Iran: Worry Over Nuke Program 'A Big Lie'

Tue May 9, 2006 10:42 AM EDT

world-news, iran, nuclear, security-council, iran-nuclear, nuclear-nonproliferation-treaty

Nicholas Paphitis, Associated Press Writer

Images

(showing 1 of 2 photos)

This article is over 14 days old and has been removed by requirement of the Associated Press.

5 Votes
Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Nicholas Paphitis's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: none
Regions: North Korea , Israel , Russia , United Kingdom , United States , Iraq , Iran , France , Germany , Greece , Indonesia , China

Public Discussion (18)

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

6.1

5.4

3.0

{"commentId":120048,"authorDomain":"comsen"}

ComSen

Just reading the related articles and this title are sadly funny. There are a couple of articles stating "Iran Threatens to Quit Nuclear Treaty" and then this article saying they won't. It's rather obvious that Iran's word is not worth much and their government is rather irrational and disjointed. Russia and China share the blame for not being part of the solution and are seemingly part of the problem.

{"commentId":120048,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"comsen"}

2 votes

#1 - Tue May 9, 2006 11:37 AM EDT

{"commentId":121389,"authorDomain":"celestina"}

Celestina

Funny, when I read your opening:

Just reading the related articles and this title are sadly funny. There are a couple of articles stating "Iran Threatens to Quit Nuclear Treaty" and then this article saying they won't.

I thought you were going to say something about how perhaps there has been misrepresentation in the press. Seems an obvious conclusion.

{"commentId":121389,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"celestina"}

1 vote

#1.1 - Wed May 10, 2006 4:21 PM EDT

{"commentId":120051,"authorDomain":"wolfanoz"}

Wolfanoz

They send Bush a love note asking to fight with flowers instead of bombs yet refuses to yield to a world that has their eyes on them yet we continue to watch as they say one thing and do another.

Words obviously aren't good enough for this nefarious government. They need to be dealt with and soon before it becomes a much larger scale conflict that won't have the greatest outcome.

THEN the people can have their nuclear power after they have a better chosen government in place.

{"commentId":120051,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"wolfanoz"}

2 votes

#2 - Tue May 9, 2006 11:39 AM EDT

{"commentId":120077,"authorDomain":"karbassi"}

Ali Karbassi

This is no different then what the US did. I personally do not think that the United States should be the world's watch dogs (police). Why is it okay for the US to have nuclear power but not another nation? Who or what decides who has the right to have this power.

Also, nuclear technology is used for many other things other than bombs. It's like saying that a nation cannot use water because they could make water balloons and throw it as us.

{"commentId":120077,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"karbassi"}

2 votes

#2.1 - Tue May 9, 2006 11:56 AM EDT

{"commentId":120084,"authorDomain":"wolfanoz"}

Wolfanoz

Why is it okay for the US to have nuclear power but not another nation?

Because we don't threaten nations with genocide on a whim regardless if it's words or not.

If a man were to keep threatening to kill your wife and kids, would you consistently listen to it over and over or take action?

The Iranian people (who on a whole despise their government and pull any kind of media aimed towards the west) deserve nuclear power. Having it in the hands of extremists and zealots is a bad, bad idea.

One's that threaten genocide almost on a daily basis.

{"commentId":120084,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"wolfanoz"}

4 votes

#2.2 - Tue May 9, 2006 12:01 PM EDT

{"commentId":120152,"authorDomain":"comsen"}

ComSen

Iran also support terrorist (Hamas and probably more).

{"commentId":120152,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"comsen"}

1 vote

#2.3 - Tue May 9, 2006 12:57 PM EDT

{"commentId":120239,"authorDomain":"karbassi"}

Ali Karbassi

I believe that is true, but the point I was making is that 0.01 of the Iranian people are terrorists. It's like saying that the KKK or Black Panthers are going to overrun the government.

I agree that the people in Iran should have nuclear power. That was my point in the argument. I hope this didn't go the wrong way.

{"commentId":120239,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"karbassi"}

2 votes

#2.4 - Tue May 9, 2006 2:18 PM EDT

{"commentId":120351,"authorDomain":"wolfanoz"}

Wolfanoz

I believe that is true, but the point I was making is that 0.01 of the Iranian people are terrorists. It's like saying that the KKK or Black Panthers are going to overrun the government.

And I totally agree. We have dangerous "millitia's" (aka terrorists) in our own country. There are always going to be bad apples among the plentiful good ones.

I agree that the people in Iran should have nuclear power. That was my point in the argument. I hope this didn't go the wrong way.

It just came off as if they should have it NOW. The unfortunate part of it all is it seems that we're going to have to destroy before it's (the nuclear structure) is back to where it currently is thanks to the current regime.

Amenijhad may be crazy but isn't stupid. He figures if we attack, it's only part of a scorched earth tactic that will try to turn the current good against us as if we were some dog that just crapped on their rug purposely.

{"commentId":120351,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"wolfanoz"}

1 vote

#2.5 - Tue May 9, 2006 3:50 PM EDT

{"commentId":121401,"authorDomain":"celestina"}

Celestina

They ask for a peaceful solution but refuse to back down from their right to have peaceful nuclear energy, you mean. There has been absoloutely no evidence put forward by any nation that Iran is making nuclear weaponry. And, in fact, Ahmadinejad has never declared an intention to commit genocide. We do not have the right to decide their form of government for them. Making an effort diplomatically would, perhaps, make a difference in the eyes of the Iranian people. It might be helpful in encouraging them to lean toward a government of which we could approve. But we aren't legally allowed to forcefully remove it, just because we don't like it.

