Iran President: Our Nukes Are Peaceful

In U.N Speech, Ahmadinejad Accuses U.S. Of Abusing Security Council

(CBS/AP)  Iran's nuclear activities are “transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye” of United Nations inspectors, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the U.N. General Assembly.

In a speech Tuesday, Ahmadinejad accused some permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — an apparent reference to the United States — of using the powerful U.N. body as a tool of “threat and coercion.” He reiterated his nation's commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

“All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes” of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Ahmadinejad said.

His speech was sharply critical of the United States and Britain, and focused in large part on what he said was their abuse of the Security Council, on which they are both permanent members with veto power.

“If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roes of prosecutor, judge and executioner,” Ahmadinejad said. “Is this a just order?”

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said in a press gaggle today that Bush did not watch Ahmadinejad's speech last night, and would not engage in point-by-point rebuttal of it.

The U.S. and Britain played central roles in helping craft a U.N. Security Council resolution passed in July that gave Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment and asked the IAEA to report on Tehran's compliance, dangling the threat of sanctions if Iran refused. Tehran made clear even before the deadline expired that it had no intention of suspending uranium enrichment.

"Clearly, Ahmadinejad's speech was an attempt to rally the developing world, not mentioning Iran's role in terror and, on the contrary, scolding the U.S and the U.K, for oppression in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Iran itself," said CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk from the U.N. on Tuesday evening.

"Although Ahmadinejad's attacks on the world powers may ring true with the developing world and it may buy Iran some more time with negotiations, the Security Council is likely to continue to press for sanctions if Iran does not return to a suspension of its nuclear programs."

The speech comes a few hours after President Bush used his U.N. platform to try to quell anti-Americanism in the Middle East by assuring Muslims that he is not waging war against Islam, regardless of what “propaganda and conspiracy theories” they hear.

Mr. Bush also pressed Iran to return at once to international talks on its nuclear program and threatened consequences if the Iranians do not.

[ronniehm]

Why won't you tell me how Bush profits by going to war? Is it such a hard question? And your theory about manipulating oil makes no sense. Iraq would have to take an economically disastrous loss on their oil to result in anything that would seem remotely like a windfall to a country as large as the US. Certainly there wouldn't be enough profit to make a war worthwhile. Iraq isn't going to take the backbone of their entire economy and donate it to America. I mean your accusation sounded like nothing more than a remote possibility when you said it, but now that I think about it, it's not even that.

[clestes-2009]

Ronnie, don't be dense. I know you aren't but really, think about it.

There are tons of money to be made in war. All the contracts for weapons, food, general supplies. Haven't you heard the joke about the toilet seat that cost the army $79.00 and sold for $7.90 in WestLakes??

I don't think Bush & Co expected the war to last as long as it has. He was thinking more along the lines of what Bush Sr. accomplished. Once the troops had the opposition smothered and people friendly to US interest in place, the Iraq oil industry could be manipulated. In other words, oil sold at rock bottom prices to US refineries and at higher prices to US competitors (China).

The whole thing fell apart when the insurgency proved to be tougher than they expected, although Bush & co had been warned this was a likely outcome by Middle east leaders, former ambassadors and the military.

I heard earlier this week that former Sec of State James Baker was heading a bipartisan group to work out a different strategy for Iraq. There might be some hope yet to get out of this mess.

I have to go.

[ronniehm]

... pumpkin.

[ronniehm]

Regardless of who made it up, troops were everywhere. They didn't run to the oil fields. And regardless of your impression, Bush never said Saddam was involved in 9/11. I don't know what's left of your "proof." Yeah, one of his many business dealings involved oil. He had a baseball team too. They played against the Royals. He met with the Saudi royal family. That can't be a coincidence. Sorry, but your hate doesn't come from your proof. Your proof comes from your hate. Without hate, the oil theory is pretty weak.

[clestes-2009]

Not true sweetie, I never make stuff up. I read that bit about the troops some years ago on the cbsnews site.

So Bush & co did not actually say the words "Saddam is tied to 9-11" you cannot deny that the impression was given by one and all that there WAS A CONNECTION between the two.

As for hating Bush, I have to admit you are right. Which is pretty rare for me. I don't hate people as a rule, may not agree with them, but don't hate. Terrible waste of emotion. But Bush has manage it.

I did read yesterday that the Roadless Rule was upheld in the appeals court. I realize that it has nothing to do with this blog, but it made made my day.

[ronniehm]

I want to know that last part. How has George Bush profited by going to war for oil? Don't give me any "he's an oil man" garbage. Tell me how.

[ronniehm]

"If he had had worthy reasons for the invasion, he would have come out with them."

He gave many worthy reasons, not just one as you claim. I think there were 13 of them.

"Saddam was tied to 9-11"

He never said Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. He said there was contact between Saddam and al qaeda. There was.

"Christ the first thing the troops did was run to oil fields and refineries to make sure they were safe."

Christ you're just making things up. Troops were everywhere.

