 11, 2012 1:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Actionman990 wrote:

Any Anglo-American attack on Iran is and act of aggression and thus illegal.

Why is there no talk of Israels nuclear industry, or her nuclear weapon stockpile?

This is pure hypocracy.

Feb 11, 2012 2:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Life1 wrote:

@thebruce: how come it didn’t happen when Israel got the bomb, and it didn’t happen when Pakistan got the bomb, but NOW all of a sudden it’s going to happen when Iran gets the bomb?

There is ZERO logic in that argument.

Feb 11, 2012 2:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Life1 wrote:

@BCerentano: This post of yours proves that you’re a shill. No-one would go through that much trouble to lie so disingenuously:

Natanz: Iran was no under NO obligation whatsoever to declare the existence of the site whilst it was under construction. When ElBaradei visited the site in 2003, it was still not active. = NO treaty violation.

Environmental Samples: “In 2007 these traces were determined to have come from leaking used highly enriched uranium fuel from the Tehran Research Reactor‎, which the U.S. supplied to Iran in 1967, and the matter was closed” by the IAEA. YOU apparently seem to know more than they do. = NO treaty violation

ALL THE REST of your points were cleared up in a candid declaration in 2003 by Iran (with most of the violations in the early 90′s). This same 2003 is regarded by all 16 US intelligence agencies as the exact time that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program since Saddam was no longer a threat.

Japan and Brazil had done exactly the same thing covering up potential weapons programs, and Saudi Arabia is known to have sponsored Saddam to setup an Iraqi nuclear weapons program in exchange for a weapon in return. NONE of these other countries were sanctioned, or penalised for their actions, and none of them had blockades put on their exports.

Iran should just leave the NPT tomorrow, making the UNSC sanctions against it void, so we can all watch the hypocrisy that governs our world when it is not treated the same as Israel in terms of its ‘ambiguity’.

Feb 11, 2012 3:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xcanada2 wrote:

@thebruce: Your comments re Iran swallowing its pride drip with hubris, self-righteousness, and are even ironic. Why should other people back down in the face of Western bullying? Why should you think that they should? Finally, who are we to talk about Iranian pride, when we make such a big deal about them kicking out our dictator, the Shah of Iran, who we installed, taking down their democratically elected government?

Just what planet do many Americans, and their 1% government, come from? That, I’m sure, is what the rest of the world is wondering. And the whole democracy shill: what a hypocritical crock!

And, I doubt and if Americans get sucked into another war, that our “allies” are going to be there for us again. They can’t be that undemocratic, or stupid.

Feb 11, 2012 3:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xcanada2 wrote:

@Life1: Thank you for the run down on BCerentano. Your update is in accord with my recollection of events.

These BCerentano canards come up with huge regularity. No telling how many people are perpetrators of such lies? It would be surely be an easy thing for somebody like the Koch brothers to pay a few people to keep such disinformation in front of everyones noses. (Although I have met people who would do it for free.)

Feb 11, 2012 4:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
acin2012 wrote:

Read Psalm 83..that’s what happens to nations that threaten Israel…

Feb 11, 2012 4:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MetalHead8 wrote:

@ Chrissky Bahahahaa! You shell out those negative, one sided, hostile comments and i’m the arrgant one?! wow, that is rich.

As much as like wasting my time argueing on the internet, I have better things to do then to argue with some stubborn kid.

Feb 11, 2012 4:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
thebruce wrote:

Life1…there is zero logic to anticipating an arms race after a nation declares it is a nuclear power? ever come to think why israel hasn’t declared that particular status?? pakistan produced nuclear arms to counter another power…and they aren’t a major oil-producing nation that bullies others that don’t share their shiite views.

and pakistan’s nuclear capability was a response to india building their own bomb with a canadian reactor – that’s right, canada pretty much gave india the bomb. hoorah for the nation of pot-smoking dissenters – you play a role in nuclear proliferation.

xcanada2 (irony, you mentioned?) it’s not like the USA is perfect but their democratically elected republic of federal government is currently the best the world has come up with yet. sorry it’s made mistakes but what country hasn’t?

Feb 11, 2012 4:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:

“Demonstrators carrying Iranian flags and pictures of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei chanted “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.” Ismail Haniya, who heads the Islamist Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, also attended the ceremony.”

