The New Hitler: Iran to Publish Holocaust Cartoons

Three Dollar Hooker

Three Dollar Hooker

CAGiversary!
Don't say this guy hasn't provided ample warning to the rest of the world about what he is, what he intends to do and what he thinks of the entire Western world and the Jewish people.

Iran to publish Holocaust cartoons
From: Agence France-Presse
From correspondents in Tehran


February 07, 2006

IRAN'S largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.

"It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.
He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.

Iran's fiercely anti-Israeli regime is supportive of so-called Holocaust revisionist historians, who maintain the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as well as other groups during World War II has been either invented or exaggerated.

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted international anger when he dismissed the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as a "myth" used to justify the creation of Israel.

Mr Mortazavi said tomorrow's edition of the paper will invite cartoonists to enter the competition, with "private individuals" offering gold coins to the best 12 artists - the same number of cartoons that appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
Last week, the Iranian foreign ministry also invited British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Teheran to take part in a planned conference on the Holocaust, even though the idea has been branded by Mr Blair as "shocking, ridiculous, stupid".

Mr Blair also said Mr Ahmadinejad "should come and see the evidence of the Holocaust himself in the countries of Europe", to which Iran responded by saying it was willing to send a team of "independent investigators".
News.com Austrailia
 
Wow, you made a thread without calling him "AM23's friend"!

Congrats on moving beyond that BTW.

Now expect a whole slew of people apologizing for Iran, their psychotic President and telling us we're taking his rhetoric out of context.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Now expect a whole slew of people apologizing for Iran, their psychotic President and telling us we're taking his rhetoric out of context.[/QUOTE]

The funny thing is that you can replace "Iran" with "America" and the statement still holds true.
 
I wonder how many kidnappings, burning of embassies and the like this will cause?

I wonder if the media will not republish any of these pictures out of "respect".
 
This is:
A) A publicity stunt.
B) Stupid, insofar that they're going to prop up a theory that is stupid
C) Merely meant to incite as much furor as possible.

They can print it all they want, but one has to question the legitimacy of the newspaper if they do so. The political message from the Dutch cartoons was about freedom of expression, or the lack of it in the Islamic world. However, what exactly is the political message of Iran's cartoons? "We can be offensive"? "We hate Israel"? "We can do it too"? "we totally miss the point"? Publicity stunt, plain and simple.
 
Just how stupid do you have to be mao after all that's happened, how much this has been reported and how much this topic was discussed on this board in the last week to think that it was Dutch nationals or a Dutch newspaper that created the "offending" images of Islam?

I mean seriously. Are you really so inept at picking up facts?

Legitimate newspaper? Legitimate, by Western standards, newspaper in Iran?

Good God you're dumb to think such a thing even exists.

Then again, you think the Dutch are at the center of a malestrom of Islamic fury..... so nevermind.
 
Well the iranian president is anti-semitic, and this will certainly attract anti-semitic artists. Even if this had the best of intentions (which I don't think it does), it's one of those things that the audience wouldn't "get". Just like those comics that use racist jokes to mock racists, they may know what they're doing but the audience doesn't.

In the right context I could understand this (it's along the lines of things I can see myself doing), but that's if you assume the best intentions are behind it, and I don't think anyone with a rational thought process could do that in this case. That being said, I don't think this screams anti-semitism like some of the presidents comments, more a tolerance of it than anything else.

Don't say this guy hasn't provided ample warning to the rest of the world about what he is, what he intends to do and what he thinks of the entire Western world and the Jewish people.
Click to expand...

Could you please enlighten me on the history of Mr. Mortazavi? This is the first time I've heard of him so I can't judge the accuracy of your statement without knowing more about his history.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']
They can print it all they want, but one has to question the legitimacy of the newspaper if they do so. The political message from the Dutch cartoons was about freedom of expression, or the lack of it in the Islamic world. However, what exactly is the political message of Iran's cartoons? "We can be offensive"? "We hate Israel"? "We can do it too"? "we totally miss the point"? Publicity stunt, plain and simple.[/QUOTE]

Whatever it may be I doubt we'll see calls from jews for a holy war to punish them for being sacreligious. We won't see jews threatening to kidnap iranians for retribution, and we won't see streets full of burning and looting becuse someone offended the jewish faith.

