Freedom in Iran, a realization of Bush's plan for the Middle East

[DiveCon]

Once again, I have nothing against the Jewish people.

But no, I don't believe in the official zionist holocaust story and the mythical 6 million missing jews.

Wow. I don't run across too many people like you, thankfully.

But I'll definitely be paying attention to your posts, sort of like studying a bug in a glass jar.

Go to Stormfront - White Nationalist Community

There are thousands of posts on the Holohoax and the Zionist fascist nation of Israhell

it figures you fit in over there

 

[Agnapostate]

The IEAE is clear, Iran is in violation. Iran's response has been as valid and reasonable as North Koreas, they have basically said fuck off.

I'm not familiar with any organization known as the "IEAE," but even the reports of their own Board of Governors are far less severe than you would assert them to be. For example, consider their Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The report makes it clear that no substantive violations in regard to overt development of military dimensions of the nuclear program appear to exist and that the government of the Islamic Republic is generally in compliance with development guidelines as far as can be observed. As noted therein:

On 29 September 2008, the Agency conducted a PIV at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP), the results of which confirm the physical inventory as declared by Iran, within the measurement uncertainties normally associated with such a facility...To date, the results of the environmental samples taken at FEP and PFEP5 indicate that the plants have been operating as declared (i.e. less than 5.0% U-235 enrichment). Since March 2007, 21 unannounced inspections have been conducted at FEP.

The point of dispute comes not because of some assertion that Iran is violating developmental guidelines in regard to the definite creation of a military dimension, but merely that allegedly restricted inspection guidelines have hindered the ability of the IAEA to ascertain such. As noted:

Contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has not implemented the Additional Protocol, which is a prerequisite for the Agency to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities. Nor has it agreed to the Agency’s request that Iran provide, as a transparency measure, access to additional locations related, inter alia, to the manufacturing of centrifuges, R&D on uranium enrichment, and uranium mining and milling, as also required by the Security Council.

However, as I noted, there is a counterclaim from the government of the Islamic Republic in regard to the extent that the inspection need be conducted. As also noted therein:

In a letter dated 26 January 2009 referring to previous communications concerning the submission of design information, Iran informed the Agency that it would not permit the Agency to carry out the DIV. In a reply dated 29 January 2009, the Agency reiterated its request for access to carry out the DIV. In its response, dated 7 February 2009, Iran reiterated its view that since IR-40 was not in a situation to receive nuclear material, no DIQ was required, and, hence, the request for access to perform DIV was not justified. Iran requested that, as long as the decision stipulated in Iran’s letter of 29 March 2007 was valid,6 no DIV for IR-40 be scheduled.

Now, I do not deny that certain hard-liner elements in the Iranian government certainly wish to develop nuclear weaponry to serve as a deterrent to the Israeli arsenal, but that would likely be less problematic should they perceive international consensus being more influential in terms of regulation of said arsenal. However, the alliance of USrael remains intact. Israel can maintain their unauthorized nuclear arsenal without question as long as the U.S. maintains a hegemonic influence over the Security Council and a similarly excessive influence over the IAEA Board of Governors, the obvious provocation to an arms race that this constitutes apparently irrelevant to the concerns of the ruling administrations. That said, I find it ironic that you condemn Iran and claim that Israel will handle them while the Israeli government's development of their nuclear program was based on deliberate concealment of the military dimension from American inspectors, a conscious and deliberate practice approved by even Levi Eshkol.

Now you may want to play apologist for that Aggie, fair enough, but do not cry when greater powers take the stick to Iran when Iran steps outside the idiot bonds of UN protection.

Israel is not a "greater power," and though the unauthorized nuclear arsenal that the government maintains provides a temporary offensive advantage, the small geographic size of Israel compared to the large geographic size of Iran places them at a significant defensive disadvantage, along with the presence of "subversive" elements who would be entirely willing to commit violence against the IDF should they perceive that a diversion exists. Moreover, any act against the explicit desire of the current U.S. administration would not be in their interests.

