CNN Interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad

[jar_e]

Did anyone catch this interview?

I'm trying to watch the video off of CNN but work won't let me. Some pretty stunning words from the president and I even agree with him on some points (especially his point about nuclear bombs in the US).

A good read to say the least.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Like most polititians he failed to answer a few key questions. Also, IMO, you can't compare USA to Iran in the creation of nuclear weapons. USA has had 60 years of proven track record showing they are responsible holders of nuclear weapons. The same with France and England.

Just because a few countries have nuclear weapons doesn't mean every other country has a right to have them aswell.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Just because a few countries have nuclear weapons doesn't mean every other country has a right to have them aswell.

He did avoid most of the questions, true, but still made some interesting points. I guess the main reason I have a problem with the US (or any country) having nuclear weapons is because there is no "peaceful" reason to have them. Like the president of Iran said...

"are you positive that the United States of America in fact has not diverted from its own nuclear programs to develop, perhaps nuclear devices, that are not for peaceful purposes? The United States, are you telling me, is not building a nuclear bomb? Are you not concerned about that?"

And also remember, the United States is the only country ever to use nuclear weapons...

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Like most polititians he failed to answer a few key questions. Also, IMO, you can't compare USA to Iran in the creation of nuclear weapons. USA has had 60 years of proven track record showing they are responsible holders of nuclear weapons. The same with France and England.

Just because a few countries have nuclear weapons doesn't mean every other country has a right to have them aswell.

Really there is only one argument standing in the face of the U.S. hypocracy of "we can have em and you can't" and I think your argument is a weak one. This is because if we are basing the possession of these things on length of time, when does Iran get its start to prove to the world it can have them in a responsible manner? Hell if the world let them, they'd already be a few years into the mix!

But the real question is what's the point? What are your motives? Why must you have them? And to that the States- and really every country- should ask themselves that. You know, just because you have the capability to create this technology that can eliminate mass populations in the blink of an eye, doesn't necessarily mean you have to make them. Military might can take other forms. Just ask the Taliban as they run from mountain to mountain and cave to cave, dressing as civilians.

The easy answer to the Iranian president, however, is something that little Anderson Cooper couldn't say. Why can't you have them? Well... you did say you wanted the eradication of an entire race... sooooo..........

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Really there is only one argument standing in the face of the U.S. hypocracy of "we can have em and you can't" and I think your argument is a weak one. This is because if we are basing the possession of these things on length of time, when does Iran get its start to prove to the world it can have them in a responsible manner? Hell if the world let them, they'd already be a few years into the mix!

Totally agree. I think the main issue I find with it is the way the US plays the role the UN should be filling. I can understand the US' concern (they're probably the target of many nations) but it's all about the way you handle a situation...and maybe the lack of power the UN seems to have.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Totally agree. I think the main issue I find with it is the way the US plays the role the UN should be filling. I can understand the US' concern (they're probably the target of many nations) but it's all about the way you handle a situation...and maybe the lack of power the UN seems to have.

Exactly. If the UN was willing to take control of such situations, follow through with sanctions, and stand up to countries, then there wouldn't have to be one or a few countries that go out on their own and do what the UN should be doing.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Why can't you have them? Well... you did say you wanted the eradication of an entire race... sooooo..........

Where did he say that? He didn't. He said he wanted "Israel" wiped from the face of the earth. Massive difference. But that sure plays well with the western media and the average Joe citizen who hasn't had an original thought since he was born.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Like most polititians he failed to answer a few key questions. Also, IMO, you can't compare USA to Iran in the creation of nuclear weapons. USA has had 60 years of proven track record showing they are responsible holders of nuclear weapons. The same with France and England.

Just because a few countries have nuclear weapons doesn't mean every other country has a right to have them aswell.

