WN: Iran vows no nuclear concessions - BBC

[WorthyNewsBot]

Iran will not "retreat one iota" in its nuclear activities, its president says, in his first reaction to a new call for Tehran to end uranium enrichment.

http://www.worthynews.com/news/newsvote-bb...st-7520854-stm/

[Guest]

Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep. Psalms 121:4

[LadyRaven]

While we can make it really politically uncomfortable for anyone to give Iran nuclear information and material, we can't stop a sovereign nation from doing as it wishes. Seriously, what are we going to do, bomb everyone we dont like? Isn't that a dangerous foreign policy?

[O'Dannyboy]

While we can make it really politically uncomfortable for anyone to give Iran nuclear information and material, we can't stop a sovereign nation from doing as it wishes. Seriously, what are we going to do, bomb everyone we dont like? Isn't that a dangerous foreign policy?

It's not a matter of like or dislike. Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel and supports several terrorist organizations. They cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons and so they cannot be allowed to acquire them. Period.

[LadyRaven]

While we can make it really politically uncomfortable for anyone to give Iran nuclear information and material, we can't stop a sovereign nation from doing as it wishes. Seriously, what are we going to do, bomb everyone we dont like? Isn't that a dangerous foreign policy?

It's not a matter of like or dislike. Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel and supports several terrorist organizations. They cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons and so they cannot be allowed to acquire them. Period.

And what are you advocating? We have enough trouble with the wars we're ALREADY involved in. It is bad foreign policy to go about bombing everyone, preemptive war is not good doctrine for foreign policy.

[O'Dannyboy]

While we can make it really politically uncomfortable for anyone to give Iran nuclear information and material, we can't stop a sovereign nation from doing as it wishes. Seriously, what are we going to do, bomb everyone we dont like? Isn't that a dangerous foreign policy?

It's not a matter of like or dislike. Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel and supports several terrorist organizations. They cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons and so they cannot be allowed to acquire them. Period.

And what are you advocating? We have enough trouble with the wars we're ALREADY involved in. It is bad foreign policy to go about bombing everyone, preemptive war is not good doctrine for foreign policy.

Please choose your words more carefully. We are not, nor have we, gone about "bombing everyone". We are not, nor have we bombed anyone because we didn't like them. Our leaders motives have not been so maligned as you are alluding. We went to to Iraq under false pretenses based on intelligence designed by the Iraqi government to deter Iran. This was a mistake.

Boss just got back. Will reedit and finish my post when I get home.

[LadyRaven]

While we can make it really politically uncomfortable for anyone to give Iran nuclear information and material, we can't stop a sovereign nation from doing as it wishes. Seriously, what are we going to do, bomb everyone we dont like? Isn't that a dangerous foreign policy?

It's not a matter of like or dislike. Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel and supports several terrorist organizations. They cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons and so they cannot be allowed to acquire them. Period.

And what are you advocating? We have enough trouble with the wars we're ALREADY involved in. It is bad foreign policy to go about bombing everyone, preemptive war is not good doctrine for foreign policy.

Please choose your words more carefully. We are not, nor have we, gone about "bombing everyone". We are not, nor have we bombed anyone because we didn't like them. Our leaders motives have not been so maligned as you are alluding. We went to to Iraq under false pretenses based on intelligence designed by the Iraqi government to deter Iran. This was a mistake.

Boss just got back. Will reedit and finish my post when I get home.

Apparently you have misread my motives and the meaning behind the post. I have been told that I talk above the intellectual level of most people and I do not wish to make others feel stupid because they haven't been exposed to the vocab I tend to use. So I attempted a more casual approach. Sorry if you interpreted that as being flippant or malicious.

When I say that I don't like the leader of Iran, it does not mean that I find his personality displeasing as I do not know him. Continuing this line of reasoning, no matter how much international hobnobbing occurs, it is impossible for our ambassadors and leaders to adequately ascertain his true personality either. Therefore, foreign policy would never, by definition, be based on a literal dislike of it. Ergo, the phrase must be a figure of speech and therefore not a threat to the character and motives of our leaders. It follows then, that it is a figure of speech indicating our leaders deem his foreign and domestic policies ghastly in a concise yet casual manner.

Second, as for 'bombing everyone' ... based on the twin gulf wars, apparently, bombing is the preferred strategy of initial strikes during war. As we know, in common usage the term everyone is a figure of speech which does not literally indicate each and every one (as in when your child comes home and asserts that 'everyone' hates him). "Bombing everyone" then

is an expression which describes the doctrine of preemptive warfare within the construct of casual, figurative language and not a statement of literal, provable fact.

This dreadful doctrine is a new phenom associated only with this reckless administration. It dictates that it is right, proper and beneficial to take military action against any nation assumed to be a rogue or a threat before any damage can be done to US interests. Threats need not be overt acts taken in the present or past, but those which may be taken at some time in the future. These implied threats do not need to be followed by any concrete action directed against the US in particular but need only exist as a reasonable possibility.