This is why America, Israel, and the west feels that Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Death to America and Death to Israel indeed. That has never gone to well for anyone. Perhaps if Iran didn’t chant these things and support terrorist organization Hamas they would be trusted with their nuclear program as designed in the non proliferation treaty. I doubt that they would nuke Israel. Destroying their holy land doesn’t seem like an option as all muslims would then rise up against them. American targets or the strait of hormuz, that is my bet.

Feb 11, 2012 5:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ColonelKlink1 wrote:

Falsifying economic statistics?
Rigged elections?
Sounds like the USA

Feb 11, 2012 6:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:


Israel attacked who? I think you mean counter attack after being attacked repeatedly by their arab neighbors who hates them and backed Hitler just for the purpose of extermination of the Jews. Good company you like to keep there. I guess you miss it everytime their is a parade in Iran and they are chanting death to America and death to Israel. We don’t have parades like that in Israel and the United States. Do you honestly think that they will spare your infadel butt in their jihad?

Feb 11, 2012 6:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
anunomus wrote:

Iran is headed by a megalomaniac whose position was obtained by questionable means. He used the phrase turning “Israel to dust”. That means perhaps, if he doesn’t have it, then he wants to have that capability.

Sorry. That is not acceptable. The world would be more at ease with a company have nukes that isn’t run by an egomaniac with affective instability. The world knows this man is not playing with a full deck. That is the reason the world is imposing sanctions. It is unfortunate. But Ahmedinejad is a nut. It is clear that he is not stable to the rest of the objective, FREE world (that wants to remain free).

Feb 11, 2012 7:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

Many of these comments – especially Metalhead’s – show why the US has too much military presence that it uses for some very dubious purposes in the world. Iran’s activity is focused on its own territory. Both the US and Israel contribute to covert operations as they accuse Iran of doing but use overt force whenever it suits their needs. Israel’s claims of being the poor victim have been ringing hollow for at least 30 years. The worst you can say of those who predate the state of Israel is that they were defending their turf from some very exclusionary invaders.

In 1948 Israel redrew the map laid out by the UN (and which the Arab inhabitants more or less agreed to accept) without any further agreement from the Arab inhabitants. To make it quite clear what that means – many Arabs were made refugees who had formerly been prosperous and people with property. The Israeli’s did not say – “we want to include you and yours in our Jewish state” they said get out with nothing but the cloths on your back”. The Israel’s have pursued their own self centered and very bigoted foreign policy ever since. There were no Arabs working for the death camps in Europe but they have effectively been forced to pay reparations for crimes they never committed. Israelis redrew the maps and have ever since claimed it was self-defense. Iran is one of the few countries in the ME that allow the old argument to be aired at all. The “Arab spring” may make that argument louder and a lot more difficult to ignore. For 50 years, formerly European Jews have waged a successful campaign of getting back alienated property and compensation from Europeans for their own losses. It seems only fair that they would now face similar claims from those they displaced. And I’m quite sure they know that.

@unpartisan – please explain why settlement building that excludes indigenous habitants and the continued expansion of those settlements, as well as forced demolitions and evictions without compensation of Palestinian homes, in territory Israel wants to claim for itself, is justified, is according to anyone’s notions of equity, and why it should continue?

I don’t think the real issue is whether or not Iran has a bomb. I think the real issue is that Iran doesn’t accept the Israeli line regarding its “rights” as it defines them itself in the Middle East. In other words, the Israelis made terrible foreign policy decisions in the ME and are now having a much harder time convincing people who are no longer as backward as their grandparents were and are quite capable of talking back. Whether or not Israel or Iran have nuclear weapons isn’t nearly as important as whether the Israelis are going to face a day when they are forced to pay out a lot of compensation for past abuses in the region.

I sure as hell don’t want to se the day – when the Israeli’s or the Iranians become engaged in a shooting war and I can’t afford to buy the gas for my car to buy groceries. And I’m disgusted with the political ineptitude and the grossly one-sided arguments I’ve been exposed to most of my life, that allowed events to go this far.

If there were any American politicians truly worth the considerable money that is thrown at them, they would make the settlement of this issue the greatest priority. Or it will not go away. The subject is not even being raised in the current debates. If the question is raised at all it doesn’t seem to be reported. Doesn’t that seem a little strange?

Feb 11, 2012 7:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xcanada2 wrote:


I gather you were happy that the US fought the Iraq war, substantially for Israel and Zionist votes, killing 100,000 Iraqis and 4,500 of our guys, and doing much to destroy their country. Who cares about the lies told to get us into the war? Israeli fabricated data, for example. Maybe you would like us to attack Iran, with the potential for many more deaths? Never-mind, squandering trillions of dollars of the 99%’s money. Looks like the motivation would be almost purely for Israel and Zionist votes this time. That would to go over big with the 99%.

