Musings of a former chicken
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
The sane world & Iran
24-Oct-2009
For all the sane world’s multi billion dollar earth orbiting satellites eavesdropping, taking photos and relaying other real-time intelligence data, it took MKO, a discredited, lacking public support and relentlessly hunted by the IRR, the Islamist Rapist Republic, to spill the nearly two decades hidden nuclear beans.
Ever since the 2002 press conference by the MKO in which details of the Islamist regime’s clandestine illegal full cycle nuke program was revealed the sane world has tried to come up with a mechanism which while adhering to Iran’s rights safeguards against IRR becoming a nuclear power.
The latest in line with those attempts is the current proposal by the outgoing Director General of IAEA in which the IRR agrees to transfer most of its legally speaking illegally enriched uranium to other countries for further enrichment and presumably denaturazation making it impossible to be used for nuke bomb. In practice, should IRR accept it, this latest plan nullifies the standing UN Security Council resolutions which prohibited IRR from continuing its illegal dual purpose enrichment program. The logic of it is it wrestles most of the known stockpile of enriched uranium away from the IRR's possession which means it cannot be used for further enrichment to weapons grade level which is the primary concern of the sane world and the neighboring countries in the Middle East.
Given that the Islamists managed to run a vast secret program for nearly two decades, given that every nuts and bolts of the machinery for starting and initial expansion of the program were secretly obtained and imported from the West, given that ever since the sane world has been made aware of it by the MKO, there have been discoveries about other undeclared and clandestine nuke activities, there is one question that begs an answer.
How and with what track record is the sane world going to monitor the Islamist rapists’ nuclear activity in a country as big as Iran?
Wouldn't it make more sense to not recognize the IRR as legitimate, which would mean Iran has all the rights she is legally entitled to but not under an illegal Islamist regime?
Although untold numbers of them were murdered in cold blood, men, women and children were raped and tortured to death but to give the sane world a leg up in that regard the people of Iran continue to question the legitimacy of the illegal Islamist regime, when is the sane world going to join them?
| Recently by Fred | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
ادا اطوار اسلامی | 5 | Dec 05, 2012 |
مسجد همجنسگرایان | 1 | Dec 05, 2012 |
| Iranians are legitimate target | 10 | Dec 04, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
AMIR1973
by ex programmer craig on Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:26 AM PDTAnd the U.S. government is currently one of the leading invaders, occupiers, attackers, and bombers of foreign countries.
Is it your contention that if there was no US, there would be world peace? You don't think some other country would step up to that "leadership" position? If so, what are you basing that on? The world has never been like that. There's no evidence that people are even capable of living in lasting peace.
Just for the sake of argument, what do you think would happen in themiddle-east for instance, if there was a rock solid commitment from all outsiders that they would not interfere in any way no mater what?
Dear Benross
by AMIR1973 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 08:12 AM PDTIt's not for me to defend
by benross on Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:22 PM PDTIt's not for me to defend the morality of U.S government. Or criticize it for that matter. It's for the people of U.S and I'm not one of them. I see U.S as a country. I don't separate its government from its people. Now if U.S takes a decision or makes a statement that concern me, as an Iranian, I evaluate that decision accordingly. If she says the right thing or do the right thing for what I am concerned, what do I care what she said or did in the past? At the same time that U.S may say something right for what I'm concerned, she may say something wrong about another country. I don't turn a blind eye on what appears to me 'wrong'. But I don't turn a blind eye to what appears to me 'right' because of it.This is the way I see U.S and this is the way U.S see the rest of the world and this is the 'sane world'.
This judgmental approach that you have toward U.S government or any government for that matter, is questionable. This is not in the realm of 'opinion'. It can be an 'opinion' but not a political one. As a political statement, this approach requires an 'alternative' to existing U.S regime. Is this what you have in mind? I do have an 'alternative' in mind, but for my own country, and for a good reason. Because it is not in the sane world.
To Benross
by AMIR1973 on Sat Oct 24, 2009 07:42 PM PDTAmir
by benross on Sat Oct 24, 2009 04:12 PM PDTI don't know what is Fred take on 'sane world' but I give you mine:
U.S is part of 'sane world', which, doesn't preclude war and aggressions as you noted. If you want a world without them, you should call it 'saint world'... and we know the outcome of this concept far too well!
Fred: Why avoid discussion of the original topic
by AMIR1973 on Sat Oct 24, 2009 03:51 PM PDT"said so"
by Fred on Sat Oct 24, 2009 03:42 PM PDT“I didn't "misquote" you since I didn't put your words in quotation marks, but one can overlook such details.”
When some one says so and so “said so”, that is quoting them.
“Just remember this: invading, occupying, and bombing are sane actions. Fred said so (and Craig seems to agree with him).”
Getting into any back-and-forth discussion with those who easily and blatantly misquote and when called on it as easily and blatantly say they did not is exercise in futility. No hard feeling, take care.
Fred: Is U.S. government part of the "sane world"?
by AMIR1973 on Sat Oct 24, 2009 03:12 PM PDTActing like them
by Fred on Sat Oct 24, 2009 02:23 PM PDTWhen one uses the shameless tactic of misquoting like Islamist/lefties habitually do, then he should not be surprised to be likened to them.
“Just remember this: invading, occupying, and bombing are sane actions. Fred said so (and Craig seems to agree with him).”
Threadbare Fred-agoguery
by AMIR1973 on Sat Oct 24, 2009 02:01 PM PDTO
by ex programmer craig on Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:31 PM PDTSorry, buddy. I commented on something you said in a comment, and how I interpreted. What do you want me to prove? That you actually said it? Are you denying it? Or you want to prove my interpretation? Have you ever looked up the word interpretation? It's a bit like opinion! It's the meaning I took from your words. In my opinuion it was pretty obvious. You wanna deny it, go ahead. I can't prove you meant it the way it came out, and you can't prove you didn't. At best, it was a freudian slip on your part.
Amir1973
by ex programmer craig on Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:24 PM PDTI didn't say criticizing the US was anti-american. I made some posts yesterday on this website wheer I was criticizing the US, myself. However, your comment seemed to be anti-American to me. Am I wrong in interpreting what you said that way?
I think that's all the more interesting in that many people on this
website are U.S. citizens (myself included), and therefore am helping
to pay through my tax dollars for those actions (after all, the U.S.
government is my government).
OK... then if you should try to be more constructive with your criticism if you really care about what's best for the US, right? What you were doing was just bashing. If I told you your wife is ugly, your kids are retarded and your a lazy slob who tortures puppies, would you believe me if I tried to say I was just concerned for your well being? If you want the US to improve then you have to frame things in such a way that we can do things better in the future... and you have to restrict your criticisms to things we actually have some control over... we can't retroactively fix things that happened long before we were born, can we? In your case, I assume you didn't even live in the US during the Vietnam war and neither did anyone in your family, so how much responsibilty for Vietnam do you have? None? And how many other Americans are in that sitaution? Same with slavery... you realize the familes of most Americans were not even here during slavery? WAnd that even amonsgt those who were, most American opposed slavery and never had slaves? And that we fought a civil war to end slavery? What sense would it make to blame everyone for that?
The U.S. government is (nominally) acting
in my name, but one should just go along because to disagree and call
out the U.S. government on its killing of people would be to "hate the
US"?
The US government acts in everyone's name. Obama is doing things I don't like right now. And I complain about it. The reason I complain about it is because I want to convince people not to support the things Obama is doing that I don't like. If a majority of people oppose something Obama wants to do, he won't do it. So that's my plan! What good would it do me to bash the whole country and its whole history? Not only is that irrelevant to the issues that bother me, its quite likely to annoy the hell out of my fellow Americans and make them even less likely to see things my way. Right?
Just remember this: invading, occupying, and bombing are sane actions. Fred said so (and Craig seems to agree with him).
Such actions aren't inherently either sane or insane. Some context is required to even determine whether they are moral or immoral, and "sane" is a whole other discussion. You make wild statements like that and then get angry when people point out how off the wall you seem? If you don't want to be accused of being irrational, try to avoid such statements as that one there in the quotes! That's not a rational claim.
EX...anyone who brings up accusations bears...
by Ostaad on Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:10 PM PDTthe burden of proof. I know this is probalby the first time someone points that out to you.
The reason why I used the term "full violations" is because I believe there were certain infractions, inclduing delays in informing the IAEA, but certainly no violations.
I know may things get the "lol" out of you. You are just behaving the same way any nutjob would. I'm not surprised.
BTW, when I asked you why you're responding to my post, your response was, "I lied, do you think only Iranians lie?". Then you should know that when Iranians fess up, they follow it up with this phrase, "goh khordam", which mean "I eat sh*t". Now would you like yours warm or steaming hot?
Threadbare demagoguery
by Fred on Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:09 PM PDT“Just remember this: invading, occupying, and bombing are sane actions. Fred said so (and Craig seems to agree with him).”
That is a blatant misquotation, reminiscent of threadbare Islamist and lefty demagoguery 101. Take care.
Criticizing U.S. foreign policy is "anti-American"?
by AMIR1973 on Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:48 AM PDTO
by ex programmer craig on Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:37 AM PDT...although for me responding to you is like...having a convesation with Ahmadinejad's unwashed socks...
Why is that a problem for you? He normally washes his socks? Or does he take his socks off before you kiss his feet?
