| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| 'Iran must not have a nuclear weapon' |
| 2006-03-01 |
| US President George W. Bush said Wednesday that if Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. On a surprise visit to Afghanistan, Bush said Iran should be allowed to have a civilian nuclear program, but that the "world is "Iran must not have a nuclear weapon," Bush said during a news conference in the Afghan capital of Kabul. "The most destabilizing thing that can happen in this region and the world is for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon." In Moscow, the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator said Wednesday that there was no need for Tehran to resume a moratorium on uranium enrichment activity, Russian news agencies reported. "A moratorium is necessary when there is something dangerous. But all our activities are Meanwhile, Russia's top diplomat reiterated Moscow's call for Iran to return to a moratorium on enriching uranium as a condition for taking part in a joint enrichment facility on Russian territory. "I do believe that a compromise that would not allow any violations of the nonproliferation agreement is possible," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters in Budapest, where President Vladimir Putin is on a state visit. "What is necessary is for Iran to come back to the moratorium, to accept the joint venture proposal as a package that would be supported by the members of the governors' board of the IAEA. I'm not saying that this is already decided." |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #18 Lol, Bobby! No. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-01 22:02 |
| #17 Boys! Boys! Can't we all just be friends? We all have two ears, but only one mouth. Does that suggest anything? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-03-01 21:59 |
| #16 I'll put it this way, .com. I'd rather that you continue to (wrongly) think I blindly hate Bush, than for you to leave Rantburg. Your input has been of extreme value to me in overcoming horsesh!t spewed by the mainstream media. Likewise, your tracing of exactly how radical Muslims come from moderate Muslims is pure gold. These are not compliments, they are facts. Your leaving Rantburg will only help our mutual enemies and hurt what Rantburg has to offer our friends. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-01 20:48 |
| #15 More disinformation. I know the MM's are after nuke weapons. Duh. Your post, despite the wowser length, is still the same manuevering I pointed out. Please, RBers - tell us what you think. Am I wrong that Zen trotted out his BDS here and has played the demogogue? If they say so, then I'll leave the 'Burg. Raphael's voice doesn't count, lol. He's got the same sort of truthy problem you do, Zen. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-01 20:35 |
| #14 You've attempted to: 1) substitute the nuke weapons programs for peaceful nuke technology Let's get this straight. You do not think that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons? If you do think so, how can you approve any concessions of nuclear technology to Iran in light of that? Iran's bellicose rhetoric alone disqualifies it from possession of nuclear technology. If you don't think so, you're your own worst enemy, but that's more of a your-own-problem thingy. 2) cast this as Bush appeasement I firmly believe that Bush is intelligent enough to know that Iran flat-out seeks nuclear weapons. Given this, the only appropriate stance is one that denies Iran all access to nuclear technology. Eff knows they've disqualified themselves on so many other levels that it is ridiculous. To permit Iran any retention of nuclear technology is to facilitate their continued clandestine pursuit of acquiring nuclear weapons. What part of this is unclear? no, make that total BDS Bullshit So, how do you reconcile your accusations of BDS with the complete absence upon my part of any calls for Bush to resign, be impeached or face charges for war crimes? Aren't those the hallmarks of such behavior? Or are you willing to just tar away with total disregard? I do not tar Bush with a broad brush, unlike so many of his detractors. I have very specific issues that I'm willing to address without all the hysteria and outright irrationality that liberals exhibit. 3) recast the argument by appealing to emotion and moral outrage. What part of seeking simple self-preservation and antagonism to Islamist atrocities qualifies as "appealing to emotion and moral outrage"? You have graduated to the New Aris. I'm confident that Aris and I disagree on enough topics where he might resent that. As for myself, I can only say that you've reduced yourself to name-calling which is something I generally eschew hereabouts. .com, you're working overtime to offend someone who actually agrees with a lot of what you say, even some of the more extreme atitudes that draw flack around here. No, you do not ask for any support from me. No, I don't seek to be your cheerleader. I just happen to think that identifying common ground is one hell of a lot more productive pursuit than the baseless vilification that's going on here. Personally, I feel that I have been more than clear about my positions to the point where accusations of sophistry are nothing short of hilarious. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-01 20:30 |
| #13 One of the hallmarks of demogoguery is to reframe the "debate", move it onto safer ground. Bonus points for recasting it in a moral or emotional light - much more gray area to maneuver. But Super-Duper bonus points if you can manage to exchange the incovenient terms for convenient ones. This you have done. You're a pro. You're an asshole for doing it, but plaudits for your BS skills. You've attempted to: 1) substitute the nuke weapons programs for peaceful nuke technology 2) cast this as Bush appeasement - which is demonstrably false... no, make that total BDS Bullshit 3) recast the argument by appealing to emotion and moral outrage. You have graduated to the New Aris. "And this is where Bush is totally off of the rails in appeasing Iran." This is what prompted the BDS response. He is not appeasing anyone - and you're a BDS-addled asshole. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-01 19:52 |
