Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,103 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 44,917
Pageviews Today: 78,876Threads Today: 14Posts Today: 493
12:56 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Iran's time to talk is over

 
LTC Peachblossom
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 89830
Sweden
08/31/2006 11:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Iran's time to talk is over
I found a great little article discussing "the options that are on the table" for Iran. I think it is great because it attempts a rational analysis given the current state of affairs, suspending the discussion of whether or not the resolution is justified for the moment.

Peace.
/LTC Peachblossom

---

Iran's time to talk is over

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

With the United Nations deadline for Iran to comply with its demand to halt the nuclear fuel cycle or face punitive measures due to expire on Thursday, Iran's nuclear row has reached a critical threshold, given Tehran's comprehensive and conciliatory response to the package of incentives by the UN's five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany.

Calling Iran's right to produce nuclear fuel one of the country's "strategic objectives", chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani has at the same time gone out of his way to reassure the international community that his country's willingness to negotiate is serious and nothing, not even the issue of suspension of nuclear activities, is off the table.

Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has challenged US President George W Bush to a televised debate on world issues, at the same time signaling that Iran would ignore the UN deadline.

Iran's response has so far elicited diametrically opposed receptions, with China and Russia embracing Iran's invitation for a meaningful negotiation, in rather sharp contrast to the United States, whose UN ambassador, John Bolton, has castigated Iran for failing to heed the Security Council's demands and has called for swift sanctions by the UN.

But at present, Bolton cannot even count on sound support by the European Union, whose foreign-policy chief, Javier Solana, has evinced a more studied reaction to Iran's proposal, implicitly warning not to dismiss it out of hand, but rather to "carefully study its details".

Solana and high officials from the so-called EU-3 (Germany, France and Britain) are trying to embark on a historic trip to Iran in a last-minute diplomatic effort to persuade Tehran's leadership to abide by the dictates of Security Council and to halt enrichment-related activities by Thursday.

It is unclear whether the US sanctions such a trip or, on the other hand, is gearing up for a showdown at the Security Council in September.

Amid reports of an inter-governmental rift over Iran, principally between the State Department and the Pentagon, a number of US lawmakers, such as ranking Senator Richard Lugar, have gone on record advising the necessity of taking up Iran's offer for talks instead of a straightforward march toward sanctions.

What is universally missed by the US media and political pundits, however, is that Security Council Resolution 1696 tacitly obligates such talk by virtue of endorsing the package of incentives by the permanent five (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia) and Germany.

The resolution "endorses" their proposal "for a long-term comprehensive agreement". Thus, given Iran's serious consideration of this proposal and its submission of a detailed response, the US and its allies would be in disregard, if not outright violation, of 1696 if they rejected Iran's offer for serious negotiation without any precondition. Iran's response, in part, seeks clarification on some specifics, such as whether or not the US is willing to lift its 27-year-old sanctions against Iran to allow the sale of modern nuclear technology, as promised in the package.

This is not a far-fetched interpretation, but rather a realistic one borne by the recognition that Resolution 1696 embodies a double obligation, one explicit, the other implicit - the explicit from Iran to stop enrichment and the construction of a heavy-water reactor, and to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), among other things, and the implicit obligation from the authors of the incentive package to live up to their promises and deal directly with Iran on the implementation of the package's content.

Indeed, a close reading of Resolution 1696 shows that while the two types of obligations are not predicated on one another, they are internally related, and it would be a theoretical and conceptual mistake to ignore the latent aspect or dimension pertaining to the international incentive package. A US failure to heed this latent demand, ramified by the Security Council's endorsement of the incentive package, would then partially justify Iran's non-compliance with the rest of the resolution's demands from Iran.

Meanwhile, Iran's line of reasoning, that the Security Council's action is "illegal", cannot be easily defended from the prism of international law, in light of the primacy of the UN Charter and the powers vested in the Security Council.

At the heart of the nuclear standoff with Iran is a conflict touching on the rights and obligations of a state with respect to both the UN, subsidiary UN organizations such as the IAEA, and other international regimes.

