Obama scoffs at Ahmadinejad's demand for apology

"Obama shot back that the regime should “think carefully” about answers owed to protesters it has arrested, bludgeoned and killed."

Exactly, Mr President, exactly.

I'm proud for Americans to have this fella leading the way.

I'm proud for Americans to have this fella leading the way.

Yes. I agree 100%. The US President's response has been measured, appropriate and sensible.

Good on Obama. It's obvious that the criticism of his first response got to him - or his handlers I should say - and he is getting tougher.

It's obvious that the criticism of his first response got to him - or his handlers I should say - and he is getting tougher.

Always a laugh from the peanut gallery. Does the term self-defeating ring a bell?

But seriously, so far deftly handled by the C-in-C.

"It's obvious that the criticism of his first response got to him"

Heh, sure. He's just furious the news got out he had an ice-cream after critisizing the Iranian situation.

Contrasting twitter feeds

http://patterico.com/2009/06/20/contrast-iranian-protestors-shot-as-obama-goes-for-ice-cream/

"It's obvious that the criticism of his first response got to him"

Heh, sure. He's just furious the news got out he had an ice-cream after critisizing the Iranian situation.

Ahh Adverts,

It wasn't just any old ice cream. The media. bless em in their continued hard hitting investigative coverage on Obama, gave us all the details.

He had Vanilla Custard with hot fudge and toasted almonds, his daughters Malia and Sascha just had Vanilla custard in a waffle cone. Oh and get this they also got "puppy pops" for the first dog.

I can see why you think he would be 'upset' with the Media on publishing this piece. I'd be upset to, reading it made me want to puke also.

I'm sure am glad I don't believe in that media bias thing when it comes to coverage on Obama.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/06/21/Obama-daughters-head-for-ice-cream/UPI-76471245601822/

Jeez sail, I thought pasqui just made the ice-cream thing up because as usual he didn't have an argument.

Savaging the CoC because he had an ice-cream shows to what new depths the beathless Obama Derranged crew have sunk......lower than a black-box's on that ill-fated Air Fance jet-liner.

Obama has handled the current Iranian situation with class - you've moaned for years about his lack of experience - his measured responses to the mullah's have shown him to be a world class diplomat and has refused them the right to blame this on the US......and the Iranians know it.

I'm sorry you're not adult enough to give the fella credit where it is certanly due.

A good response. I myself would have said something like, "On behalf of the United States government, I apologize to the Iranian people for the selfish and dishonorable act of overthrowing the legitimate Iranian government in the 1950s. Had America not done this terrible act, the people of Iran would not be suffering the oppression and death they now face from the horrible regime that replaced the horrible regime we helped install. People of Iran please accept my humblest apology and my God help you in your quest for the freedom from oppresion your current leaders are denying you."

Well, I guess that whole "dialogue" thing is off; better rescind those hot dog invitations... What, already done? Well, that takes care of that.

Madverts, I think sailwind is criticizing the media for its lack of serious critical reporting rather than Obama for eating and icecream.

BeaverCleaver:

I myself would have said something like, "On behalf of the United States government...

Gosh Beav, ya sure got an Ameri-centric view of the world there. Heck, it's like you think it's only when America intervenes that anything can change. Are ya tryin to say the people of Iran have had no chances since '53 to take matters into their hands? What gives?

Are ya tryin to say the people of Iran have had no chances since '53 to take matters into their hands?

Sure they did. And it finally happened in 1979.

I've seen the right-wingers on this board castigating Jimmy Carter for not giving the Shah solid U.S. backing which would have given him an unambiguous green light to slaughter, imprison and torture many thousands of ordinary Iranians protesting in the streets against his regime.

Heh, sure. He's just furious the news got out he had an ice-cream after critisizing the Iranian situation. Ahh Adverts,

Oh how evil President Obama goes and has ice cream with his children! This can not, he must be an evil man to do such a thing! Who would try and spend quality time with their children at a time like this?

He needs to be tied to his chair and forced to look like he is doing something! You know like Bush was! Bush was always at the White! Now that was a true red blooded American President!

Never did he take time to be with his family! He was one great red blooded American!

Sure President Obama has thousands of people monitor the situation. But darn it he is President Obama. We could understand him delegating work to his people if he were a red blooded American far right winger, but he is a Democrat.

President Obama needs to look back at President Bush as an example of a working President.

Spending time with his children! How can he do that? What a a bad man he is....

You guys on the far right need to wake up and realize that President Obama has tons of folks working for him. He can take some quality time for his family when he deems it.

Guess what, I know that what I about to say maybe hard to get. But he is in constant contact with all his people. I know , I know it is hard to understand that. But we are living in the 21st century, and he has many forms of technology at his disposal....

You guys have to be desperate to attack a man who tried to spend time with his family. Each time you guys post you look worse and worse...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must be shaking in his boots.

I would apologize to Ahmadinejad for being as screwed up as he is. Sorry about your scrambled brains dude...

Now just hold on a minute here. I was told that once Obama took office, the entire world would instantly love my country again, and all conflicts around the globe would immediately end. At least that is what the U.S. MSM and the global liberals said.

It's obvious that the criticism of his first response got to him

Heh, more like Obama's starting to wake up and realize all that brown nosing didn't work after all.

Yeah, sometimes it's necessary to reprimand a dog barking up the wrong trees. Iranian president simply doesn't like the US because he simply assumes that they are always instigating the whole world to talk shits about his country.

I was told that once Obama took office, the entire world would instantly love my country again, and all conflicts around the globe would immediately end.

teleprompter told you that, and he's just as full of beans as any right-winger.

