Obama: Iran has a "right" to nuclear energy

[Shogun]

Geithner Kowtows To Communist China | Sweetness & Light

A BLOG!?!?!





try again, homo.

A 'blog' that is commenting on a Reuters article. Respond to the response or don't. Straw man.

If a blog is YOUR standard for evidence then I guess it's clear why your kind fail so bad at science, flat earther.

 

[Shogun]

Hi rhodescholar. Mod here. You have been insulting others in your posts as well so spare me your whining bullshit. We are very pro free speech around here. If you can't hang in the jungle then I suggest you head back to the hannity forums, the "free"republic, or where ever the hell you came from.

WTH? How can someone even tell who is a moderator here?

I didn't say I had a problem with it, its just that for kennedy to question my insults while watching shogun curse over and over at people seemed more than a little absurd.

Clearly, you would have been the puppy that starved.

 

[Shogun]

Iran sits on a sea of oil and one of teh world's largest natural gas supplies.

They do not 'need' nuclear power at all.

such is not for you to decide.

My opinion counts as much as yours.

thats good.. because even MY opinion doesn't matter in regards to iranian domestic energy policy.

 

[Shogun]

taiwan....china demands we don't sell arms to taiwan...it doesn't matter if it is foreign or domestic, his claim was that NO country tells the US what to do...that is a false statement and if you really think it through, the reason many in the US don't want iran to have nuclear power is not that we want to tell them what to do with domestic policy, it is that they do not want iran to have nuclear weapons would as you know, is more about foreign policy.

Well we shouldn't be selling arms to anyone.

However, we are telling Iran what to do with it's domestic policy and we have no right to do so.

while i don't agree we should, we sure as hell do....its how the world works...if your neighbor is loud, you would ask them to turn the music or whatever down...what gives you the right to do that?

why shouldn't we sell arms to anyone? are you saying we don't have a right to?

again, national sovereignty. If America turns up its fucking stereo tell me how many complaints it would take from the likes of CUBA to get us to turn it down..

hold on.. .I got a blog...

 

[Shogun]

The US isnt planning genocide now is it?

perhaps you should ask a dead "they have weapons of mass destruction" civilian iraqi that question, tex.

Maybe you should learn what genocide means.

Rather, don't you mean the SELECTIVE APPLICATION THAT IS ONLY USED ON WHAT WE APPLY IT TO?

whatever you say, Walt Disney.

 

[Agnapostate]

Goddamn, soggy, multi-quote!.

 

[Shogun]

Iran are entitled to nuclear power...

I disagree... they have no intention of using it defensively...

and i kind of like tel aviv.

says the saber rattling, IM GONNA GET YOU zionist...

 

[Agnapostate]

I disagree... they have no intention of using it defensively...

and i kind of like tel aviv.

If you don't like it, perhaps you should pick a bone with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which grants Iran the right to peaceful development of a nuclear energy program...then again, what's the name of that country in the Middle East with the unauthorized nuclear weapons arsenal that they lied to American inspectors about the existence of?

 

[Gurdari]

So all nations are equal when it comes to national security and stability in regards to government infrastructure and control of nuclear facilities so that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands? Not to mention the financial status to provide the type of security and stability that's needed?

I think under law - all actors should be equal. As for the rest of your question, I was not eactly sure what you were asking. But, yeah - one standard is ideal, instead of 'our rules' and 'their rules'.

If you don't understand the 'rest of my question', then you aren't capable of addressing the issue as it needs to be addressed.

Just be clear... there's no harm in it. But regardless:

"Not to mention the financial status to provide the type of security and stability that's needed?"

Answer: No. Since nations do not have equal financial status.

 

[brewerboy]

Obama says Iran's energy concerns legitimate

LONDON -- President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy _ provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful.
In a BBC interview broadcast Tuesday, he also restated plans to pursue direct diplomacy with Tehran to encourage it set aside any ambitions for nuclear weapons it might harbor.
Iran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. But the U.S. and other Western governments accuse Tehran of seeking atomic weapons.
"What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations," Obama said, adding that the international community also "has a very real interest" in preventing a nuclear arms race.
The president has indicated a willingness to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it does not respond positively to U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama has said Tehran has until the end of the year to show it wants to engage with Washington.
"Although I don't want to put artificial time tables on that process, we do want to make sure that, by the end of this year, we've actually seen a serious process move forward. And I think that we can measure whether or not the Iranians are serious," Obama said.
Obama's interview offered a preview of a speech he is to deliver in Egypt this week, saying he hoped the address would warm relations between Americans and Muslims abroad.
"What we want to do is open a dialogue," Obama told the BBC. "You know, there are misapprehensions about the West, on the part of the Muslim world. And, obviously, there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."

If they can't/won't stop N. Korea, how we gonna stop Iran?

Fuck Israel. Let them deal with Iran. None of our business.

And fuck Americans fighting these bullshit wars. I saw a documentary on Mohamad Ali last night. He was sooo right. Why should a black man go to another country to kill brown men for the white man?

