Does Ahmadinejad even want a nuclear weapon?

[goRPaul]

I've been doing some research lately, and as much as people say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a fanatic, he comes across as a very intelligent man. He has said repeatedly that the nuclear program is for energy only. It's only the rest of the world that is saying they shouldn't have the freedom to pursue nuclear energy and imposing sanctions on them. And now we have leaders saying we'll pre-emptively strike Iran if they don't end their nuclear program.

Most supposed anti-Semitic statements by Ahmadinejad have been mistranslated and therefore debunked. I have found no concrete evidence that suggests Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. In fact, everything they say goes against this claim.

This is similar, if not identical to, when we accused Saddam Hussein of having nuclear weapons and finding out there were none. We're in for a repeat- we're going to invade another country on the pretext of preventing eminent nuclear threat, and we're going to find out they had no intention of bombing anyone.

And somewhere in there, a happy group of people will reap massive war profits.

This is what I've come up with in my research. It's very disconcerting to conclude that we are the aggressors. Can someone prove me wrong? Or is this really what our foreign policy has amounted to?

[filmmaker58]

Anyone interested can listen to the Ahmadinejad interview with Charlie Rose at http://www.charlierose.com/home, then search for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the world section. It is good to hear him speak without the Fox News filters on, then draw your own conclusions. I'm betting that Ron Paul could negotiate with this man.

[Malakai0]

I don't think so. Even if they were, nuclear capability this day and age is needed for a level playing field and protection by mutually assured destruction.

Iran has never attacked another nation for over 100 years except in response to an attack on themselves (Saddam).

It's likely no terrorist has ever tried to nuke a city, because they know a nuclear response against their nation would be possible. Having nuclear capabilities is clearly a good thing when dealing with other nuclear powers.

To deny this to another nation, especially one with no history of being threatening but being threatened themselves by us, is extremely hypocritical. Besides there are surely enough nukes floating around from the soviet collapse that any country could get a hold of one if they really wanted it.

[Oliver]

Ron Paul sums it up pretty well: The Russians had tens of thousands
Nuclear Weapons and we didn't have a war - and now we're whining
about third-world countries that don't even posses nuclear weapons
yet.


And no, there is no hard evidence for Iran trying to build a nuclear
weapon. Quite the opposite: They're acting completely legal under
the IAEA treaty.

Some say that pro-Israeli interests are heavily pushing for an
intervention in Iran. And even if I don't know if that's true, it's
the only explanation that makes sense so far since Iran isn't
the aggressive invading country - and the claim they are a
threat to the US is straightway ridiculous...

I can't believe that anyone in the US would buy this Propaganda
being presented by the whiny wieners in the White House and
on Fox&Friends...

CNN Interview with head of IAEA on Iran 10/27 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftQTGzuggu8)

I wonder when Fox invites the IAEA's president as well since
they are fair&balanced. LOL.

[Shiranu]

Ok, I heard some claims that he believes the Holocaust never happened, if thats true, I do have slight dobuts about his full sanity, but to me, he did come across pretty sincere and intelligent when that one college bashed the living hell out him (And he was a honorary guest who they invited =\).

[Oliver]

Ok, I heard some claims that he believes the Holocaust never happened, if thats true, I do have slight dobuts about his full sanity, but to me, he did come across pretty sincere and intelligent when that one college bashed the living hell out him (And he was a honorary guest who they invited =\).


It's true that he has doubts about the Holocaust. Don't ask me
where he got that BS from, but that doesn't necessarily mean
that he's a nut.

SPIEGEL Interview with Iran's President Ahmadinejad (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,418660,00.html)

A nut would be someone who claims that he's posing a threat for
saying "The Regime in Israel should vanish from the pages of time",
and translating this into "I will use Nuclear Weapons to wipe Israel
off the map".

Funny enough - that's exactly what's being said about Ahmadinejad.

Even funnier: Jerusalem is one of Islams holiest sites - of course it
would make sense for Ahmadinejad and Friends to drop nuclear
weapons on those sites - according to the Bushies ... Gee ... :rolleyes:

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

The Iranian merely questions the official line on the holocaust. He's not insane, he's just extremely logical. He asks questions when according to institutions here and in Israel, asking questions about the holocaust is strictly not allowed. When they don't allow questioning of an issue, and demonize the opposition ("insane holocaust deniers") they are not telling the whole truth. Haven't we found this to be the Establishment's preferred strategy? Works well, doesn't it?