It is rather shocking that President Obama has not yet apologized to the people of Iran. After all, he is an expert apologist and has stated that he does not want America to be used as a 'foil' for the mullahs. Now that he has interjected himself into the internal affairs of Iran (which just a few days ago he said he wasn't going to do) he will probably have to apologize for all of the bloodshed that he has helped to foment by not standing up for the protestors from the beginning. My guess is that Merkel told him to grow a pair and be a man for a change. His tone did change after her arrival in Washington.

oooh, obama scoffs. ahmadinejad must be quivering in his boots.

“We will not forget,” Merkel said.

We'll forget Turkey, but not Iran.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Saturday to make the U.S. regret its criticism of Iran's postelection crackdown and said the "mask has been removed" from the Obama administration's efforts to improve relations.

so much for quivering in his boots.

VOR, RRII, TP, Wolfpack and others join Ahmadinejad in scoffing at America.

more like taking great pleasure in Barrack "jimmy carter" Obama being taken to the woodshed.

VOR, you were one who criticized Carter for not giving unqualified U.S. support for the Shah to slaughter thousands of Iranians protesting in the streets, right?

yabits, what does ahmadinejad taking Obama to the woodshed have to do with things that took place over 30 years ago? time to get in the present man.

your barrack obama is looking rather weak.

Now just hold on a minute here. I was told that once Obama took office,

Yeah and you were also told that Saddam had yellow cake, WMDs and a whole lot of other make-believe.

Only children accept what they are told without question.

So predictable. Obama's gonna learn the lesson that when you reach out to Islamic nations, you get bit. At least I hope he'll figure it out.

Obama's handlers have really misplayed this one.

What a disaster.

So predictable. Obama's gonna learn the lesson that when you reach out to Islamic nations, you get bit. At least I hope he'll figure it out.

Or he could be setting the stage. Clearly he is different than Bush, why would he take on his mantle? Obama seems have provided Iran with a room and a rope to clarify in which direction they will go. Don't forget that not everyone in Iran supports the mullahs so it would be of strategic interest to signal America's larger intent if circumstances warrant it. Obviously they don't and Iran has taken this opportunity to place the rope around their own neck. Everyone in the world sees that.

Obama does not have to do very much at all. World opinion is moving away from Iran and it is more difficult for their allies to argue in their favour. Iran is isolating itself. By staying arms length away, Obama is placing America in a better position if a more robust response in required. Of course there are no guarantees, but there is method to the WH response to Iran.

Yabits you need to realize that is time both wings the left wing and the right are full of "beans", they are worthless for america, both wings no longer care about america they only care about gaining more power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbv8LRVRTaA

there is method to the WH response to Iran.

Actually, there isn't. It's fairly obvious that Obama's just winging it. Yet the libs have somehow convinced themselves, and attempted to convince others, that his response has been carefully planned out and timed.

Actually, there isn't. It's fairly obvious that Obama's just winging it.

Well, duh! Events are unfolding as we write. You say he's winging it, I say he is obviously responding to an unfolding crisis and recalibrating his initial stance.

Should he just send in the troops? Get mouthy? There are a not a lot of options right now. Unless you are hungry for more war...

Helter_Skelter said:

Actually, there isn't. It's fairly obvious that Obama's just winging it. Yet the libs have somehow convinced themselves, and attempted to convince others, that his response has been carefully planned out and timed.

In my opinion Helter_Skelter has no concern that more people could have been killed if Obama had said the same words earlier. He obviously doesn't care about the facts. It is apparent to everyone in the world now that Obama took the victory out of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hands. He tried to claim American responsibility and Obama's patience totally screwed Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad had to settle for claiming meddling when he so wanted to blame the whole thing on Obama.

The Iranian people just did not buy it. Now the idiots who tried to be the conservative American heroes are once again looking like amateurs. Remember these are the guys that fully supported Bush's cry of "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." wearing a flight suit on the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier during a televised address on May 1, 2003 with "Mission Accomplished" written on a huge banner. But United States President George W. Bush claimed the sign meant something else even though United States President George W. Bush clearly said "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." in the speech. On May 1, 2003, United States President George W. Bush became the first sitting President to make an arrested landing in a fixed-wing aircraft on an aircraft carrier when he arrived at the USS Abraham Lincoln in a Lockheed S-3 Viking, dubbed Navy One, as the carrier returned from combat operations in the Persian Gulf . He posed for photographs with pilots and members of the ship's crew while wearing a flight suit.

It was very important for me to paint the "hero mentality" that these conservatives thrive on. Most of them can't admit that Obama was correct in his approach with Iran and he achieve great results that have not yet finished bearing fruit. They can't admit it because they are to dumb to realize it. Many of them do not care one bit about a Muslim's life as we have all witnessed in their comments over a long span of time.

What we are talking about here is finesse and intellect. Some people just don't get it.

yabits: Just ignore VOR. Yesterday he was totally in love with Obama (since he said Obama's just like bush), and now he doesn't know WHAT to think.

Criticize him for supposedly being timid, criticize him for scoffing, the right-wing nuts just can't stop criticizing their superior C in C. They're still sore about the last election, and can only bring up the fact that he was eating ice cream while people were being shot in Iran, forgetting that the former C in C just couldn't put down a children's book while a couple of towers were being attacked in his own country. Such are the petty attacks and limited memories of the right-wingers on here.

Once again, good on Obama. Despite the right-wingers on here siding with the Iranian regime by criticizing Obama (by their own black and white logic), I think they don't really believe Obama is doing anything wrong.

Another thread where Obama's foreign-born defenders outnumber his American ones. And as I have said this means he is in trouble on the issue in question.

teleprompter said:

Another thread where Obama's foreign-born defenders outnumber his American ones. And as I have said this means he is in trouble on the issue in question.

You are a bellwether teleprompter. As long as you need to keep throwing out red herrings on an issue we know Obama in not in trouble on that issue.

