US media omission: Iran calls for global nuclear disarmament
Pepe Silvia
Posts: 3,758
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/media-omiss ... sarmament/
US media omission: Iran calls for global nuclear disarmament
The American public has not been informed by the US news media about highly newsworthy statements made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday February 12.
He said the era of nuclear weapons is over, suggesting Iran has no plans to build "inhumane" A-bombs. Ahmadinejad called for a world free of nuclear arms in an interview with Russia's NTV channel.
"We believe that not only the Middle East but also the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons because we see such weapons as inhumane," he said.
"Today, no one can use a nuclear weapon and we believe that the US is taking a wrong move by stockpiling nuclear weapons," he added. "Those who claim that they are against nuclear weapons should dismantle their nuclear weapons first to prove that they are honest."
So far, the libertarian-leaning Antiwar.com has been the only American media outlet to cover his statements.
US media omission: Iran calls for global nuclear disarmament
The American public has not been informed by the US news media about highly newsworthy statements made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday February 12.
He said the era of nuclear weapons is over, suggesting Iran has no plans to build "inhumane" A-bombs. Ahmadinejad called for a world free of nuclear arms in an interview with Russia's NTV channel.
"We believe that not only the Middle East but also the whole world should be free of nuclear weapons because we see such weapons as inhumane," he said.
"Today, no one can use a nuclear weapon and we believe that the US is taking a wrong move by stockpiling nuclear weapons," he added. "Those who claim that they are against nuclear weapons should dismantle their nuclear weapons first to prove that they are honest."
So far, the libertarian-leaning Antiwar.com has been the only American media outlet to cover his statements.
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I think I'm actually glad the media doesn't report the every utterance of this tyrant.
no, he never said that.
why don't you hold Israel to the same accountability in regards to their nuclear program?? at least Iran allows inspections
also, he was elected and has no actual power so i fail to see how Ahmadinejad is a tyrant
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Also, this wouldn't be the first time the US has ignored or declined on such requests.
When your problem solving is a hammer, all your problems begin to look like nails.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
He never said that? Well, I guess you should take that up with the NY Times, because they seem to think he did: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world ... -iran.html.
As far as Israel's nukes, I'm glad they have them, I believe in a strong deterrent and they have been attacked enough by their neighbors that I don't have a problem with it.
And then to say he was elected? Really? So you believe that Moussavi really lost in his own home town and that that election wasn't totally fraudulent?
Wow, some Kool-Aid drinkers on this board. I guess next you'll say he doesn't deny the Holocaust...
He never said that? Well, I guess you should take that up with the NY Times, because they seem to think he did: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world ... -iran.html.
As far as Israel's nukes, I'm glad they have them, I believe in a strong deterrent and they have been attacked enough by their neighbors that I don't have a problem with it.
And then to say he was elected? Really? So you believe that Moussavi really lost in his own home town and that that election wasn't totally fraudulent?
Wow, some Kool-Aid drinkers on this board. I guess next you'll say he doesn't deny the Holocaust...[/quote]
before you start calling people names ... perhaps you should try and see where others are coming from ...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=4527
before you start calling people names ... perhaps you should try and see where others are coming from ...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=4527[/quote]
So your point is that he was stating agreement with the proposition of destroying Israel, but that is OK because he was just agreeing with someone else who said the same thing? So if my friend says he wants to reinstate slavery, and I quote him in a speech and indicate an agreement, that is OK, I'm not really calling for blacks to be enslaved? I think we're parsing words a little too much here...the man is obviously an anti-Semite. He HOSTS Holocaust denial conferences, according to the right-wing rag known as NPR who quote him as calling the Holocaust a "myth". BTW, if Kool-aid drinker was offensive I apologize, but I must say I've been called far worse on this board...
So your point is that he was stating agreement with the proposition of destroying Israel, but that is OK because he was just agreeing with someone else who said the same thing? So if my friend says he wants to reinstate slavery, and I quote him in a speech and indicate an agreement, that is OK, I'm not really calling for blacks to be enslaved? I think we're parsing words a little too much here...the man is obviously an anti-Semite. He HOSTS Holocaust denial conferences, according to the right-wing rag known as NPR who quote him as calling the Holocaust a "myth". BTW, if Kool-aid drinker was offensive I apologize, but I must say I've been called far worse on this board...[/quote]
he said "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." how can you wipe a regime off the face of the map?? a regime is not the same as a nation.
and if you're ok with your hypocrisy in Israel defying international law with their nuclear program go right ahead
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
As far as "International Law", I have a huge problem with "International Law." I don't respect it, I don't believe in it, I don't feel it applies to me or my country. F international law. If I don't get to vote for the people who make the laws, I don't feel any responsibility to follow them. I am an American citizen, I will deal with the laws of my country as enacted by my duly elected representatives.
