PDA

View Full Version : UN General Summit



Stavro
26-Sep-07, 18:12
Anyone listening to the full transcript of Dr. Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN general assembly in New York, 25th Sep, should be able to quickly deduce that there is much hostile western media hype about him. He comes over perfectly rational and speaks many truths about issues the world is facing today. Peace is a prime subject of his talk, and the nuclear issue is clearly explained and compliance demonstrated. Why all this talk about Iran? Israel sits on one the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world and they are under no pressure for inspection whatsoever. Mordechai Vanunu spoke out against Israel’s stockpile in 1986 and he provided the London Sunday Times with all the facts and photos they used to tell the world about Israel's nuclear weapons programme. But, the story is not a pretty one because on the 30th of September 1986 he was kidnapped, drugged and shipped to Israel. He has been in solitary confinement ever since. You can read all about him and his cause here:

http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk/

The editor of the Sunday Times visits him every year in Israel, because he feels a sense of “guilt” that his paper published the news. But wait a moment, why should the innocent feel guilty? The real ones breaking the law and disregarding international conventions are not Mordechai Vanunu or Sunday Times editors, it’s the ones stockpiling all these weapons and accusing others like Dr. Ahmadinejad of non-compliance whilst all the while putting pressure and sanctions on such nations as pre-invaded Iraq which ment that one could not even get antibiotics if they were seriously unwell. They are only intrested in total power, and when their arguments fail they use threat. Interesting, that both the US bench and Israeli one are empty in the video, that's because they walked out! But as the president of Iran reaffirmed, he is willing to talk to all parties. All this tension has nothing to do with Iran.

Feel free to watch the talk, you’ll need either Windows Media Player or Realplayer:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7010000/newsid_7013400/7013426.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&asb=1&news=1

percy toboggan
26-Sep-07, 19:44
So, you want to trust Arm-in-a-dinner-jacket and that's entirely your prerogative.
As I understand it Israel were never signatories to the' Nuclear non-proiferation treaty' whereas Iran are.

I cannot find my self trusting any leader who publicly affirms his intention to 'wipe another nation state off the planet'

I'm not a Jew, and hold no brief for Israel, I think it's Givernment are often ill judged and overly hawkish. I believe Palestine should haveas much right to it's own destiny and frankly, the Palestinians have been robbed.However, the whole festering mess that is the middle-east is a blot on the planet. Most of the people there want to live in peace but it often seems that many males - especially those under the age of forty want to kill, kill, and kill again. Waving the AK47's above their heads like triumphant totems. Iran's theocracy has more to fear from a growing resentment in it's more enlightened youth than from George Bush.

Iran will however simply not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapons programme. There is no chance of a land invasion, and every chance of a limited nuclear bunker-busting strike. I hope they will see sense and avoid breaking the treaty they signed.

I didn't read the full transcript of Arm's speech. Frankly I'm not interested enough beyond knowing I trust nobody of his ilk.

Stavro
27-Sep-07, 22:50
Thanks Percy, yes the Middle East is in a terrible state of affairs, but much of it is falsely blamed upon Islamic states by western propaganda and Israel. Yes, the Palestinians do need a homeland. Just out of interest, I would like to point out that Ahmadinejad didn’t actually say that Israel should be “wiped-off” the map in an obliteration sense. It was simply a political statement regarding how he believes that Palestine should be restored and concerned only lines on a map in much the same way that Scot’s want to be independent from the UK.

fred
27-Sep-07, 23:34
So, you want to trust Arm-in-a-dinner-jacket and that's entirely your prerogative.


In deciding who to trust I think you have to look at past records, lets face it George Bush has systematically lied through his teeth since the day he took office. With the leaking of a transcript of a conversation between Bush and the Spanish Prime Minister to the Spanish press we now know that Saddam Hussein was offering to go into exile to prevent the invasion of Iraq and his offer was ignored.

Iran is a peaceful country which has lived in peace with it's neighbours, their only war was the war with Iraq which Iraq started with the support of America. America on the other hand has not had a year in their history when they were not fighting somebody, they glorify war.

Dr. Ahmadinejad talks a lot of sense, Bush doesn't, Bush just tells lies, I know which I'd rather trust.

Jeemag_USA
28-Sep-07, 01:50
What made me laugh reading the news here every day, the USA made a big fuss about the Cuba delegation walking out during Bush's talk, yet it was ok for almost all of the US delegation to walk out during the Iranian leaders deliberation. They are all like a bunch of children playing tit for tat and taking a huff with each other. I don't trust any of them. Not that I want to get into a great debate about Cuba, but some of what they said was true, Bush is the last person that should be allowed to deliver public judgement on any other world leader, its embarassing.

As an aside to that, have been keeping up with the party leadership tours here, and its laughable, some of the stuff these people are saying is truly comical, I couldn't bring myself to vote for any of them, they have all succeeded in contradicting themselves constantly and are only saying exactly what they feel they need to to get the votes, wether they are talking in front of a pensioners group or to a bunch of college kids, they never tell them what they do for the future of the country or its standing or respect within the world, if they are in front of old people they talk about old people, if they are in front of young people they talk about young people, but never about what the real problems in the world are and how to fix them. Its seems to me that none of these people in line for being the next president, really are not capable of solving problems, only capable of speculating on how to solve them in order to make people think they can?? Its bizarre really when you think about it.

