The Middle East part 2

[Stealth3 0]

ran's leader calls for TV debate with Bush

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called on U.S. President George W. Bush to participate in a "direct television debate with us," so Iran can voice its point of view on how to end world predicaments.

"But the condition is that there can be no censorship, especially for the American nation," he said Tuesday.

Ahmadinejad blamed "special concessions" granted to the United States and Britain as "the root cause of all the problems in the world."

"At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to."

His comments came during a news conference, currently taking place in Tehran, during which he is expected to respond to a United Nations ultimatum to suspend uranium enrichment or face possible sanctions.

The Islamic republic has until Thursday to comply to a Security Council resolution to halt the enrichment program, which Iran maintains is part of a civilian nuclear program.

Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to master technology to produce nuclear weapons.

"We expect no change in the Iranian position," said CNN's Aneesh Raman.

Iranian officials have insisted that their nuclear program is solely for peaceful generation of power and that they have no ambitions to build nuclear weapons.

On July 31, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution giving Iran until the end of next week to agree to suspend its uranium enrichment program, which would pave the way for the Tehran regime to receive financial incentives.

The United States has also held out the possibility of resuming direct contacts with Iran, more than 25 years after the two countries broke off diplomatic relations.

However, if the Iranians do not accept the offer, then the Security Council will discuss a resolution proposing economic sanctions on Iran.

While such a move is backed by three of the council's permanent members -- the United States, Britain and France -- the two others, Russia and China, have been cool to the idea and could use their veto to block a sanctions resolution.

Meanwhile, a senior Iranian official on Tuesday invited Western companies to bid for tenders to build nuclear plants, The Associated Press reported from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

"We have had ... another 21 thousand megawatts of nuclear power plants approved by the parliament that will be built in the next 20 years," Seyed Ala'addin Barojerdi, chairman of Iran's Parliament National Security and Foreign Affairs Commission, was quoted as saying.

"(The) international tenders for building of two of these nuclear power plants have been so far presented and we would be willing to see the Western companies participate in these projects," he said.

Western nations have been closing watching developments in Iran's nuclear program for signs of compliance. In recent days, Tehran has made public displays of new technologies and facilities.

On Sunday, state television reported that Iran test fired a long-range, radar-evading missile from a submarine in the Gulf as part of war games that began earlier this month. (Full story)

Some analysts interpreted the test and war games as thinly veiled threats that Iran could disrupt vital oil shipping lanes if pushed by an escalation in the nuclear dispute, according to Reuters.

A day earlier, Ahmadinejad officially opened a heavy-water production plant that he said would serve medical, agricultural and scientific needs. (Full story)

Video broadcast on Iranian television showed the president touring the plant in the central Iran city of Arak along with Gholamreza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization.

Heavy water is used in preparing uranium for nuclear weapons, but it is also useful for medical purposes, such as nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, according to Reuters.

"No one can deprive a nation of its rights based on its capabilities," the agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying in his speech to inaugurate the project.

Copyright 2006 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ear/index.html

What do you guys think?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

and bush dismisses it as waisting time. Is he a fan of democracy or not? it seems he wants iran to ignore him so he has an excuse to try and bully them.

[billybob2002 0]

Funny, many (and according to what I've heard a vast majority) of historians mean that USA had a strong policy of isolationism until WWII. You can see this clearly. In every war up to WWII USA didn't bother. They tried to keep out of conflicts, but after WWII they've been meddling a lot. They've been in more conflicts than anyone else (at least not many who beat them...). They were reluctant to enter both WWI and WWII, they didn't bother to colonize anything (though they had some "indirect colonizing in east-asia, where they used their navy to force china or something into making good deals with USA...think it's been called "diplomacy colonization" or something). Generally historians seems to agree that USA isolated themself rather much from the rest of the world until they were forced into WWII (don't remember when they mean it started...think it was after the civil war or something).

I agree that the United States' policy was non-interventionism for majority of the years between World War 1 and World War 2. However, I don't agree that the FDR adminstration had a strong policy of isolationism in 1940 and 1941 (before Pearl Harbor of course). I already provided ample evidence that the adminstration didn't have a strong policy of isolationism in 1940 and 1941. In addition, the United States and Nazi Germany had a undeclared naval war in 1941.

off-topic, again....

and bush dismisses it as waisting time.  Is he a fan of democracy or not?  it seems he wants iran to ignore him so he has an excuse to try and bully them.