It is ironic that a number of nuclear experts who previously accused Iran of skirting its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are now putting the emphasis on the UN's priority over those obligations, which Iran insists it has respected.

Yet no matter how justified Iran feels with respect to its grievances against the Security Council, it must be careful not put itself in direct violation of the UN resolution come Thursday, whereby it would be labeled as a "rogue state" primed for a gradually intensifying regime of sanctions.

The central principle of international law, expressed in the maxim pacta sunt servand ("pacts must be respected"), applies first and foremost to the UN. And as a member state, the Islamic Republic should not slight the importance of the legal consequences of being found in violation of a UN Security Council request. Obligation is, after all, a legal duty whose bearer - in this case Iran - is answerable before the international community, should there be no multilateral agreement to abstain from sanctions after Thursday by pursuing the path of negotiation.

In conclusion, Iran has two distinct choices, of an interim suspension and the standby option. It could resort to the latter to give a time-specific negotiation a decent chance to protect its NPT right to peaceful nuclear technology.

The mere legal consequences of rejecting the Security Council's demands, let alone subsequent graduated sanctions, are potentially so severe as to prompt preemptive damage control by Iran.

This is precisely what Iran has put on the table in the name of its response to the incentive package, and it is hoped that the other side does not ignore its own obligations and the need for a negotiated solution to this dangerous crisis.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also wrote "Keeping Iran's nuclear potential latent", Harvard International Review, and is author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction.

[link to www.atimes.com]
This space is not for rent.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 121349
United States
08/31/2006 11:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
I watched irans president on cspan, he is highly intelligent, and wise in his words unlike bush, the entire world would support iran right now. He talked about how america has gone from a trustful nation to the most hated nation in the world. It was very good and he is no crazy. advantage iran
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 79718
United States
08/31/2006 12:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
I watched irans president on cspan, he is highly intelligent, and wise in his words unlike bush, the entire world would support iran right now. He talked about how america has gone from a trustful nation to the most hated nation in the world. It was very good and he is no crazy. advantage iran
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 121349


according to international opinion as referenced in the most recent PEW International poll, the United States is seen as the greatest threat to world peace, and is the least liked developed country (more disliked than China, Russia, all of them).
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 110784
United Kingdom
08/31/2006 12:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
I found a great little article discussing "the options that are on the table" for Iran. I think it is great because it attempts a rational analysis given the current state of affairs, suspending the discussion of whether or not the resolution is justified for the moment.

Peace.
/LTC Peachblossom

---

Iran's time to talk is over

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

With the United Nations deadline for Iran to comply with its demand to halt the nuclear fuel cycle or face punitive measures due to expire on Thursday, Iran's nuclear row has reached a critical threshold, given Tehran's comprehensive and conciliatory response to the package of incentives by the UN's five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany.

Calling Iran's right to produce nuclear fuel one of the country's "strategic objectives", chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani has at the same time gone out of his way to reassure the international community that his country's willingness to negotiate is serious and nothing, not even the issue of suspension of nuclear activities, is off the table.

Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has challenged US President George W Bush to a televised debate on world issues, at the same time signaling that Iran would ignore the UN deadline.

Iran's response has so far elicited diametrically opposed receptions, with China and Russia embracing Iran's invitation for a meaningful negotiation, in rather sharp contrast to the United States, whose UN ambassador, John Bolton, has castigated Iran for failing to heed the Security Council's demands and has called for swift sanctions by the UN.

But at present, Bolton cannot even count on sound support by the European Union, whose foreign-policy chief, Javier Solana, has evinced a more studied reaction to Iran's proposal, implicitly warning not to dismiss it out of hand, but rather to "carefully study its details".

Solana and high officials from the so-called EU-3 (Germany, France and Britain) are trying to embark on a historic trip to Iran in a last-minute diplomatic effort to persuade Tehran's leadership to abide by the dictates of Security Council and to halt enrichment-related activities by Thursday.

It is unclear whether the US sanctions such a trip or, on the other hand, is gearing up for a showdown at the Security Council in September.

