US media omission: Iran calls for global nuclear disarmament

polaris_x

rebornFixer wrote:

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 ...

rebornFixer

polaris_x wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

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.

polaris_x

rebornFixer wrote:

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 ...

lukin2006

Pepe Silvia wrote:

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/media-omission-iran-calls-nuclear-disarmament/


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.

In a perfect world you could seek a world free from nuclear weapons, but as long as people know how to make them then they'll always be available.

acrossssSsssshittt

rebornFixer wrote:

acrossOceans wrote:

to date only one country has dropped the bomb so...

:roll:

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

rebornFixer

acrossOceans wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

acrossOceans wrote:

to date only one country has dropped the bomb so...

:roll:

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!).

acrossssSsssshittt

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[/quote]

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...

rebornFixer

I agree that this business of "threat" is a two-way street, and yeah, completely disarming any one group of people is not only unrealistic, its morally wrong as well (I'd argue). I do feel that nukes are a different issue than, say, whether Islamic nations should be allowed to have conventional weapons. At the end of the day, I'd love to see everyone get their heads together and get serious about total nuclear disarmament. I'll also mention that the issue is a lot more complex than race, or "US/UK vs. everyone else". India (brown people) does not want Pakistan to have nukes any more than the U.S. or Israel want Iran to have them. I think race should be left out of the discussion, really. Religion might be the bigger issue, although even that is debatable. I agree that the Americans have always needed a "bad guy" ... It certainly doesn't help matters when people start to act out this role (e.g., 9-11).

NoK

acrossOceans wrote:

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...

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).

acrossssSsssshittt

Reborn

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...

acrossssSsssshittt

NoK wrote:

acrossOceans wrote:

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...

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).

I stand slightly corrected... maybe not the very early 1900's... the US only became influential internationally gradually after the 1st world war ... by the 1920 and 30''s though, it had begun to thrown its weight around...

I have to say however, that US foreign policy since then has everything to do with current questions of disarmament of other nations... things have to be placed in context... history matters and is always relevant

TriumphantAngel

polaris_x wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

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 ...

exactly.

acrossssSsssshittt

TriumphantAngel wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

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 ...

exactly.

sound

badbrains

Wow AcrossOceans, very well said. It still amazes me to this day that people still walk with there eyes closed. Thanx for showing me there is another one out there walking with his eyes open. Man all they have to do is think, read between the lines. Question authority. Who was it that said a blind eye toward your government will get you killed????? Thats right, good old uncle brucie...He was dead right on.

acrossssSsssshittt

badbrains wrote:

Wow AcrossOceans, very well said. It still amazes me to this day that people still walk with there eyes closed. Thanx for showing me there is another one out there walking with his eyes open. Man all they have to do is think, read between the lines. Question authority. Who was it that said a blind eye toward your government will get you killed????? Thats right, good old uncle brucie...He was dead right on.

I'm glad that you too see it like it is... and fortunately there are many others in all parts of the world including mine and yours ( whereever you're from) who also realize that the world we live in, and the world order in place, is complex; more questions than answers... unfortunately there too many who choose ignorance and arrogance.