I'd argue that the US has one of the worst track records when it comes to nuclear weapons:
they've developed a arsenal far greater than what would ever conceivably be used,
they haven't had any reductions in active warheads since the demise of the USSR in 1990
they circumvented the non-proliferation treaty by 'storing' nuclear weapons in non-nuclear allies and helping those allies develop bombers capable of delivering nuclear weapons
they're working on nuclear weapons that they plan on using as a first-strike weapon (nuclear bunker-busters and such)

A big part of being responsible with nuclear weapons is ensuring that you don't induce other countries to develop the weaponry. As the foremost nuclear power in the world, they are responsible for setting a tone of disarmament and convincing other countries that they have no need to develop nuclear weapons. Instead, by trying to bully other countries into not developing nuclear weapons while pursuing further weapons development for themselves and proliferation among their allies, they've created a climate of fear that is inducing other powers (North Korea, Iran) to feel that they need to develop a nuclear weapons program simply as a deterrent.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Where did he say that? He didn't. He said he wanted "Israel" wiped from the face of the earth. Massive difference. But that sure plays well with the western media and the average Joe citizen who hasn't had an original thought since he was born.

I actually did believe that it he said the Jewish race but I must obviously be mistaken.

Still though, is it really that much more a massive difference? one's a nation, one's a race. Either way he wants them gone...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Really there is only one argument standing in the face of the U.S. hypocracy of "we can have em and you can't" and I think your argument is a weak one. This is because if we are basing the possession of these things on length of time, when does Iran get its start to prove to the world it can have them in a responsible manner? Hell if the world let them, they'd already be a few years into the mix!

But the real question is what's the point? What are your motives? Why must you have them? And to that the States- and really every country- should ask themselves that. You know, just because you have the capability to create this technology that can eliminate mass populations in the blink of an eye, doesn't necessarily mean you have to make them. Military might can take other forms. Just ask the Taliban as they run from mountain to mountain and cave to cave, dressing as civilians.

The easy answer to the Iranian president, however, is something that little Anderson Cooper couldn't say. Why can't you have them? Well... you did say you wanted the eradication of an entire race... sooooo..........

It's not as simple as just giving up your nuclear weapons. Yes, there is only one perpose for having nuclear weapons and that is for destruction. But as long as someone else has nuclear weapons the US cannot give up theres or they could ultimately be blackmaled into anything by another country with nuclear weapons.

Now, the reason the US and England have nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't and shouldn't is the same reason police are allowed to carry firearms and criminals aren't.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'd argue that the US has one of the worst track records when it comes to nuclear weapons:
they've developed a arsenal far greater than what would ever conceivably be used,
they haven't had any reductions in active warheads since the demise of the USSR in 1990
they circumvented the non-proliferation treaty by 'storing' nuclear weapons in non-nuclear allies and helping those allies develop bombers capable of delivering nuclear weapons
they're working on nuclear weapons that they plan on using as a first-strike weapon (nuclear bunker-busters and such)

A big part of being responsible with nuclear weapons is ensuring that you don't induce other countries to develop the weaponry. As the foremost nuclear power in the world, they are responsible for setting a tone of disarmament and convincing other countries that they have no need to develop nuclear weapons. Instead, by trying to bully other countries into not developing nuclear weapons while pursuing further weapons development for themselves and proliferation among their allies, they've created a climate of fear that is inducing other powers (North Korea, Iran) to feel that they need to develop a nuclear weapons program simply as a deterrent.

The US has had a continued reduction in nuclear arms over the last 25 years, so your wrong there. Although, I don't think they need 10,000 nuclear weapons, it could probably be reduced to a several hundred.

Most of these countries have signed the non-proliferation agreement so it's not just the US telling them not to develope these weapons it's the entire world and the UN so that arguement does not fly.

It's one thing for a country like Canada wanting to develope nuclear weapons (which they won't and shouldn't) it's another thing for a country like Iran wanting to develope them, a country who wants to wipe out another country, a country that is run by extremism. Two big differences.

Pakistan having nuclear weapons makes me very nervous aswell. I feel much safer having India have them than Pakistan. India is a democratic country with checks and balances. Pakistan is run by a military leader that over threw the government. Which is probably better than having the previous government in. My point is, I don't think Pakistan is that far away from another coup by the extremist side. Can you imagine where some of those nuclear weapons will end up if they take control of the government?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I actually did believe that it he said the Jewish race but I must obviously be mistaken.

Still though, is it really that much more a massive difference? one's a nation, one's a race. Either way he wants them gone...

Exactly, why is he splitting hairs? He makes it sound like one stance is better then the other.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I actually did believe that it he said the Jewish race but I must obviously be mistaken.