The "debate" won't solve nothing because it is a fecking television debate.

[SPQR 0]

Why would France sent a Mistral platoon?

I have doubts about using Mistral against israeli fighter-bombers, as it is a low altitude missile and I guess Israel abandon this kind of attack since a long time.

It would be more efficient against choppers and/or drones/"suicide" drones.

It could be a safety taken after the "souvenir" of the Su-25s rocket attacking the French base, killing many soldiers, in Ivory Coast  

@SPQR

Quote[/b] ]"Garibaldi" carrier.

You mean an Aircraft carrier ?

Absolutly, the Light Aircraft Carrier (CVS) C551 Giuseppe Garibaldi, carrying 16 flying machines (helicopters, AV-8B or a mix of both).

I don't know what is it currently carrying.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Would be cool to see the "Charles de Gaulle" light nuclear-powered aircraft carrier also on the scene - would be a good test as any to see how it serves for peace-keeping missions where the probability of friendly forces getting attacked is... erm... stay tuned...

[SPQR 0]

The Charles de Gaulle came back to Toulon's naval base from Afghanistan (120 air missions in less than 19 days) on June 9th, 2006.

It's probably currently under maintenance, thus unavailable. And France actually miss a second carrier in order to permanently have one of them on sea.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Any word on what the spanish Principe de Asturias is up to? At least that has more aircraft than the Garibaldi...

[deanosbeano 0]

whats funny is your lack of recogniton for the state of palastine,every time you refer to israels actions.

there is a massive difference between a person being arrested on the streets of london or in a house in london and the crossing of a state border kidnapping a member of government/citizen of another state .

its obvious to me reading your statements that you are educated in the style of revisionism and thus ,if the state of palestine does not exist in your mind ,then any actions taken in that state be it murder or kidnapping have no repurcusions in your minds eye.

Palestine is not a state and it's not a country either.

A group of militants asserting that their actions are justified because in their minds their opponent's country does not exist or doesnt deserve to exist.. why does that sound familiar?

In reality it dosent sound familiar at all, as it is often only used to describe one of the sides in this conflict ,whilst it applies equally to both.

[Nemesis6 0]

Lets put it like this. If a ship full of suspected terrorists are in a boat in international water, Israel do not have the right to arrest them, because they are not inside Israeli borders. If Israel have the right to arrest people who is not within their country, then any country have the right to do what the fuck they like in international water too. Also, countires/organizations that do not recognize Israel would have a valid reason (to them it would be valid) to do whatever they like inside Israeli borders. Just because Israel feels Palestine is an area they can arrest people if they like doesn't make it right, and if it does, Israel do not have the right to react to violent act from organization/countries that don't recognize Israel...

The way I see it, they are in a region under a terrorist leadership that flat out supports them and would in no way cooperate with Israel to bring them to justice. And anyone who would is executed by the Palestinians' leader - Abu Mazen. And all the Hamas guys.

Palestine is where terrorists go and it's where they will, inevitably, die. With all due respect, I think you provided a weak reason - The Islamic dictatorships don't want to do anything about the terrorists, and even support them, thus, Israel doesn't have the right to take matters into their own hands...  

[RedLion 0]

The truth is that in the end, Terrorism will be defeated no matter what. You can bitch and cry all you want, but those who are fighting this war on Terrorism will see to terminate these "holy warrior" Idiots. Those fucking cowards.

[Garcia 0]

Lets put it like this. If a ship full of suspected terrorists are in a boat in international water, Israel do not have the right to arrest them, because they are not inside Israeli borders. If Israel have the right to arrest people who is not within their country, then any country have the right to do what the fuck they like in international water too. Also, countires/organizations that do not recognize Israel would have a valid reason (to them it would be valid) to do whatever they like inside Israeli borders. Just because Israel feels Palestine is an area they can arrest people if they like doesn't make it right, and if it does, Israel do not have the right to react to violent act from organization/countries that don't recognize Israel...