Amid reports of an inter-governmental rift over Iran, principally between the State Department and the Pentagon, a number of US lawmakers, such as ranking Senator Richard Lugar, have gone on record advising the necessity of taking up Iran's offer for talks instead of a straightforward march toward sanctions.

What is universally missed by the US media and political pundits, however, is that Security Council Resolution 1696 tacitly obligates such talk by virtue of endorsing the package of incentives by the permanent five (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia) and Germany.

The resolution "endorses" their proposal "for a long-term comprehensive agreement". Thus, given Iran's serious consideration of this proposal and its submission of a detailed response, the US and its allies would be in disregard, if not outright violation, of 1696 if they rejected Iran's offer for serious negotiation without any precondition. Iran's response, in part, seeks clarification on some specifics, such as whether or not the US is willing to lift its 27-year-old sanctions against Iran to allow the sale of modern nuclear technology, as promised in the package.

This is not a far-fetched interpretation, but rather a realistic one borne by the recognition that Resolution 1696 embodies a double obligation, one explicit, the other implicit - the explicit from Iran to stop enrichment and the construction of a heavy-water reactor, and to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), among other things, and the implicit obligation from the authors of the incentive package to live up to their promises and deal directly with Iran on the implementation of the package's content.

Indeed, a close reading of Resolution 1696 shows that while the two types of obligations are not predicated on one another, they are internally related, and it would be a theoretical and conceptual mistake to ignore the latent aspect or dimension pertaining to the international incentive package. A US failure to heed this latent demand, ramified by the Security Council's endorsement of the incentive package, would then partially justify Iran's non-compliance with the rest of the resolution's demands from Iran.

Meanwhile, Iran's line of reasoning, that the Security Council's action is "illegal", cannot be easily defended from the prism of international law, in light of the primacy of the UN Charter and the powers vested in the Security Council.

At the heart of the nuclear standoff with Iran is a conflict touching on the rights and obligations of a state with respect to both the UN, subsidiary UN organizations such as the IAEA, and other international regimes.

It is ironic that a number of nuclear experts who previously accused Iran of skirting its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are now putting the emphasis on the UN's priority over those obligations, which Iran insists it has respected.

Yet no matter how justified Iran feels with respect to its grievances against the Security Council, it must be careful not put itself in direct violation of the UN resolution come Thursday, whereby it would be labeled as a "rogue state" primed for a gradually intensifying regime of sanctions.

The central principle of international law, expressed in the maxim pacta sunt servand ("pacts must be respected"), applies first and foremost to the UN. And as a member state, the Islamic Republic should not slight the importance of the legal consequences of being found in violation of a UN Security Council request. Obligation is, after all, a legal duty whose bearer - in this case Iran - is answerable before the international community, should there be no multilateral agreement to abstain from sanctions after Thursday by pursuing the path of negotiation.

In conclusion, Iran has two distinct choices, of an interim suspension and the standby option. It could resort to the latter to give a time-specific negotiation a decent chance to protect its NPT right to peaceful nuclear technology.

The mere legal consequences of rejecting the Security Council's demands, let alone subsequent graduated sanctions, are potentially so severe as to prompt preemptive damage control by Iran.

This is precisely what Iran has put on the table in the name of its response to the incentive package, and it is hoped that the other side does not ignore its own obligations and the need for a negotiated solution to this dangerous crisis.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also wrote "Keeping Iran's nuclear potential latent", Harvard International Review, and is author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction.

[link to www.atimes.com]
 Quoting: LTC Peachblossom




propogandasheepflush
LTC Peachblossom  (OP)

User ID: 89830
Sweden
08/31/2006 01:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
AC 110784, would you care to motivate your assessment of the article being just "propaganda"? You may be on to something, I'm just not sure what.

/LTC Peachblossom
This space is not for rent.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 129355
United States
08/31/2006 01:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
The same talk, always talk,

was happening last November

from the U.S., Isarel, and the U.N.
Sinanju

User ID: 137908
United States
08/31/2006 01:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
Really?