As for the US having a "hegemonic" power over the Security Council, that Council is composed of five equal voting members, all with a veto. Two of whom are quite sympathetic to Iran's overt power play and violation of international order because they have simular agendas of their own, China and Russia.

Nope! Your conspiracy theories aside, that veto power has been used by the U.S. representative to a far greater extent than any other permanent member of the Security Council and has been used not only to block investigation or censure of ruling administrations here in the U.S., but also in Israel.

Aggie, you may feel comfortable with a theocratic tyranny having nuclear weapons but Israel is not, indeed neither are the Sunni Islamic states; you see unlike you, they can not rely on self rightous ideology or arcane political theory that bares little relastionship to reality for survival. They do not have the luxery of those without power, responsibility or influence. They have to act in the real world.

We again see the emergence of your apparent belief that the Iranian government is irrationally religiously fervent and will not hesitate to use nuclear attacks against other nations even if it results in their own destruction because they are willing to sacrifice their lives for Allah. It's a crude and primitive conception spawned from a deep ignorance of the various elements of Islam and its influence on the entire region. Never mind! Israel will gain only mutually assured destruction if they're foolish enough to unilaterally attack Iran.

So don't be suprised if Iranian democratic movement fails and then Israel strikes at Iran's nuclear program and if her Sunni neighbours protest lightly and wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Tell me, how do you simultaneously maintain your conception of a strong Sunni/Shi'a divide and a conception that the Iranian government is willing to smuggle nuclear weaponry to a Sunni, Arab jihadist militia that would not be accountable to them?

Those who were and still are convinced Bush went there for oil: The oil resources in Iraq are firmly in the hands of the Iraqi people, even to the unique and novel policy for the M.E. of it’s being an asset of the Iraqi people and not any regime.

That will not be the case so long as republicanism is the norm; a republican system does not constitute an establishment of legitimate "democracy." However, though I believe that the oil factor is only a partial element of the motivation for an invasion, it should not be denied that suspicious behavior in terms of seemingly unscrupulous policy formation has lent credence to that explanation to some degree. For example, consider Andrew E. Kramer's Deals with Iraq are set to bring oil giants back. As noted therein:

Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power...The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq's Oil Ministry.

Now, this development is almost precisely a year behind us. Have you been monitoring the circumstances of this?

 

[American Horse]

Those who were and still are convinced Bush went there for oil: The oil resources in Iraq are firmly in the hands of the Iraqi people, even to the unique and novel policy for the M.E. of it’s being an asset of the Iraqi people and not any regime.

Now, this development is almost precisely a year behind us. Have you been monitoring the circumstances of this?

FYI – I follow this stuff daily in the WSJ paper edition. I do not follow it online; so what I stated in only a few sentences you quoted which is also in the post directly above now needs to be backed up by a formidable amount of text with links: (I hope this is informative – please pay close attention to the text in bold)

Iraq unveils foreign oil contract shortlist - Times Online
June 10, 2009 – Alice Fordham, Baghdad

"Three British companies have been shortlisted to bid for contracts to work on Iraq's oil and gas fields, pitting themselves against 32 other non-Iraqi companies in a televised, two-day bidding procedure revealed at Baghdad's Oil Ministry.
BP, which provided technical assistance to the Iraqi state oil company in 2004-2006, BG International and Premier Oil were among the 120 companies who put themselves forward in June last year, and which now appear on the shortlist of 35 companies who are invited to submit proposals for consideration by a panel of experts at the Ministry.
Along with other oil majors including Exxonmobil and Total, they are due to present proposals on June 29 and 30 to work on one of six oil fields and two gas fields. It will be the first major foreign investment in Iraqi oil for 40 years, which has the world's third-largest oil reserves but needs massive foreign investment to resurrect the country's energy infrastructure.