In the meantime, we can just put the 80 million Iranians under siege, and try to starve them. That should make them like us more.

Feb 11, 2012 8:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chrissky wrote:

@ Unpartisan and Anunomus. “Israel to dust” “wipe Israel off the map” these are the most highly spouted disingenuous propaganda in Iran/Israeli relations. The CORRECT translation of what Ahmadinejad said was: “The Zionist regime should be erased from the pages of time.” The REGIME. Not the PEOPLE of Israel. Even the people of Israel recently had over 600 000 people protesting the actions of their own government. The Israeli government is more than willing to sacrifice it’s citizens to further their international agenda…. and the people living there are starting to realize it.

“That’s the reason the world is imposing sanctions” REALLY? the WORLD eh?

since the announcement of sanctions, Russia, China, Japan, India, Pakistan all announced that they would “circumvent” Western sanctions on Iran by purchasing oil in GOLD bullion (rather than American dollars) So Iran has over half of the world’s population doing business with them. And stupid USA could have been keeping their floundering dollar afloat, because the only reason China and Japan were buying so much US DEBT in the first place is because they were trading it for oil with Iran. The USA with these sanctions will only increase Iran’s gold holding and decrease status of the US dollar as “world reserve currency” talk about shooting your self in the foot!

your comment characterizing the USA, Israel and a few European nations being “The whole world” while ignoring more than half the people on the planet, is on par with most American exceptionalism barbaric banter.

@ Metalhead. I don’t have to say anything. I already refuted your baseless arguments and your response showed me like all people trying to defend a losing argument… you didn’t have much to say. Now go hide under your bed waiting for the “Iranian Jihad” to hit America! What a joke.

Feb 11, 2012 8:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cheeze wrote:

Hey maybe they made a toy nuke, but the real question belongs on delivery? It takes good technology to deliver a deadly weapon like a nuke. I doubt they have that, what a bunch of blow hards..

Feb 11, 2012 9:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
notthistime wrote:

Iran, threatening the U.S. Um, ok. Sadly, aside from the oil, I can’t think of a single thing that country has that anyone wants. And even that we would do without, if we could get Obama to understand that the entire country can’t run on Solyndra just yet. Hurry, November.

And what’s with all these sad little clown dictators running their entire governments on “death to America?” Talk about a one-trick pony. Here’s a thought: Political clownery doesn’t pay the bills, idiots. You should think about something along the lines of, say, an actual government. In case you hadn’t noticed, “death to America” pretty much always ends badly-

for the clown.

Feb 11, 2012 10:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DaveNKy wrote:

What right has the World to make demands that Iran cooperate with IAEA inspections? Simple, because Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty! As such, and to better understand Iran’s level of cooperation with the IAEA, or the lack thereof, I suggest visiting www.IAEA.ORG. Read for yourself the correspondence between Iran and the Director General’s office of the IAEA, to see for yourself how the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has used subterfuge and tecnicalities to drag-out the inspection process. At almost every turn, the Iranians have exercised the mentallity of Rug merchants trading in the Bizarre, to obfuscate and delay the inspection process. All in an effort, in my opinion, to buy time in order to become a nuclear power.

Despite all of that, I think I understand why the IR of Iran would want nuclear weapons. And, I’m not opposed to them having nuclear weapons. Perhaps, instead, a better solution might be to ask Israel to give up its nuclear arsenal before making demands of Iran? But then again, Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty. And, I don’t believe the Iranian’s, despite the claims of some, are anxious to usher in the apocolyse needed to bring about the appearance of the Mahdi…the 12th Imam. No pun intended but, the ruling class in Iran is living too high on-the-hog, to bring about their own destruction.

Finally, let’s consider what’s precipitated most of the hate in the Middle East today and, the losers of an attack on Iran. The plight of the Palestinian people is the single source of Islamic anger towards Israel! I am not an anti-semite! However, the Palestinians have been forced to live like animals…often in squalor. Neither you nor I would find living under these circumstances acceptable. What’s the answer? I think it must be a two state solution. But, because there are people on both sides of this equation whose interest are vested in continuing conflict, instead of peace, I see the possibilty of any resolution as unlikely. Sad. Very sad. But there it is. Alas, the losers. Perhaps the easier to answer question would be, who would be the winners of an attack on Iran? Before trying to answer that question, we need to explore any likely outcome of it. World wars, and less minor conflicts have started over far less.