The rest of the world doesn't like America?

*GASP*

Oh no! What can we do! Who can we kiss up too? Who to appease first? The french?

But wait... Has the rest of the world EVER liked the US?

Answer: No.

So, fuck world opinion.

Nobody liked Rome either.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3908
United States
08/31/2006 01:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
Iran isn't dong anything that they are not ALLOWED to do under the articles of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, specifically Article IV of that treaty.

Article IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

[link to www.un.org]

Despite the screaming and shrill accusations coming from the Bush gang and their yahoodi controllers, the Iranians have done NOTHING that they do not have a lawful right to do.

And besides.

If Bush and those idiots in Israel can't beat the Iraqis, or Hezbollah, what do they think they can do against the Iranians.

Answer?

They can't do sqwat.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21
United States
08/31/2006 01:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
121349,

Iran's leader stated that the holocaust never happened.

He said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map".

He wants to "force Allah's hand" and bring the Mahdi or 12th imam or whatever that crap is all about.

His goons arrest or kill anyone who publicly dissents.

He IS crazy, AND dangerous.
LTC Peachblossom  (OP)

User ID: 89830
Sweden
08/31/2006 07:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
121349,

Iran's leader stated that the holocaust never happened.

He said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map".

He wants to "force Allah's hand" and bring the Mahdi or 12th imam or whatever that crap is all about.

His goons arrest or kill anyone who publicly dissents.

He IS crazy, AND dangerous.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21


Ac21, Please use the GLP search function and key in those catchphrases. You will find that most of those statements that are attributed to the Iranian president have been shown to be persistent mistranslations and misconceptions, and/or ripped out of context to twist the meaning.

The obvious purpose of their propagation as "truth" in Western media networks is to make uninformed people reach the conclusion you are presenting.

Love,
/LTC Peachblossom
This space is not for rent.
LTC Peachblossom  (OP)

User ID: 89830
Sweden
08/31/2006 07:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
To return to the subject of this particular thread, I found it interesting to see the Iranian options and response presented in the following manner (from the above article):

"
In conclusion, Iran has two distinct choices, of an interim suspension and the standby option. It could resort to the latter to give a time-specific negotiation a decent chance to protect its NPT right to peaceful nuclear technology.

The mere legal consequences of rejecting the Security Council's demands, let alone subsequent graduated sanctions, are potentially so severe as to prompt preemptive damage control by Iran.

This is precisely what Iran has put on the table in the name of its response to the incentive package, and it is hoped that the other side does not ignore its own obligations and the need for a negotiated solution to this dangerous crisis."

It is not exactly what I heard in the news today.

Love,
/LTC Peachblossom
This space is not for rent.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 91487
United States
08/31/2006 07:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
Why does the US have to "do" anything about Iran? Why can't the US just mind it's own business and stop trying to run the world? It's not necessary to disarm the world if you don't give others a reason to hate you.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 138038
Australia
08/31/2006 07:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
"the entire world would support iran right now."

lol

Oh boy, what are you on?
Sense and Sensibility

User ID: 120892
Australia
08/31/2006 07:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
121349,

Iran's leader stated that the holocaust never happened.

He said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map".

He wants to "force Allah's hand" and bring the Mahdi or 12th imam or whatever that crap is all about.

His goons arrest or kill anyone who publicly dissents.

He IS crazy, AND dangerous.


Ac21, Please use the GLP search function and key in those catchphrases. You will find that most of those statements that are attributed to the Iranian president have been shown to be persistent mistranslations and misconceptions, and/or ripped out of context to twist the meaning.

The obvious purpose of their propagation as "truth" in Western media networks is to make uninformed people reach the conclusion you are presenting.

Love,
/LTC Peachblossom
 Quoting: LTC Peachblossom

Good work Peachblossom - as I said in Kay's thread about the Muslim beauty queen's comments, on this argument you are also trying to use intelligence and logic to debate the issue with the ignorant and the illogical. It won't work, but keep trying ..... one of these days some these warmongers may just begin to see the light (for all our sakes let's hope they do before it's too late).
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root" -
Henry D. Thoreau
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 121702
United States
08/31/2006 07:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
I watched irans president on cspan, he is highly intelligent, and wise in his words unlike bush, the entire world would support iran right now. He talked about how america has gone from a trustful nation to the most hated nation in the world. It was very good and he is no crazy. advantage iran
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 121349


You know nothing about Khatami!