[kylejack]

I think he's fairly intelligent and rational, but I worry, because the mullahs actually have more power than them. Are they rational? Or are they religious ideologues who have been promised a place in paradise?

[Oliver]

The Iranian merely questions the official line on the holocaust. He's not insane, he's just extremely logical. He asks questions when according to institutions here and in Israel, asking questions about the holocaust is strictly not allowed. When they don't allow questioning of an issue, and demonize the opposition ("insane holocaust deniers") they are not telling the whole truth. Haven't we found this to be the Establishment's preferred strategy? Works well, doesn't it?


It worked well in the past, yes. And I agree that it's annoying to see
that people are being named in a way for asking questions. This is
a phenomena that I see very often in the US - especially if someone
questions Israel.

Living in Germany I wonder why an educated man like Ahmadinejad
would push those questions. He surely should know better. But there's
also the possibility that he questions the Holocaust out of promotional
reasons, namely to gain votes.

But in any way - it surely isn't a wise step on international level.
(As we see right now...)

[winston84]

Yes he does want a nuclear weapon, but that doesn't negate Ron Paul's foreign policy stance. Its ludicrous to think that an oil rich country is developing nuclear reactors for energy purposes!

[hornet]

as far as his intelligence, honesty or sanity goes he did make the claim that there are no homosexuals in iran. this says to me that he is A.) lying B.) ignorant to the point of borderline stupid or C.) is gay himself and the question flustered him so badly he blurted out the ridiculous denial (see larry craig syndrome).
which answer is the correct one is irrelevant, whether iran wants or gets a nuke weapon is their business, period.

[ctb619]

When it comes to Iran's nuclear policy, Ahmadinejad isn't nearly as influential as the Supreme Leader of Iran. So whether Ahmadinejad wants a nuclear weapon or not is irrelevant from a practical standpoint - it's not his choice to make.

[beerista]

Yes he does want a nuclear weapon, but that doesn't negate Ron Paul's foreign policy stance. Its ludicrous to think that an oil rich country is developing nuclear reactors for energy purposes!

Anyone being bullied by the US who doesn't want nukes qualifies more for the title of "insane" than someone who simply questions orthodoxy, especially after seeing the way the US changed its tune with regard to North Korea after she proved that she had them. Talk about inviting a worldwide rush to go nuclear.

As for Iran not desiring nuclear energy because she sits on large oil fields, yes, it is counter-intuitive that an oil rich country might seek other forms of energy, but not necessarily wrong for being so. I've heard intelligent economic arguments for the sense of this. Interestingly, the economic sense of this is even more stark because of US actions in the region driving up the cost of oil. Why not produce cheaper and efficient nuclear energy at home and sell off all your oil at strife-inflated prices to all the suckers abroad?

If we weren't trapped into our thinking about the region that is fed to us by the usual suspects, we might even see this as a sign of just how self-defeating our policy is in the Middle East: if we're there to protect oil as a resource in our national interest, then Iran's insistence (if we take Iran at her word) that she seeks nuclear power and not nuclear weapons might be seen as evidence that they'll sell it to us without the need for invasion. To heavily paraphrase OBL, "Of course we'll sell it to you; what are we going to do: drink it?"

[RP4ME]

Egypt has just declared that it too will seek Nuclear power and WE are helping them do this.....as they say the want it for peaceful purposes.....Hmmm?

[RP4ME]

Anyone being bullied by the US who doesn't want nukes qualifies more for the title of "insane" than someone who simply questions orthodoxy, especially after seeing the way the US changed its tune with regard to North Korea after she proved that she had them. Talk about inviting a worldwide rush to go nuclear.

As for Iran not desiring nuclear energy because she sits on large oil fields, yes, it is counter-intuitive that an oil rich country might seek other forms of energy, but not necessarily wrong for being so. I've heard intelligent economic arguments for the sense of this. Interestingly, the economic sense of this is even more stark because of US actions in the region driving up the cost of oil. Why not produce cheaper and efficient nuclear energy at home and sell off all your oil at strife-inflated prices to all the suckers abroad?