{"commentId":121401,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"celestina"}

1 vote

#2.6 - Wed May 10, 2006 4:28 PM EDT

{"commentId":120092,"authorDomain":"figerrific"}

figerrific

It's funny that this administration would use diplomacy with Iran and N. Korea (actual established governments that pose a threat) and run right through a nation already crippled from embargoes. Yeah, Iran is evil, but the US lost so much credibility in Iraq and the UN is so useless that Iran will probably enrich Uranium soon. If Russia or China haven't given them the technology already.

{"commentId":120092,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"figerrific"}

1 vote

#3 - Tue May 9, 2006 12:10 PM EDT

{"commentId":120151,"authorDomain":"comsen"}

ComSen

The US tried diplomacy for over 10 years with Iraq. The problem with Iraq (as it appears with Iran) are those that want to do business with Iraq did not want to risk that and would not help solve the problem.

{"commentId":120151,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"comsen"}

#3.1 - Tue May 9, 2006 12:55 PM EDT

{"commentId":120829,"authorDomain":"figerrific"}

figerrific

I totally agree, but I don't think having the UN handle most of the "diplomacy" over the past 10 years and then just going over them in regards to Iraq helps their cause now. And why would Russia and China help solve this problem? They're getting oil out of this, we're getting threatened with nukes.

As cynical as I might seem, I actually believe that we'd be more thoughtful of the situation if they were reversed, but I wouldn't give us too much credit.

{"commentId":120829,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"figerrific"}

#3.2 - Wed May 10, 2006 3:06 AM EDT

{"commentId":120129,"authorDomain":"Kizzle"}

PKizz

Quick: which country listed below is NOT a member of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?
- Iran
- China
- US
- Russia

Now, which of these countries is speaking out about the horrible travesty of nuclear armament?

{"commentId":120129,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"Kizzle"}

#4 - Tue May 9, 2006 12:34 PM EDT

{"commentId":120138,"authorDomain":"rockman"}

rockman

PKizz. Quick: which country listed below is NOT a member of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?
- Iran
- China
- US
- Russia

All of those countries are members of the non-proliferation treaty, though technically it's the USSR and not Russia that signed it.

{"commentId":120138,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"rockman"}

#5 - Tue May 9, 2006 12:41 PM EDT

{"commentId":120144,"authorDomain":"rockman"}

rockman

This latest contradiction from Iran tells us that there is a great deal of disagreement within the Iranian government. Ahmadinejad is not in complete control. That's good news and leaves room for hope that the IAEA will be part of the solution. Iran can have nuclear power so long as the international community can be sure they do not also have atomic weapons.

{"commentId":120144,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"rockman"}

#6 - Tue May 9, 2006 12:48 PM EDT

{"commentId":121405,"authorDomain":"celestina"}

Celestina

No, Ahmadinejad is not in complete control. Most of the power (including all war powers and decisions about weaponry) reside with the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.

{"commentId":121405,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"celestina"}

1 vote

#6.1 - Wed May 10, 2006 4:31 PM EDT

{"commentId":120171,"authorDomain":"aronoff"}

aronoff

Russia and China, the other veto-holding members of the Security Council, oppose sanctions.

OF COURSE they oppose sanctions! they're bedfellows with Iran. Atleast Russia is. I think it's funny how people say that the US lost a lot of clout within the UN for invading Iraq when the US didn't ever really have clout within the UN to begin with.

And speaking about that! The reason WHY the UN didn't want the US to invade Iraq was becuase the oil for food program was lining the pockets of several top UN embassadors! They didn't want to be found out that they were in cahoots with a known dictator and killer of his own people.

I dont know what we should do with Iran. But I don't think that going through the UN is a good way of doing it. The UN is great for providing releif to countries by giving out food, etc. But as for military/war type issues, they constanty drag their collective feet.

{"commentId":120171,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"aronoff"}

2 votes

#7 - Tue May 9, 2006 1:18 PM EDT

{"commentId":122900,"authorDomain":"charliepage"}

charliepage

I think, without a doubt, that Iran should have nuclear power as does everyone else...the problem is they have only shot themselves in the foot on this one.

If Iran hadn't been so damaging we would not be on the brink of a war, the US at worse might be requesting for inspections and that's that. (see - Brazil) However asking for Isreal to be destroyed (and if you think it was a mis-print, he just said "Isreal will someday vanish"), threatening Isreal on multiple occassions and other activites is causing governments to think of Iran as a threat instead of a country trying to get nuclear power.

I would, again, wholeheartedly agree they should have nuclear power but ever since them hiding there nuclear program, it's impossible for me to trust them with a grain of salt.

{"commentId":122900,"threadId":"12977","contentId":"191741","authorDomain":"charliepage"}

#8 - Thu May 11, 2006 11:11 PM EDT

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"12977","isPrivate":false}

Iran Letter to Bush Criticizes U.S. Govt	Associated Press	Mon May 8	1
Iran Proposes 'Diplomatic Opening' to U.S.	Associated Press	Mon May 8	85
Bush: Iran Letter Doesn't Answer Question	Associated Press	Wed May 10	12
ABC News: Iran President Says Democracy Has Failed	ABC News	Tue May 9	0
Major powers fail to agree on Iran strategy	Reuters	Tue May 9	0

Backyard

Iran: Worry Over Nuke Program 'A Big Lie'

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: