Turkey is opposed to new sanctions on Iran

[VelocuR]

self delete

 

[Thomas]

without pressure applied Iran will never submit to the IAEA inspections. People fail to realize that unless Iran submits to IAEA inspections at ALL it's nuke facilities. Then it can never prove that it's nuke intentions are peaceful. By refusing inspections then they must have something to hide.

All the countries that fail to put pressure on Iran are only hastening war to happen. After all if Iran is innocent and it's program peaceful then it has nothing to hide by opening up it's facilities. They are going to repeat history like Iraq did. refusing inspections and adding to the belief that they are working on a bomb program. A guaranteed recipe for war.

 

[deathfromabove]

without pressure applied Iran will never submit to the IAEA inspections. People fail to realize that unless Iran submits to IAEA inspections at ALL it's nuke facilities. Then it can never prove that it's nuke intentions are peaceful. By refusing inspections then they must have something to hide.

All the countries that fail to put pressure on Iran are only hastening war to happen. After all if Iran is innocent and it's program peaceful then it has nothing to hide by opening up it's facilities. They are going to repeat history like Iraq did. refusing inspections and adding to the belief that they are working on a bomb program. A guaranteed recipe for war.

Why don't we first apply pressure on Israel to submit to inspections? How can we be sure that Israel's nuclear intentions are peaceful? If we talk about denuclearization / demilitarization of ME than why do we turn a blind eye on Israel? Why is that one country is allowed to have nuclear weapons for its security while others are not?

Given your history of nuclear accidents, I think US should be denuclearized as well.
Sound familiar? US refuses to allow UN inspectors to investigate its WMDs

On that note, kudos to Turkish leadership and people.

 

[EjazR]

It would be nice if the same appreciation was shown to India as was show to Turkey when India opposed sanctions and supported a diplomatic resolution to the Iran issue as well.

India backs IAEA Iran vote, but opposes sanctions
November 27th, 2009
Port of Spain, Nov 27 (IANS) India Friday backed the IAEA resolution against Iran for having developed a secret uranium-enrichment facility, but opposed “renewed punitive approach or sanctions” and underlined the need to “keep doors open for dialogue” with Tehran.

Justifying India’s vote for the resolution, passed by a 25-3 margin at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, external affairs ministry sources said here the adoption of the resolution “should not divert the parties from dialogue”.

“This resolution can’t be the basis of a renewed punitive approach to new sanctions,” an official source stressed.

“In fact, the coming weeks should be used by all concerned parties to expand the diplomatic space to address all outstanding issues satisfactorily,” the source said.

“India finally supports keeping the door open for dialogue and avoidance of confrontation.”

The IAEA resolution, which was also backed by Russia and China, key Iranian allies in its standoff with the West, demanded that Tehran immediately freeze the uranium-enrichment facility it is developing at Qom and comply with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Tehran is a signatory.

The resolution, based on a report by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, could form the basis for wider sanctions by the UN Security Council against Iran.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is currently in the Trinidadian capital to attend the 53-nation Commonwealth summit. The Iranian nuclear crisis will also figure in his discussions with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy on the sidelines of the Commonwealth summit.

India has consistently supported Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, but has qualified it by asking it to maintain its obligations under the NPT.

 

[Creder]

It would be nice if the same appreciation was shown to India as was show to Turkey when India opposed sanctions and supported a diplomatic resolution to the Iran issue as well.

India backs IAEA Iran vote, but opposes sanctions
November 27th, 2009
Port of Spain, Nov 27 (IANS) India Friday backed the IAEA resolution against Iran for having developed a secret uranium-enrichment facility, but opposed “renewed punitive approach or sanctions” and underlined the need to “keep doors open for dialogue” with Tehran.

Justifying India’s vote for the resolution, passed by a 25-3 margin at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, external affairs ministry sources said here the adoption of the resolution “should not divert the parties from dialogue”.

“This resolution can’t be the basis of a renewed punitive approach to new sanctions,” an official source stressed.

“In fact, the coming weeks should be used by all concerned parties to expand the diplomatic space to address all outstanding issues satisfactorily,” the source said.

“India finally supports keeping the door open for dialogue and avoidance of confrontation.”

The IAEA resolution, which was also backed by Russia and China, key Iranian allies in its standoff with the West, demanded that Tehran immediately freeze the uranium-enrichment facility it is developing at Qom and comply with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Tehran is a signatory.

The resolution, based on a report by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, could form the basis for wider sanctions by the UN Security Council against Iran.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is currently in the Trinidadian capital to attend the 53-nation Commonwealth summit. The Iranian nuclear crisis will also figure in his discussions with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy on the sidelines of the Commonwealth summit.

India has consistently supported Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, but has qualified it by asking it to maintain its obligations under the NPT.

you guys ratted them out....lemme check with the iranians if they offer appreciation to countries who stab you in the back when u need em most

 

[cabatli_53]

Turkish thesis on Nuclear weapons on Middile East region...