As long as you need to keep throwing out red herrings on an issue we know Obama in not in trouble on that issue.

Don't you mean as long as we can keep throwing out George Bush on an issue Obama will always get a pass no matter what??

A real man can own up to his mistakes. Obama is a coward.

goodDonkey said"

fully supported Bush's cry of "In the Battle of Iraq...blah blah blah

We're talking about Iran, not Iraq. Obama is president, not Bush. Are you so devoid of arguments supporting Obama that all you can do is trash Bush?

What we are talking about here is finesse and intellect.

With Islamic fundamentalists who seek Sharia law, export terrorism, have holocaust-denial meetings, and are developing nukes? Ah yes, let's use finesse. LOL! The naivete of the left never ceases to amaze me. Talk about some people not getting it.

sailwind said:

Don't you mean as long as we can keep throwing out George Bush on an issue Obama will always get a pass no matter what??

Come on sailwind, you know you want Obama to do the heroic thing now don't you? Obams wasn't much of a hero on this issue now was he? He wasn't quick enough to proclaim "The whole world deserves freedom." It is obvious you care more about America being perceived as a hero than preserving the lives of the Iranian protesters.

I guess I just need to reiterate that I understand you sailwind. Obama will never reach HERO status in your eyes. Like I said: 'What we are talking about here is finesse and intellect. Some people just don't get it."

sailwind

Obama always gets a pass.

MEDIA BIAS !!!

Helter_Skelter

When did you ever care about Muslim lives?

Helter_Skelter said:

and are developing nukes?

Of course Helter doesn't want me to mention Bush. He mentions developing nukes but we are not allowed to mention just whose watch they were developed under. Real brainiac that Helter_Skelter is.

sailwind said:

Don't you mean as long as we can keep throwing out George Bush on an issue

I said a lot of things outside of George Bush in my comment. But you didn't. I know it is difficult to keep up. But then you never say much that isn't a headline on http://newsbusters.org/, about the media or about Bush.

I think my line of thought vary quite a bit more than yours do.

Your previous post:

The media. bless em in their continued hard hitting investigative coverage on Obama, gave us all the details.

But that is not the only thing you talk about; you also said this:

I can see why you think he would be 'upset' with the Media on publishing this piece. I'd be upset to, reading it made me want to puke also.

Then of course you brought up this subject:

I'm sure am glad I don't believe in that media bias thing when it comes to coverage on Obama.

So sailwind not only brings up Bush's name when I say it, but when others say it and I have heard him break his hard fast rule of never bringing up Bush by bringing up Bush when no one brought up Bush - BUT HIM. So I pale in caparison in bringing up Bush's name in light of sailwind's honorable mentions. By the way every time I bring up Bush it is in a different context. I think you will find sailwind's comments on Bush pertaining to others being allowed to mention the mere name, he has commented ad nauseum. Like I said before he thinks he can control us. We are NOT to bring up ANY history of the past 8 years. I have countless comments where I do not mention Bush. What is sailwind's percentage?

just whose watch they were developed under

Iran's nuclear ambitions go back decades with many presidents failing to recognize the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran, or doing anything about it. But all that matters now is what Obama is doing , which is essentially nothing. It's likely an Iranian nuclear test will occur during the Obama administration. But glad to see you at least recognize Iran is developing nukes. Most libs defend Iran's nuclear program as being for peaceful purposes only.

Like I said before he thinks he can control us.

Curses....outed before I can complete my evil Neo-Con plan to rule the world from my secret lair. Where is my evil minion Cheney to advise me now?????

I am still surprised that our dear friends on the far right have not come near as to support our nation and it's leader during this time of trouble.

The far right was willing to bend over backwards and do tricks at the slightest suggestion that the previous administration was doing any thing wrong when it came to foreign policy.

But the only thing that has changed is the party our President belongs to. Too bad the far right is so blinded by hate that they can not see the brilliance of his chess play.

Oh well, we now see the difference between a leader and those that want to lead.

sailwind at 03:51 PM JST - 28th June Like I said before he thinks he can control us. Curses....outed before I can complete my evil Neo-Con plan to rule the world from my secret lair. Where is my evil minion Cheney to advise me now?????

AHA! I knew it, I knew that you were the man behind the Neo-Con movement of the late 80's early 90's! Yes, yes I see it now......All this time you have been hiding behind the cloak of secrecy. All this time you have been plotting and planning....Yes, yes even....dare I say...controlling everything! AHA had to be!!!

AHHHHhhhhHHHhhhh I need to run and get my, Helter_Skelter protective aluminum cap, to make sure you can not read my thoughts!!!

Thank you for coming clean though, shows the kind of person you are....LOL

teleprompter at 01:20 PM JST - 28th June Another thread where Obama's foreign-born defenders outnumber his American ones. And as I have said this means he is in trouble on the issue in question.

So only good Americans are born in the United States? So let's say that I was born in Cuba and my family moved to America to escape Communism. Then I was raised in America, served in the Navy proudly was willing and still am willing to die for her.

Does this make me less of an American than let's say...hm... One that was born there?

Helter_Skelter said:

Iran's nuclear ambitions

Ambitions! Ambitions! Oh now it is ambitions. But before you said, "and are developing nukes?" How convenient to change the wording. You brought up DEVELOPING nukes and now you backpedal so fast you just past your ass. How typical.

But glad to see you at least recognize Iran is developing nukes

You are right I should have said fissile material. Because I sure as hell am not accepting any of your findings; I'll stick to what the CIA has reported. I know that you conservatives seem to have access to all this "outside" information that never quite pans out. That never reaches daylight. You can never provide sources to the rest of us.

Sorry, I'll just stick to the facts. I'll leave the constructed realism that is presented on JT to you charlatans and prevaricators.

