Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Brazil’s enrichment program overshadowed by Iran’s

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Brazil’s enrichment program overshadowed by Iran’s
    Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 18:54

Saddam was contained and he was not able to kill any more kurds... And the UN and NATO largely knew that the Iraq war was based on bullcrap that is why the US had to go in with its coalition of the willing.

The Us also backs Azerbaijan with its pseudo democratic (vote rigging) fascist government, all international observers dubbed its elections last year as a farce, yet it gets no attention like Russia's ally Belarus, which has an almost identical type of governemnt, because Azerbaijan is a US bed fellow.



Edited by Zagros
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 19:13
what do you mean by contained? did he not have control over troops? the bullcrap being oil...but I still find that UN and NATO should have intervened, to depose saddam.

I think the US government has criticized the the Azeri elections. However when Aliev won, they did not press more since Azerbaijan is an oil-rcih country, which US didnt want to be under Russian influence. Belarus has no importance, albeit strategic. Alongside with the oil, US hopes to use Azerbaijan, in case war does take place with Iran. But its mostly oil diplomacy...

I doubt anyone in this board would support an anvasion of Iran, but as it has been said, Iran is not going to be allowed to get nuclear capacity, if not by US, then by Israel...sad, but true
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 19:16
well the only way is to nuke it or invade and since tehy will never know for sure whether iran is developing weapons. it would prove teh pouint that the US and Israel are teh aggressors. And no, Bush welcomed Aliyev's "re-election" - Aliyevb is even due in washington to meet bush later shortly.
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 19:26
well obviously, if US or Israel attack they will be the agressors...but would that matter? they would have already attacked. I seriously doubt US will attack, but Israel might, even without public support, chiefly because a nuclear Iran is a direct threat to Israel (under the Mullah regime).

Israel doesnt have the capacity in troops to invade. But is has air capacity to destroy known Iranian military bases...

for Aliev's re-election and the US response see below

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/11/29/20 03282195
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 19:36

Two faced response. His re-election was welcomed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/4908406.stm

With no foreign support, the opposition is powerless to continue.

And even worse for Murad and Emin... the US endorses the election results.

Back to Top
Jalisco Lancer View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2112
  Quote Jalisco Lancer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 19:55


Indeed the Brazilian nuclear program posses no threat to the region.
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 20:04
Well it only talks of the US gov't at the end, it says US endorses the government. However the endorsment comes after heavy criticism. But US has no choice but to endorse...since not  endorsing basically means not recognizing the government.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 20:09
Na, endorse means back or deem as acceptable. Which when considering the arms deals etc as just another side of the same american coin.
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 20:13
They get arms because Armenians get arms (albeit less).

And they have no choice but to accept the elections now, because there is no one else there to accept. Azerbaijan, unlike Georgia and Ukraine has a crushed opposition. But right after elections, they were very much so criticized. It too late to do anything about teh elections weeks after they took place, if there is no oppisition there, that you can fund.
Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
  Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 20:49

Originally posted by Jalisco Lancer



Indeed the Brazilian nuclear program posses no threat to the region.

south american and africa are the only two continents with no nukes. if one nation in any of them gets nukes, that will destabilise the whole region.

if brazil gets nukes, then venezuela, mexico, argentine, chile, etc... might also persue them.

its either nukes for nobody or nukes for everybody. there should be no double standards.

"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 21:12
would you want to have a Serbian government, that of 1995 to have nuke?

double standards are very much needed...
Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
  Quote Iranian41ife Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 21:44

the serbian government was not able to make nukes at the time, so no worries.

i wouldnt have wanted the soviet union to have nuke but they did and nothing happened. i dont want the UK to have nukes but they do and nothing has happened. i dont want North korea to have nukes but they do and nothing has happened....

why do we need double standards?????

"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
Mila View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
  Quote Mila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 21:55
I think it's both natural and at the same time unfair. I am, however, far less worried about Brazil's intentions than I am about the current Iranian government's intentions. Not every country deserves the same weaponry - it's not candy for kids in the 1950s. A lot of kids are too fat for candy these days, it's for their own good.
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
Back to Top
bg_turk View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2347
  Quote bg_turk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2006 at 22:06
Originally posted by Iranian41ife

the serbian government was not able to make nukes at the time, so no worries.

i wouldnt have wanted the soviet union to have nuke but they did and nothing happened. i dont want the UK to have nukes but they do and nothing has happened. i dont want North korea to have nukes but they do and nothing has happened....

why do we need double standards?????

we need the double standards because something will happen in the end and that will be indeed the end for most of us.