"If US and IEAE want a region cleared from nuclear weapons, First of all, It is a prohibition to make pressure over Israel to open its nuclear institues to IEAE and destroy all its nuclear weapons, Then We can make pressure over Iran not to develop same weapon systems. As long as Israel keeps those technology in own hand, Making pressure over Iran is only a blockheadedness. World does not turn around Israel..."

 

[Thomas]

Why don't we first apply pressure on Israel to submit to inspections? How can we be sure that Israel's nuclear intentions are peaceful? If we talk about denuclearization / demilitarization of ME than why do we turn a blind eye on Israel? Why is that one country is allowed to have nuclear weapons for its security while others are not?

On that note kudos to Turkish leadership and people.

I think Israel should allow the IAEA in to inspect. The one big difference between Israel having the bomb and Iran though? It is Iran's continued support of terrorist groups. Their vision to see Israel wiped off the map. And their theocratic leaderships belief that they can help usher in the 12th imam by creating chaos and confrontation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1507818/Divine-mission-driving-Irans-new-leader.html

Later than we think - Washington Times

 

[Luftwaffe]

Thomas One man's terrorist, another's freedom fighter...so until there is no proper definition and agreement over who is freedom fighter and who is terrorist sorry your wishes can't be granted. This does not give Israel green signal to keep Nukes contain so called terrorists not annihilate mankind or a country under the pretext of terrorists and terrorism.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas One man's terrorist, another's freedom fighter...so until there is no proper definition and agreement over who is freedom fighter and who is terrorist sorry your wishes can't be granted. This does not give Israel green signal to keep Nukes contain so called terrorists not annihilate mankind or a country under the pretext of terrorists and terrorism.

Israel has always maintained a steady hand on their nukes. They only reason they have implied they would be used is if they were in danger of being overwhelmed. Unlike Iran Israel does not continually make threats of its neighbors destruction. It.s interesting if you look at the older threads from this site many of the people that believed Iran's nuke program was totally peaceful. Now seem to accept there is probably a bomb program and want to see Iran with a Bomb. Even though Iran shows a mental instability within it's theocratic leadership.

Why do you think there is not the widespread condemnation of Israel Or Pakistan and India having the bomb? becuase these countries have shown some common sense. They don't make threats at their neighbors complete destruction. Do you think India would stand by and do nothing if Pakistan started to say they were going to wipe India off the map. India would probably preemptively strike them before they had a chance.

 

[Creder]

Israel has always maintained a steady hand on their nukes. They only reason they have implied they would be used is if they were in danger of being overwhelmed. Unlike Iran Israel does not continually make threats of its neighbors destruction. It.s interesting if you look at the older threads from this site many of the people that believed Iran's nuke program was totally peaceful. Now seem to accept there is probably a bomb program and want to see Iran with a Bomb. Even though Iran shows a mental instability within it's theocratic leadership.

Why do you think there is not the widespread condemnation of Israel Or Pakistan and India having the bomb? becuase these countries have shown some common sense. They don't make threats at their neighbors complete destruction. Do you think India would stand by and do nothing if Pakistan started to say they were going to wipe India off the map. India would probably preemptively strike them before they had a chance.

It will do you some good to know about the history of how pak and india came to have nukes in the first place... or need i remind of you the threats indians made right after they did the first blast ? if you read those ones up they'll make irans threats look like child's play.

But no i do see how you automatically assumed the premise that it would be Pakistan who would make senseless threats to india where as if you look in the past it has been India who suddenly jumps on the "destroy pakistan" bandwagon as soon as their is a security situation in their country. Bias goes a long way my friend

And NO to your last point, and this message is to everyone who has delusions about Pakistan. There is not a single nation on the face of earth who doesn't know the consequences of attacking Pakistan and where it would lead this entire world

 

[deckingraj]

or need i remind of you the threats indians made right after they did the first blast ? if you read those ones up they'll make irans threats look like child's play.

Would you mind throwing some more light on it??? Last time i heard unlike Pakistan India pursue a No-First Use policy....

Secondly do you agree that we got our hands on nukes much before you??? As far as i know there have been no nuclear attack on Pakistan since 1974(india's first nuclear blast)...

 

[deckingraj]

Why do you think there is not the widespread condemnation of Israel Or Pakistan and India having the bomb?

Thomas i think that none of these countries have any direct/indirect threats to US interests in middle-east....Having said it doesn't matter if anyone like it or not...biased or unbiased Iran's best interest is in accepting IAEA conditions otherwise they are just building another case for Iraq and billions in oil profits for US companies...

 

[Thomas]

It will do you some good to know about the history of how pak and india came to have nukes in the first place... or need i remind of you the threats indians made right after they did the first blast ? if you read those ones up they'll make irans threats look like child's play.