The way I see it, they are in a region under a terrorist leadership that flat out supports them and would in no way cooperate with Israel to bring them to justice. And anyone who would is executed by the Palestinians' leader - Abu Mazen. And all the Hamas guys.

Palestine is where terrorists go and it's where they will, inevitably, die. With all due respect, I think you provided a weak reason - The Islamic dictatorships don't want to do anything about the terrorists, and even support them, thus, Israel doesn't have the right to take matters into their own hands...  

So you mean that Israel would have right to go into Afghanistan to "arrest" people before USA invaded? So you mean Israel have the right to go into Syria and Iran to "arrest" people (seeing that you think they support i.e Hizbollah)? So that means that if UK feel Israel is a terrorist state, UK have the right to go into Israel to "arrest" people? With all due respect, my reasons may have been weak, but so are yours...

Quote[/b] ]The truth is that in the end, Terrorism will be defeated no matter what. You can bitch and cry all you want, but those who are fighting this war on Terrorism will see to terminate these "holy warrior" Idiots. Those fucking cowards.

And with all due respect to you too, that is plain and simply naive to think. You can never defeat terrorism. There will always be people who disagrees with others, and there will always be people who will use terrorism to get the light on their opinion and to scare the ones who hold the opposite opinion. Simply, to defeat terrorism, you have to kill everyone who doesn't agree with...well, the majority (and not even then you would have defeated it).

[whisper 0]

The truth is that in the end, Terrorism will be defeated no matter what. You can bitch and cry all you want, but those who are fighting this war on Terrorism will see to terminate these "holy warrior" Idiots. Those fucking cowards.

As long as you treat this "war on Terror" as a conventional one, you will create more terrorists than you arrest them.

[Nemesis6 0]

So you mean that Israel would have right to go into Afghanistan to "arrest" people before USA invaded? So you mean Israel have the right to go into Syria and Iran to "arrest" people (seeing that you think they support i.e Hizbollah)? So that means that if UK feel Israel is a terrorist state, UK have the right to go into Israel to "arrest" people? With all due respect, my reasons may have been weak, but so are yours...

Quote[/b] ]The truth is that in the end, Terrorism will be defeated no matter what. You can bitch and cry all you want, but those who are fighting this war on Terrorism will see to terminate these "holy warrior" Idiots. Those fucking cowards.

And with all due respect to you too, that is plain and simply naive to think. You can never defeat terrorism. There will always be people who disagrees with others, and there will always be people who will use terrorism to get the light on their opinion and to scare the ones who hold the opposite opinion. Simply, to defeat terrorism, you have to kill everyone who doesn't agree with...well, the majority (and not even then you would have defeated it).

Afghanistan has not been funding many terror groups fighting against Israel, nor has it been harboring the militants fighting Israel. Same goes for the U.K. And I don't THINK Iran and Syria are behind HizbAllah. Everyone knows they are and evidence has been uncovered to prove the Syrian government's direct support of HizbAllah. Not to talk about Iran, Iran even has personel on the ground showing the terrorists how to operate Iranian-shipped missiles and hardware.

It's not something I think. It's something that I, and any sane person knows.

I mean, seriously, "Made in Tula, Russia. For the Syrian Defence Ministry" was what IDF soldiers found on an AT-3 Sagger missile confiscated in a raid against HizbAllah.

And by the way, Israel is not a terrorist state. The only people who believe that are assholes/idiots/socialists like George Galloway and Red Ken of London.

[mp_phonix 0]

I agree with Nemessis6 ! LoL !    [just not the assholes part, but  Gorge Galloway is an asshole !]

[Garcia 0]

And by the way, Israel is not a terrorist state. The only people who believe that are assholes/idiots/socialists like George Galloway and Red Ken of London.

How nice, again you label your view as the right one, and you label the ones who have the opposite view as assholes. Tell me, how does it feel to be an asshole/idiot/right-winged maniac? I suppose I can call you that seeing that I don't agree with many (most) of your view, since you can call everyone who means Israel is a terrorist state assholes/idiots/socialists.

And just a little note, no I don't consider Israel a terrorist state, but they're closer to being one than they should be...

Also, note that I, unlike you, don't really mean that I got the right to call you asshole/idiot/right-winged maniac because I disagree with your views. Why? Because I, appareltly unlike you, respect and tolerate that other have different views, even though I may not like them.

[Nemesis6 0]

Quote[/b] ]How nice, again you label your view as the right one, and you label the ones who have the opposite view as assholes. Tell me, how does it feel to be an asshole/idiot/right-winged maniac? I suppose I can call you that seeing that I don't agree with many (most) of your view, since you can call everyone who means Israel is a terrorist state assholes/idiots/socialists.

I'm always happy to label Red Ken and George Galloway as fascist-supporting assholes. Oh wait, I guess, with them being British, it would hurt more if I wrote ARSEholes. But anyway, I don't call them what I do because I don't agree with them, I call them what I do because they are both nasty people who have both engaged in anti-Semitism, pro-terrorist activities, like ol' George flat out supporting HizbAllah, and asking someone on a live interview to "Show us the shekels!". If you wanna watch that last one on video, I'll get the link to it.

Quote[/b] ]Also, note that I, unlike you, don't really mean that I got the right to call you asshole/idiot/right-winged maniac because I disagree with your views. Why? Because I, appareltly unlike you, respect and tolerate that other have different views, even though I may not like them.

Judgy-wudgy was a bear.

[Garcia 0]

Judgy-wudgy was a bear.  

I may judge you, but I'm not even close do judging as many people as you...besides, you just shout out "asshole/idiot/scocialist/maniac/etc" when judging people...

[Nemesis6 0]

besides, you just shout out "asshole/idiot/scocialist/maniac/etc" when judging people...

That sounds like what I usually "shout out" when I tell people my opinion of Red Ken or George Galloway!

[xawery 0]

I can't seem to find it in any anglo-saxon papers, but my 'national' paper reports that Ahmadinejad wants to 'cleanse' Iranian universities of 'liberal professors'. I should add that the category 'liberal professors' includes academics studying the Western culture. How nice!

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

ok then, compare that to the west.  People here get arrested for speaking arabic on a plane.  Clearly that must mean there terrorists   .  Thank god the world is not all like nemesis, otherwise we would have a mass genocide on our hands.  Ofcourse for saying that im anti-semetic

[Nemesis6 0]

Thank god the world is not all like nemesis, otherwise we would have a mass genocide on our hands. Ofcourse for saying that im anti-semetic

Of course you would, because I'm Satan. Do you really think Satan, the Prince of Darkness would want you guys living in peace? A genocide is just what you mere, puny, pathetic mortals need. However, I haven't called you antiSemitic yet. Hold on, maybe I would be even more evil if I called you antiSemitic.

[mp_phonix 0]

Video time  

Israeli Reporter that was with soldier in LEbanon during the war [good move - part 1]

part 2 of that movie:

part 3

*move with english subtitels

*fire fights

*hear soldier evidnece saying that Hizballah fighters were wearing IDF unifroms & gear.

[martinovic 0]

Quote[/b] ]Of course you would, because I'm Satan. Do you really think Satan, the Prince of Darkness would want you guys living in peace? A genocide is just what you mere, puny, pathetic mortals need. However, I haven't called you antiSemitic yet. Hold on, maybe I would be even more evil if I called you antiSemitic.

You really do posses the annoying nature of h' Satan, the adversary.

edit: Using sarcasm so obviously is rather embarrassing.

[Nemesis6 0]

edit: Using sarcasm so obviously is rather embarrassing.

Oh, but I'm not using sarcasm. I'm acting. I'm playing a role to which I have been assigned by Deanosbeano as I've said a couple of times. I mean come on, do you really think that, being evil itself, I would pull up some rational argument against TrevorOfCrete judging my character, morals, and who I generally am as a person? Might as well own up to what I apparently am. Once again, the right-wing of politics is "just plain evil" according to Deanosbeano, so I thought, being "pure evil", I am Satan. At least that's who/what I tie "pure evil" in with. Now be quiet before I make you roast in hell and smear your blood all over the ashy floors of hell like I did with Arafat. Come to think of it, I think I'll do that anyway. I wish we had a demonic smilie.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

and you dare to wonder why some people of the Islamic faith have a problem with Israeli's?