Before Ahmadinejad, when the Supreme Leader and his Guardian Council wanted to appear more moderate, they picked Mohammad Khatami and allowed him to become the President. But they never gave him any actual authority and kept him on a short leash regarding his actions.

Khatami projected the image of a reformer and a moderate who believed in dialogue. He performed his role admirably by speaking in platitudes and generalities such as the "Dialogue among the Civilizations". The reality of the Islamic republic during the 8 years of his presidency was very different.

Domestically, dozens of newspapers were shut down and journalists were jailed. Dissidents were imprisoned, assassinated and executed. People were executed for offenses that should not even be considered crimes such as adultery, homosexuality, and converting from Islam to other religions. Then there are the catchall offenses such as "Fighting the will of God" or "Spreading corruption on earth" for which one may also be executed. During Khatami's presidency, Iran had one of the worst human rights records according to UN Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

During Khatami's presidency, the Islamic Republic was also an international menace. Year after year the Iran was singled out as a leading state-sponsor of terrorism. Khatami publicly supported terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad as well as helped fund, arm and train them throughout his presidency. Building of illegal clandestine sites for uranium enrichment continued during Khatami's Presidency.

Khatami was more soft-spoken than Ahmadinejad, but their actual policies and practices are very similar. Khatami was the public face that unelected oligarchy of the Islamic Republic chose for domestic and international purposes. Now Ahmadinejad is that face.

[link to www.tcsdaily.com]
Written by an Iranian

You're defending and applauding a known human right violator.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 121702
United States
08/31/2006 07:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
Ac21, Please use the GLP search function and key in those catchphrases. You will find that most of those statements that are attributed to the Iranian president have been shown to be persistent mistranslations and misconceptions, and/or ripped out of context to twist the meaning.

The obvious purpose of their propagation as "truth" in Western media networks is to make uninformed people reach the conclusion you are presenting.

Love,
/LTC Peachblossom
 Quoting: LTC Peachblossom


Sorry, Peachie, most of the reports and news coming out of Iran get picked up a lot by India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Turkey, even Israel and have not once "filtered" out to Western media.

I've read China's internet media news sometimes and they reported the very same things about Iran as the western media get.

The only thing that is really filtered out is language translation and Western media employ very good language translators in Arabic and Persian languages.

You're coming up with nothing but complete conjectures about Western media being propaganda and mistranslation for the West.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 134093
Canada
08/31/2006 07:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
:history:
putinputin putin putin putin
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 129120
Canada
08/31/2006 07:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
Really?

The rest of the world doesn't like America?

*GASP*

Oh no! What can we do! Who can we kiss up too? Who to appease first? The french?

But wait... Has the rest of the world EVER liked the US?

Answer: No.

So, fuck world opinion.

Nobody liked Rome either.
 Quoting: Sinanju


...and look what happened to their empire... flush
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 129120
Canada
08/31/2006 07:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
Translation from iranian into english is done by a jewish company who spin everything in anti-Islamic sentiment. i forget their name. If I remember I'll post it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 121702
United States
08/31/2006 08:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
Translation from iranian into english is done by a jewish company who spin everything in anti-Islamic sentiment. i forget their name. If I remember I'll post it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 129120


lame
Sense and Sensibility

User ID: 120892
Australia
08/31/2006 08:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
I watched irans president on cspan, he is highly intelligent, and wise in his words unlike bush, the entire world would support iran right now. He talked about how america has gone from a trustful nation to the most hated nation in the world. It was very good and he is no crazy. advantage iran


You know nothing about Khatami!

Before Ahmadinejad, when the Supreme Leader and his Guardian Council wanted to appear more moderate, they picked Mohammad Khatami and allowed him to become the President. But they never gave him any actual authority and kept him on a short leash regarding his actions.

