Buoyed by the success of its proxy militia in Lebanon, Iran has rejected a demand from the West, aimed at curbing Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons programme, setting itself on a new course of confrontation.
On the eve of a self-imposed deadline for responding to a Western offer of economic and technology incentives in return for a suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said yesterday: "We won't suspend."
"Everything should come out of negotiations but suspension of uranium enrichment is not on our agenda," Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters in Tehran.
He said that Iran would offer a "multi-faceted response" to the proposed package tomorrow.
Anything short of the suspension of the uranium enrichment that many fear would eventually lead to production of a nuclear weapon, will force the United Nations Security Council to consider its threat of sanctions against Iran. In a resolution adopted at the end of last month, the council ordered Iran to suspend uranium enrichment by 31 August or face the possibility of economic and diplomatic sanctions.
Nicholas Burns, the United States Under-secretary of State for political affairs, warned last week that he expected the Security Council to move rapidly in September to impose sanctions against Iran because of the country's intransigence.
Iran underlined its determined stand by holding war games over the weekend, which included the televised launch of Saegheh ("lightning" in Farsi) short-range missiles. The television commentator said the ground-to-ground missiles had a range of between 50 and 150 miles.
Iran has said the military exercises - called The Blow of Zolfaghar in reference to a sword that belonged to Imam Ali, one of the holiest figures of Islam for Shia Muslims - were aimed at "introducing Iran's new defensive doctrine".
Iran clearly feels it has a strong position in the light of Israel's failure to disarm the Iranian-backed Hizbollah militia in southern Lebanon, despite a 34-day war launched after the Shia guerrillas in Lebanon captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, has warned that Iran would be prepared to use oil as a weapon if sanctions are considered, prompting market analysts to predict a further surge in the oil price as tomorrow's deadline looms.
The proposed package from the West provides for direct talks between Washington and Tehran, as well as an offer of nuclear technology and the easing of some trade restrictions.
However Iran has consistently refused to suspend uranium enrichment, saying that its nuclear programme is purely peaceful, and is permitted under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Western concerns about the prospects of a nuclear Iran have deepened since the beginning of the Lebanon war, which has been described as a proxy war between the US and Iran.
The Iranians may feel that they can play for time because the UN decided that any "further decisions" would have to be discussed by the 15-member Security Council, where veto-holding powers Russia and China have been supporters of Iran.
Iran has a right to have nuclear energy, backed by international law, but the west is jumping up and down because they don't trust those darn muslims, and saying 'one rule for us, another for you - we'll refine your fuel for you - for a price that is'. Now no wonder Mahmoudramadingdong is going - no way dudes, that's like not fair - we're gonna continue our programme - it's our right.
And well, no wonder they are going on the defensive as well - because rhetoric and the 'threat of Iran' is blowing hot out of the prime Penisperson George W. It wasn't until after the west started wanting to meddle with Iranian affairs that the Iranian prime Penisperson said 'don't think we are without Penises here, you will not castrate us by pushing us around' and then made the rather unfortunate statement that Israel should be wiped off the map.
Ok - so this wiping of the map image immediately got us jumping to the conclusion that his plans were to nuke Israel. But um, push comes to shove, really guys - that is not what would happen and here are my reasons why:
1/ The Iranian president wants the name 'Israel' wiped off the map, and replaced with the rightful title of 'Palestine' and for the Palestinians to take back what is rightfully theirs. There wouldn't be much for them to take back if the place got nuked.
2/ Nuking Israel would also prevent muslims from going to their 3rd holiest city - if it wasn't completely destroyed would people really want to be spending time in places where they could get radiation sickeness? I dunno, I might be a bit off on this one because I understand there are 'clean bombs' that will take out infrastructure and people but not leave the place uninhabitable.
3/ If Iran nuked Israel then it's a pretty sure bet that Iran would be wiped off the face of the earth in retaliation - so there is no gain in that. IF they did make nuclear weapons, and that is an IF, because all they are saying is that they want nuclear energy - then once they congratulate themselves on their new 'penis' status (nukes are a pretty powerful symbol of penis status ) then they would run through the logistics of actually using them and what would the conclusion be? They can't use em. The only people likely to use nukes in the world are the only people who have already used them in disproportionate retaliation on Japan and also have the largest amount of them - namely the States.
So what gives? Why can't it be that Iran is given the same rights as any other country to produce nuclear energy - without any of these trade sanction threats (and btw, their using oil as a weapon would hurt us much more than we could hurt them methinks)? I presume that all nuclear energy producing countries are subject to international audits of their activities (and if they are not - they should be - everyone should be treated the same by an independent commission - including the States) - so if they are cool with audits, that treat them the same as everyone else doing the same thing, what's the problem?
Now I talk about Penispeople because - to make a somewhat generalized statement (and yes, I know it does not hold for all men) - males tend to be quite hierarchical in their orientation. In the playground you see boys order themselves into hierarchy - there's a top guy and a bottom guy. The top guy has top 'penis' status, irrespective of the size of his member.
If you look at the girls in the playground, you might see degrees of popularity but girls can be quite particular about ensuring that no one gets too big for their boots - they tend to prefer a sense of equality. So I'm wondering, is it about time we gave the ladies a bash at this world leadership business? I wonder what flavour that would bring.