Therefore, in my own figurative way, I indicated that I find it inappropriate to make preemptive strikes against rogue nations or those whose policies are appalling in the absence of a concrete, literal threat directed against the United States in particular. Implied threats, even those who seem clear and hostile, not accompanied by actions do not qualify.

The doctrine of preemptive warfare is as appalling as Iran's attitude on the world stage, except that Iran has yet to make good on any of it's posturing, whereas the US has done so. In the recent past, Khrushchev beat his shoes about and declared "we will bury you." Various other threats against the free world were made during that time, yet wiser minds did not attempt to meddle in Soviet foreign or domestic policy outright. Instead, the cold war was a war of wits, no US blood was ever shed over Mr K's antics.

It is my fear that while we are already stretched to our limits, proponents of Bush's doctrine will manipulate Iran until they assert their sovereignty by spreading nuclear warheads around their desert. This current crop of politicos do not have the finesse of Kennedy and Reagan; and I do not believe preemptive war to be the answer to Iran any more than it was in the predicament with Khrushchev's shoe.

[O'Dannyboy]

While we can make it really politically uncomfortable for anyone to give Iran nuclear information and material, we can't stop a sovereign nation from doing as it wishes. Seriously, what are we going to do, bomb everyone we dont like? Isn't that a dangerous foreign policy?

It's not a matter of like or dislike. Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel and supports several terrorist organizations. They cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons and so they cannot be allowed to acquire them. Period.

And what are you advocating? We have enough trouble with the wars we're ALREADY involved in. It is bad foreign policy to go about bombing everyone, preemptive war is not good doctrine for foreign policy.

Please choose your words more carefully. We are not, nor have we, gone about "bombing everyone". We are not, nor have we bombed anyone because we didn't like them. Our leaders motives have not been so maligned as you are alluding. We went to to Iraq under false pretenses based on intelligence designed by the Iraqi government to deter Iran. This was a mistake.

Boss just got back. Will reedit and finish my post when I get home.

Apparently you have misread my motives and the meaning behind the post. I have been told that I talk above the intellectual level of most people and I do not wish to make others feel stupid because they haven't been exposed to the vocab I tend to use. So I attempted a more casual approach. Sorry if you interpreted that as being flippant or malicious.

When I say that I don't like the leader of Iran, it does not mean that I find his personality displeasing as I do not know him. Continuing this line of reasoning, no matter how much international hobnobbing occurs, it is impossible for our ambassadors and leaders to adequately ascertain his true personality either. Therefore, foreign policy would never, by definition, be based on a literal dislike of it. Ergo, the phrase must be a figure of speech and therefore not a threat to the character and motives of our leaders. It follows then, that it is a figure of speech indicating our leaders deem his foreign and domestic policies ghastly in a concise yet casual manner.

Second, as for 'bombing everyone' ... based on the twin gulf wars, apparently, bombing is the preferred strategy of initial strikes during war. As we know, in common usage the term everyone is a figure of speech which does not literally indicate each and every one (as in when your child comes home and asserts that 'everyone' hates him). "Bombing everyone" then

is an expression which describes the doctrine of preemptive warfare within the construct of casual, figurative language and not a statement of literal, provable fact.

This dreadful doctrine is a new phenom associated only with this reckless administration. It dictates that it is right, proper and beneficial to take military action against any nation assumed to be a rogue or a threat before any damage can be done to US interests. Threats need not be overt acts taken in the present or past, but those which may be taken at some time in the future. These implied threats do not need to be followed by any concrete action directed against the US in particular but need only exist as a reasonable possibility.

Therefore, in my own figurative way, I indicated that I find it inappropriate to make preemptive strikes against rogue nations or those whose policies are appalling in the absence of a concrete, literal threat directed against the United States in particular. Implied threats, even those who seem clear and hostile, not accompanied by actions do not qualify.

The doctrine of preemptive warfare is as appalling as Iran's attitude on the world stage, except that Iran has yet to make good on any of it's posturing, whereas the US has done so. In the recent past, Khrushchev beat his shoes about and declared "we will bury you." Various other threats against the free world were made during that time, yet wiser minds did not attempt to meddle in Soviet foreign or domestic policy outright. Instead, the cold war was a war of wits, no US blood was ever shed over Mr K's antics.

It is my fear that while we are already stretched to our limits, proponents of Bush's doctrine will manipulate Iran until they assert their sovereignty by spreading nuclear warheads around their desert. This current crop of politicos do not have the finesse of Kennedy and Reagan; and I do not believe preemptive war to be the answer to Iran any more than it was in the predicament with Khrushchev's shoe.