When I said:

He mentions developing nukes but we are not allowed to mention just whose watch they were developed under.

It was a mistake on my part. I should have said:

"Of course Helter doesn't want me to mention Bush." Nukes can't be developed without fissile material. Helter wants to mention developing nukes but Iran did not even have fissile material before and of course he does not want us to mention the past 8 years in which they obtained fissile material.

I have no problem admitting that I was wrong by inferring they were developing nukes. I'll wait for the evidence.

Most libs defend Iran's nuclear program as being for peaceful purposes only.

To the extent that Iran's nuclear program is for power generation and not for bomb-building, it should be defended. After all, it was the U.S. that first supplied Iran with nuclear technology. Iran does need a program for power generation for the future -- there is no getting around that. Its leaders have declared that making nukes is against Islam.

There is a trend towards greater liberalism taking place in Iran, and this is something that U.S. hardline conservatives should appreciate. (Even if they can't do so at home.)

I think it's pretty universally accepted from the US right on down to the head of the IAEA that Iran's ultimate goal is to develop nuclear weapons.

Obama's calm has been, I must admit, commendable.

The televised images from citizen journalists in Iran of the crackdowns in Teheran and elsewhere and the revelations of Gov Sanford's affair combined to sink the 2 hour infomercial on Obamacare that ABC ("All Barack Channel") did from the White House, after having basically nationalized itself to better serve Dear Leader.

In spite of that I didn't notice Obama's brow to be furrowed in greater, more peevish consternation than usual. And he has been careful with the finger-pointing too,probably because A'jad does it a lot himself. His handlers do deserve credit on these points.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/weekend-opinionator-hawking-health-care-in-prime-time/

SuperLib said:

I think it's pretty universally accepted from the US right on down to the head of the IAEA that Iran's ultimate goal is to develop nuclear weapons.

Then you must know something that the factions in Iran don't know. You say "Iran's ultimate goal[;]" is that the overall will of all the people? If not then what portion of the people? Do you know what the Pragmatic Conservatives want? Rafsanjani has built a commanding coalition being part of those Pragmatic Conservatives. If you know what his position is on nuclear weapons then please tell us. It is easy to say what "Iran wants." But I am very interested in hearing you qualify that statement. I would also like to hear an IAEA quote. That should be pretty easy if it is universally accepted.

I am pretty well read and I never seem to be able to come across all the so called facts that are presented so easily on JT. I seem to have asked the right questions so I presume that sources will be forthcoming. Then I will be aware of those facts. I do not like to be rebuked when I present facts that have no validity so I refrain from presenting others beliefs as facts.

SuperLib at 07:16 PM JST - 28th June I think it's pretty universally accepted from the US right on down to the head of the IAEA that Iran's ultimate goal is to develop nuclear weapons.

We all know what they want.....But we must remember that they are not the only boys on the block with a WMD. If we are to insist that they disarm then we must also ask our friends to do the same....

How would you feel if the biggest baddest guy on in the play ground told you you could not mess with his friends? You would want some sort of M.A.D. in your pocket also.....

The middle East has more than enough nukes, is it not time to disarm?

This armament will not stop until weapon sales are controlled. But there is way too much cash to complain about that.

think it's pretty universally accepted from the US right on down to the head of the IAEA that Iran's ultimate goal is to develop nuclear weapons.

People can read the latest (June 17 of this year) briefing from the head of the IAEA and determine for themselves that the above statement is false.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2009/ebsp2009n007.html#iran

When some people claim "universal acceptance" of something that is clearly not you know they are simply bringing out their looney, hysterical side.

When some people claim "universal acceptance" of something that is clearly not you know they are simply bringing out their looney, hysterical side.

I never really thought Obama was a loony hysterical person myself.

Obama criticized Iranian leaders for "their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon" as well as for allegedly funding militant groups across the Middle East and directing "bellicose language" toward Israel.

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20090210_4714.php

Should I bold the their pursuit of a nuclear weapon part?

Or do you and goodDonkey have some better information on this then Obama's getting?

Side question: What is it with JT discussions being cut off along the left margin?

Obama did not claim that it is universally accepted that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. Obama did not claim that the IAEA accepts that Iran is developing a nuke. (Because the IAEA doesn't make that claim.)

Obama is certainly not a hysterical loon. The same can't be said for those claiming "universal acceptance" that Iran is on a track to build nuclear weapons.

goodDonkey: I would also like to hear an IAEA quote.

"The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says he believes Iran is mastering nuclear technology and it wants the option of a nuclear weapon."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8104388.stm

Yabits: When some people claim "universal acceptance" of something that is clearly not you know they are simply bringing out their looney, hysterical side.

It's universally accepted that Iran is going for nuclear technology in order to gain access to nuclear weapons.

Yabits: People can read the latest (June 17 of this year) briefing from the head of the IAEA and determine for themselves that the above statement is false. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2009/ebsp2009n007.html#iran

The above link provides insights as to why it's universally accepted that Iran's ultimate goal is nuclear weapons. They lack transparency. From the above link:

"Now I come to Iran. There has been a confidence deficit over a number of years because of undeclared enrichment activities"

Translation: Iran has been hiding nuclear activities. This runs contrary to peaceful energy production.

"The work plan clarified the enrichment programme in Iran, but because of the confidence deficit, we very much need the additional protocol. It´s not because it´s obligatory but because I need the additional protocol to be sure that there are no undeclared activities in Iran, as happened in the past."

Translation: Iran has lied in the past so the IAEA needs additional measures to verify.

"Why is there a rush now for Iran to build its enrichment capability in terms of industrial capacity? There is no commercial need for it right now."

Translation: The head of the IAEA is calling into question Iran's motives.