And before you waste your finger strength, alonzo, of course there will be a few jewish zealots calling for death to Iran, but not nearly in the scope that would occurr in the reversal of circumstances.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Whatever it may be I doubt we'll see calls from jews for a holy war to punish them for being sacreligious. We won't see jews threatening to kidnap iranians for retribution, and we won't see streets full of burning and looting becuse someone offended the jewish faith.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure we won't see anything of the scope that the muslim world is able to produce. However, I'm curious if the western world is going to be in an uproar about it, or how they will react.
 
This is:
A) A publicity stunt.
B) Stupid, insofar that they're going to prop up a theory that is stupid
C) Merely meant to incite as much furor as possible.
Click to expand...

I doubt this will prop up anything, though I don't think they care one way or the other. I think A and B are the reason its being done, with the tolerance of anti-semitism a contributing factor. Neither A or B are necessarily bad reasons, but this is in incredibly poor taste. Though I think there will be minimal reaction primarily because most people will brush it off as an intentionally outrageous publicity stunt.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I doubt this will prop up anything, though I don't think they care one way or the other. I think A and B are the reason its being done, with the tolerance of anti-semitism a contributing factor. Neither A or B are necessarily bad reasons, but this is in incredibly poor taste. Though I think there will be minimal reaction primarily because most people will brush it off as an intentionally outrageous publicity stunt.[/QUOTE]
ok, replace "going" with "trying"
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I doubt this will prop up anything, though I don't think they care one way or the other. I think A and B are the reason its being done, with the tolerance of anti-semitism a contributing factor. Neither A or B are necessarily bad reasons, but this is in incredibly poor taste. Though I think there will be minimal reaction primarily because most people will brush it off as an intentionally outrageous publicity stunt.[/QUOTE]

You still have to accept the comparison though. To Jews, these images will be every bit as offensive as any of the cartoons have been to Muslims. If the Jews don't react violently (you and I both know that Israel, if they wanted could do some serious harm to Iran) and show restraint then you have your comparisons you tried to make and you have a mature reaction. If they restrain themself, then it will make the Muslim's reaction to the cartoons seem all that much more unacceptable and unjustified. I'm betting Israel takes it in stride.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']You still have to accept the comparison though. To Jews, these images will be every bit as offensive as any of the cartoons have been to Muslims. If the Jews don't react violently (you and I both know that Israel, if they wanted could do some serious harm to Iran) and show restraint then you have your comparisons you tried to make and you have a mature reaction. If they restrain themself, then it will make the Muslim's reaction to the cartoons seem all that much more unacceptable and unjustified. I'm betting Israel takes it in stride.[/QUOTE]

No I don't. You can't change the circrumstances completely and say that it is an equivalent comparison. I've explained that the circumstances for muslims are different than that for christians (and I would have mentioned jews if it had been relevant at the time), and that contributes to different reactions. Here they've changed the circumstances of the cartoons themselves (not just the readers) and that will make the reaction even more different.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I'm sure we won't see anything of the scope that the muslim world is able to produce. However, I'm curious if the western world is going to be in an uproar about it, or how they will react.[/QUOTE]

The reaction will be the same as when Ahmadinejad called for the wiping of Israel off the map: He's a kook.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']No I don't. You can't change the circrumstances completely and say that it is an equivalent comparison. I've explained that the circumstances for muslims are different than that for christians (and I would have mentioned jews if it had been relevant at the time), and that contributes to different reactions. Here they've changed the circumstances of the cartoons themselves (not just the readers) and that will make the reaction even more different.[/QUOTE]

Yet your Jesus ass raping children comparison is relevant?

Look, what you are doing is once again handicapping people for acting reasonably. What we have here, is unreasonable reactions vs. reasonabl actions. If one group acts more reasonably is EXACTLY the point I have been making.

The violent reaction was unacceptable and unjustified. The fact that almost any other group can be subjected to as much, if not greater indignation and take it in stride further sums up just how idiotic the reaction we have seen is.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']Yet your Jesus ass raping children comparison is relevant?