All wars are about rich people making a power grab. If Dick Cheney wants to go die for his cause, we can strap a fucking suicide bomb on his fat ass and let him blow himself up. That's what he asks our kids to do. Fuck the GOP and yes, Iran can have a nuke too. How many other countries have them? Fuck it!!!! They can't reach the USA.

Will you be saying the same about the Demos when its their turn to fuck shit up? Just curious is all.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Hmm, still no response from DavidS or Jillian for that matter.

Obama is NOT Israel friendly, he's way too European for that.

"too European.

not Israel friendly."

Americans don't know that Europe is not a country.

See how this works.

 

[Paulie]

I'm sorry, but when did the US decide what sovereign nations' specific rights are or aren't?

We can't even protect our OWN citizens' rights here, and we want to dictate what another country's rights are?

Give me a fucking break.

 

[rhodescholar]

I'm sorry, but when did the US decide what sovereign nations' specific rights are or aren't?

We can't even protect our OWN citizens' rights here, and we want to dictate what another country's rights are?

Give me a fucking break.

WTF does this issue have to do with "rights"?

Iran has directly murdered hundreds, if not thousands, of US troops in iraq.

Perhaps to you that doesn't matter, but for me and many other americans it does count for something - alot, actually.

 

[Article 15]

I'm sorry, but when did the US decide what sovereign nations' specific rights are or aren't?

We can't even protect our OWN citizens' rights here, and we want to dictate what another country's rights are?

Give me a fucking break.

WTF does this issue have to do with "rights"?

Iran has directly murdered hundreds, if not thousands, of US troops in iraq.

Perhaps to you that doesn't matter, but for me and many other americans it does count for something - alot, actually.

Directly, huh?

Got something to back that up?

 

[jreeves]

I'm sorry, but when did the US decide what sovereign nations' specific rights are or aren't?

We can't even protect our OWN citizens' rights here, and we want to dictate what another country's rights are?

Give me a fucking break.

WTF does this issue have to do with "rights"?

Iran has directly murdered hundreds, if not thousands, of US troops in iraq.

Perhaps to you that doesn't matter, but for me and many other americans it does count for something - alot, actually.

Directly, huh?

Got something to back that up?

Does it really matter if it is direct or indirect, as long as they are responsible for supplying terrorists weapons to kill American troops?

 

[Article 15]

WTF does this issue have to do with "rights"?

Iran has directly murdered hundreds, if not thousands, of US troops in iraq.

Perhaps to you that doesn't matter, but for me and many other americans it does count for something - alot, actually.

Directly, huh?

Got something to back that up?

Does it really matter if it is direct or indirect, as long as they are responsible for supplying terrorists weapons to kill American troops?

When you make the statement "directly murdered" it sure does.

And if you want to play the arms supplying game then the US is directly responsible for all sorts of murders all around the world.

 

[elvis]

Directly, huh?

Got something to back that up?

Does it really matter if it is direct or indirect, as long as they are responsible for supplying terrorists weapons to kill American troops?

When you make the statement "directly murdered" it sure does.

And if you want to play the arms supplying game then the US is directly responsible for all sorts of murders all around the world.

so because of that, we should continue to allow Iran to kill our troops, directly or otherwise?

 

[Article 15]

Does it really matter if it is direct or indirect, as long as they are responsible for supplying terrorists weapons to kill American troops?

When you make the statement "directly murdered" it sure does.

And if you want to play the arms supplying game then the US is directly responsible for all sorts of murders all around the world.

so because of that, we should continue to allow Iran to kill our troops, directly or
otherwise?

Where are you getting that from?

I think we should continue to do what we are already doing ... do our best to cut off arms supplies being funneled into Iraq from Iran.

Look, E, it's no secret that nations funnel arms to other nations during war time. We didn't go off and bomb Moscow during the cold war even though we knew they were supplying weapons were killing US soldiers now did we?

 

[elvis]

When you make the statement "directly murdered" it sure does.

And if you want to play the arms supplying game then the US is directly responsible for all sorts of murders all around the world.

so because of that, we should continue to allow Iran to kill our troops, directly or
otherwise?

Where are you getting that from?

I think we should continue to do what we are already doing ... do our best to cut off arms supplies being funneled into Iraq from Iran.

Look, E, it's no secret that nations funnel arms to other nations during war time. We didn't go off and bomb Moscow during the cold war even though we knew they were supplying weapons were killing US soldiers now did we?

We fought wars by proxy. Obviously the consequences of going after the Soviets were steeper than going after Iran.

 

[Article 15]

so because of that, we should continue to allow Iran to kill our troops, directly or
otherwise?

Where are you getting that from?

I think we should continue to do what we are already doing ... do our best to cut off arms supplies being funneled into Iraq from Iran.

Look, E, it's no secret that nations funnel arms to other nations during war time. We didn't go off and bomb Moscow during the cold war even though we knew they were supplying weapons were killing US soldiers now did we?

We fought wars by proxy. Obviously the consequences of going after the Soviets were steeper than going after Iran.

You don't think that the consequences of going after Iran aren't steep enough to balk at over some arms getting funneled into Iraq?

Dude, we hit Iran and you can kiss the progress made in Iraq good-bye.