Iran Resumes Uranium Conversion Efforts - 20 minutes ago

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo


"Yes, after you disqualify the leaders of the parties, certainly thier parties would do well in the elections. "

better than iran, where the whole parties are banned.

"And in Iran, at least the Parliament was able to do something. They don't have a dictatorship. "

as far as i can tell, the Paki parliament has at least as great a role in governance as the Iranian parliament. And the Iranian govt is far harsher with dissidents than the Paki govt.

"Incidentally, Musharraf's Parliamentary gov't exists only because he's in a coalition with the fundies against the secular parties."

Against the secular parties that he considers corrupt, and which were in power when Paki started supporting the Taliban. Im sure he wishes that the pro-Musharaff party had won enough seats to govern on its own. But when you have a free election, you cant guarantee the outcome.


"What use is a promise about giving up power when it's proven that your promises about giving up power are worthless (again, see as head of army)? "

Given the situation in Pakistan, I can see why he felt a need to keep direct control of the army. A promise to give up power is better than a state where the oppressors insist on keeping it forever.

"And Iran is at least not a dictatorship."

Which you keep saying, but its not true.

"Going back to nukes, do you honestly believe that Khamenei is ready to start a nuclear war with Israel?
Rhetoric aside, you have to absolutely insane to do that. And I don't think that characterizes him (unlike, as I hinted, Kim Jung Il)."

I dont know for sure, and im not real inclined to perform the experiment to find out. People have asked what distinguishes Iran from Israel, Pakistan, and India (aside from being a signatory to the NPT) I think the rhetoric that animates the Iranian govt gives a pretty good idea of what distinguishes them. Given what the Iranian govt has said about Israel, and about the West, I dont see why we are under any obligation to allow them nukes, regardless of what mutual assured destruction theorizing you want to do. When you say things like that, you forfeit your "sovereign rights" IMHO.
France, Germany, and the UK seem to agree - not just the US. I think those 4 states should have the courage of their convictions, and do what they can to stop Iranian nukes.

If you and Ge are insulted at the unfairness of letting Pakistan and Israel keep nukes, cause you are less troubled by the words of the Iranian regime, than so be it.



"The point was that Abdullah offered to broker a comprehensive peace if Israel abandoned the occupied territories."

Whats left to broker when Israel has given up all its claims, and all its bargaining chips.

How George Bush offers to broker an Israeli withdrawl from the territories, AFTER all arab states and the Pals have agreed to a comprehensive peace with Israel. That would be just as stupid.

If youre going to exchange land for peace, the exchange has to be simultaneous, and the details have to be negotiated together.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Bomb- not bomb- you decide !

Take off and nuke from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[lord of the mark]

from the Guardian:

Iran sends in troops to crush border unrest

Michael Howard
Friday August 5, 2005
The Guardian

The Iranian government has deployed large numbers of troops in cities in the northwestern region which borders Iraq in an effort to quell three weeks of civil unrest that has left up to 20 people dead and more than 300 wounded, according to reports from dissident groups.

They said as many as 100,000 state security forces (LOTM - well at least they dont follow the Rummy too few troops approach), backed up by helicopter gunships, had moved into the region to crack down on pro-Kurdish demonstrations.


The claims, from Kurdish groups in Iraq, could not be independently verified, and Iranian officials remained silent about the unrest.
The state-owned news agency IRNA said the trouble was due to "hooligan and criminal elements". (LOTM-well, OTOH, maybe they HAVE been learning from Rummy)

News agencies have reported trouble in the northern areas over the past two weeks, though the scale of the unrest has been unclear.

The protests in the Kurdish areas came after the killing of a Kurdish activist by Iranian security forces in the city of Mahabad on July 9. Since then, anti-regime demonstrations have erupted in the mainly Kurdish towns of Sanandaj, Mahabad, Sardasht, Piranshahr, Oshnavieh, Divandareh, Baneh, Sinne, Bokan and Saqiz.

In the worst violence so far, Iranian security forces are reported to have killed at least 12 Kurdish demonstrators and injured more than 70 in a clash in the city of Saqiz on Wednesday. (LOTM - hm, sounds a bit like Uzbekistan)

Witnesses said the unrest began just before noon as hundreds of protesters attacked a paramilitary outpost with sticks and stones.(LOTM - Ah responding to stones with killings perhaps some of those who are on Israels case care to comment) Government buildings, including the governor's office, were also attacked and some were ransacked.

Protesters then gathered in the main square, chanting "Down with Khamenei", the country's supreme leader. (LOTM - and only hooligans would chant that)

Witnesses said that security forces responded with live bullets, and some protesters were fired at by helicopters.