Look, what you are doing is once again handicapping people for acting reasonably. What we have here, is unreasonable reactions vs. reasonabl actions. If one group acts more reasonably is EXACTLY the point I have been making.

The violent reaction was unacceptable and unjustified. The fact that almost any other group can be subjected to as much, if not greater indignation and take it in stride further sums up just how idiotic the reaction we have seen is.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that circumstances surround events can be just as important, if not moreso, than the even itself. You're right, people should be just as upset about cartoons someone just decided to print with no provocation as they are by a publicity stunt done which a newspaper publicly announced is being done to cause outrage. What was I thinking?
 
No one is the new Hitler. Hitler was Hitler. The Nazis were the nazis. This guy is driven by an completely different reason then Hitler. His methods are different then Hitler. He is not the New Hitler. Hitler wanted to rule the world at the expense of the Jews, Ahmadinejad just wants them dead, he doesn't care about ruling the world. There's a difference. Stop comparing everyone you don't like to Hitler. Rule number 1 of internet arguing is "The first person to compare an opponent to Hitler or the Nazi's, looses." You lost in the thread title.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm sorry, I was under the impression that circumstances surround events can be just as important, if not moreso, than the even itself. You're right, people should be just as upset about cartoons someone just decided to print with no provocation as they are by a publicity stunt done which a newspaper publicly announced is being done to cause outrage. What was I thinking?[/QUOTE]

Firstly, let us compare which is more offensive.
It is entirely misleading to say that images of Mohammed are forbidden. They are not and never have been. In fact, images of Mohammed have even been published in the Koran. The "rule" against having images of Mohammed is no different than the graven images commandment found in the Bible (not suprising since they borrow heavily from each other): You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;. The only difference is just that many Muslims follow a stricter form of Islam relatively than their Christian counterparts. So, we have established that images of Muhammed while in truth forbidden are no more offensive than images of God/Jesus ACCORDING to the Bible and Koran respectively.

So, having said that obviously portraying Mohammed in a negative light is offensive to any Muslim sensabilities. In America, we have learned more tolerance and we see Jesus mocked on a almost daily basis. Hell, I can barely watch Adult Swim without seeing Jesus made fun of multiple times. So, we are more tolerant but that is part of the point I have tried to make. Muslims have to learn tolerance as well. If we bow to their silly demands and excuse their inexusable actions it will not teach them tolerance but rather reward their lack of tolerance. But ok, just for the sake of argument I'll conceed that it offends their religious sensabilities as much as possible. Although the only reason is does that is because they want to be offended, because they essentially have a chip on their shoulder and have become reactionary.

Praising the Holocaust is not just offensive to Jews, it is offensive to all of mankind. I find it difficult to make comparisons because "ethnic cleansing" on that level has rarely even been attempted. This was the attempt to exterminate a entire group of people. One can not compare mocking a belief to mocking the murder of millions from a logical perspective. I suppose I could compare it to making fun of the Crusades but the Crusades were more to lord over the Middle East than exterminate it. But, even giving the Muslims credit for being zealots there is no way to be more offensive to Jews. Making fun of the Jews being targetted and exterminated systematically. How can you say oh yeah, making fun of Mohammad is just as bad if not worse? What part of your brain lets you say that with a straight face?

But, publicity stunt? Trying to cause outrage? Did you know the cartoons were published in September 2005? Did you ever wonder how they got those Danish flags to burn (not the most common things outside of Denmark). The reactionary radicals were played like a piano. It was orchestrated, something that is easy to do with a bunch of mind-numbed puppets.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']

Praising the Holocaust is not just offensive to Jews, it is offensive to all of mankind. I find it difficult to make comparisons because "ethnic cleansing" on that level has rarely even been attempted. This was the attempt to exterminate a entire group of people. One can not compare mocking a belief to mocking the murder of millions from a logical perspective. I suppose I could compare it to making fun of the Crusades but the Crusades were more to lord over the Middle East than exterminate it. But, even giving the Muslims credit for being zealots there is no way to be more offensive to Jews. Making fun of the Jews being targetted and exterminated systematically. How can you say oh yeah, making fun of Mohammad is just as bad if not worse? What part of your brain lets you say that with a straight face?[/quote]

The world isn't black and white. For some reason you can't comprehend that changing the circumstances in virtually every way possible, including publicly telling people that it's just to cause outrage, would make a difference. Sure the focus is offensive cartoons, but it doesn't begin or end there. Your argument ignores that.