Khatami projected the image of a reformer and a moderate who believed in dialogue. He performed his role admirably by speaking in platitudes and generalities such as the "Dialogue among the Civilizations". The reality of the Islamic republic during the 8 years of his presidency was very different.

Domestically, dozens of newspapers were shut down and journalists were jailed. Dissidents were imprisoned, assassinated and executed. People were executed for offenses that should not even be considered crimes such as adultery, homosexuality, and converting from Islam to other religions. Then there are the catchall offenses such as "Fighting the will of God" or "Spreading corruption on earth" for which one may also be executed. During Khatami's presidency, Iran had one of the worst human rights records according to UN Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

During Khatami's presidency, the Islamic Republic was also an international menace. Year after year the Iran was singled out as a leading state-sponsor of terrorism. Khatami publicly supported terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad as well as helped fund, arm and train them throughout his presidency. Building of illegal clandestine sites for uranium enrichment continued during Khatami's Presidency.

Khatami was more soft-spoken than Ahmadinejad, but their actual policies and practices are very similar. Khatami was the public face that unelected oligarchy of the Islamic Republic chose for domestic and international purposes. Now Ahmadinejad is that face.

[link to www.tcsdaily.com]
Written by an Iranian

You're defending and applauding a known human right violator.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 121702


I don't know where you come from AC but your perspective is twisted - what do you make of the fact that most Western civilians are slowly but surely being deprived of their human rights .... freedom of speech/action (eg telephone tapping, surveillance of bank accounts etc. etc.), freedom of expression ("you're either with us or against us", anti-Israel = terrorist, Palestinian sympathizer = terrorist, etc. etc.)?

If you're a Christian, are you going to tell the Pope to stop wearing his white robe? Are you going to tell him to stop meddling in people's lives (re birth-control, etc.)? Are you going to tell him to stop preaching that "dying with an un-confessed mortal sin = going to Hell)?

When will all this hyprocisy end?
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root" -
Henry D. Thoreau
Sense and Sensibility

User ID: 120892
Australia
08/31/2006 08:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
Ac21, Please use the GLP search function and key in those catchphrases. You will find that most of those statements that are attributed to the Iranian president have been shown to be persistent mistranslations and misconceptions, and/or ripped out of context to twist the meaning.

The obvious purpose of their propagation as "truth" in Western media networks is to make uninformed people reach the conclusion you are presenting.

Love,
/LTC Peachblossom


Sorry, Peachie, most of the reports and news coming out of Iran get picked up a lot by India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Turkey, even Israel and have not once "filtered" out to Western media.

I've read China's internet media news sometimes and they reported the very same things about Iran as the western media get.

The only thing that is really filtered out is language translation and Western media employ very good language translators in Arabic and Persian languages.

You're coming up with nothing but complete conjectures about Western media being propaganda and mistranslation for the West.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 121702


Take the time to read what you've written here AC . You've "killed" your own argument better than anyone else could have done! Congratulations!
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root" -
Henry D. Thoreau
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 121702
United States
08/31/2006 08:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
I don't know where you come from AC but your perspective is twisted - what do you make of the fact that most Western civilians are slowly but surely being deprived of their human rights .... freedom of speech/action (eg telephone tapping, surveillance of bank accounts etc. etc.), freedom of expression ("you're either with us or against us", anti-Israel = terrorist, Palestinian sympathizer = terrorist, etc. etc.)?

If you're a Christian, are you going to tell the Pope to stop wearing his white robe? Are you going to tell him to stop meddling in people's lives (re birth-control, etc.)? Are you going to tell him to stop preaching that "dying with an un-confessed mortal sin = going to Hell)?

When will all this hyprocisy end?
 Quoting: Sense and Sensibility


Goddamnit, read the fucking article!!