Anyway... so... why would anyone need to prove violations to you? I think the way you worded your own comment indicates that you are aware of the violations, and are trying to gloss over them. That's the part that got the "lol" out of me.
ex prog...although for me responding to you is like...
by Ostaad on Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:16 AM PDThaving a convesation with Ahmadinejad's unwashed socks, but come up with specific IAEA charges that accuse Iran of violating its NPT treaty agreement. Sundry "sexed up" charges by Iran enemies won't get me to respond to your claptrap.
Remember too much LOLing, is a sure sign of metal "issues".
So, anyway...
by ex programmer craig on Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:22 AM PDTIRI has to violate every clause of every article before it can be considered in violation of a treaty? Is that what you were saying about the US and the Geneva Conventions during teh Abu Ghraib scandal? And is that what you say about Israel and the Geneva and Hague Conventions in regards to the Goldstone report? US was not in full violation, so everything is fine? Israel is not in full violation... 100% kosher?
I got a few more "lol" for you. Not only are you parsing words to try to turn a lie into the truth, you are being a hypocrit about it.
...
by ex programmer craig on Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:17 AM PDTIran has never been shown to be in full violation ...
lol
Fred,
by Ostaad on Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:16 PM PDTAnyone who comes up with nonsensical terms like, "legally speaking illegally enriched uranium" must be sent to a rehab free of charge until his/her sanity is restored to the minimal acceptable level.
Your description of Iran's nuclear enrichment program as "illegal" does not hold water, because Iran has never been shown to be in full violation of its treaty obligations by any impartial and legally authorized body. In spite of the best efforts of Iran's enemies, some of whom you completely side with, have done their best to implicate Iran in a sinister campaign to deprive the Iranian people from their rights. But to their, and your, chagrin those plans have failed miserably. That's why Iran's enemies are moaning an groaning.
Regarding the issue of legitimacy, you seem to be woefully unable to fathom the fact that there are near zero governments including a lot of Iranians who attribute ANY legitimacy to the current Iranian regime. But THIS regime is the de facto and to some extend "legal" government of Iran. Since ALL Iran's enemies including the right wing Zionist government of Israel have accepted that FACT, and have started "dealing" with Iran, I have to say you claptrap is utterly meaningless and off the wall. So, I'd like you to clear the cobwebs and understand once and for all that this regime is NOT going to be changed by foreigners! I know those whom you server tea-and-crumpets haven't given you the new talking points. But I just thought to give you the heads up.
Eating too many stale leftover crumpets have gotten to you in a way
that your routine jafangiaat have hit a new high, or shall I say, low.
BTW, if you think it was the MKO who "spilled the beans", I must tell you that you are way more intellectually challenged that you usually sound like.
The insane Islamists
by Fred on Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:08 AM PDTQuestion: “What does it say about oneself if one considers this entity the "sane world"?”
Answer: It says one knows the difference between sanity and morality. It also says one knows history and does not get into it for the simple reason that all empires, Iran included, at one time or another have many shameful pagers in their CV.
It also means one is more focused on the barbarity that is being meted out in ample portions to the Iranian people on daily basis by not a foreign invader but compatriots raping to death other Iranian men, women and children. It means those who regurgitating know facts, padding some for greater effect, about others Ad nauseam could try to see those sane ones they hate/disapprove of do not do to their own what home grown cult of insane doomsday Islamists do to Iranians.
Old time Anti-Americanism is fine, but it should not be an excuse to bash those who see more relevant pressing issues about the plight of enslaved Iran and Iranians.
AMIR1973
by ex programmer craig on Sat Oct 24, 2009 09:11 AM PDTSo you hate the IRI but you hate the US more? So who do you like then? Who has done more good in modern history than America? Are you going to trot out countries that only exist as sovereign nations at all today because of US actions in the past, as examples that are superior to the US? Or maybe you will use third world countries that have never done any harm to other nations only because they've never been strong enough to? I admit I don't undertsand your mentality at all. Are you just an anarchist or something? You don't want any kind of international power structures in place? If so, I'd be with you on that if I thought there was any hope of it ever happening. I truly wish that all the countries of the world would just leave eachother alone and mind their own business. But humans have never been like that, and if somebody has to be the boss I'll take the US over Russia or China any day. And over India too, though India is substantially better than the previous two.
Fred
by ex programmer craig on Sat Oct 24, 2009 09:12 AM PDTHow and with what track record is the sane world going to monitor the Islamist rapists’ nuclear activity in a country as big as Iran?
You are right, Fred. North Korea built their nukes under anti-nuke program monitoring. I don't see why the IRI couldn't pull it off just as easily. Unless the IEAE has learned something from that failure, which I see no evidence of. Not that I want to blame the IEAE too much... they are in a tough spot when the powers that be in the UN keep vacillating.
Is U.S. government the "sane world"?
by AMIR1973 on Sat Oct 24, 2009 07:55 AM PDT