But, publicity stunt? Trying to cause outrage? Did you know the cartoons were published in September 2005? Did you ever wonder how they got those Danish flags to burn (not the most common things outside of Denmark). The reactionary radicals were played like a piano. It was orchestrated, something that is easy to do with a bunch of mind-numbed puppets.
Click to expand...

I thought I was pretty clear that the publicity stunt is the holocaust cartoons. Some nations had sent delegates to denmark to register a complaint, but they were denied even a meeting. If that hadn't been the case it probably would have died there.
 
they have the right to publish the cartoon of there choice, but they have to accept the consequence both positive and negative, most likely all positive for them. Ohh and how is publishing holocaust cartoons = to Hitler. I hate uppity jews who complain over everything, it gives me and my fellow more laid back jews a bad name.
 
I dunno, is the holocaust funny yet? AIDS is funny right? But AIDS hasn't killed as many people...hhhmmmm...

I have nothing to add
 
[quote name='SpazX']I dunno, is the holocaust funny yet? AIDS is funny right? But AIDS hasn't killed as many people...hhhmmmm...[/QUOTE]

I don't know...was "Hotel Rwanda" a comedy? Heard any Stalin jokes lately? The new comedy gold, I hear, is material related to Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't know...was "Hotel Rwanda" a comedy? Heard any Stalin jokes lately? The new comedy gold, I hear, is material related to Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein...[/QUOTE]

I did find a soviet joke from back in the day that was pretty good:

A flock of sheep were stopped by frontier guards at the Russo-Finnish border. "Why do you wish to leave Russia?" the guards asked them. "It's the NKVD", replied the terrified sheep. "Beria's ordered them to arrest all elephants." "But you aren't elephants!" the guards pointed out. "Try telling that to the NKVD!"

I guess jokes were generally just not that funny in the 30s, but yeah, I guess usually the jokes are about the people doing the killing and not so much the killed. Plenty of Hitler jokes, not so many for the holocaust.

Holy shit I did just find a lot of holocaust jokes from holocaust deniers (which makes sense, I guess). http://www.heretical.com/holofun/shoah3.html Some of them are kinda like the dead baby jokes (What's red and green and hangs from the ceiling? Dead baby on a meat hook) so they're pretty fucked up and twisted people (but then again they do think the holocaust never happened, so they think they're fighting the man or something).

But anyway, I'm not surprised that a guy that would probably conduct a holocaust would make cartoons making fun of the holocaust (and afterall, if they contain anal rape they automatically become funny in America).
 
[quote name='Cheese']No one is the new Hitler. Hitler was Hitler. The Nazis were the nazis. This guy is driven by an completely different reason then Hitler. His methods are different then Hitler. He is not the New Hitler. Hitler wanted to rule the world at the expense of the Jews, Ahmadinejad just wants them dead, he doesn't care about ruling the world. There's a difference. Stop comparing everyone you don't like to Hitler. Rule number 1 of internet arguing is "The first person to compare an opponent to Hitler or the Nazi's, looses." You lost in the thread title.[/QUOTE]

Wow, if I didn't know better, I would say your avatar is actually a picture of you. I mean, what you wrote is really idiotic for at least the following reasons:

1) Ahmadinejad and the islamic jihadists DO want to rule the world, they just lack the strength to make a real attempt. Hitler had that strength. But make no mistake about it, the radical islamists would LOVE nothing more than to establish a caliphate to rule the world. As one example, the radical British cleric who was just convicted spoke about putting a caliph in the White House. Do they have the ability to do so? No. Would they like to do so? Yes.

2) Hitler wanted to rule the world, true, but at the expense of the Jews? I'm not sure what you mean. He was virulently anti-semitic and murdered millions of Jews, but I'm not sure that is connected with his desire to rule the world.