Kurdsat, an Iraqi-Kurdish satellite channel based in Sulaimaniyah, reported yesterday that police had detained as many as 1,200 people after the incident. (LOTM - I hope theyre being held in good conditions - perhaps Amnesty International should investigate)

Further unrest was feared yesterday in Bokan and Sinne, where up to 6,000 special forces soldiers were said to have gathered. Opposition leaders appealed for calm and called for the international community to put pressure on the Iranian authorities to halt the crackdown. (LOTM - what, put pressure on democratic Iran? Im not holding my breath)

In a statement, the Kurdistan Democratic party of Iran, which is based in Iraq, urged "international organisations, human-rights supporters and the international community to make efforts to stop the bloodshed of the Iranian Kurdish people by the Islamic republic regime of Iran".

"This could turn into yet another tragedy for our people," said Hussein Yazdanpanah, the general secretary of the Revolutionary Union of Kurdistan, who is in exile in the city of Irbil.

"Our people want their rights and to demonstrate and work for them peacefully. But they are being met with a brutal force."

Iranian agents provocateur were moving among the protesters, he said, "ensuring chaos and violence and thereby justifying an extreme reaction from Iranian authorities".

Iran is home to about 6 million Kurds - almost 10% of the population - who say they face discrimination and repression at the hands of the theocratic rulers in Tehran.

A UN report released last Saturday said authorities were denying basic amenities to Iran's ethnic and religious minorities and in some cases seizing land.

"Regions historically occupied by Kurds ... seem to suffer disproportionate inadequacy of services such as water and electricity and unsatisfactory reconstruction efforts," the report concluded.

But Tehran dismisses such charges and is extremely sensitive about any hint of ethnic unrest, particularly by the Kurds. Anti-government demonstrations are dealt with harshly.

Mahabad, where the activist Shwana Sayyed Qadr was killed, was the capital of the short-lived Republic of Kurdistan, established by the Kurdish leader Mustafah Barzani in 1945. It has since become a symbol for Kurdish nationalism. "

[lord of the mark]

more news from the Iranian democracy

Iran dissident Ganji still on hunger strike -paper Wed Aug 10, 9:42 AM ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Dissident Iranian journalist Akbar Ganji is still on hunger strike, a hospital official was quoted as saying on Wednesday, contradicting an official from the conservative judiciary who said he was eating again.

Judiciary spokesman Jamal Karimirad said on Tuesday Ganji had ended his eight-week hunger strike after calls from his family and friends, who were concerned that he could die.

But Sirus Tabesh, head of public relations at Tehran's Milad hospital, said this was incorrect.

"Ganji is not consuming any food," he told the Sharq daily newspaper. "Ganji's condition would become critical if his situation goes on as it is now."

The 46-year-old former Revolutionary Guard turned reformist was imprisoned in 2001 after writing a string of stories linking officials to the murder of political dissidents.

He began his hunger strike in June to pressure the judiciary to grant him an unconditional release. He was moved to Tehran's Milad hospital and is kept under guard. Last month his health seriously deteriorated.

Sharq newspaper also quoted Shahaboddin Sadr, the head of Iran's coroner's office, saying Ganji's health was now stable.

Ganji's plight has provoked comments of outrage and concern from the United States, the European Union and numerous human rights groups.

A relative said Ganji's family was not immediately able to confirm whether he had broken his hunger strike or not as they had been denied access to him since Aug 1.

Ganji's wife was quoted by the ISNA students news agency saying her husband receives serums whenever his condition becomes critical.

She said he was being given intravenous drips but on Friday developed a blood clot in his left arm.

[SlowwHand]

I also want to say that's it kind of a piss off for people to keep saying USA and nukes.
USA used 60 years ago, and were shocked at the result.

On the anniversary of the events here recently, the Japanese people noted the good relationship with the USA, and also how the USA helped them after the war.
Was the USA supposed to destroy all of their notes on the subject? It was already a race.
So don't even go there.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

USA used 60 years ago, and were shocked at the result.

So shocked, they decided to build tens of thousands more.

[Ramo]

as far as i can tell, the Paki parliament has at least as great a role in governance as the Iranian parliament.[/q]

Except Musharraf forced the Parliament into giving him emergency powers (by making the aforementioned promise to step down, and then have a subsequent election a month later - obviously neither of which came to pass).

[q]And the Iranian govt is far harsher with dissidents than the Paki govt.

Yes, Pak has more liberal press laws than Iran, but it has more severe, i.e. repression of workers. But that's going too far off topic.

Against the secular parties that he considers corrupt, and which were in power when Paki started supporting the Taliban. Im sure he wishes that the pro-Musharaff party had won enough seats to govern on its own. But when you have a free election, you cant guarantee the outcome.

Parties like Hamas and Hezb are sqeaky clean compared to their secular alternatives. Would you rather have Fatah or Hamas in control of Gaza?

Given the situation in Pakistan, I can see why he felt a need to keep direct control of the army. A promise to give up power is better than a state where the oppressors insist on keeping it forever.

If his promises have been proven to be empty, why?

I dont know for sure, and im not real inclined to perform the experiment to find out. People have asked what distinguishes Iran from Israel, Pakistan, and India (aside from being a signatory to the NPT) I think the rhetoric that animates the Iranian govt gives a pretty good idea of what distinguishes them.

Musharraf isn't a rabid fundie. Of course you're not going to see comparable rhetoric. But to start a nuclear war is simply insane. Not just have a seriously ****ed up worldview, but incapable of making simple logical connections.

If you and Ge are insulted at the unfairness of letting Pakistan and Israel keep nukes, cause you are less troubled by the words of the Iranian regime, than so be it.

I never said anything about "unfairness." I never said I opposed policies to prevent Iran from getting nukes. What I did say is that military action would be a monumentally inept policy. To Blair's credit, I don't think he'd participate in anything of the sort. Dear Leader, OTOH...

If youre going to exchange land for peace, the exchange has to be simultaneous, and the details have to be negotiated together.

I wasn't aware that the deal wasn't supposed to be simultaneous. Do you have a source?

But that's a tangeant; the point was I haven't heard of this specific disarmament proposal that you were referring to.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo


"I never said anything about "unfairness." I never said I opposed policies to prevent Iran from getting nukes. What I did say is that military action would be a monumentally inept policy. To Blair's credit, I don't think he'd participate in anything of the sort. Dear Leader, OTOH..."

Im sorry then. Gepap apparently felt that the policies of the EU3, and the proposals to sanction Iran were unfair. Given that the thing is going to the IAEA to discuss referall to the UNSC, I thought sanctions were what we were discussing. I can certainly see many arguements against military action, and have advocated it nowhere in this thread. I cant speak for George Bush. Michael Ledeen, the leading hardline neocon who focuses on Iran in the National Review and elsewhere, does not advocate the invasion of Iran.



"I wasn't aware that the deal wasn't supposed to be simultaneous. Do you have a source?"

I was going by your own words here.

"But that's a tangeant; the point was I haven't heard of this specific disarmament proposal that you were referring to."

I cant find a specific proposal on the table, but its my sense that the Israelis have always been open to discussing regional disarmament as part of peace talks. If that was your question, Im not sure why you referred to Abdullahs proposal. There already IS a peace process, under the road map, which is supported by the US, EU, Russia AND the UN. And OPPOSED, quite bitterly AFAICT, by Iran.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

Parties like Hamas and Hezb are sqeaky clean compared to their secular alternatives. Would you rather have Fatah or Hamas in control of Gaza?

Fatah of course. and id also prefer Benazir Bhutto, corrupt or not, as a coalition partner to Perv than the MMA. But thats not the point. I was merely explaining that the political decision to make an alliance of convenience with the MMA hardly makes Perv the equivalent of the Iranian mullahs. Just as if, say, Abbas ends up making a coalition with Hamas, that would not make Abbas the equivalent of the Iranian mullahs. It would be a very bad idea, IMO, and might well bring the peace process to a halt, but it wouldnt make Abbas the equivalent of the mullahs.

[lord of the mark]

China expresses concern about UNSC workload

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - China's UN ambassador Wang Guangya said that it would not be "helpful" to haul Iran before the UN Security Council over its removal of UN seals to bring online a key nuclear fuel plant.

Iran broke the seals placed by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors on the uranium conversion plant in Isfahan, giving the facility full operational capacity after Iran ended a nine-month shutdown there on Monday.

Tehran's action came as the IAEA argued over a resolution calling for a halt to Iran's sensitive atomic activities.

Asked whether Iran should be referred to the Security Council, Wang replied: "It would not be helpful... We all want a peaceful solution to the Iranian issue. So I think the best place is the efforts between the EU ( European Union) and (the) Iranians or the IAEA."

"The council has too many things on the table. Why should we add more?," the Chinese envoy said. "I think the EU and Iran have not given up their efforts to work together for a solution... This issue deserves a diplomatic solution."

Last week, China, one of the Security Council's five permanent veto-wielding members, urged Iran and the EU to be patient in negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program and expressed the hope that issue could be resolved through diplomacy.

[Agathon]

If Israel has nukes I don't see why Iran shouldn't have them. Of course, they are a blight on humanity and no-one should have them, but the current Western posturing is hypocritical and is seen as such throughout most of the world.

[Atahualpa]

Probably the only way to get rid of nukes is when everybody has them. It's a very dangerous path to walk though.
I am against it.

[Sava]

why doesn't the US just lob a tomahawk at that facility? I mean wtf is iran going to do about it?

[BeBMan]

Doing the stuff underground?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
[

Now if you again think that Iran and Israel are equivalent, well, yawn.

Ad argumentum, not imaginary positions I've never taken, please.