I realize you hate Bush, but is it just a political thing with you? You don't have proof that he went to war for oil. You haven't even proven how he's going to benefit from going to war for oil. I dunno -- isn't that piece of the puzzle kind of .. uh .. IMPORTANT?

[clestes-2009]

What more proof do you require? Bush lied again and again to get the American people behind his grab for middle east oil. If he had had worthy reasons for the invasion, he would have come out with them.

Not so, he made up a lie to scare the American people, made up another lie, Saddam was tied to 9-11, and finally made up the spreading of democracy lie.

Christ the first thing the troops did was run to oil fields and refineries to make sure they were safe.

Ronnie, baby! If you can't see that MONEY was behind the whole affair, I give up on you!

[ronniehm]

I believe what I believe until someone proves otherwise, but all you're giving me are accusations and inuendos. Sorry, I'm not going to alter my ideology (apparently something people aren't supposed to have) based on that.

[clestes-2009]

Ronnie, you are so filled with idealology! You are the type of person that believes in all the high ideals given for a war.

Not me, kiddo. I know better.

[ronniehm]

You're still stuck on this notion that the spoils of war must be the reason for war. It's fallacious logic because it begins with the conclusion and works in the opposite direction of how things actually happened. Jimmy Carter was "tied" to nuclear power. Did he deal with Iran so badly because he wanted them to advance their nuclear program? If Iran needs technology and fuel, that would certainly benefit the Carter cronies. Or is there something wrong with that logic?

[clestes-2009]

to get a good understanding of Hitler and how he came to power, read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." It was written by a journalist who lived through the war, whose name I cannot remember now, but a really fascinating book.

[clestes-2009]

What am I to make of someone who cannot follow a simple train of thought? The revolutionary war involved MONEY. The colonies were being taxed and the money sent to Britain. BIG BIG part of why they were unhappy.

Hitler was always envious of the fertile land in west Russia. He wanted that land for Germany. To give him his due, money was never really a big motivator for him, but it sure was for those around him. Germany was locked in on all sides. No ocean access. Big problem. Why? because they had to PAY to ship goods to and from Germany. Also, Germany had been in a severe despression following WWI and that was the reason he was able to come to power. He promised the German people not only would he restore their pride, he would also establish a thriving economy.

Once a country was conquered the Germans made off with all the gold and any other valuables.

Spoils of war, baby. Didn't mean to offend you, but I still think you are gullible.

[ronniehm]

I stood up for you in another thread, clestes, because until now you were a debater who made arguments, not someone who launches personal attacks. I see it was a mistake to single you out as someone worthy of response.

[ronniehm]

Don't be an assh%u2022le.

[clestes-2009]

Ronnie, you are a gullible fool.

Without people like you, shysters would be out of business and politicians would never be held accountable.

[ronniehm]

Oh brother. How do you argue with someone who thinks "taxation without representation" has to do with money and Hitler killed millions of jews on his way to an oil field?

I don't know how many more ways to say it. Results do not prove cause. I could probably get a book deal if I saved 50 children in a burning orphanage, yet no matter how many books I've already published, it wouldn't prove that's why I did it. You have no argument when it comes to oil, and I'm not even getting to the fact that the government doesn't even have the power to control oil profits. They make about 9 cents a gallon, and they wouldn't need a war to make 10 cents a gallon, nor do they require peace to make 8 cents a gallon. Iran, on the other hand, has a LOT to gain by raising the price of a barrel of oil.

[clestes-2009]

American Revolution was about money. No taxation without representation. Who do you think benefited from Vietnam? Big defense contractors. Hitler wanted direct access to the oil fields of the Russian Caucus and a port on the ocean to ship goods.

You need to think past the rhetoric and go to the bottom line.

[mrx3009]

No, Vietnam was about America trying to prevent communism from spreading, although it served no direct threat to them. It would be one thing to fabricate ties to give truth to a certain reasoning, however, this is not necessary for linking oil to our foreign policy. Bush's reason for invading Iraq was his claim that they had weapons of mass destruction and that they had a connection with al Qaeda, who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. However, just as the international community said, there turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction, and no link to al Qaeda. He himself has very recently blatantly admitted that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

So, when all of the reasons that are given to us for an invasion turn out to be false, we have to look for the truth. And the fact is, there is oil in the Middle East, America's domestic oil production has peaked long ago, and America is the largest consumer of oil in the world. You COULD just support Bush again in his charges of WMDs in Iran, and hope that he is right this time, but by actually using some intelligence, you could easily find that something is not right. Something is not right when we call the unprovoked invasion and destruction of countries a "preemptive" strategy. Something is not right when many separate countries are all grouped under the general term of "terrorists". And something is definately not right when you can so easily believe that mass murder will bring peace.

[ronniehm]

Yeah, no doubt the American Revolution was actually about tea. And what was World War II about? bratwurst and sushi? Look, just because a country has something, doesn't mean that must be why we're there. The logic makes no sense. You can't start with a conclusion and then hunt for ties to make it look possible. You haven't proven anything except that you apparently think you can read the minds of everyone in the White House. Correlation/Causation mean anything to you? What was Vietnam about? Cheap shoes?