3) The word is "loses," not "looses."
 
[quote name='sgs89']2) Hitler wanted to rule the world, true, but at the expense of the Jews? I'm not sure what you mean. He was virulently anti-semitic and murdered millions of Jews, but I'm not sure that is connected with his desire to rule the world. [/QUOTE]
Without blaming Germany's problems on the Jews, he really wouldn't have been able to cement the loyalty of the Germans.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Wow, if I didn't know better, I would say your avatar is actually a picture of you. I[/quote]

Thanks for the compliment. You are a fine debater, and I am sure quite good looking to boot.

1) Ahmadinejad and the islamic jihadists DO want to rule the world, they just lack the strength to make a real attempt. Hitler had that strength. But make no mistake about it, the radical islamists would LOVE nothing more than to establish a caliphate to rule the world. As one example, the radical British cleric who was just convicted spoke about putting a caliph in the White House. Do they have the ability to do so? No. Would they like to do so? Yes.
Click to expand...

As far as I know Ahmadinejad and co. aren't invading countries and actively planning to take over the world. Is he actively trying to push the Jews into the sea? To some degree by funding Islamic Jihad, and I'm sure he's got some plans hidden in a desk somewhere, but he's not moving tanks into Turkey. Would they like to rule the world? Sure, but so would nearly every other culture on the planet. What do you think our adventures in Iraq are about? Pie?

On a side note, that same British cleric was asked shortly after 9/11, what could the US do to appease his ilk, his reply was, "Stay on your side of the world." not, "Convert to Islam."

2) Hitler wanted to rule the world, true, but at the expense of the Jews? I'm not sure what you mean. He was virulently anti-semitic and murdered millions of Jews, but I'm not sure that is connected with his desire to rule the world.
Click to expand...

Hitler promoted hatred of Jews in the people of Germany not because he hated them so much (which he did, but that was a side bonus) but because he needed something to unify the Germans using fear, patriotism and ethnic purity, i.e. nationalism. If he thought he could've gotten more people to follow him if he promoted hatred of midgets, I'm sure he would've gone with the midgets. Wiping out the Jews was secondary to his early goals of consolidating power and taking over Germany, and from there, the world. Ahmadinejad really does truly and deeply hate Jews and the concept of Israel, to the core of his being, it's much more important to him then any fantasies of ruling the world.

3) The word is "loses," not "looses."
Click to expand...

You are the king of typo catchers! Huzzah, the day is yours! Your crown, sir...

Crown_Jeweled_small.jpg


The point remains, calling someone Hitler, when they are in fact not Hitler, lessens the concept of Hitler as a symbol of ultimate power crazed insanity and is, 90% of the time, factually incorrect.
 
[quote name='Cheese'] Is he actively trying to push the Jews into the sea? [/QUOTE]

No, he just wants to incinerate them in a nuclear fire.

Much simpler, none of that drowning business.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']No, he just wants to incinerate them in a nuclear fire.

Much simpler, none of that drowning business.[/QUOTE]

Far be it from me to misquote scientists and culture reports, but from everything I've heard and read says that even if they were given every document on nukes available to date, Iran is still 20+ years from making a functional nuclear weapon. But hey, I listen to experts, not random posters on FreeRepublic.com. I am sure they are much more knowledgeable.
 
[quote name='Cheese']As far as I know Ahmadinejad and co. aren't invading countries and actively planning to take over the world. Is he actively trying to push the Jews into the sea? To some degree by funding Islamic Jihad, and I'm sure he's got some plans hidden in a desk somewhere, but he's not moving tanks into Turkey. Would they like to rule the world? Sure, but so would nearly every other culture on the planet. What do you think our adventures in Iraq are about? Pie?

On a side note, that same British cleric was asked shortly after 9/11, what could the US do to appease his ilk, his reply was, "Stay on your side of the world." not, "Convert to Islam."

You are the king of typo catchers! Huzzah, the day is yours! Your crown, sir...

Crown_Jeweled_small.jpg


The point remains, calling someone Hitler, when they are in fact not Hitler, lessens the concept of Hitler as a symbol of ultimate power crazed insanity and is, 90% of the time, factually incorrect.[/QUOTE]

Wow, here we go again.