Still though, is it really that much more a massive difference? one's a nation, one's a race. Either way he wants them gone...

Yes, its a massive difference. If you bothered to read the interview, which you obviously did not, the guy explains his position. He supports the Palestinians who were displaced to create Israel. As I have argued in the past, name one other religion that has had a country created for their benefit through the displacement of others?

Ahmadinejad clearly states that he believes Isreal should not exist, and I whole heartedly agree with him. Why should the people who have lived there for generations be displaced so the Jews can have a homeland? Maybe the UN can force all of the people out of Florida and it can become the homeland for Scientologists? Would that be fair? Man, I can hear all the wailing and crying from the displaced Jews if that happened!

The root of the vast majority of the problems in the Middle East is directly linked to the creation of Israel and the oppression of the Palestinians and Arabs since. Ahmadinejad is not alone in his belief that if Israel were to cease to be a country, and the people of Palestine (what the region was before the creation if Israel) were to decide the course of the region, that it would be a better place. Jews, Arabs and Christians got along just fine until one group were made superior to the other because of outside influences. Add in America's never ending meddling in the politics of the region, and their support for Israel through money and weapons, and you have a great reason for contempt toward America and Israel. Scrapping the whole thing and starting over is not that bad an idea.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Now, the reason the US and England have nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't and shouldn't is the same reason police are allowed to carry firearms and criminals aren't.

And who made The United States and England the police? Sorry, they would have failed their criminal history and background check.

The United States, and their lapdog "Limey", are not the world police. They are more like organized crime, extorting "protection money" from those who want to live and work on their block.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes, its a massive difference. If you bothered to read the interview, which you obviously did not, the guy explains his position. He supports the Palestinians who were displaced to create Israel. As I have argued in the past, name one other religion that has had a country created for their benefit through the displacement of others?

Ahmadinejad clearly states that he believes Isreal should not exist, and I whole heartedly agree with him. Why should the people who have lived there for generations be displaced so the Jews can have a homeland? Maybe the UN can force all of the people out of Florida and it can become the homeland for Scientologists? Would that be fair? Man, I can hear all the wailing and crying from the displaced Jews if that happened!

The root of the vast majority of the problems in the Middle East is directly linked to the creation of Israel and the oppression of the Palestinians and Arabs since. Ahmadinejad is not alone in his belief that if Israel were to cease to be a country, and the people of Palestine (what the region was before the creation if Israel) were to decide the course of the region, that it would be a better place. Jews, Arabs and Christians got along just fine until one group were made superior to the other because of outside influences. Add in America's never ending meddling in the politics of the region, and their support for Israel through money and weapons, and you have a great reason for contempt toward America and Israel. Scrapping the whole thing and starting over is not that bad an idea.

Lanny, we have gone around in circles about this question before. If you really want to look at it that way, the Jews were there well before the Muslims, and let me tell you something, if the Palistinians were not Muslim, all these middle east countries would give two ****s about their cause.

The situation will not change, Isreal will be there forever so get over it and start working on a solution and quit living in the past.

Maybe you shuld give your land back to the Indians, since it was theirs to begin with...right?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

And who made The United States and England the police? Sorry, they would have failed their criminal history and background check.

The United States, and their lapdog "Limey", are not the world police. They are more like organized crime, extorting "protection money" from those who want to live and work on their block.

Oh so who should be the police then Lanny? Regardless if we agree that the US and England have the right to be the police or not, they are the best option so live with it. Unless you think Iran, Egypt, Sudan should be the police. What country do you think has the moral responsibiliy to have these weapons?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes, its a massive difference. If you bothered to read the interview, which you obviously did not, the guy explains his position. He supports the Palestinians who were displaced to create Israel. As I have argued in the past, name one other religion that has had a country created for their benefit through the displacement of others?

Ahmadinejad clearly states that he believes Isreal should not exist, and I whole heartedly agree with him. Why should the people who have lived there for generations be displaced so the Jews can have a homeland? Maybe the UN can force all of the people out of Florida and it can become the homeland for Scientologists? Would that be fair? Man, I can hear all the wailing and crying from the displaced Jews if that happened!