The oil and gas fields are already operational. The agreements due to be awarded are service contracts, whereby companies provide technical assistance to increase capacity, and are paid according to how much production of oil or gas increases, rather than production contracts, where revenue is shared."​

AND:

Oil giants flock to Iraqi auction - Times Online

September 14, 2008 – Danny Fortson
"THE world’s largest oil companies will converge on London next month for a chance to re-enter Iraq for the first time in more than three decades.

In all, 34 oil companies, including BP, Royal Dutch Shell, BG, Exxonmobil, Gazprom and Sinopec, are expected to attend a roadshow held by Iraq’s oil minister Hussein al-Shahristani when he officially kicks off the bidding for so-called technical-service agreements.

These will govern exploitation of eight of the country’s largest fields.

At the event, scheduled for October 13, bidders will be given technical data on the sites in question — six giant oilfields including Kirkuk and West Qurna and two gasfields — bidding parameters and remuneration terms.

The opening of Iraq, which sits on the world’s third-largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Iran, has been eagerly awaited by the industry but has been repeatedly delayed by security concerns and political infighting that has held back a crucial hydrocarbons law. ​

But recent deals struck by the country’s oil ministry with Shell and China National Petroleum, despite the continuing political limbo of the hydrocarbons law, have raised expectations that oil companies will be welcomed back en masse for the first time since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The oil ministry called off talks on no-bid short-term advisory contracts this summer in place of the longer deals that feature in the new plan.

The oil ministry is not expected to award contracts for at least another six months, pushing back a previously announced plan to increase production by 500,000 barrels per day to 3m barrels by the end of this year.

The Kurdistan regional administration in northern Iraq has been signing contracts with foreign oil companies for more than two years, but has been unable to attract the largest firms who feared angering the federal government and getting shut out of auctions for the giant fields in the south.
Contracts will be fee-based rather than the industry’s preferred revenue-sharing model."

 

[oreo]

I don't think George Bush II had jackshit to do with this event.

I don't think Iraq is remotely inspiring the Iranians to protest their government.

The dissatisfaction the people in Iran are feeling for their "Supreme Leader" is homegrown, not American.

?


What struck me was comments made from a few young Iranians after our invasion of Iraq. When asked by reporters what they thought of the invasion: "They stated gleefully--"We hope we're next. They were actually hoping that we would invade Iran. " That was back in 2003/2004. As we are witnessing "freedom is really not free." And we as Americans--continually take our freedom for granted.

So I think the question should be:--How many Iranians wish they were Iraqi's about right now? And that answer would have everything to do with President Bush.

 

[American Horse]

What struck me was comments made from a few young Iranians after our invasion of Iraq. When asked by reporters what they thought of the invasion: "They stated gleefully--"We hope we're next. They were actually hoping that we would invade Iran. " That was back in 2003/2004. As we are witnessing "freedom is really not free." And we as Americans--continually take our freedom for granted.

So I think the question should be:--How many Iranians wish they were Iraqi's about right now? And that answer would have everything to do with President Bush.

I remember that very thing Oreo. Sadly the left, doesn't want that to be true....in the worst way, and I mean the very worst way....(we know why, even if they don't) Thanks for the reminder.
.

 

[MaggieMae]

Maggie, I was referring to current events, the current situation, and the current president.
.

Oh, sorry. I was thinking back to your OP, which stated this:

But it could easily be said that what’s happening in Iran right now is a direct result of the freedom in Iraq. We can pretty conclusively say that it would not be happening now, except for that. The change of Iran into a true democracy would also help us in a moral victory in Afghanistan over the Taliban, and everywhere over the Al Qaeda; who knows, even Pakistan would eventually be favorably influenced.

Although freedom and democracy were always a part of the Bush dialogue, the actual policy put forth in positions papers on how to get there was quite frightening.

Position papers, like battle plans, often have little to do with policy. Think of the party platforms.