Look, I wouldn't normally criticize someone for making the (common) mistake of using "looses" for "loses," but I found it rather ironic that you would make such a mistake while ripping another poster for his analogy. And it wasn't a typo, it was a misunderstanding of the language.

Your quotation of the British cleric (while the quotation may or may not be accurate) undermines your very point. He made the comment WHILE HE WAS LIVING IN A WESTERN COUNTRY. Don't you think that belies his claim that the only thing the jihadists care about is us staying on "our side of the world"?

Also, you claimed that Ahmadinejad "didn't care about ruling the world" -- you have now retreated from that statement. My point remains -- he DOES care about it (as much as Hitler did), he just lacks the ability at this time to give it a credible shot.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Far be it from me to misquote scientists and culture reports, but from everything I've heard and read says that even if they were given every document on nukes available to date, Iran is still 20+ years from making a functional nuclear weapon. But hey, I listen to experts, not random posters on FreeRepublic.com. I am sure they are much more knowledgeable.[/QUOTE]

Wow, you truly are clueless.

We made the original fission weapon in >5 years when none of the methods of implosion of a fissionable core were known. We had to invent the purification process of enriched uranium and plutonium. We had to figure out how to manufacture the bombs themselves.

Now books on how to make a bomb can be found on Amazon, ordered or picked up at Barnes & Noble or Borders or just searched for on google and PDF'd to your PC.

But you're going to tell us that despite all the availability of manufacturing and production methods that the Iranians will need 20+ years to make a bomb?

What is it you're smoking and will you share with the rest of us?

BTW, I openly challenge your "experts" that say it's going to take 20+ years for Iran to make a nuclear weapon. Produce them. Links? Sources? Or are you just hauling this figure and your "experts" out of your ass.

No country with available financial means is >5 years away from making a fissionable weapon or >8 years from making a fusionable weapon. The process is not that hard in the scope of engineering anymore.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Wow, here we go again.

Look, I wouldn't normally criticize someone for making the (common) mistake of using "looses" for "loses," but I found it rather ironic that you would make such a mistake while ripping another poster for his analogy. And it wasn't a typo, it was a misunderstanding of the language.[/quote]

uh, ok, an argument from last week, but whatever. Did you have a your own crystal ball or did you have to ask a gypsy to divine wether I am a bad typist or a bad speller?

Your quotation of the British cleric (while the quotation may or may not be accurate) undermines your very point. He made the comment WHILE HE WAS LIVING IN A WESTERN COUNTRY. Don't you think that belies his claim that the only thing the jihadists care about is us staying on "our side of the world"?
Click to expand...

I think everything the guy says is un-credible, but you brought him up. I think he undermines his own point, not mine.

Also, you claimed that Ahmadinejad "didn't care about ruling the world" -- you have now retreated from that statement. My point remains -- he DOES care about it (as much as Hitler did), he just lacks the ability at this time to give it a credible shot.
Click to expand...

I retreated only in saying that he wants to rule the world about as much as any leader does. I'm sure that somewhere in the back of his mind the president of Luxembourg would like to rule the world, but I wouldn't call him HITLER for it. I haven't seen any evidence that his primary goal in life is ruling the world, and even if I did, he's still not Hilter, his mustache isn't goofy enough.

As nasty of a guy as he may be, Ahmadinejad is not Hilter. And saying so elevates Ahmadinejad and lessens Hitler.
 
Nuclear Weapons
Iran's nuclear program began in the Shah's era, including a plan to build 20 nuclear power reactors. Two power reactors in Bushehr, on the coast of the Persian Gulf, were started but remained unfinished when they were bombed and damaged by the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war. Following the revolution in 1979, all nuclear activity was suspended, though subsequently work was resumed on a somewhat more modest scale. Current plans extend to the construction of 15 power reactors and two research reactors.

Research and development efforts also were conducted by the Shah's regime on fissile material production, although these efforts were halted during the Iranian revolution and the Iran-Iraq war.