The root of the vast majority of the problems in the Middle East is directly linked to the creation of Israel and the oppression of the Palestinians and Arabs since. Ahmadinejad is not alone in his belief that if Israel were to cease to be a country, and the people of Palestine (what the region was before the creation if Israel) were to decide the course of the region, that it would be a better place. Jews, Arabs and Christians got along just fine until one group were made superior to the other because of outside influences. Add in America's never ending meddling in the politics of the region, and their support for Israel through money and weapons, and you have a great reason for contempt toward America and Israel. Scrapping the whole thing and starting over is not that bad an idea.

I actually did read the interview, he made some very good points. So do you. One thing Cooper asked him was about how the Holocaust didn't happen, and he seemed to imply it didn't. Where did it happen? How about in concentration camps scattered across Europe? This was the systematic extermination of a race, and Israel was effectively created in order to protect them- so that it didn't happen again. It's a tough situation. But your right, why should Palestine be the one?

[White Doors]

[quote=Lanny_MacDonald;563245]Yes, its a massive difference. If you bothered to read the interview, which you obviously did not, the guy explains his position. He supports the Palestinians who were displaced to create Israel. As I have argued in the past, name one other religion that has had a country created for their benefit through the displacement of others?

Serbia. Croatia. Macedonia...

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Now, the reason the US and England have nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't and shouldn't is the same reason police are allowed to carry firearms and criminals aren't.

This is probably the smartest thing I've read on this board in a while. Anyone with a half brain and sense of self-preservation should be concerned that a bunch of insane clerics with armageddonic understanding of the world, waiting for their hidden imam to emerge to bring end to this world, is trying to develop nuclear technologies.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The US has had a continued reduction in nuclear arms over the last 25 years, so your wrong there. Although, I don't think they need 10,000 nuclear weapons, it could probably be reduced to a several hundred.

Nope, you're wrong there. Current number of nuclear warheads: 9,960. 1990 number of active nuclear warheads, approximately 11,000. Not much of a reduction. They've pledged to reduce their stockpiles additionally through to 2012, but so far the vast majority of those weapons are being removed from active service and placed in reserve, rather than being dismantled. I agree that several hundred is an appropriate number.

Most of these countries have signed the non-proliferation agreement so it's not just the US telling them not to develope these weapons it's the entire world and the UN so that arguement does not fly.

But the NPT is fairly toothless, and a country can opt out of it if they are induced into developing weapons by another country (inducing includes theatening posturing by a nuclear power), so I think that Iran could legally opt out of the NPT on the grounds that it was induced to do so by the US.

It's one thing for a country like Canada wanting to develope nuclear weapons (which they won't and shouldn't) it's another thing for a country like Iran wanting to develope them, a country who wants to wipe out another country, a country that is run by extremism. Two big differences.

I never understood the apparent assumption that as soone as Iran develops nuclear weapons, they'll launch them at Israel. Iran has a very good reason for wanting to be a nuclear power: in the 80s, they were attacked by the US-backed Iraqi army, who used chemical weapons on them, resulting in heavy casualties among both civilians and soldiers; towards the end of the war, they developed their own chemical weapons, but never used them, as Iraq had stopped using chemical weapons by that time. Their chemical weapons program existed purely as a deterrant. History suggests that they will be very measured in their use of WMDs, as they have done so in the past. Given that they are facing potentially hostile nuclear weapons on two fronts (Israel, as well as US-NATO weapons in Turkey), they see nuclear technology as a necessary deterrent.

Pakistan having nuclear weapons makes me very nervous aswell. I feel much safer having India have them than Pakistan. India is a democratic country with checks and balances. Pakistan is run by a military leader that over threw the government. Which is probably better than having the previous government in. My point is, I don't think Pakistan is that far away from another coup by the extremist side. Can you imagine where some of those nuclear weapons will end up if they take control of the government?

A coup over a military dictatorship can't happen without broad public support, and it's no coincidence that the fundamentalist islamic alliance increased their seats from 2 to 49 in the last election (who's to say how many they would have gotten had the election not been rigged by Musharraf?), largely because of anti-US sentiment in Pakistan. It would be sadly ironic if the NATO campaign in Afghanistan effectively removed the Taliban but caused the emergence of a similar (but much more weaponized) Islamic theocracy in Pakistan. The US is making Musharraf work very hard to keep the religious wingnuts and the commies at bay.