At the same time on the other side of the world innocent people who are trying to secure their future through non violent protest but will probably get as much attention from the rest of the world as rising cost of blue cheese. They are not as important as playing one upmanship on countries that have valuable assetts and using the media to make everyone believe that the real problems in this world are the ones we saturate the news with every day. (I am referring to Mayanmar, Burma, call it what you like. Who is going to jump in and help them when it is necessary, nobody)

One of the best speeches ever made at a UN Summit was that of Emperor Halie Selassie of Ethiopia in 1968, and the sad thing is that every year since then this speech becomes more and more prevelant and unfortunately listened to or heeded less and less. There is so much truth in it its blindingly obvious.


That until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned: That until there are no longer first-class and second class citizens of any nation; That until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; That until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race; That until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained."

Leaders and Politicians with this kind of belief and intellegence and stature just do not exist anymore, and in some countries they never have, thats the problem.

Aaldtimer
28-Sep-07, 02:19
Burma has got no oil, neither has Zimbabwe...ergo...

scotsboy
28-Sep-07, 09:32
Burma has got no oil, neither has Zimbabwe...ergo...

Burma is rich in natural resources, it is a net exporter of oil.

fred
28-Sep-07, 10:46
As an aside to that, have been keeping up with the party leadership tours here, and its laughable, some of the stuff these people are saying is truly comical, I couldn't bring myself to vote for any of them, they have all succeeded in contradicting themselves constantly and are only saying exactly what they feel they need to to get the votes, wether they are talking in front of a pensioners group or to a bunch of college kids, they never tell them what they do for the future of the country or its standing or respect within the world, if they are in front of old people they talk about old people, if they are in front of young people they talk about young people, but never about what the real problems in the world are and how to fix them. Its seems to me that none of these people in line for being the next president, really are not capable of solving problems, only capable of speculating on how to solve them in order to make people think they can?? Its bizarre really when you think about it.


The Neocon chickenhawks have got the Kyl-Lieberman amendment passed with the support of the Democrats and false intelligence. This designated a large part of the Iranian army a terrorist organisation, how can the national army of a country be a terrorist organisation? This means that Bush can start a war any time he wants without the approval of Congress, he already got a blank cheque to bomb terrorists after 9/11.

bekisman
28-Sep-07, 10:55
Aaldtimer: "Burma has got no oil"...

Hmm.. not heard of 'Burma Oil'?

See: http://burma.total.com/en/contexte/p_1_2.htm (http://burma.total.com/en/contexte/p_1_2.htm)

northener
28-Sep-07, 12:25
Americans I like, American foreign policy is on par with the Romans.

Actually that's a bit insulting to the Romans.

Anything that doesn't fit in with the USA's narrow-minded idea of 'democracy' (ie the American way or no way) is automatically labelled as 'undemocratic'.
Always makes me laugh when the US Government start spouting about their version of 'freedom'.

Anyone is a 'Terrorist' according to the Yanks if they don't wave the Red White and Blue. Quite amusing seeing as this comes from a country who's people openly supported and funded the PIRA and other terrorist groups during the troubles in Ireland.

The Yanks couldn't have given a monkeys about 'terrorism' before the World Trade Centre massacre. Now, in the States, 'Terrorist' has become the name for the bogeyman - anyone who thinks differently.

What was the last bogeyman called?

I remember now - 'Communist'.

scotsboy
28-Sep-07, 13:23
I notice that the Burma situation has not been mentioned..............wonder why?

Aaldtimer
28-Sep-07, 14:01
Aaldtimer: "Burma has got no oil"...

Hmm.. not heard of 'Burma Oil'?

See: http://burma.total.com/en/contexte/p_1_2.htm (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://burma.total.com/en/contexte/p_1_2.htm)

:eek:Oops...pehaps I should have added..."to speak of".:(

"Myanmar’s oil output is small and gas is taking over from oil. Myanmar produces around 170, 000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, of which 90% is accounted for by gas."

scorrie
28-Sep-07, 16:22
Burma is rich in natural resources, it is a net exporter of oil.

Not trying to be funny Scotsboy but I read that Burma was a net IMPORTER of oil. I also saw it quoted that Burma's output amounts to one half of one percent of the world yield. As far as natural gas goes, it was listed that Burma produces approx 4 times as much gas as it consumes and is definitely a net exporter in that field.

scotsboy
28-Sep-07, 16:43
Could be right Scorrie - I think the reference I looked up mentione Petroleum, so it could well have been both oil & gas.

scotsboy
28-Sep-07, 16:54
Aye Scorrie, you are indeed correct. Imports more oil than it exports, but exports most of its gas:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html

Apologies for any misunderstanding. I think the point still stands though that Burma does have natural resources.

Jeemag_USA
28-Sep-07, 18:50
Aye Scorrie, you are indeed correct. Imports more oil than it exports, but exports most of its gas:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html)

Apologies for any misunderstanding. I think the point still stands though that Burma does have natural resources.

I think even if it was rich in oil, the far east is still one area the USA are scared to venture into anymore. You know they won't be invading China or North Korea any time soon ;) They look for places where an easy fight is to be had.

scotsboy
28-Sep-07, 20:19
I think even if it was rich in oil, the far east is still one area the USA are scared to venture into anymore. You know they won't be invading China or North Korea any time soon ;) They look for places where an easy fight is to be had.

I think the fight in Iraq is proving far from easy Jeemag.

Jeemag_USA
28-Sep-07, 20:39
I think the fight in Iraq is proving far from easy Jeemag.

Thats not really my point though, the point is they thought it would be, if you see what I mean.