If we weren't trapped into our thinking about the region that is fed to us by the usual suspects, we might even see this as a sign of just how self-defeating our policy is in the Middle East: if we're there to protect oil as a resource in our national interest, then Iran's insistence (if we take Iran at her word) that she seeks nuclear power and not nuclear weapons might be seen as evidence that they'll sell it to us without the need for invasion. To heavily paraphrase OBL, "Of course we'll sell it to you; what are we going to do: drink it?"


I recently red somewhere that Iran really doesnt have that much oil reserves as the press woudl have you belive - not sure if thats true or not....I think its a way for Iran to xert some power and stand up to teh US and look Russi is llied with Iran and China to some degree as well. To me its a miiror recation - like Chavez - and yes he's smart but partially nuts too! Look at what Saddam did and he had no wepaons - not to sound to sexist but its testosterone to a degree - a big pissing match!

[fletcher]

Yes, he wants a nuclear weapon. Nuclear power isn't important enough for it to be the only reason to keep pushing a nuclear program. The guy is an extremist, but he isn't a threat to us.

[Original_Intent]

I say we give them a nuclear weapon (tongue in cheek). I mean we were told that N Korea would be crazy enough to use it if they got it, we were told Pakistan and India should not have them. Every time a country gets a nuclear weapon we become their friends, why wait five years for iran to build their own, let's give them one and be friends! (I am not serious, but am only half joking.)

Also isn't it funny that the rationale is "xxxx can't have a nuclear weapon because they are actually insane enough to use it" yet the US is the only country to actually use a nuclear weapon (does that make us crazy?) but even more stupefying is in the same breath that they say Iran is crazy and therefore no nukes allowed, the same person (mitt, hillary, giuliani) will then refuse to take tactical nukes off the table as an option to prevent Iran from developing one!

Newsflash! Putting the word "tactical" in front of it does not make a nuke become a non-nuclear weapon! So if only a crazy person would use a nuke, and you refuse to take the nuke option off the table - does that make you crazy?

And we would do this to prevent a country from having what we already have? that hasn't attacked us or threatened us but has said they want to speak to us and engage us? Sanity check, please!

[The Wolf Star]

Ahmendinajad is a wacko, lying racist, nutjob, but that doesn't mean we should start dropping bombs on Iran.

Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/271uktmd.asp?pg=1)
'On December 12, 2006, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad personally brought to a close the infamous Holocaust deniers' conference in Tehran. A strange parade of speakers had passed across the podium: former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, the nutty followers of the anti-Zionist Jewish sect Neturei Karta, and officials of the neo-Nazi German National party, along with the familiar handful of professional Holocaust deniers. Frederick Töben had delivered a lecture entitled "The Holocaust--A Murder Weapon." Frenchman Robert Faurisson had called the Holocaust a "fairy tale," while his American colleague Veronica Clark had explained that "the Jews made money in Auschwitz." A professor named McNally had declared that to regard the Holocaust as a fact is as ludicrous as believing in "magicians and witches." Finally, the Belgian Leonardo Clerici had offered the following explanation in his capacity as a Muslim: "I believe that the value of metaphysics is greater than the value of history.'

He also, amazingly, at the same time, says that the only thing he has against Hitler is that he didn't kill all the Jews.


Oliver:
It's true that he has doubts about the Holocaust. Don't ask me where he got that BS from, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a nut

You coulda fooled the hell outta me.


fluoridatedbrainsoup:
The Iranian merely questions the official line on the holocaust. He's not insane, he's just extremely logical.

I guess that makes Adolph and all his boys extremely logical, too.

Ron Paul is so completely honest and has such a way about him, that I believe he could deal with Ahmandinejad. Even if Ahmandinejad were to start a war, which I doubt, Paul would do whatever he had to do. I have complete trust and faith in him.

[Paulitician]

Ahmadinejad is much like Bush, stupid and unpopular in his own nation, except Ahmadinejad holds more unpopular, unmainstream opinions and he doesn't have as much power as Bush in his own country (he isn't commander-in-chief). I say, don't fall the propaganda this time.