Iran slams Obama's nuclear vow as 'unacceptable'

[Psycho4Bud]

Iran's foreign ministry on Thursday slammed US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's pledge to work to "eliminate" the threat posed by Tehran as "unacceptable" and biased.

"It is undeniable that the nature of the Iranian nuclear programme is peaceful," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said, quoted by the official IRNA news agency.

"These comments are certainly one-sided and unreal, and are completely contrary to the nature of the Iranian peaceful nuclear programme and thus unacceptable," he added.

Obama vowed on Wednesday that he would work to "eliminate" the threat posed by Iran to world security.

"The danger from Iran is grave and real and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," he told the influential pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC).

He added that he would do "everything" to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

"The Iranian regime supports violent extremes. And challenges across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race," he told AIPAC's annual meeting in Washington.

Iran and the United States have not had diplomatic relations since 1980 after Islamist students stormed the US mission in Tehran holding diplomats hostage for more than a year.

Washington accuses Iran of seeking nuclear weapon, a charge vehemently denied by Tehran which says its atomic programme is solely intended for generating electricity for its fast-growing population.
IC Publications

Well he spoke tough and got the same response as all the rest out of Iran....I'm SURE if elected though Iran will quiver out of fear and respect.

Have a good one!:s4:

Psycho4Bud Reviewed by Psycho4Bud on 06-05-2008. Iran slams Obama's nuclear vow as 'unacceptable' Iran's foreign ministry on Thursday slammed US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's pledge to work to "eliminate" the threat posed by Tehran as "unacceptable" and biased. "It is undeniable that the nature of the Iranian nuclear programme is peaceful," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said, quoted by the official IRNA news agency. "These comments are certainly one-sided and unreal, and are completely contrary to the nature of the Iranian peaceful nuclear Rating: 5

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

So you expect some heroic candidate to arise, promise disarmament of Iran, and Tehran will quiver in fear and respect? Honestly man, the guy can't even agree with your stances and catch a break.

[Dream of the iris]

Well of course Obama's gonna say that to the AIPAC. He wants all the support he can get. Most politicians move with the general consensus (for the exception of some like Bush), and the bottom line is, most people in America are so war torn from the Iraq War we really don't want to get into another war, especially since we probably won't be able to afford it in the next few years. Personally I think he's just saying it to gain support from others and even if he truely is for a war with Iran, it's gonna be rather hard for him to gain the support he needs to at least continue with it.

[dragonrider]

So you expect some heroic candidate to arise, promise disarmament of Iran, and Tehran will quiver in fear and respect? Honestly man, the guy can't even agree with your stances and catch a break.

Exactly. I'm not sure what the criticism is here...

[Psycho4Bud]

I thought the time for tough rhetoric was gone and a new age of "change" was going to happen from diplomacy? Dream of the iris put it VERY well with this statement: "Well of course Obama's gonna say that to the AIPAC."

Barack Obama's original answer seemed crystal clear: last July, asked whether he would meet with the "leaders" of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea "without precondition," during his first year as president, he quickly answered yes.

"I would," Obama, D-Ill., said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "And the reason is this: that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

Obama has not renounced his commitment to meet directly with the leaders of rogue nations, including Iran. But in recent weeks, his top aides and advisers have sought to add caveats to his promise
ABC News: Obama's Answer on Rogue Nations Evolves

How soon they forget. When he made this statement about no preconditions both Clinton and McCain said he was being naive. "Give the people what they want"......another way of saying "change"?

Have a good one!:s4:

[daihashi]

I hate to say it but the only way to make any sort of change happen in Iran is through the iranian people.

The Iranian government is so backwards. I wish I could remember some of the conversations I've had in detail with family members in Iran (I'm American.. Half iranian.. so my farsi sucks badly and I don't retain the info well).

Majority of the Iranian people however do want the government to change.

I think the only way to get what we're trying to achieve is to get another Shah type figure in power. The Shah shared many of the western sentiments on social reform, economic development and being a world influence.

What confuses me is how can Islamic relgious leaders be powerful enough to control a nation in which the majority doesn't agree with what they're doing.

edit: I just realized how hypocritical that last statement sounded as we have our own leader that the majority of the nation doesn't agree with. George W. Bush.. meh.

[Psycho4Bud]

I hate to say it but the only way to make any sort of change happen in Iran is through the iranian people.

The Iranian government is so backwards. I wish I could remember some of the conversations I've had in detail with family members in Iran (I'm American.. Half iranian.. so my farsi sucks badly and I don't retain the info well).

Majority of the Iranian people however do want the government to change.

We tend to usually agree on topics so maybe you can assist me with this one. Irans population is roughly 65 million with an estimated 1-20 million belonging to the Basij. Here's a bit of info I've found on them from numerous sources but I'll use this one:

The Basij have been criticised as belonging to the paramilitary forces using child soldiers because of their underage recruitment practices and for having relied extensively on "human wave" attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, particularly around Basra.[9][16] Many were used as cannon fodder and for mine-clearing.

[1]According to the UNHCR "tens of thousands of Basijis had been ordered to prowl about every factory, office and school to ensure that everyone adhered to the Islamic code. [...] After the summer 1992 riots Basij units were revived, rearmed and sent out into the streets to help enforce Islamic law. The Basijis are reportedly under the control of local mosques. It was further said that the Basijis set up checkpoints around the cities and stopped cars to sniff their occupant's breath for alcohol and check for women wearing make-up or travelling with a man not their close relative or husband. It was reported that the Law of Judicial Support for the Basijis, published in the Official Gazette No. 13946 of 8.10.1371 (December 1992), provided no redress against arbitrary detention by the Basijis." Iran's permanent representative to the U.N. denied these charges.[17]

Amnesty International claims that "investigations by Parliament and the National Security Council indicated that actions by Revolutionary Guard officials and Basij (Mobilization) forces, among others, precipitated the unrest and injuries following the July 1999 students demonstrations".[18]

Human Rights Watch has reported that the Basij belong to the "Parallel institutions" (nahad-e movazi), "the quasi-official organs of repression that have become increasingly open in crushing student protests, detaining activists, writers, and journalists in secret prisons, and threatening pro-democracy speakers and audiences at public events." Under the control of the Office of the Supreme Leader these groups set up arbitrary checkpoints around Tehran, uniformed police often refraining from directly confronting these plainclothes agents. "Illegal prisons, which are outside of the oversight of the National Prisons Office, are sites where political prisoners are abused, intimidated, and tortured with impunity." [19]

On 13 November 2006, Tohid Ghaffarzadeh, a student at Sabzevar University was reportedly killed by a Basij member at the University while Ghaffarzadeh was talking to his girlfriend. The killer reportedly approached Ghaffarzadeh and stabbed him with a knife explaining that what he did was according to his religious beliefs.
Basij - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can the people make "change" happen when a paramilitary group like this has such a stranglehold on the people? And also, how can foriegn visitors actually feel safe with this type of group on the prowl?

Have a good one!:s4:

[daihashi]

We tend to usually agree on topics so maybe you can assist me with this one. Irans population is roughly 65 million with an estimated 1-20 million belonging to the Basij. Here's a bit of info I've found on them from numerous sources but I'll use this one:

The Basij have been criticised as belonging to the paramilitary forces using child soldiers because of their underage recruitment practices and for having relied extensively on "human wave" attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, particularly around Basra.[9][16] Many were used as cannon fodder and for mine-clearing.

[1]According to the UNHCR "tens of thousands of Basijis had been ordered to prowl about every factory, office and school to ensure that everyone adhered to the Islamic code. [...] After the summer 1992 riots Basij units were revived, rearmed and sent out into the streets to help enforce Islamic law. The Basijis are reportedly under the control of local mosques. It was further said that the Basijis set up checkpoints around the cities and stopped cars to sniff their occupant's breath for alcohol and check for women wearing make-up or travelling with a man not their close relative or husband. It was reported that the Law of Judicial Support for the Basijis, published in the Official Gazette No. 13946 of 8.10.1371 (December 1992), provided no redress against arbitrary detention by the Basijis." Iran's permanent representative to the U.N. denied these charges.[17]

Amnesty International claims that "investigations by Parliament and the National Security Council indicated that actions by Revolutionary Guard officials and Basij (Mobilization) forces, among others, precipitated the unrest and injuries following the July 1999 students demonstrations".[18]

Human Rights Watch has reported that the Basij belong to the "Parallel institutions" (nahad-e movazi), "the quasi-official organs of repression that have become increasingly open in crushing student protests, detaining activists, writers, and journalists in secret prisons, and threatening pro-democracy speakers and audiences at public events." Under the control of the Office of the Supreme Leader these groups set up arbitrary checkpoints around Tehran, uniformed police often refraining from directly confronting these plainclothes agents. "Illegal prisons, which are outside of the oversight of the National Prisons Office, are sites where political prisoners are abused, intimidated, and tortured with impunity." [19]

On 13 November 2006, Tohid Ghaffarzadeh, a student at Sabzevar University was reportedly killed by a Basij member at the University while Ghaffarzadeh was talking to his girlfriend. The killer reportedly approached Ghaffarzadeh and stabbed him with a knife explaining that what he did was according to his religious beliefs.
Basij - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can the people make "change" happen when a paramilitary group like this has such a stranglehold on the people? And also, how can foriegn visitors actually feel safe with this type of group on the prowl?

Have a good one!:s4:

I understand where you're coming from and what you are saying. I guess I was trying to imply that an outside force would need to covertly overthrow this government.

And that if such an event did happen I guarantee the majority of the Iranian population would welcome it.

That's all I was trying to say in regards to that.

As far as foreign visitors.. I can't really answer this one with certainty. I can tell you that there is nothing to fear of the people themselves.

Having some Iranian heritage I'm obviously not really considered an outsider... but there are a number of Dutch, German, Swiss.. etc etc that work in Iran and walk the streets without being harassed or anything.

Many visitors try to abide by some of the customs in regards to clothing (long sleeve shirts.. etc etc).. but these foreigners don't have these rules FORCED on them. It's just considered polite I guess?

I couldn't give you a clearer answer just because there's not really a clear answer to the situation that was posed in that question.

The only other way to change a government is to overthrow it either through a covert op or through support of a group inside Iran's own country who will stand up and oppose the current regime. Which I am definitely in support of over the US going to war with Iran.

Looking at this from a pure news standpoint.... How can we feel safe on the streets with crips and bloods flinging bullets around in broad daylight on busy public streets?

How can we feel safe with police supported mafia?

How can we feel safe knowing that cults are manipulating people (we've had two here in texas in the last 15 years)?

What about with serial murderers or rapists?

Or even PETA for that matter (don't get me started on these guys).. their legal form of terrorism is horrible.

The point i'm trying to make with these examples is that these are all horrible things that happen here in the states. When looking at situations over in the middle east I try to look at it from how it ranks on the "Crazy" scale as opposed to looking at the fact that they usually do it out of religion. Because we have our own fanatics here in America, I know from personal expierence that the majority of those people in Iran are not like that one individual that the news article was written on. It is somewhat shocking news there as well. The only difference is that their government turns a blind eye from it if it's in the name of religion. The people do not agree.


I am really sorry for the scatter brained response. I'm in some physical pain today so I ate one of my emergency cookies and am a bit buzzed/ ADD right now, but regardless I think you can get the basic gist of my response


Sorry again.

[Dream of the iris]

P4B is right. The reason why the minority is controlling the majority is because of fear. And you're wrong daihashi . Bringing a Shah into power sounds like it would work but it wouldn't. Think about it. Yes the majority would love us and the new Shah but what about the 10 or 20 percent who feel their country is being corrupted by these western beliefs and practices? Its called terrorism and I gurentee you in a society like Iran it would probably end up being very similar to Iraq. We would come in everyone would be happy but then car bombs would start going off and people would start blowing themselves up. Then what? American soldiers get scared so they begin to act more rash....not to the terrorists who are convieniently hiding within its own people but to the people of Iran. Once the people of Iran begin to get affected by this liberation in a negative way, thats when you lose support from everyone and then you end up with people who hate you and more terrorists. To make matters worse unless we invaded right before they carried out their tests for a nuclear bomb, which is what would probably end up happening, we would be faced with an unstable Iraq like country with a nuclear bomb in their hands. Anyway that would be the least of my worries though because if you wanted to put a Shah in power that would mean at least some sort of attack on Iran that would probably lead to a war which we wouldn't win you know why? War torn soldiers, virtually no support from the American people, and the great incentive the Iranian people would have compared to us. I mean think about it, Iranians are fighting for their livelihoods whereas we would just be fighting because the government told us. And if this conflict went as long as Iraq did I gurentee you, that you would probably see some sort of limited selective service act which would ultimately lead to political suicide. Of course we wouldn't stay in the conflict that long because our economy is declining so we wouldn't even be able to afford it. Internationally its too hard to say exactly what would happen but I bet you we wouldn't get that much support, especially once it became another miserable failure. See that's the problem with getting into conflicts these days. We're so interconnected so one action affects millions. I don't think Obama nor any president will bring us to this point because they all know it would mean suicide for them. The only person who might do this is Bush but that's because at this point he really doesn't have that much to lose. But I agree with P4B when he says Obama isn't going to change anything. He might change something a little bit but you guys have to understand. Change, especially big change, doesn't just happen overnight and you can't necessarily depend on one leader to do the job. Obama is a politician and like every politician you have to be leery about him. Stop getting caught up in his words that he's spoon feeding you to get the vote. He'll do something like every other president but it might not necessarily be what everyone wants.....so get siked! This is gonna be an exciting ride!

[daihashi]

P4B is right. The reason why the minority is controlling the majority is because of fear. And you're wrong daihashi . Bringing a Shah into power sounds like it would work but it wouldn't. Think about it. Yes the majority would love us and the new Shah but what about the 10 or 20 percent who feel their country is being corrupted by these western beliefs and practices? Its called terrorism and I gurentee you in a society like Iran it would probably end up being very similar to Iraq. We would come in everyone would be happy but then car bombs would start going off and people would start blowing themselves up. Then what? American soldiers get scared so they begin to act more rash....not to the terrorists who are convieniently hiding within its own people but to the people of Iran. Once the people of Iran begin to get affected by this liberation in a negative way, thats when you lose support from everyone and then you end up with people who hate you and more terrorists. To make matters worse unless we invaded right before they carried out their tests for a nuclear bomb, which is what would probably end up happening, we would be faced with an unstable Iraq like country with a nuclear bomb in their hands. Anyway that would be the least of my worries though because if you wanted to put a Shah in power that would mean at least some sort of attack on Iran that would probably lead to a war which we wouldn't win you know why? War torn soldiers, virtually no support from the American people, and the great incentive the Iranian people would have compared to us. I mean think about it, Iranians are fighting for their livelihoods whereas we would just be fighting because the government told us. And if this conflict went as long as Iraq did I gurentee you, that you would probably see some sort of limited selective service act which would ultimately lead to political suicide. Of course we wouldn't stay in the conflict that long because our economy is declining so we wouldn't even be able to afford it. Internationally its too hard to say exactly what would happen but I bet you we wouldn't get that much support, especially once it became another miserable failure. See that's the problem with getting into conflicts these days. We're so interconnected so one action affects millions. I don't think Obama nor any president will bring us to this point because they all know it would mean suicide for them. The only person who might do this is Bush but that's because at this point he really doesn't have that much to lose. But I agree with P4B when he says Obama isn't going to change anything. He might change something a little bit but you guys have to understand. Change, especially big change, doesn't just happen overnight and you can't necessarily depend on one leader to do the job. Obama is a politician and like every politician you have to be leery about him. Stop getting caught up in his words that he's spoon feeding you to get the vote. He'll do something like every other president but it might not necessarily be what everyone wants.....so get siked! This is gonna be an exciting ride!

All I have to say is the following, and I would like you to re-read what you wrote after reading the following sayings/cliches out loud:

"You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

"You have to learn to crawl before you can walk"

So the question is in knowing this.. do you please that crazy fanatical 10-20%... or do you try to please the majority 80% and then try to combat the terrorism?


Secondly.. you are seriously overthinking the situation. Car bombs, Soldiers getting scared and acting rash. Aren't you getting detailed. A little too detailed. You have to learn to crawl before you can walk... Meaning a course of action has to be determined first before you can start thinking as far forward as you are.

First off I never suggested that we go to War with Iran. Obviously, if you've been reading ANY of my posts, I have personal reason for NOT wanting the US to invade Iran.

I simply stated my thoughts on what would make that region less hostile and make the people of that region more happy.

Lastly, if you've read any of my posts you'll know I do NOT support Barack Obama.

It's one thing to misinterpret information. It's another to label me falsely.