With this current trend of countries getting nuclear weapons - Israel, Pakistan, India, and now we have Brazil and Iran, I am becoming inreasingly worried that humanity will destroy itself through a nuclear war.

 

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 06:01

If Iran was after nuclear weapons it would have pulled out of the NPT when India and Pakistan went nuclear, it was the perfect excuse and it would have been exempt from any obligations. Indeed, if it had any ongoing covert programme it most definately would have done this. By the way 1998 was the year that the first Shahab 3 was successfully test launched.

Fact of the matter is, Iran is a religious nutjob country. With that said, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a Fatwa against nuclear weapons and infact was the one who canceled Iran's then on going energy programme, he did not however rule against nuclear energy, only weapons.  In shiism, everything is acceptable until it has been tried out and proven unacceptable, like nuclear weapons. Iran is at the forefront of stem cell research, because they went into it without moral inhibitions and have seen that its outcome is most definately positive.

These nutty muslims follow everything their leaders demand, so you can rest assured Iran is not developing nukes.

And Iran's current government is the same government it has had for the last 25 years.  The big Ayatollah has final say on everything, doesn't matter who his civil henchmen may be, whether Khatami, Rafsanjani or Ahmadinezhad.

Iran's last president promoted dialogue among nations and wanted to restore friendly ties with the US, did it happen?  Ahmadinezhad has said what he thinks should happen with regard to Israel, will it happen? No, because he is just a lacky without any military power.  If his words are to be taken so seriously, he has also said that Iran is a peaceful country and will never attack any other. 

I personally want Iran to have nukes for th simple reason that America is out to get it, no matter what if Iran, like I said, unequivocally proves it has no nukes, the US will still insist on sanctions because it will claim the opposite.  Iran must never cave in to the murderous PNAC zealots in DC, if it does, then it is doomed.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Just have a look at what their intentions are and look how many of the bastards are in the Bush admin, it was these guys that forced the war on Iraq on the ridiculous pretence of WMD.

After the 2000 election of George W. Bush, many of the PNAC's members were appointed to key positions within the new President's administration:

Name Department Title Remarks
Elliott Abrams National Security Council Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center
Richard Armitage Department of State (2001-2005) Deputy Secretary of State
John R. Bolton Department of State U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Previously served as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs in the first administration of GWB.
Richard Cheney Bush Administration Vice President PNAC Founder
Seth Cropsey Voice of America Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau
Paula Dobriansky Department of State Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
Francis Fukuyama President's Council on Bioethics Council Member Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University
Bruce Jackson U.S. Committee on NATO President
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Embassy Baghdad, Iraq U.S.Ambassador to Iraq Previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan from November 2003 to June 2005
Lewis Libby Bush Administration Chief of Staff for the Vice President Indicted by Grand Jury on charges of Obstruction of Justice, False Statements and Perjury and resigned October 28, 2005.
Peter W. Rodman Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Donald Rumsfeld Department of Defense Secretary of Defense PNAC founder and previously Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences Developer of Tamiflu
Randy Scheunemann U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute Member Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller Former V.P. of System Planning Corp.
Robert B. Zoellick Department of State Deputy Secretary of State Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001-2005);

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Ce ntury

Back to Top
Alborz View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 256
  Quote Alborz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 06:03

guys, this is all for our "liberation" remember?

"Who so shall worship Ahura Mazda, divine blessing will be upon him, both while living and when dead" Darius The Great
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 06:09
PNAC must be stopped before it destroys the world, americans have to elect democrats next time around or ww3 will be upon us.  that should give republicans enough time to weed these nazis out.

Edited by Zagros
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 12:49
I am not aware what the reason is that the Ayatollah chose to ban nukes, but he may whenever he wants un-ban them.  Right now, one man, the Ayatollah has way too much power.  If Iran does get nukes, and they still ave this regime, then with a mood swgin, or with a crazy new Ayatollah, Iran may attack any country.  In other countries, the nukes are more or less under the restrain of many people...

Edited by mamikon
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 18:41

He's dead. He can't unban them and fatwas are irrevocable except by the one who issued them. as was the ruling in Rushdie's case.

Either way, PNAC (AKA the neo-cons), as you can see is the problem, with their dominance in America's corridors of power is pursuing world domination, and at apparently any cost and under the same worn out pretence.



Edited by Zagros
Back to Top
Ponce de Leon View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Lonce De Peon

Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2967
  Quote Ponce de Leon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 18:51
I trust Brazil with its nuclear enrichment program far more than how Iran is handling its own program. I know that I am a little biased by saying that because I feel like I have more of a connection with Brazil because I am latino. But never-the-less Brazil is democratic, and is truly more responsive to UN demands than Iran is at present
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.