And if "International Law" says that the Jews can't have this weapon or that weapon, but the CHINESE can, then I think our whole world is upside down. I guess it's OK that Pakistan and India have come close to nuking each other tons of times, but god forbid the Israelis want to have nukes...when they have been invaded from all sided in the past 50 years.
you can't have it both ways, you can't ask 'Why did they back out of their recent promise to send their uranium to Europe to be enriched? Why did the world just recently find out about additional secret enrichment sites?' then say Israel has no obligations. if they don't why should Iran?
international law doesn't say jews can't have nukes, not sure how you are coming up with that. what the law and nuclear non proliferation treaty, which the US agreed to, says no country can have a secret nuclear program, which Israel does. to have a nuclear program it must be open to insepctions by the IAEA, which Israel refuses. no one said it's ok for Pakistan, India, China...but not 'jews'. however, all 3 of those countries and even Iran allow inspections and monitoring of their sites, Israel does not, in fact when 1 of their scientists admitted they had a secret nuclear program they kidnapped him, brought him back to Israel and locked him up for 18 years, 11 in isolation. 189 countries are ok with the nuclear non proliferation treaty
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
kool-aid drinker isn't that offensive to me ... my only issue is that when people start referring to people as such it often means they aren't interested in listening to the other side ...
the primary point here is that people focus on catchphrases ... whether it be "flip-flopper" or "socialist" or "wipe israel off the map" ... these catchphrases are used by PR firms by way of mainstream media outlets to formulate popular opinion ... it's meant to convince the public of a dogma without the necessary background information ...
i don't doubt he would be defined as an anti-semite but so would norman finkelstein or anyone who speaks out against the atrocities committed by Israel ... again - Iran is no saint or innocent victim but like pepe said - you can't say some countries should have nukes and some shouldn't ...
the primary point here is that people focus on catchphrases ... whether it be "flip-flopper" or "socialist" or "wipe israel off the map" ... these catchphrases are used by PR firms by way of mainstream media outlets to formulate popular opinion ... it's meant to convince the public of a dogma without the necessary background information ...
i don't doubt he would be defined as an anti-semite but so would norman finkelstein or anyone who speaks out against the atrocities committed by Israel ... again - Iran is no saint or innocent victim but like pepe said - you can't say some countries should have nukes and some shouldn't ...[/quote]
To Pepe, I think you should do a little research on the NPT. Israel has not signed this treaty, therefore it doesn't apply to them. I would not submit to the terms of a contract I hadn't signed, don't know why Israel should be held to a different standard. Some people just don't like Jews and it would be easier if that was just plainly stated so people don't waste time debating on boards with bigots.
Polaris, I hope we can agree to disagree. We probably have a different view of Israel. I have a huge problem with the current Iranian regime having nukes. I believe that if they did not use them directly, they could slip one to Hamas or one of the other groups that they fund and arm to kill Israelis.
i'd say Israel's actions/remarks are pretty darn clear too. i scratch my head every damn day when people make excuses for Israel's brutal, illegal and inhumane occupation against one and a half million ordinary Palestinians.
sickening. pretty fucked up isn't it?
the only reason people cry anti-semitism when it's clearly not the case, is just so they can try and discredit and silence anyone that has different views to theirs.
and they do that because they know that they can't win the argument based on the facts.
as for nuclear disarmament, it's just beautiful how the western countries have legitimized their arsenals because its for "deterrance" whereas elsewhere it's considered an evil threat to the "free" world; and if it's in an Islamic country, ah then forget about it...
to date only one country has dropped the bomb so...
and as for Iran, well any leader in any part of the world, who has the balls to stand up to western governments, has to be overthrown, the country invaded and its people "liberated" - from fuckin what?.... and how some continue to believe the shit the western governments feed their citizens, is just beyond me...
and then there is all this grief over military casualties ... quit sending them on world tours on killing sprees....
and no shit the US government/ media ain't reporting on any such disarmament offers from Iran because what would the US administration do without a threat from so called evil, preferably Islamic, states... it needs the enemy...war is money
:roll:
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
:roll:
Maybe we all need to quit cherry-picking issues and just use logic. Israel's approach to dealing with the Palestinians = wrong. Iran's approach to dealing with Israel = wrong. There, done.
what has iran done to israel?
Iran's government threatens Israel periodically, and even if the threats are empty, it doesn't seem like an effective strategy. Did you read the rest of the thread?
i have read the thread ... i've been a participant as you should have seen ...
israel aside - the issue is why are we ostracizing Iran? ... what have they done? ... so, their president criticizes the west - any objective person would see that many of those criticisms are legitimate ... iran is not going to attack israel ... in fact - the country that should fear is an attack by israel on iran backed by the US ...
why not support a global ban on nuclear weapons? ... it's pretty obvious iran would go for it ...
I would support said ban, especially if governments like Iran's would go for it.
iran doesn't have nukes ... it's only motivation to have nukes is in case someone uses nukes against them ...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
lets face it... US foreign policy is only too trigger happy... bombin left, right n centre ... wherever it serves its economic interests.. and arming Israel like there's no tomorrow
Well, I can agree with this, by and large. Its an oversimplification, but yes, there is validity to the argument that trigger happy foreign policy does not work. I've said it before, though: Hiroshima has nothing to do with current concerns about nuclear proliferation. The U.S. dropped the bomb in a completely different historical context, and bringing this up with regards to Iran doesn't make much sense. Yes, the U.S. dropped the A-bomb. So that means they have no right to be concerned about other nation's nuclear aspirations in the modern era? By that logic, no nation should oppose war (for example), because damn near every nation has fired shots in anger at some point during said nation's history (even Switzerland!).