I see what your saying. I understand and share your concern that there is the potential to "jump the gun" as we did in our latest invasion of Iraq. There must be a verifiable, not percieved, threat to U.S. allies and or interests before such a colossal mistake is made again. However, we cannot ignore the fact that Iran has both the delivery systems and fuel to create nuclear weapons. The only thing that has not been verified is whether or not they have managed to design and build the warheads. It has already been discovered that Iran has aquired certain information related to nuclear warheads and so we must assume they intend to build them or else they would not have bothered to aquire the information to begin with. Considering the undeniable animous Iran, not just it's president, has towards the west and Isreal it would be in our best interests to hesitate or give them the impression that we are not prepared to make true on our promises. I realise it's all political posturing and on either side there is the inavitable propagandizing to consider.

I agree our invasion of Iraq was "reckless" but I would not label this administration as reckless based on this one incident. I believe they understand all too well the dangers of acting hastily in such matters. I also believe they understand the capacities of our military better than we do. It should be noted that there would be no ground campaign in Iran and so we would not be found lacking in that department. The primary concern would be for their safety should they become targets for Iran. I believe this adminsitration is doing it's very best to negociate with Iran and has shown a great deal of restraint. As McCain recently indicated, tougher sancions are needed. There is still hope that with enough sanctions and a big enough carrot on the stick they will come around. However, they have been playing this game for many years now and while the world is being patient with Iran it cannot afford to drag it's heals while Iran continues to develope the technology necessary to build such weapons. One way or another this WILL come to a head and wether we like it or not it is likely to end the same way. The only difference is going to be who flinches first.

[LadyRaven]

I see what your saying. I understand and share your concern that there is the potential to "jump the gun" as we did in our latest invasion of Iraq. There must be a verifiable, not percieved, threat to U.S. allies and or interests before such a colossal mistake is made again. However, we cannot ignore the fact that Iran has both the delivery systems and fuel to create nuclear weapons. The only thing that has not been verified is whether or not they have managed to design and build the warheads. It has already been discovered that Iran has aquired certain information related to nuclear warheads and so we must assume they intend to build them or else they would not have bothered to aquire the information to begin with. Considering the undeniable animous Iran, not just it's president, has towards the west and Isreal it would be in our best interests to hesitate or give them the impression that we are not prepared to make true on our promises. I realise it's all political posturing and on either side there is the inavitable propagandizing to consider.

I agree that Iran does intend to build nuclear war materials eventually. Pakistan is a nuclear nation and at the moment under attack by Islamic fundamentalists. Should Pakistan surrender to extremism, Iran could very well be handed what it needs on a silver platter. There is also a populace inside Iran which shares the vision of it's leader, and those who do not are not exactly free to contradict the man who says he was called by God to usher in the Islamic Messiah. This is very similar to the Cold War, except that the Soviet Union already had the nukes.

I agree our invasion of Iraq was "reckless" but I would not label this administration as reckless based on this one incident.

I am not, I believe the president and the administration to be reckless based on many factors, the most important of which is the constant mistreatment/disregard for the constitution. The man himself called it a (deleted cuss words)piece of paper. This makes him, by definition, lawless. And that is reckless at the very least.

I believe they understand all too well the dangers of acting hastily in such matters. I also believe they understand the capacities of our military better than we do. It should be noted that there would be no ground campaign in Iran and so we would not be found lacking in that department. The primary concern would be for their safety should they become targets for Iran. I believe this adminsitration is doing it's very best to negociate with Iran and has shown a great deal of restraint.

If one remembers what led up to the Iraq war, it could be said that the administration showed 'a great deal of restraint' because it was quite a while before we invaded. Inspectors came and went at least twice and I dont remember exactly anymore but I believe it was several months after we threatened direct action before the troops were even deployed.

The UN is involved, just as it was with Iraq, which makes the precedent worse because we did not invade Iraq due to anything with Al Quieda, we invaded because Saddam declared Iraq was sovereign and not obligated to UN directives. And he was correct, just as broken clocks are right twice a day. Iran has already stated a similar stance, so to avoid any sort of attack, the administration would have to acquiesce to that concept, something it is likely not willing to do.

As McCain recently indicated, tougher sancions are needed. There is still hope that with enough sanctions and a big enough carrot on the stick they will come around. However, they have been playing this game for many years now and while the world is being patient with Iran it cannot afford to drag it's heals while Iran continues to develope the technology necessary to build such weapons. One way or another this WILL come to a head and wether we like it or not it is likely to end the same way. The only difference is going to be who flinches first.

Mr McCain places too much faith in the United Nations and not enough where it belongs. UN sanctions do not work, which is not necessarily a bad outcome. The United Nations should not be seen as the final authority on world affairs as it does not have the moral or practical wherewithal to be such. It is a front for a single world government world power grab by people who think they know better than the rest of us and deserve the power. It is based on a flawed ideal and has become so corrupt it is past being a joke.

In the end, we can only hope that someone gets into the White House, backed by a decent Congress, that understands the concept of national sovereignty and applies it well. This person would also need to have the grit to dance the same dance we danced during the Cold War. I do not see that, unfortunately, in any of the candidates still at the plate.