If you haven't, I'm NOT answering your questions or comments.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 121702
United States
08/31/2006 08:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
Take the time to read what you've written here AC . You've "killed" your own argument better than anyone else could have done! Congratulations!
 Quoting: Sense and Sensibility


You're so damned stupid.
Sense and Sensibility

User ID: 120892
Australia
08/31/2006 08:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
Take the time to read what you've written here AC . You've "killed" your own argument better than anyone else could have done! Congratulations!


You're so damned stupid.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 121702

If you can't understand what I'm saying, that's your loss not mine!

Me "stupid"? I don't think so!!
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root" -
Henry D. Thoreau
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 121702
United States
08/31/2006 08:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
Take the time to read what you've written here AC . You've "killed" your own argument better than anyone else could have done! Congratulations!


You're so damned stupid.

If you can't understand what I'm saying, that's your loss not mine!

Me "stupid"? I don't think so!!
 Quoting: Sense and Sensibility


You're not talking any sense, you're just trying to change the subject.
fuckoff2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 65489
United States
08/31/2006 08:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
I watched irans president on cspan, he is highly intelligent, and wise in his words unlike bush, the entire world would support iran right now. He talked about how america has gone from a trustful nation to the most hated nation in the world. It was very good and he is no crazy. advantage iran
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 121349

almond joy speaks with forked tongue and or out of both sides of his mouth. the man is a lunatic needlessly risking war with west. he claims to want nuclear power for electricity while conveniently omitting facts pointing to more nefarious machinations. he's going to get nuclear power alright but not exactly the kind he and radical islam had hoped for. almond joy is the enemy of islam, not itís friend.

and is he really such a fool that he would believe that russia and china are on his side? why would those countries risk war with the west when they can just as easily play along until the last and still achieve their objectives? russia and china have set iran up. iran as it now exists seems to have a very dim future indeed.
Apocalypse Troll
Trollicus Apocalyptus

User ID: 120024
United States
08/31/2006 08:43 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
I am so ready for the sweet orgy of war.

Not like the bullshit we've had the past 10 years.



Misery on a scale so grand that it resonated backwards through time and was forseen by more than a few...



Almost time now


hateyou
attxflag
"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."

[link to www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us]
Sense and Sensibility

User ID: 120892
Australia
08/31/2006 08:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
Take the time to read what you've written here AC . You've "killed" your own argument better than anyone else could have done! Congratulations!


You're so damned stupid.

If you can't understand what I'm saying, that's your loss not mine!

Me "stupid"? I don't think so!!


You're not talking any sense, you're just trying to change the subject.
fuckoff2
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 121702

Have you ever tried to think "outside of the circle"?

I have read the article and many others besides. In my first reply to your post I was questioning your hypocritical view of what constitutes "the violation of human rights" - there is no question that Iran violates certain human rights (albeit the fact that this is very "subjective") but so do many other Western nations (as per the examples given in my post). In my second reply, I was pointing out to you that by virtue of the fact that we do not get to read what is published in so many Middle-eastern countries but are instead fed the translations of US-employed "experts" we are being deprived of the right to read all translations and, in the process, of making up our own minds about who is telling the truth!

Can you understand that or not?
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root" -
Henry D. Thoreau
Apocalypse Troll
Trollicus Apocalyptus

User ID: 120024
United States
08/31/2006 09:04 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
The truth is that those "people" in the east will slaughter their own families just for the CHANCE to get those that they feel have wronged them.

DELICIOUS!



Attempting to understand that mind-culture is impossible for westerners. Might as well try to understand the logic in the mind of an autistic child.




There is no talking, reasoning, bargaining with this mentality - no matter how "good" your belief and intentions are.



That is why this sets the stage so perfectly for the coming slaughter.

The western appeasers will talk themselves to death as the east slits their throats from behind. Then the west will overreact and pull the plug, turning the east into so much molten slag and atomic glass.


popcorn
attxflag
"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."

[link to www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 138091
United States
08/31/2006 09:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Iran's time to talk is over
The western appeasers will talk themselves to death as the east slits their throats from behind. Then the west will overreact and pull the plug, turning the east into so much molten slag and atomic glass.



So true - the chattering classes seem completely unable to grasp this!





GLP