The 5 Nuclear Weapons States that are a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons agree not to transfer nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices technology to other states, and non-NWS parties agree not to seek or develop nuclear weapons.
It's the second part that Iran as a non-NWS signatory state of the NPT is breaking. India, Pakistan, Israel never signed the treaty incidently.
If you look at the girls in the playground, you might see degrees of popularity but girls can be quite particular about ensuring that no one gets too big for their boots - they tend to prefer a sense of equality. So I'm wondering, is it about time we gave the ladies a bash at this world leadership business? I wonder what flavour that would bring.
The United Nations building in New York would get updated (It's falling apart) and would have a new colour scheme, fuchsia prehaps, with heather beige, antique white #2, or taupe trim.
Truthfully I think the world would get much more dangerous. Women are less aggressively violent, but in many societies torture was given over to the women. By all accounts women were inventive when they had their victims tied up and helpless.
I do not think women should run the world. I think it should be balanced and equal. It would be too much like the Stepford wives, you never know what kind of microchips the puppeteers would implant them with. Women running the world would be a deeply suspicious political move
Women do rule the world because we give birth to arseholes and tell them they can do no wrong which inflates their egos to disproportionate sizes.
If women did the right job to start with the world wouldnt be in such chaos.
Look at how women bring up boys in places like the middle east and pakistan. They tell them that they can do no wrong and accept being treated like crap from men and i also suspect that this whole muslim scarf wearing S*** is all to do with men dictating to women in tribal and patriarchal societies that they should do as they are told. Look at all the arranged marriages and the so called honour killings that occure in the uk for an example. I work with a lot of battered women who suffer terrible abuse at the hands of their husbands family. They come to the uk and are away from their own family and are treated like slaves, told to put up and shut up or else. This shouldnt be happening in the uk in 2006 but it does and it needs to be stopped.
Women do rule the world because we give birth to arseholes and tell them they can do no wrong which inflates their egos to disproportionate sizes.
If women did the right job to start with the world wouldnt be in such chaos.
Look at how women bring up boys in places like the middle east and pakistan. They tell them that they can do no wrong and accept being treated like crap from men and i also suspect that this whole muslim scarf wearing S*** is all to do with men dictating to women in tribal and patriarchal societies that they should do as they are told. Look at all the arranged marriages and the so called honour killings that occure in the uk for an example. I work with a lot of battered women who suffer terrible abuse at the hands of their husbands family. They come to the uk and are away from their own family and are treated like slaves, told to put up and shut up or else. This shouldnt be happening in the uk in 2006 but it does and it needs to be stopped.
Men have the choice whether to grow up as arseholes, this isnt their mothers faults. SO I think thats a bit harsh. Its nothing to do with the parents. People have free will and a brain, at least I think men have a brain
True and it does sound a bit harsh but i truely think that a lot of the way men behave is partly to do with the way they are raised. I dont say all men are the same because thats like saying that anyone who was abused will go on to abuse and i know a lot of men who grew up in terrible places and homes who are fantastic human beings but, the way that some cultures raise their sons is imo wrong but hey thats just based on what i have witnessed over the years and based upon a lot of research.
True and it does sound a bit harsh but i truely think that a lot of the way men behave is partly to do with the way they are raised. I dont say all men are the same because thats like saying that anyone who was abused will go on to abuse and i know a lot of men who grew up in terrible places and homes who are fantastic human beings but, the way that some cultures raise their sons is imo wrong but hey thats just based on what i have witnessed over the years and based upon a lot of research.
I think if women ran the world it would be worse, theyre renowned for being favourtist, giving their mates jobs etc. Theyre devious and back stabbing. It wouldnt work
Ok...why should either rule? Both genders see things differently. In an ideal world we should have both genders holding high up positions and bringing their ideas to an equal table and taken into account. No women dethroning men or men supressing women. It should be equal, so women no trying to get equal for past crimes, let it go we are another society now. Men are not the evil to end all evils. And i feel that if women were in charge for so long as men were the world would be the same if not worse. Men stop feeling threatned. All in all as a guy i feel girls will try to change us completly and exile men to an existence similar to what women in the past knew. But it is a senseless in security i have that i supress.
Ok...why should either rule? Both genders see things differently. In an ideal world we should have both genders holding high up positions and bringing their ideas to an equal table and taken into account. No women dethroning men or men supressing women. It should be equal, so women no trying to get equal for past crimes, let it go we are another society now. Men are not the evil to end all evils. And i feel that if women were in charge for so long as men were the world would be the same if not worse. Men stop feeling threatned. All in all as a guy i feel girls will try to change us completly and exile men to an existence similar to what women in the past knew. But it is a senseless in security i have that i supress.
Yes, perhaps breed some non-gendered hybrids to rule the world instead.
What???I was trying to say in a democracy have cabinet ministers both male and female. I dont have a problem with a female primeminister. Just as long as both views are taken into account.
What???I was trying to say in a democracy have cabinet ministers both male and female. I dont have a problem with a female primeminister. Just as long as both views are taken into account.
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
) then they would run through the logistics of actually using them and what would the conclusion be? They can't use em. The only people likely to use nukes in the world are the only people who have already used them in disproportionate retaliation on Japan and also have the largest amount of them - namely the States.