That's right. And the Bush Doctrine (read the links provided) and the Obama Doctrine are at opposite ends. The first one hasn't worked out so well, so it's time for other options.

 

[MaggieMae]

Once again, I have nothing against the Jewish people.

But no, I don't believe in the official zionist holocaust story and the mythical 6 million missing jews.

Wow. I don't run across too many people like you, thankfully.

But I'll definitely be paying attention to your posts, sort of like studying a bug in a glass jar.

Go to Stormfront - White Nationalist Community

There are thousands of posts on the Holohoax and the Zionist fascist nation of Israhell

Of course there are. It's just sad that so many of you have been sucked into that idiocy.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't think George Bush II had jackshit to do with this event.

I don't think Iraq is remotely inspiring the Iranians to protest their government.

The dissatisfaction the people in Iran are feeling for their "Supreme Leader" is homegrown, not American.

?


What struck me was comments made from a few young Iranians after our invasion of Iraq. When asked by reporters what they thought of the invasion: "They stated gleefully--"We hope we're next. They were actually hoping that we would invade Iran. " That was back in 2003/2004. As we are witnessing "freedom is really not free." And we as Americans--continually take our freedom for granted.

So I think the question should be:--How many Iranians wish they were Iraqi's about right now? And that answer would have everything to do with President Bush.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Iranians are proud of their homeland, just as Iraqis are.

 

[MaggieMae]

What struck me was comments made from a few young Iranians after our invasion of Iraq. When asked by reporters what they thought of the invasion: "They stated gleefully--"We hope we're next. They were actually hoping that we would invade Iran. " That was back in 2003/2004. As we are witnessing "freedom is really not free." And we as Americans--continually take our freedom for granted.

So I think the question should be:--How many Iranians wish they were Iraqi's about right now? And that answer would have everything to do with President Bush.

I remember that very thing Oreo. Sadly the left, doesn't want that to be true....in the worst way, and I mean the very worst way....(we know why, even if they don't) Thanks for the reminder.
.

Well I'd sure like to see where that stupid story came from. An interview with a group of Iraqi teenagers that made front page news on Fox?

 

[sealybobo]

If Bush did anything, it was to make more Iranians rally behind Amadenijad. This is DESPITE Bush.

 

[sealybobo]

Bush also gave Amadenijad the idea on how to steal an election.

Only thing is Amadenijad wasn't smart enough to make it close. He was too obvious.

But just like Amadenijad's opponent lost his own city, Gore supposedly lost Tennessee? Wow, the similarities are eerie.

 

[elvis]

Bush also gave Amadenijad the idea on how to steal an election.

Only thing is Amadenijad wasn't smart enough to make it close. He was too obvious.

But just like Amadenijad's opponent lost his own city, Gore supposedly lost Tennessee? Wow, the similarities are eerie.

Yyyyyeah sure.

 

[DiveCon]

Bush also gave Amadenijad the idea on how to steal an election.

Only thing is Amadenijad wasn't smart enough to make it close. He was too obvious.

But just like Amadenijad's opponent lost his own city, Gore supposedly lost Tennessee? Wow, the similarities are eerie.

Yyyyyeah sure.

bobo the moron just keeps showing everyone just how much of a moron he is

 

[rhodescholar]

A Google search[/url] for the precise phrase "All of Israel should be destroyed and killed" reveals no results. Can you post a link or reference that confirms this statement?

Look I am not getting into a match here about this, the piece of iranian shit never tried to deny it, and decent human beings use language like: "I disagree with their government, I hate their leadership and think it is wrong," etc. Don't waste our time trying to smudge the lines of acceptable behaviour; one of your earlier posts was well-thought out, when you reverse course with something this stupid it makes one wonder if you are here to really discuss or fuck around.

If so, that would constitute a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty on the U.S.'s part where Iran has committed no violation,

It is well known that iran has severely violated several sections of the NPT, and just this week Baradei stated he believes they are seeking nuclear weapons.