"I cannot tell you, "here is my accusation," without at least sharing with you the substance of the accusation and enabling you to mount a defence. But there is enough in these alleged studies to create concern in the minds of our professional inspectors, who work twenty-four hours a day on this issue."

Translation: Although he feels restricted that he cannot always reveal the source of the information that accuses Iran, there's enough information that he has concerns.

"Iran would benefit a lot from engaging in substantial dialogue on the alleged studies, on the procurement by the military establishment, on the manufacturing of nuclear-related equipment by the military establishment. We would be delighted if we can prove that these are fake. We have no agenda other than to prove the facts."

Translation: Iran could easily resolve the issues and accusations with more transparency, but since they refuse to do that the IAEA isn't able to make a conclusion either way. And not making a conclusion means nothing is verified.

It's absurd that there are people out there who believe that Iran's motivation is energy production. Countries developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes don't hide information from the IAEA. They don't lie to the IAEA. They don't build compatible military technology that's only used with nuclear weapons. They don't build nuclear power plants where there's no demand for them. Other countries (mostly Russia) have even offered to build the nuclear energy technology for Iran, but Iran has declined. They're willing to suffer through numerous sanctions instead of going through a verification process that could be done in a matter of days.

And they're doing all of this for peaceful nuclear energy? Sure. I wish them luck with their secret, unverified peaceful energy program and all of the needless sanctions that they've chosen to endure in order to get it.

sailwind, your link did not work.

Page Not Found

Sorry, the page that you were looking for cannot be found.

SuperLib leaves out a key passage:

"This could be fake, as in the case of Iraq, or it could have substance. We do not know."

(That does not look like "univeral acceptance" by the head of the IAEA.)

Translation: Iran may well be intentionally leaving aspects of its civilian nuclear program somewhat ambiguous in order to be used as a bargaining chip to, for example, get economic sanctions lifted. Deception is what Saddam used, and the Iranians could be employing the tactic as well. WE DO NOT KNOW.

The same people declaring that Saddam definitely had mass quantities of WMD, and that they knew the exact locations of same, are of the same ilk as those falsely declaring that it is universally accepted that Iran has a definite goal of producing nuclear weapons.

It was a false statement when SuperLie first wrote it, and it is no less a lie now.

It is universally accepted that the United States was completely wrong about Iraq's WMD, and ended up starting a war on false pretenses.

Now the same false accusers (and their toadies) who sold the Iraq fiasco are throwing out the big lie that it is universally accepted that Iran's nuclear program is directed to producing nuclear weapons.

The boy who cried Wolfowitz - Chapter Two.

Yabits: (That does not look like "univeral acceptance" by the head of the IAEA.)

I gave you a link to a video of the man himself saying he thinks Iran's ultimate goal is to get nuclear weapons. Is that not enough evidence that he thinks Iran's ultimate goal is to get nuclear weapons?

Yabits: Iran may well be intentionally leaving aspects of its civilian nuclear program somewhat ambiguous in order to be used as a bargaining chip to, for example, get economic sanctions lifted.

That makes no sense at all. The entire reason the sanctions are in place is because Iran is being ambiguous about their nuclear program. Iran could have the sanctions lifted tomorrow if they chose to cooperate with the IAEA. But they don't. And for a country with peaceful nuclear energy goals, their choice makes no sense at all.

Yabits: It is universally accepted that the United States was completely wrong about Iraq's WMD, and ended up starting a war on false pretenses.

Ah, I see. So we can just go ahead and throw out the words of the head of the IAEA all because you played the Iraq card. Why should we even bother having the man do his job at all? Any questions or concerns he could ever bring up can just be thrown out the window simply by mentioning the word "Iraq."

You're right that there are similarities with Iraq, but you miss the point entirely. Iraq refused to let any kind of verification take place with regards to their WMD program. Iran is doing the same. They're being purposefully ambiguous about their program, a charge you obviously support since you said so yourself, which is the entire reason why people believe they're up to no good. But you seem to have this absurd position that it's perfectly logical for Iran to choose a path of ambiguity and non-cooperation for their "peaceful" nuclear program.

the big lie that it is universally accepted that Iran's nuclear program is directed to producing nuclear weapons

Obama believes it, so you must think he's a dupe. Anyway, Iraq and Iran are different countries and the circumstances regarding the issue of WMDs are completely different. It appears libs lack the critical thinking skills necessary to differentiate the two. Iran has multiple nuclear reactor sites, over 3000 centrifuges, enough nuclear material to make multiple nukes, and a history of cooperation with A Q Khan.

Helter_Skelter said:

Iran has multiple nuclear reactor sites, over 3000 centrifuges

Dang, you are so clueless. Nuclear reactor sites are only used for producing energy. It is not a bomb making facility. With a nuclear reactor nuclear chain reactions are initiated, controlled, and sustained at a steady rate, as opposed to a nuclear bomb. So you are simply proving that they are going forward with nuclear energy production. "3000 centrifuges" - Centrifuges are used to make fissile material which is a must for a nuclear reactor (I am not real clear if fissionable material that is not fissile cannot also be used i.e.: all fissile material is fissionable but not all fissionable material is fissile).

Helter_Skelter has said nothing new here. We know enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear bombs. I would love to see his information on "multiple nuclear reactor sites". It would be glorious to have more information that supports energy production with enriched uranium. Multiple can just sound like so many. You got a number for those nuclear reactors?

SuperLib,

Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei brought up "the Iraq card" as you put it.

