TEHRAN, Iran - Iran’s nuclear program cannot be stopped, and any Western attempt to force a halt to uranium enrichment would be like playing “with the lion’s tail,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday.
In Berlin, Germany’s foreign minister reported no progress in talks with Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator ahead of the Group of Eight summit. And with the U.N. Security Council preparing to debate a third set of sanctions for Tehran’s refusal to suspend enrichment, Britain raised the possibility of adding curbs on oil and gas investment to the limited measures against individuals and companies involved in Iran’s nuclear and weapons programs.
“We advise them to give up stubbornness and childish games,” Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. “Some say Iran is like a lion. It’s seated quietly in a corner. We advise them not to play with the lion’s tail.”
Added Ahmadinejad: “It is too late to stop the progress of Iran.”
Question: Why is the world playing the negotiating game with this sociopathic extremist dictator? This goes to show that whenever a crazy leader like this does something disasterous in the world, it could have, and should have been stopped. There is no negotiating with a person like this. He will see the western world fall, and see islamic extremism rise, or he will do whatever he can to make it happen. We should not give him a chance.
The notion that Iran might be a threat, but that it is a reasonable threat that is open to reasonable discussion and negotation. It is not a mystic nation of brutes that have forsaken reason for religous dogma which leads them to accept a system of murderous violence against those it is told to hate. But this is false…clearly.
The complete evasion of the fact that there is nothing Irans enemies can offer Iran that will dissuade them from trying to destroy them. Iran does not wish to destroy America in order to gain or protect anything, but merely to destroy, so negotations are pointless and immoral, as there is nothing to offer Iran that it wants but ones own destruction.
The notion that America must deal with Iran as a diplomat, not as a righteous invader sworn to protecting americian lives against an evil regime.
The complete evasion of the fact that there is nothing Irans enemies can offer Iran that will dissuade them from trying to destroy them. Iran does not wish to destroy America in order to gain or protect anything, but merely to destroy, so negotations are pointless and immoral, as there is nothing to offer Iran that it wants but ones own destruction.
That’s not really true. Right or wrong, Iran doesn’t hate America “just because”, as you seem to suggest. They think that we’re an imperialistic country that has consistently been ripping them off for the last 50 years – which, again, right or wrong, is not entirely without reason.
That’s not really true. Right or wrong, Iran doesn’t hate America “just because”, as you seem to suggest. They think that we’re an imperialistic country that has consistently been ripping them off for the last 50 years – which, again, right or wrong, is not entirely without reason.
OK, I grant I was in error, they at least think they have other good reasons. But I dont know, have the Americians really done that?
Moebius, you are simply supporting the notions that tons of irrational people have put into play.
Think about this. Most of the mistakes the U.S has made in the world were caused by blunders we made by ignorantly trying to negotiate with unnegotiable leaders.
By the way, you are sorely mistaken. They don’t hate us for the reasons you said. They hate us because we believe that people should be free to choose to live their lives as they wish. They hate us because we are not an islamic totalitarian regime. They hate anyone who does not follow what they believe. Disagree? Read the essays the leader has written, and the speaches he’s made. It’s obvious, and I think Prometheus will agree.
I grant … they at least think they have other good reasons. (emphasis added)
Yup, many envious people make up or believe rationalizations that paint their betters as being evil.
But I dont know, have the Americians really done that?
In the case of Iran, the usual evidence people point to is the fact that the U.S. backed the Shah, who put down a democratic movement. This much of the history appears to be true.
However, as Objectivists, we know that democracy can be just as evil (and worse) than monarchy. So, we really need to ask whether the people in that country were really heading toward a government respectful of individual rights, that the U.S. action thwarted? Or, were they unable to offer any such option and was the U.S. (or some private oil-firm) simply opting to prop up one thug rather than the other? Here’s one version of the history, that claims that the democratic thugs were on the verge of nationalizing the major foreign-owned oil-company when the U.S. lent it’s support to the Shah.
In the case of Iran, the usual evidence people point to is the fact that the U.S. backed the Shah, who put down a democratic movement. This much of the history appears to be true.
Oh yes, thats right, forgot that part of the history there for abit..so it appears that it is not compltely unfounded then. I dont think that what they would have gotten anyway would have been much better so just how good a reason it is..
Moebius, you are simply supporting the notions that tons of irrational people have put into play.
How am I “supporting” these notions? I am merely saying that’s what they think, and that they don’t hate us for no reason (even if it’s the wrong reasons) or because they’re just inherently evil.
By the way, you are sorely mistaken. They don’t hate us for the reasons you said. They hate us because we believe that people should be free to choose to live their lives as they wish. They hate us because we are not an islamic totalitarian regime. They hate anyone who does not follow what they believe. Disagree? Read the essays the leader has written, and the speaches he’s made. It’s obvious, and I think Prometheus will agree.
If you say so. What I get from talking to Arab Americans is that many middle easterners hate the US because we’re considered a meddlesome, imperialistic bully.
What I get from talking to Arab Americans is that many middle easterners hate the US because we’re considered a meddlesome, imperialistic bully.
Do we hate Islamofascists because they killed three thousand Americans on 9/11 or because they live in a savage, inhumane and evil society?
The answer is yes - we hate criminals because of what they did and who they are. If a Muslim accidentally flew a 747 into the WTC, we wouldn’t hold his culture responsible. We don’t hate the Tamil Tigers even though they have committed far more suicide bombings than Muslims.
We oppose fundamentalist Islam because it is incompatible with Western values and because our oil dependency brings us into inevitable conflict with it. Unfortunately, our enemies realize this better than most Americans.