Well, I can agree with this, by and large. Its an oversimplification, but yes, there is validity to the argument that trigger happy foreign policy does not work. I've said it before, though: Hiroshima has nothing to do with current concerns about nuclear proliferation. The U.S. dropped the bomb in a completely different historical context, and bringing this up with regards to Iran doesn't make much sense. Yes, the U.S. dropped the A-bomb. So that means they have no right to be concerned about other nation's nuclear aspirations in the modern era? By that logic, no nation should oppose war (for example), because damn near every nation has fired shots in anger at some point during said nation's history (even Switzerland!).[/quote]
Allow me to elaborate then Reborn...
Hiroshima might not have to do much with Iran, but in the grand scheme of things, it represents US foriegn policy since the early 1900's and to date...
that might have been in a different historical context, but specifically the contexts keep on changin, but the real issue remains the same... a desire to remain a superpower, militarily and economically, at all costs.... at that time the object was to bring down the "evildoers" of that time; then arose the "threat" from communism; and finally Islamic "terrorism".... there's always gotta be a fuss about some kind of threat even when there is isn't one... I don't wanna get into WWII, because that is a much more complex issue than is generally considered to bein the West... namely that Hitler's was an evil monster (along with anyone allied with Germany like Japan) and the western allies, the forces of good... No war is, or the circimstances surrounding it are, that black n white, and it's very naive to think that it that simple... the US/UK governments have always needed scapegoats and therefore stigmatize whichever nation does not serve their interests at a particular time... Stalin was there ally when they needed his support in WWII, and then fucked him up subsequently when he was no longer needed... Communism was as much there before 1945 as it was thereafter, but it only became a threat when the West needed it to be a threat.. Same with Iraq... it fought for the US against Iran and then got fucked over by the US because of the "threat to Kuwait" and all that shit.. how convenient... and it just happened to be sittin on most of the the oil in the world.. beautiful
Now it's Iran... it;s the new threat.... the new shit...
you say that the US has a right to be concerned about other's nuclear aspirations... well that;s fine... but then understand that more than half the world has exactly the same concerns about the US/UK etc.. now you're just sitting on the other side of the fence.... the least you could do is realize then that it's all the same shit... if the US needs to keep armed for deterrance, what the fuck is the rest of the (non white) world to do... its deterrance all around man... the US is as much a threat to more than half the world, as the latter is to the US... you just can't reasonably expect every rival nation to disarm, while the US is all armed and ready to go... you can;t have it both ways , and that's a fact...
A bit off topic, but I'd say early 1900's is a bit too early of an estimate. Early 1900's the US rejected the occupation of Sinai by Israelis with the help of Britain and France. Then, their foreign policy took a U-turn I'd say around mid-twentieth century. In a way, with Britain and France changing to the better, the US was changing to the worse (politically).
apart from the questions surrounding 9/11, and what exactly happened there, even assuming that Islamic militants did fly into those buildings, Islamic militants aren't the only one acting out the bad guy roles... The US military are as much "bad guys" to this part of the world as mean, bearded fuckers are to that part of the world.... what happens in a country, and i mean what really happens, every time a country is invaded by foreign soldiers is a living nightmare and hell... 9/11's will continue to happen if superpowers go on throwing their wight around... it.s no secret that the US armed the Mujahideen since the 70's and all throughout the 80/s to fight their war against the Soviets, at the time calllin them freedom fighters and then chucked em and fucked em over as terrorists... well that kind of policy doesn't work cuz you're playing a dangerous game to begin with and there will be a reaction...
9/11 , although a horrific attack was just one major attack... you've got people in various parts of the world goin through 9/11s every single day of their lives ... with bombs fallin on their houses and killin every living thing around em... 9/11 ain't that unique... you see pictures of Iraq being bombed or more recently palestine being razed to the ground, and those are endless, ongoing, 9/11s...
I agree with you that it's not about race... India and Pakistan have a long standing, mind numbing rivalry, (owing in great part to the British colonisation and how minority rulers were left to rule majorities of opposing faiths etc) as do many other rival nations belongin to the same race, but at this point it is very much about religion. US policy since the 70's has pissed off the Muslim world, hence the wars... you don't see many non-muslim countries today being told to clean up their act or else... it's all politically religious though, not truly religiously religious if you know what i mean...
The US needs to quit challengin other cultures and systems of beliefs, (be it communism/socialism or Islam) and preachin and spreadin its own ways... but then again, frankly i don;t see that changin in our lifetimes... (in the long run of course, and as history has taught us, superpowers and empires do rise and finally fall)... for now, unfortunately the reality is that the US is also very much acting out the bad guy or rather the bad cop role, and Iran and others therefore cannot be expected to disarm while such a system prevail... although personally i do not believe that Iran even has nuk capabilities but that;s besides the point, and that is precisely why i too am not preoccupied here with nukes as opposed to conventional weaponry... the point is whether it makes any sense for the US to get just certain countries to decrease their arsenals whilst maintaining and strengthening its own...