“Iran would benefit a lot from engaging in substantial dialogue on the alleged studies, on the procurement by the military establishment, on the manufacturing of nuclear-related equipment by the military establishment. We would be delighted if we can prove that these are fake. We have no agenda other than to prove the facts. This could be fake, as in the case of Iraq, or it could have substance. We do not know, but we are concerned “

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei mentions it again:

“That´s why we have to be very careful of what we say. I cannot say that a country is absolutely clean if I don´t have all the tools that allow me to do that. We learned from Iraq how jumping the gun can lead to total disaster. “

I asked for a link and you provided a link. But it is hardly a ringing endorsement of your statement. You went from "I think it's pretty universally accepted from the US right on down to the head of the IAEA that Iran's ultimate goal is to develop nuclear weapons." to another bold statement "It's universally accepted that Iran is going for nuclear technology in order to gain access to nuclear weapons."

Universally accepted has yet to be verified. You have submitted a man's opinion that he did not include in the IAEA report but a BBC interview.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, says the world must engage with Iran. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says he believes Iran is mastering nuclear technology and it wants the option of a nuclear weapon.

/

He was responding to Mr ElBaradei's comments, in which he called for engagement with Iran to remove the incentive for making a bomb.

/

"It is my gut feeling that Iran would like to have the technology to enable it to have nuclear weapons, if it decides to do so," Mr ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA

"But the ultimate aim of Iran, as I understand it, is they want to be recognized as a major power in the Middle East.

Quite different than “ultimate goal” being to develop nuclear weapons. It is also “his gut feeling” and his belief; these do not even sound like "universal acceptance," by him. These beliefs and gut feelings were not included in his report. Don't get me wrong I respect this man. Precisely because he clarifies that they are his feelings and beliefs. But more so because he produced an outstanding report that does not distort the truth. I think Ahmadinejad wants nuclear weapons but he is not the top boss in Iran. You use the term universally accepted and I have studied science far too much to accept such an endorsement with so little evidence. Even if Obama accepts it, it does not make it universally accepted. It may turn out to be entirely true but that does not mean that it was universally accepted at this point in time.

You say, "They don't build compatible military technology that's only used with nuclear weapons." This in reference to what countries seeking peaceful use of nuclear material do. But you have not presented any data that confirms technology only used with nuclear weapons. The only evidence provided thus far is fissile material that can be used in both applications. Once again it was Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, himself, Director General of the IAEA, that said:

“We have, in many cases, very limited authority. We don´t have the technology. We are very short of satellite imagery. In many cases, we don´t get it when we ask for it. We are not able to validate environmental particle analysis. These are issues at the heart of our independence and credibility."

I say that the situation cannot be easily understood if it can be understood at all. In reading Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei words I find him to be incredibly competent and absolutely truthful in his representations. I find it troubling that you found it necessary to "translate" his words.

Does Iran have the right to produce nuclear energy? He said:

“Enrichment is, of course, the crux of the problem. Nobody, I think, questions anybody´s right to have a fuel cycle, not even the Security Council. “

Here is what he said about just “studies” not even development:

“Although sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies said Iran stopped alleged work on nuclear weapons studies in 2003, we do not know whether it has stopped or not. We continue to receive new information. We also do not know whether the information is authentic or not. “

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei words are astounding and it is too bad that you did not include a better representation of his report.

“These are important issues. Naturally we cannot make a quick conclusion. “

“Iran would benefit a lot from engaging in substantial dialogue on the alleged studies, on the procurement by the military establishment, on the manufacturing of nuclear-related equipment by the military establishment. We would be delighted if we can prove that these are fake. We have no agenda other than to prove the facts. This could be fake, as in the case of Iraq, or it could have substance. We do not know, but we are concerned “

Again, Iran may well be developing nuclear weapons but that is still in the conjecture stage. It is an opinion. Let's keep our facts and opinions clearly demarcated. I would maintain that saying what you said was “universally accepted” was a statement of fact and not opinion. I have yet to see the universality and your presentation of Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei opining in the BBC interview are the strongest indication of your supposition that he “accepts” that they are developing nuclear weapons.

goodDonkey: You have submitted a man's opinion that he did not include in the IAEA report but a BBC interview.

Oh this is pointless. He was directly asked if he thinks Iran wants nuclear weapons capabilities and he said that he did. That's his opinion based on the evidence he's seen on Iran. Get over it and move on.

Again, Iran may well be developing nuclear weapons but that is still in the conjecture stage. It is an opinion.

Look, I understand what you're trying to do. You're claiming that since there is no smoking gun then technically no one can prove that Iran is going after nuclear weapons. I get it. But people can look at the evidence and form an opinion. And the one man in charge of investigating Iran has looked at more evidence than both of us combined and based on what he's seen he believes Iran wants nuclear weapons technology. Until Iran chooses to allow more transparency they'll have to live under the cloud of suspicion that they've created themselves. The suspicion is valid and warranted given their actions. Again, get over it.

You can debate the scientific definition of "universally accepted" all you want. You get the point I'm making. Phrase it any way you'd like to say the people who have seen the most evidence on Iran believe they want nukes.

The entire reason the sanctions are in place is because Iran is being ambiguous about their nuclear program.

The U.S. has had sanctions against Iran since the early 1980s -- long before the issue of Iran's nuclear program. We've frozen many billions of dollars in Iranian assets. It is clear that the U.S., prior to President Obama, did not want to engage in the kind of negotiations that would allow Iran to use its bargaining chip to regain control of its assets.

I was talking to the sanctions put in place by the UNSC over Iran's nuclear program.

It is widely accepted by the people who've studied Iran and know it best that the ruling clerics have declared that atomic weapons are against Islam, and have ruled out building such weapons, and have issued religious fatwas against them. Understanding the technology involved and actually building a working weapon are two different things, however.

This is not to say that there are not elements within Iran's society, especially the Revolutionary Guard, who would like to go against the clerics and proceed to the building of weapons. However, these elements do not represent or control Iran -- at least not yet.