But no i do see how you automatically assumed the premise that it would be Pakistan who would make senseless threats to india where as if you look in the past it has been India who suddenly jumps on the "destroy pakistan" bandwagon as soon as their is a security situation in their country. Bias goes a long way my friend

And NO to your last point, and this message is to everyone who has delusions about Pakistan. There is not a single nation on the face of earth who doesn't know the consequences of attacking Pakistan and where it would lead this entire world

I could just as easy used India as the example It really doesn't matter. Iran knows the consequences of attacking Israel. But Iran does not think in a rational way like most countries as I stated before. they think they can help usher in the 12th imam by attacking Israel. Any Israeli response would just make martyrs of any Iranians killed.

Iranian President Prepares For 12th Imam's Reappearance
By Erin Roach


NASHVILLE, Tennessee (BP) -- Aug. 22 could be an ominous date for Israelis and Americans based on its significance this year as one of Islam’s most revered holy days, according to a Princeton professor who says Iran may be planning “cataclysmic events” to prepare the way for Shiite Muslims’ awaited messiah.

Bernard Lewis, a professor emeritus of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University, warned in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that Aug. 22 this year corresponds to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427 on the Islamic calendar, which is when Muslims commemorate the flight of the prophet Muhammad on a winged horse to Jerusalem and then to heaven and back.

Aug. 22, Lewis said, could provide an opportune moment for Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to set in motion the return of the 12th Imam, whom Shiites believe will forever end the struggle between good and evil in the last days.

“Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced,” Lewis wrote in The Wall Street Journal Aug. 8. “It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22.”

The United Nations Security Council has asked Iran to stop all uranium enrichment by the end of August, but Iran has refused. Western nations, led by the United States, believe Iran is using its nuclear program as a cover for developing atomic weapons while Iran says the program is for generating electricity with nuclear reactors.

Ahmadinejad repeatedly has said he believes Israel should be obliterated, and he is a clear foe of the U.S. government, which he contends is against Islam and is the strongest threat to his Shiite goal of Middle East domination.

Lewis identifies another key reason Ahmadinejad is an imminent nuclear threat, based on an concept that kept nations from nuclear attacks during the Cold War -- mutual assured destruction.

“There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons,” Lewis noted. “This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran’s present rulers.”

In other words, Iran doesn’t fear retaliation if they attack Israel or the United States because a final global struggle against an evil enemy will present them with the privileges of martyrdom as taught in Islam, Lewis wrote. Death is not a deterrent.

“It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind,” Lewis wrote.

Ahmadinejad Obsessed with Return of 12th Imam

Kairos Journal, which seeks to equip church leaders as they engage the culture for Christ and has several leading Southern Baptists on its editorial team, has taken a look at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fascination with the return of Shiite Muslims’ messiah and what that means if Ahmadinejad is armed with nuclear weapons.

“Ahmadinejad belongs to the mainstream of Shi’a Islam, known as ‘Twelvers,’” an article posted at Kairos Journal stated. “They recognize a historical succession of Imams, connected by family ties, commencing with Muhammad and concluding with the 12th Imam.”

The 12th Imam was born around 868 A.D. at a time of great persecution of Shiites, the journal explained, and in order to protect him, his father, the 11th Imam, sent him into hiding. He appeared in public briefly at the age of 6 when his father died but then went back into obscurity. Shiites believe he continues to guide Muslims, and they expect his “messianic” return to bring order from chaos and righteousness from unbelief, Kairos said.

“President Ahmadinejad seems to think that the time is ripe for the 12th Imam’s reappearance and that, as president, he should play a role in opening the way for his return,” the journal said. “He is reported to have said in one of his cabinet sessions, ‘We have to turn Iran into a modern and divine country to be the model for all nations, and which will also serve as the basis for the return of the 12th Imam.’”

Like Bernard Lewis of Princeton, the Kairos authors said Ahmadinejad seems to believe “that the hand of God is guiding him to trigger a series of cataclysmic events which could precipitate the return of the 12th Imam. Only time will tell if this is his true conviction; but if he does hold such a view, his possession of nuclear weapons is a particularly scary prospect.”

 

[Thomas]

Thomas i think that none of these countries have any direct/indirect threats to US interests in middle-east....Having said it doesn't matter if anyone like it or not...biased or unbiased Iran's best interest is in accepting IAEA conditions otherwise they are just building another case for Iraq and billions in oil profits for US companies...

The U.S. doesn't get most of it's oil from the ME. so that contention is not true. look at who is getting the Iraqi oil and you will find Europe, Asia (China), as the main buyers.

 

[SandsofTime]

@Thomas

It doesn't matter where the US gets it oil from. The moment ME is up in flames, oil prices will sky rocket from pressures on supply side. Canada, which is the main US oil supplier, would gladly supply the same oil to China if the later bids a higher price. The whole control the ME great game is part of US energy policy, otherwise I don't see any reason to station such large number of troops in KSA, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.