And finally, the suffering of a people that we (and yes I’m an U.S. American by birth) have imposed is unconscienable. It is so because, it is imposed against a government who has previouly demonstrated its willingness to unleash brutal and deadly tactics against any internal opposition. An opposition whose only weapons are people…bodies. Such behavior runs contrary against the very fabric of who we are! Let alone our concept of democracy.

World opinion does matter. Like it or not, our standing in the world is based on that opinion. Attacking Iran, or supporting an Israeli attack on Iran, would do grievous injury to America’s standing in the
court of world public opinion. Not to mention the cost of treasure and blood.

Criticize me if you must but, before you do….for your own sake, not mine, do more research on the subjects.

Feb 11, 2012 10:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlphaQ wrote:

Lets see if USA or Israel has the balls to do anything, as they say barking dogs seldom bite. In this case this barking rabid dog may just bite and put our gas prices up substantially. Theere seems to be considerable gas price hike right now just on talk of war I shudder to think what will happen if there was war.

Feb 11, 2012 11:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse

[(From the Supreme Leader): Wohoo! We make progress on nukes! Food for my people? Eh, not so much. That's ok, I don't mind if they're hungry...]
Nothing says ‘regional instability’ quite like a nation led by psychopathic zealots, with nukes.

While I think the whole two wars over the last decade+ weakened our positions morally, politically and militarily in the middle east, I must admit that a nuclear Iran really does present a profound danger to not only Israel, but to everyone, everywhere. It’s quite a pickle, and the cost will be great both if we do something, or if we don’t. The question is, which will cost more? (Question 2: Who is willing to pay?)

Feb 11, 2012 11:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

And there is a lot on money banking at the fact that the conflict can be turned to profit. How many oil futures are banking on restricted, or even an excuse for a restricted flow of oil?

And AlphaQ. Why bait the “rabid dog”. You might shame it into doing something very unnecessary? Budgets and bookkeeping are an art form too, don’t you know? There are a lot of historic gaps in bookkeeping. People know how to loose the books, cook the books, even forget what happened to the books, when it is necessary.

Feb 12, 2012 12:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
AhmaDangerMad wrote:

One way or another, it’s bad enough that there are so many nukes out there, controlled by more-or-less sane politicians. Having ayatollahs with nukes won’t make the world any safer. Those guys are dangeros, that’s why not only Israel and the West are concerned about their nuclear program, but many Arab counties in the region as well.

Feb 12, 2012 12:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
Free-Speech wrote:

Interesting that there’s no actual reporting on the nation wide celebration in Iran in this article…

How many millions of people came out to celebrate the liberation of their country from US dictators and imperialists reuters???

Good to see you’re doing your jobs and reporting what happens out there in the world!

Feb 12, 2012 3:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
BCerentano wrote:

@ Life1 & xcanada2…

Is the room spinning or just your comments?

Apparently the IAEA inspectors are conspiring to spread what you call “disinformation” since those violations (and more) are listed in the IAEA’s reports. The IAEA reports classify them as VIOLATIONS so, apparently that’s exactly what they are.

“ALL THE REST of your points were cleared up in a candid declaration in 2003 by Iran”…. A candid declaration? Ahmadinejad couldn’t have spun it better himself. Yes, Iran often made “candid declarations” after they got caught lying.

If they didn’t continually lie to, and hide activities from, inspectors they wouldn’t have had to make any “candid declarations”. Just because Iran admits that material hadn’t leaked from gas centrifuges like they had previously claimed, and admit they had actually used it in experiments not previously reported to the IAEA, it doesn’t mean they haven’t violated the NPT. It means they got caught (again). Its no different than a convicted serial killer confessing to a string of murders then claiming he cleared it all up by making a candid declaration.

If Iran wasn’t trying to do things they aren’t supposed to be doing, they wouldn’t be lying to inspectors. Period.

Feb 12, 2012 11:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jaws7 wrote:

Response to TM.

What do we have for brains when we advocate using a nuclear bomb on
a country. Comments like yours make the NPT a sham. Where do you think the fallout is going to hit.

Feb 14, 2012 7:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jaws7 wrote:

Response to TM.

What do we have for brains when we advocate using a nuclear bomb on
a country. Comments like yours make the NPT a sham. Where do you think the fallout is going to hit.

Feb 14, 2012 7:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.