What bolsters and fuels the pro-WMD faction is western belligerence and bullying towards the country and the region. The fact that Israel can thumb its nose at the IAEA and maintain its own nuclear weapons without any sanction -- weapons whose sole purpose can only be against Muslims -- also fuels their aspirations. Israel has made threats to attack Iran.

how much did obama scoff at ahmadinejad? was it like my face's tomato-red? could it fool a redneck?

was talking to the sanctions put in place by the UNSC over Iran's nuclear program.

And I was referring to all the sanctions against the country. Makes more sense using nuclear technical capability as a bargaining chip.

It is widely accepted by the people who've studied Iran and know it best that the ruling clerics have declared that atomic weapons are against Islam, and have ruled out building such weapons, and have issued religious fatwas against them.

So "widely accepted" that you can't name one source to bolster your apology for A'jad and the mullahs...

obama is getting ready to announce he wants indefinite incarceration of some gitmo prisoners. just the latest in a series of turnarounds. it's a painful pattern. first he accuses bush of human rights violation then turns around and adopts the same policy himself. same with the military tribunals. and on and on.

this turn around with iran is just more of the same. anyone with a lick of sense knows iran could turn the tables on this obama doctrine. it sounded so easy to criticize bush and to promise a different approach. the media lapped it up. gullible people swooned. well reality is setting in. obama has to back down yet again. he's beginning to look pretty foolish and weak. more and more americans are starting to put the pieces together. his numbers are fading.

i like this liberal explanation:

"All Obama, all the time: The president is getting overexposed By JOEL CONNELLY SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

If President Obama's job approval ratings begin to dip, the cause isn't likely to be disapproval of policies so much as the public getting exhausted at an overexposed presidency."

they are smothering him with gooey media love. it's hysterical.

It is widely accepted by the people who've studied Iran and know it best that the ruling clerics have declared that atomic weapons are against Islam

it was widely accepted that hitler wouldn't invade poland. good grief.

"The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has issued the fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons...."

http://www.iran-daily.com/1384/2347/html/index.htm

What has your favorite mullah, Sistani, had to say about whether WMD are Islamic or not?

killing innocent woman and children is against islam too. hasn't stopped them yet, has it?

In any conflict, innocent people usually must suffer and die. So when you say it is "against Islam," I don't think you know what you are talking about.

The problem may come from believing that one belongs a nation based on Christian values -- "love your neighbor" "thou shalt not kill" and all that -- and yet has indiscriminately slaughtered thousands of innocent women and children via firebombing and nuclear weapons. This represents a dichotomy between the values professed and the values actually lived out through behavior. The problem being projecting this kind of schizoid contradiction onto the Muslim world.

There are Moslems who justify killing innocents to themselves, just as there are Westerners -- Americans especially -- who do the same. But the Islamic nations have never thrust a policy of "mutually-assured destruction" on the world. If they were to do so, they would only be following the example of the "free" nations.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

i'm talking about terrorism. are you suggesting terrorism is not unislamic?

i've given up trying to convince you that the regime is not democratic. you want to believe that despite all the evidence. you seem to ignore even your own 'evidence' which clearly says iran has no true democratic process.

so are you now going to defend the use of terrorism?

The words "terrorism" and "democratic" are not absolutes. This is to say, in comparison to other countries in the region, the electoral process in Iran is much more democratic in its form and process.

Terrorism can also be applied to a great many actions. Such as a drone aircraft firing a missile and striking a civilian wedding party.

it is a brutal world. and to win a war you are right many ugly things happen.

it all comes to down to intentions. when you put a bomb on a bus full of woman and children those are not unavoidable deaths, they are the target. don't be nuanced into blindness.

there is a line between terrorism and the brutality of war.

Terrorism and Democracy have become absolutes (In fact polar opposites). Democracy labels the terrorists, goes after them with drones, and they have to defend themselves with sticks and pistols.

As soon as the US starts labelling everyday Americans as terrorists, then watch what happens. Then you will be thinking how much of an idiot you have become.

America doesn't kill its protestors, it just incarcerates millions of them. America doesn't rig its votes, it just claims that about other countries, and uses the media to convince everyone.

There was an article about one Taliban defector who whistle blew that there are links between the Taliban, US, and Israel. He got assasinated, and there is no "Angel of Whistle Blowing" on Twitter or any Western newspaper.

Iranian protestors are using US Government owned encrypted technology to communicate with the US media. Interesting. Twitter, a fad, and engine of gossip is used by a small percentage of Iranians, that the West is convinced represents a majority. That's like saying myspace represents a majority.

"Its a brutal world, and to win a war . . many ugly things happen"

Kind of like when a company's profitability goes down 10%, and the evil totalitarian dictators fire 10% of their long-time employees, instead of an across the board reduction, due to "market reasons". Most of the Capitalist system, including Canada's being run by former Goldman Sachs employees. Definitely ugly and brutal.

Kissenger, a former Jew, calling for a regime change if the protests in Iran don't pan out. Republicans calling Obama timid on Iran. Ugly and brutal to me.

Paranoid Westerners, fearful of what they read in the newspapers, react by insisting action taken on Iran (and North Korea), after witnessing first hand the US invasion of Iraq, and Afghanistan. Probably the Ugliest and most Brutal of all things, is Democracy, and Freedom pulled right from under the very people that strove to put it in place.

Fearful Westerners, fearful of losing their jobs, and quite honestly "comfortable" with their life (despite the wars, poverty, unemployment, income gap), will fire their colleague, best friend, or "brother and sister", citing market reasons, and a reference to a headhunter they know. Brutal, Ugly. Wake up, and look in the mirror.

jhk for president!

inkjet for paranoid, ignorant, sociopath.

"...and there is no "Angel of Whistle Blowing" on Twitter or any Western newspaper."

jhk's big chance. Could be the next Seymour Hersch.

teleprompter for one-line comments. Stick to the articles guys.