They hate us equally whether we blunder and support Saudi and Iraqi dictators, or defend Israel’s right to exist, or the property rights of Western oil companies, or simply the right of our cartoonists to make fun of their prophet.
They see us as a bully…Why? Because we are opposed to their way of life, and because we don’t let brutal dictators do whatever they want in the world. In the specific case of Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really is just crazy. (which is not unlike other dictators around the world), and he may be an immediate threat to us as well as other countries just for the statements he has made about wiping Israel off the map, and making America pay for trying to stop their nuclear program.
I understand what you’re saying, and I apologize for misreading your post and assuming that it was your opinion if you were simply reflecting theirs.
They see us as a bully…Why? Because we are opposed to their way of life, and because we don’t let brutal dictators do whatever they want in the world.
To be honest I think we are more opposed to political instability in the middle east and the fact that the dictator of the largest oil reserve on earth happens to not like us. I actually think that if the said dictator were to be on friendly terms with the United States, we would do everything we could to keep him in power.
This is also why we do nothing about genocides and totalitarian states in Africa – there’s really nothing there worth our time or money. Personally I don’t think our reasons for making war have much to do with defending truth, justice, freedom, and the preservation of the American way.
Again, not saying that Iran isn’t a threat that needs to be removed. Just that our motivations have little to do with morality.
That’s not really true. Right or wrong, Iran doesn’t hate America “just because”, as you seem to suggest. They think that we’re an imperialistic country that has consistently been ripping them off for the last 50 years – which, again, right or wrong, is not entirely without reason.
One, that is a leftist talking point which others use to their advantage when they see fit.
Two, the whole thing is so blatantly contradictory that I wonder why it’s brought up at all. Not as stated, mind, but because the same people who comlpain that America meddles are also the same that condemn America for: not meddling in the Balkans, not sedning enough foreign aid, “abandoning” Afghanistan, not supporting the terrorist government of the Palestinian Authority, not meddling in Darfur, not meddling in the genocidal tribal wars in Africa, etc etc
So which one is it?
This point goes back to the 60s. Back then America was hated for “meddling” in other nations, but the Soviet Union was not. Why? And when you look at the charges more closely, you’ll see that by “meddling” they really mean “defending her national interest.”
So if America is hated for defending her interests, while other countries and even organizations are not, what does it mean the haters really hate?
I think it should be pointed out that not only is Ahmadinejad not a dictator, but that in fact there is a higher authority in Iran than the President, namely the “Supreme Leader” who is currently one Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
So if America is hated for defending her interests, while other countries and even organizations are not, what does it mean the haters really hate?
Personally I think America is absolutely correct in defending its interests. However I dislike the hypocrisy of claiming that it is out of good will and in the name of peace or freedom. You lose all credibility when you supply guns and money to a dictator one moment, and then invade a country claiming it’s to free its people from a dictatorial regime the next.
the fact that the [President] of the largest oil reserve on earth [(meaning Iran)] happens to not like us.
Actually, Saudia Arabia and Canada have significantly larger oil reserves than Iran. But I digress.
This is also why we do nothing about genocides and totalitarian states in Africa – there’s really nothing there worth our time or money. Personally I don’t think our reasons for making war have much to do with defending truth, justice, freedom, and the preservation of the American way.
Again, not saying that Iran isn’t a threat that needs to be removed. Just that our motivations have little to do with morality.
American foreign policy should be dictated by what is in the rational self-interest of United States citizens. A moral foreign policy is not a duty to allocate billions in resources and incur many military deaths in order to topple every dictatorship in order to spread democracy, justice and/or Capitalism to every forsaken end of the Earth. However, a nation would still be moral if it chose to topple a brutal dictatorship in order to establish a government that would better protect the rights of the currently oppressed populace. That being said, if the United States only chooses to liberate those nations who can benefit us in terms of energy trade, that is our right and it is perfectly moral for us to do so.
Anyway, I assume that you agree to this since you acknowledge later that you think the United States is correct in defending its interests.
I dislike the hypocrisy of claiming that it is out of good will and in the name of peace or freedom. You lose all credibility when you supply guns and money to a dictator one moment, and then invade a country claiming it’s to free its people from a dictatorial regime the next.
Losing the moral credibility of one’s government is a significant but justified cost of electing terrible leadership.
To be honest I think we are more opposed to political instability in the middle east and the fact that the dictator of the largest oil reserve on earth happens to not like us. I actually think that if the said dictator were to be on friendly terms with the United States, we would do everything we could to keep him in power.
Again, not saying that Iran isn’t a threat that needs to be removed. Just that our motivations have little to do with morality.
I absolutely agree on those points. That’s what I meant when I said that we have blundered by negotiating with such leaders. And you’re right. When a brutal dictator is on good terms with us, we don’t bother them. In this sense, I think we are on the same page.
American foreign policy should be dictated by what is in the rational self-interest of United States citizens. A moral foreign policy is not a duty to allocate billions in resources and incur many military deaths in order to topple every dictatorship in order to spread democracy, justice and/or Capitalism to every forsaken end of the Earth. However, a nation would still be moral if it chose to topple a brutal dictatorship in order to establish a government that would better protect the rights of the currently oppressed populace. That being said, if the United States only chooses to liberate those nations who can benefit us in terms of energy trade, that is our right and it is perfectly moral for us to do so.
I absolutely agree. What I dislike is hypocritical rhetorics and sentiments. International relations is what it is – there is no need to sugar coat it.