| #12 Zenster, your point would carry more weight if your whole world view wasn't based on blaming Bush. And what exactly do I blame Bush for? Please be more specific. Zenster makes a lot of good points, but he hates GWB because he is a Christian. How refreshing that, at least, you are more specific. Even if you are completely wrong. Please find a cite for this blatantly false statement or retract it immediately. Iran is a signee of the NPT. They are, indeed, entitled, due to this, to be "given" the info for peaceful nuke power technology. Fact. Fact, Iran has already stated its intent to violate the NPT (Muslim countries to be given nuclear technology, etc.) and thereby has forfeited its entitlement to possess nuclear technology. Threatening to wipe Israel off of the map sort of zooms them to the top of the denial list as well, or do you disagree? Finally, a consistent track record of obscuration, deceit, illegal acquisition and flat out lies makes Iran slightly less than worthy of possessing nuclear technology. Finally, for some reason, many of you seem unable to comprehend my concern over how badly Bush has eroded the separation of church and state in America. His recent flirtation with Intelligent Design should serve as adequate example if not the Office of Faith Based Giving. Do any of you recall me saying that "the best man won" the 2004 election? No? Go back and look in the archives, it's there. While I'll concede that some execution of foreign policy has been ham-fisted at best, I still remain staunchly behind most of how the global war on terror is being addressed. For obvious reasons, I feel that Bush's religiosity has marred his perspective on things like the cartoon crisis and the responsibility Islam bears in cleaning its own house. I also think that this administration has so blatantly ignored not just conflict-of-interest, but also even the appearance of conflict of interest as to be ridiculous. It is irresponsible in the extreme for the executive branch to ignore public perception in this respect. Question. Do any of you see me calling for Bush's resignation or impeachment? No you do not, because I do not feel there are any valid grounds for doing so. As to me hating Bush because he is a Christian, this is pure horesh!t. Either find where I have said so and cite it or withdraw such a totally false allegation. I defend freedom of religion every bit as much as any other fundamental right and have said so repeatedly. Yes, I have strong issues with fundamentalism because I feel it is the root of most terrorism and represents an inappropriately hidebound attitude with respect to religious practice. That is my opinion and it will not be easily changed. Nowhere do I expect Bush to be perfect. But he has also demonstrated a willful blindness towards his willing erosion of the separation of church and state which I view as largely treasonous. Personally, I think many of you seek some central point of disagreement so that you are not obliged to consider or think through my own points of view. So be it, it is a free country and thank goodness we can agree to disagree. Just don't look for a lot of respect out of me if you chose to disregard my positions because you elect to believe your own suppositions with respect to my stance. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-01 19:34 |
| #11 Lol! |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-03-01 19:22 |
| #10 Iran is a signee of the NPT. They are, indeed, entitled, due to this, to be "given" the info for peaceful nuke power technology. Fact. Zenster knows this - or should if he's going to pretend to be informed enough to preach his screeds, he's just letting his inner BDS child run wild and practicing his demogoguery skills. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-03-01 16:01 |
| #9 2b - Zenster makes a lot of good points, but he hates GWB because he is a Christian. Just take that into account when he posts. Most people have blind spots of one type or another. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-03-01 15:59 |
| #8 lopt - lol! Zenster, your point would carry more weight if your whole world view wasn't based on blaming Bush. The fact that he's not God, and like any other war time president doesn't always peform immaculately, doesn't mean that he isn' doing a good job. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-03-01 14:24 |
| #7 "all I'm saying is .... give head-in-the-sand a chance " |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-03-01 14:17 |
| #6 The biggest threat to world peace at the moment is the USA. Everyone knows it but you. |
| Posted by: Chans Omeating5673 2006-03-01 13:49 |
| #5 Bush said Iran should be allowed to have a civilian nuclear program And this is where Bush is totally off of the rails in appeasing Iran. Until Iran stops funding international terrorism, withdraws its threats to "wipe Israel off of the map" and renounces its intentions to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, they should not be allowed to have even enough isotopes to power a hospital x-ray machine. No nuclear power, no experimental equipment, no yellow cake, no uranium mines or purification facilities. NOTHING. Iran is the biggest threat to world peace since Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Why should they be appeased in any way shape or form? Bush is dead nuts wrong. I'd love to hear any arguements otherwise. Everyone here knows d@mn well that Iran will use whatever nuclear facilities it is allowed to retain for the purpose of building nuclear weapons. Their track record conclusively shows this and their rhetoric back this up. Any takers? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-01 12:58 |
| #4 try this instead |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-03-01 12:25 |
| #3 They should watch this movie and learn. link |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-03-01 12:21 |
| #2 and wage a vicious war darn, too much caffeine. Need to go burn it off. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-03-01 12:18 |
| #1 The most amazing aspect of this whole war is that the Russians do not see the monster that they are creating will undoubtably turn on them and a vicious war against them. Same mistake they made with Hitler. Must be some flaw in their society that they don't grasp the downside of feeding a lion and attempting to keep it as pet. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-03-01 12:17 |