Skip to comments.Iranian Alert -- July 3, 2004 [EST]-- IRAN LIVE THREAD -- "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"
Posted on 07/02/2004 9:00:07 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
click here to read article
Yup. That's impartial, all right.
Not likely to happen....
A view from Saudi on nukes in Iran:
Nuclear Weapons in the Mideast
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid
I wasn?t sad the day Israel destroyed the Iraqi Tamouz reactor 20 years ago, and I will be a lot happier if the remaining reactors in Iran and Israel are also destroyed. How can a region full of idiots and ripe with disagreements keep such destructive weapons safe?
The Iranians give paltry excuses, saying that the reactors produce cooking fuel and water reservoirs. We would be also stupid if it didn?t occur to us that they were in fact producing nuclear bombs by which they can threaten neighboring countries.
It is unlikely that a country with a wealth of cheap oil would build expensive reactors that require rare technology and are dangerous to maintain just to produce electricity when it could easily do so using the available diesel for a quarter of the price and in huge quantities. They are trying to convince the world that the enriched uranium will not be used to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Only idiots would believe that. Others want to convince us that the purpose of any nuclear weapons would be to create a balance of power with Israel and not to threaten Arab countries. This is dubious because Iran has never been a front in the confrontation with Israel and never will be. Mind you, I do agree that nuclear arms controls must apply impartially, meaning the whole region beginning with Israel should be cleared of all nuclear weapons.
Iranians will be much safer if Mohammed El-Baradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, succeeds in transforming these nuclear towers into tourist sites or grain stores for cattle and save locals from the danger of leakage and radiation. The Iranian people will save billions of dollars if their government abandons this huge military project, which can only mean poverty and destruction for Iranians and would destroy us all.
In order for international dialogue to make any sense we must insist on ridding Israel of its nuclear arsenal, which is a threat to the region and the world and only encourages other countries to acquire them too. Israel justifies its huge arsenal as self-defense against the forest of monsters in which it lives. But if the forest goes up in flames, Israel will either get burned by the fire or the nuclear dust that will radiate. At the moment we live at the mercy of extremists in countries like Israel and Iran, whether they came to power democratically or by other means.
If the world could rid the Middle East of all weapons of mass destruction now that Saddam and his hypothetical arsenal are gone, it would avert a great evil. Acquiring banned weapons is no longer impossible, no matter how hard the IAEA agents try. The fact remains that what the IAEA is doing in Iran is great work and greatly benefits the region. It is in the interest of our brothers in Iran to accept that too.
"The Mullahs of Iran will try to use anything they can to unite Iranians against the US and cause chaos in Iraq."
Exactly! and you also said:
"How the trial proceeds is up to the Iraqi's..."
As it should be.
Saddam killed almost one million Iranians and used Chemical Weapons against them.
We can not close our eyes on crimes committed by the mad dog of the middle east, Saddam. Can we?
The Kurds in Iran: A Forgotten Struggle
By Reza Jalali, a Kurd from Iran and writer
Who said anything about an international court? Who said anything about the Hague? They permitted the Kuwaitis to bring charges against Saddam, they should permit the Iranians the same. The Iraqis can still handle it all themselves.
You're all missing the important issues.
Doesn't it matter at all how this is going to affect the Iranians? They're being shut out of this 'democratic' process. These are people that we want to have trust us, believe us, be allies of ours, and they're being ignored. Don't say this is only up to the Iraqis, 'cause all Bush would have to do is nod his head and the Iranians' charges would be heard also. All they deserve is the treatment given to Kuwait. No more, no less. And if we don't see that they get that, we will forever damage our credibility with the Iranian people. The U.S. wants to bring down the regime so we can have people running the country that we trust. After all, they have the nuke facilities there which are a threat to us and the rest of the (western) world and we can't get at all the material that's stored. We want the Iranian people to be on our 'side'. What good is supporting a change in regime if the new government doesn't like us or trust us either?
The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.
This is the same thing the last ones that wanted to overthrow that government were saying.
"Stop The Flood Of Blood In Iran" I still have a handout given to me in Houston in the 70's by an Iranian "student" wanting to overthrow the Shah and bring back the Ayatolla.
And your point is...?
As an Iranian I agree with you. US credit will be damaged here if the US doesnt help raise our voice over Saddams crimes. Caz the regime in Iran does not care about us.
Rafsanjani wants it turned into a circus. Not necessary. They can do as they are for Kuwait.
"US credit will be damaged here ...."
That's what I'm afraid of.
Saddam will be tried for his crimes against Iranians too.
"they may not want to provide access to all the evidence against Saddam to Iranian prosecutors"
That's a good point. And yes, there are probably other reasons we won't know about, why the Iraqis decided not to include crimes against Iran.
"Rafsanjani...: confuse, divide and conquer"
You're right again. Thanks for the reminder.
You have a point. I hope that they include that Saddam used chemical warfare against Iran as well as his own population.
We aren't in the business of giving concessions. The Iranians are not coming to the table from a position of strength. They have no right demanding what the US does or does not encourage the Iraqis to do in the Iraqi courts.
Saddam's atrocities rest with Saddam, not the Iraqi people who fought in the Iran-Iraq war. I very much doubt that there is much love lost between the Iraqis and the Iranians. With Saddam in the dock, Iraq can and will try him whichever way the citizens see fit.
Iran has no place in this matter. To acquiesce to the likes of Rasfanjani will only add to his clout in Iran. He is using this issue to draw the attention of the Iranian people away from the inner turmoil within Iran. Playing his game is not in the best interests of the US. We do nothing without it serving our ends, not that of the mullahs.