America doesn't kill its protestors, it just incarcerates millions of them.

Millions? Honestly now.

America doesn't rig its votes, it just claims that about other countries, and uses the media to convince everyone.

Just calling a spade a spade, if your media can't keep up with mine than I guess you're out of luck.

Kissenger, a former Jew

I fail to see how that's relevent.

Fearful Westerners, fearful of losing their jobs, and quite honestly "comfortable" with their life (despite the wars, poverty, unemployment, income gap), will fire their colleague, best friend, or "brother and sister", citing market reasons, and a reference to a headhunter they know.

You know now that you mention it George in IT has been rather uppity lately...

Brutal, Ugly. Wake up, and look in the mirror.

Hay now no need to be name calling.

"In absolute terms, the United States currently has the largest inmate population in the world, with more than 2½ million[8] or more than one in a hundred adults[9] in prison and jails." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison

"a spade is a spade" As is the media that you and I read. Keeping up, is a matter of comprehension.

Kissenger, being a former Jew, would be relevant to anyone who is a Jew, and wouldn't want to be associated with him.

I know that at least 50% of my friends in different companies in different countries have lost their jobs. I guess you haven't noticed or care, but its the bleeding of people that is ultimate indicator for the economy.

A spade is for digging holes, it might dawn on you at a later stage, when you are looking in its shiny reflection, and you might be wishing that you were a Jew, or a Christian, or a Muslim. Take care man.

"In absolute terms, the United States currently has the largest inmate population in the world, with more than 2½ million[8] or more than one in a hundred adults[9] in prison and jails."

and they are mostly 'protesters', right? i hope obama frees them all. really. but considering how he's moving on the whole gitmo thing and the military tribunals i wouldn't hold my breath.

i'd protest it myself but know i would just wind up in the american gulag with everyone else.

America doesn't rig its votes

Yeah right - tell that to Al Gore or Michael Moore.

Yeah right - tell that to Al Gore or Michael Moore.

oh come on there are a lot of other wackos who believe that too. it's not just those two.

oh come on there are a lot of other wackos who believe that too. it's not just those two

Bravo, spoken like a (presumably) true republican.

I would rather believe such "wackos" than the truly incredible vegetable that is George W. Bush.

And surely it's far better for the American people to accept the conspiracy theories of said "wackos" than to have to admit that they actually voted such a pathetic cretin into office?

inkjet-"and they are mostly 'protesters', right?"

Does it matter for the purposes of this argument? FYI, protesters do get jailed in America too you know.

Rather than get defensive, how about conceeding that there is a problem in America? My calculations show that Iran has a prison population of 186 per 100,000, about the same as NZ, compared to 756 for the U.S. Iran's use of corporal punishment might account for some of that, but its not nearly enough to account for a rate four times that of Iran.

The correction system is big business in America, the supposed land of freedom. I agree the reasoning behind America's actions is more palpable, but we must also look at the results, which are outrageously negative and large and I guarantee you, brimming with injustice. This is because there more bad reasons for it than good.

In a similar manner, Americans make excuses for overthrowing Iran's government in the 1950s, focusing on smaller positives while ignoring the big ugly elephant in the room (perhaps being the elephant, it is hard to see oneself?). Both travesties are the result of employing the conservative philosophy of viewing justice and fairness as mere obstacles to overcome while traveling on the road to riches.

Does it matter for the purposes of this argument? FYI, protesters do get jailed in America too you know. Rather than get defensive, how about conceeding that there is a problem in America?

defensive? sarcastic maybe. defensive? ha!

why not admit you made an really foolish statement and leave it at that.

I think inkjet works for the US government and they want to go into Iran.

I think inkjet works for the US government and they want to go into Iran.

you're a good thinker aren't you?

In absolute terms, the United States currently has the largest inmate population in the world, with more than 2½ million[8] or more than one in a hundred adults[9] in prison and jails

I'm not argueing that we have a large prison population, I'm argueing your assertion that there are "millions" of protesters in prison right now which boarders on absurd.

As is the media that you and I read.

I guess you're not familiar with that idiom.

Kissenger, being a former Jew, would be relevant to anyone who is a Jew, and wouldn't want to be associated with him.

You still fail to link Mr. Kissenger's past or present religious affiliation with anything relevent to the topic. Honestly, who does that? It's like you just needed to get a little gripe in simply for the sake of it and honestly it makes you sound a little irate.

I know that at least 50% of my friends in different companies in different countries have lost their jobs. I guess you haven't noticed or care, but its the bleeding of people that is ultimate indicator for the economy.

Employment is a gamble, heck, I switch jobs every couple of years when I get the slightest hint my company is hitting on hard times. And my pals are just as fickle about their jobs as I am and if I get fired than it's my fault for placing my faith in a dying company. My employment record isn't exactly a glowing display of commitment but my past employer's reccomendations more than make up for it.

A spade is for digging holes, it might dawn on you at a later stage, when you are looking in its shiny reflection, and you might be wishing that you were a Jew, or a Christian, or a Muslim.

What are you talking about? I think you may have been trying to take a stab at my religious affiliations but it got garbled up in a poorly worded message using word play that I don't think you fully understand.

I think inkjet works for the US government and they want to go into Iran.

If anyone on this site had any real world authority half of us (on either side of the right/left line) would have been carted away long ago. Plus I can't think of any government worth its salt that would waste time posing on a small, if informational, foreign news website.

Kissenger, a "non-religious" person, is calling for a regime change in The "Islamic" Republic of Iran, including the use of war and at the cost of soldiers, women, and children dying, at a time when his people on mainstreet are facing a historical recession. He's a sociopath.

For someone with a username "TheQuestion", you might want to try to focus your questions and avoid the use of word play.