The current nuclear program is headed by the President, the commander of the Iranian Revulutionary Gaurd Corps (IRGC), the head of the Defense Industries Organization, and the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO). These leaders continue the pursuit of WMD's and support Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear programs against all pressures from the United States and its allies.

Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect any of its nuclear facilities. Prior to 2003 no IAEA inspections had revealed Tehran's violations of the NPT.

Since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Tehran redoubled its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles. In addition to Iran's legitimate efforts to develop its nuclear power-generation industry, it is believed to be operating a parallel clandestine nuclear weapons program. Iran appears to be following a policy of complying with the NPT and building its nuclear power program in such a way that if the appropriate political decision is made, know-how gained in the peaceful sphere (specialists and equipment) could be used to create nuclear weapons (dual-use technologies have been sold to Iran by at least nine western companies during the early 1990's). Also, in this atmosphere of deception, unconfirmed reports have been made that Tehran purchased several nuclear warheads in the early 1990's

It is evident that Iran's efforts are focused both on uranium enrichment and a parallel plutonium effort. Iran claims it is trying to establish a complete nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy program, but this same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons development program. Iran appears to have spread their nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection or attack.

Iran does not currently have nuclear weapons, and would appear to be about two years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. By some time in 2006, however, Iran could be producting fissile material for atomic bombs using both uranium enriched at Natanz and plutonium produced at Arak. The Natanz facility might produce enough uranium for about five bombs every year, and the Arak facility might produced enough plutonium for as many as three bombs every year.

If Iran did acquire atomic bombs, it would put pressure on other countries in the region do the same. Many Arab countries believe it is unfair that Israel has nuclear weapons. If Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia but also Egypt and possibly Syria, found themselves caught between a nuclear-armed Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran, it would greatly increase pressures to pursue their own nuclear options. This could result in a regional arms race in the Middle East which is likely to be quite destabilizing, given the number and intensity of conflicts and instabilities in the region.

In December 2003 Presidential hopeful John Kerry said that he would explore "areas of mutual interest" with Iran. And in June 2004 Kerry proposed providing nuclear fuel to Iran in exchange for Iran's abandoning the fissile material production complex at Esfahan, Arak, Natanz and other locations. In an interview on 29 August 2004, reported in the Washington Post on 30 August, Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards proposed a "Grand Bargain" with Iran, under which the US would drop objections to the nuclear power reactor at Bushehr, in exchange for Iran abandoning the material production complex. According to Edwards, if Iran rejected this offer, it would confirm that it was building atomic bombs. Edwards also said that Kerry would ensure that European allies would join the US in imposing sanctions on Iran. "If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us," Edwards said. "Iran is further along in developing a nuclear weapon than they were when George Bush came into office... A nuclear Iran is unacceptable for so many reasons, including the possibility that it creates a gateway and the need for other countries in the region to develop nuclear capability -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, potentially others," Edwards said.
Link

C'mon cheese, produce your experts claiming Iran is 20+ years away from making a nuclear weapon. I'll come back later tonight when your head is still in your ass, still flailing away to counteract the estimates of Globalsecurity.org and Jane's Defense/Intelligence weekly.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Wow, you truly are clueless.
But you're going to tell us that despite all the availability of manufacturing and production methods that the Iranians will need 20+ years to make a bomb?

BTW, I openly challenge your "experts" that say it's going to take 20+ years for Iran to make a nuclear weapon. Produce them. Links? Sources? Or are you just hauling this figure and your "experts" out of your ass.[/QUOTE]

This I'll concede to, I did see a report where they said 20 years, but I can't remember where. I've looked around just now and found most US intelligence estimates are 6-11 years and some private estimates say 2009, and the Israelis say next year.

There's a pretty decent wrap up here:
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/945/iran-focus-part-1-how-close-is-iran-to-the-bomb
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
[/U]C'mon cheese, produce your experts claiming Iran is 20+ years away from making a nuclear weapon. I'll come back later tonight when your head is still in your ass, still flailing away to counteract the estimates of Globalsecurity.org and Jane's Defense/Intelligence weekly.[/QUOTE][/u]

Sorry PADdy, unlike you, I can admit when I'm wrong. Nice of you to give me less then an hour to respond though, I appreciate that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top