Again, let's stop wasting time on nonsense, we're all well past this crap.

They're not going to launch an attack because the Netanyahu regime is not stupid and would be aware of the aforementioned factors and the danger of creating a threat to Israel.

If the regime survives intact, and decides that its fraudulent elective "victory" is a mandate for a harder line, I would give them days, perhaps hours, before the UK, Australian, US, French and Israeli forces pulverize the country, obliterating their military capacity and demolishing all known nuclear facilities. Troops would probably be stationed to render the Rep Guard and other illegitimate, criminal elements of the dead regime non-functional.

 

[rhodescholar]

This is a pile of crap and you know it - he clearly denied the Holocost even though he clearly knows that it happened. It is a matter of public record and the evidence is clear. Therefore he denies it ever happened because he supports the concept of murdering innocent woment and children just like Obama Bin Laden - in short he is a murdering coward. In addition he clearly advocated the destruction of Israel - that makes him a murdering coward

The real question is where the fuck does this little iranian turd even get off discussing either the holocaust, or israel - who is not even a neighbor?

This would be like the US coming out to deny the Potato Famine, or the Chinese Opium disasters, it is none of their fucking business.

Leftist idiots whine all day about US "imperialism," and then et REAL fucking quiet when one mentions iran's imperial adventures in Lebanon, Gaza, WB, Iraq, etc. Or if they are really stupid, they say: "it isn't iranians there, its locally grown movements, an insult to the intelligence of anyone over 6.

 

[rhodescholar]

I've already addressed the nature of his "Holocaust denial"; his stance is certainly at odds with historical reality, but it's motivated by a desire to counter what he perceives as exploitation of that historical reality by a hard-line lobby in the Israeli government. The rest of your post is hyperbolic drivel. Nowhere do you cite or attempt to defend the existence of the ludicrous "quote" that you evidently made up out of thin air.

Again, where does the iranian midget asshole get the right to even discuss it? WTF appointed him UN Commissioner of History to discuss it?

And why the fuck is iran given a pass to target anything with israel? Israel is not a neighbor of iran, israel has never attacked iran, yet iran seems to have a pass from so much of the (jew-hating) Left to be able to warn/threaten and physically attack israel using suicide bombers.

Israel is FAR away from iran, so only a moron accepts anything that the iranian dwarf has to say about israel.

 

[rhodescholar]

Not quite. The IAEA Board of Governors expressed opposition to the Iranian government's limits on some portions of their inspections, but that's merely an {blah blah blah} / The "proxy terror" movements that you refer to pose effectively no threat to Israel's existence or security.

Another post of this level of total idiocy, and you will be ignored. This shit makes Shogun look like a brilliant scholar, I am embarrassed for you, I thought you had more intelligence than this, I guess I was sorely mistaken.

The second sentence is stupid enough to warrant thoughts that you are here to troll...

 

[rhodescholar]

You're obviously referring to Hezbollah, but that group would likely not exist were it not for the IDF's ill-conceived 1982 invasion of Lebanon. You seem to be ignoring the reality that the "terrorism" you refer to would not exist were it not for IDF instigation.

As I've explained to you previously, Supreme Leader Khameini has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weaponry. {rest of garbage deleted}

I'm sorry folks, but I can see why this person was banned from the other forum; he is an idiot AND a troll, not an appealing person to debate with.

Sigh, not everyone in a forum can be a quality person...

 

[rhodescholar]

I'm not familiar with any organization known as the "IEAE," but even the reports of their own Board of Governors are far less severe than you would assert them to be. For example, consider their .....

Agna posts in this thread can be summed up from Harvey Keitel's line in the "Two Jakes":

"You may think you know what is going on, but you really don't."

 

[Sunni Man]

You are a total joke Rhodes

Rarely is this board graced with such a Bozo of your caliber