CNN Quickvote: Do you believe Iran is pursuing nuclear power for peaceful

[helderheid]

Do you believe Iran is pursuing nuclear power for peaceful reasons?

www.cnn.com

[William769]

1. Done.

Yes 0%

No 0%

But nothing is reporting. :shrug:

[helderheid]

2. I don't think they report instantly.

[sam sarrha]

3. i think it is 50/50 .. brinkmanship/ or Re-Establishment of Ottoman Empire

and delusional megalomania of world subservience to Islamic law. the Clergy in control of Iran are Bat Shit Crazy.. some of the most intelligent, well educated and insightful people i have ever met were Iranians, where sacred shitless of the clergy, one was a beautiful briliant woman who was a Christian Iranian, she was trying to stay in the country because she said if she went back she would be abducted and raped to death because she was a christian. that was just after the take over of the country by Assahola Kokomania

[Autonomy]

5. Do you mean Persian Empire? nt

[Marr]

4. Yes. I'd say the same about nuclear weapons.

The so-called "Bush Doctrine" makes it clear there is only one way for an "Axis of Evil" country to avoid being invaded by the United States; get your hands on some nukes. I'm no fan of nuclear proliferation, of course- this is more a condemnation of Bush's ridiculously irresponsible foreign policy than anything else.

[stray cat]

6. Sorry, but Hell no

[Autonomy]

7. No country is likely to get the technology

to build nuclear weapons, then not do it. But Iran has additional reaasons to build a nuclear arsenal: the Bush threat of pre-emptive attack. The US pretty much pushed Iran into this development.

[DetroitProle]

8. Iran can fuck off.

Okay, the wipe-Israel-off-the-face-of-the-earth line is getting a little old...58 years old to be exact.
When are these backward fucks going to wake up and smell reality?
The Middle East could have been a powerhouse like Europe or China if they weren't such fanatics. Way to isolate yourself from the rest of the universe.
Now they're doomed to be a bunch of shitty kingdoms and "Islamic Republics", blowing up civilian targets every once in a while.
Boy, I hope they're proud.

[Mrspeeker]

10. thats not a very democratic outlook!

And as a great friend and employee of a Iranian that escaped during the shaws rule (who was place into rule by the US government)I resent your statements.

No matter how you look at it, its wrong to move a whole group of people on to another cultures land.
This is the stem of all the problems in the middle east specially when the move was for control of the region.


My true friend says "5000 years of failure in the middle-east and all for what? a difference of opinion. We are all people goodman."

The leaders lead and mislead but people are still people.
This isnt a the playoffs and there are no winners or lossers...just existence and co-existence

If you could meet this man, maybe you wouldn't bare such hatred for people because they are not looking to develop a power house of control!

I'm proud to know and have a Iranian as a friend!

[DetroitProle]

20. I agree with some of what you're saying.

I'm certainly not blaming everyone.
However, here at DU, religious fanaticism is often rallied against, and the Middle East is the poster child for religious fanaticism.
Turkey adopted a secular government and they're better off because of it. The rest of the Middle East never followed suit.
A lot of blame rests with the US and Britain for their persuit of control of the region, but this has rung true for most parts of the world, many of which have made a successful transition towards democracy. The majority of the blame rests on religious fanaticism and the leaders willing to exploit this.
I suppose I should have phrased, "Fuck Iran" as "fuck the government of Iran" I certainly have nothing against Iranians or anyone else. Iran was such a developed nation at the time of the "revolution", its a shame so many intelligent, open-minded, educated Iranians were hurt by it.
However, I will not apologize for Israel. Israel has a right to exist. We are all citizens of this world and the Jews or anyone else had a right to immigrate to Palestine.
If the Middle Eastern nations could accept a policy of peaceful co-existence, the Middle East wouldn't be so diplomatically and economically isolated.

[Mrspeeker]

24. Thanks

I'll agree with the fuck Irans government, ours and Israels!

Im just not for the anti Iran smear campaign which is being broadcast on every channel. Because I know what the media is up to and I dont like it one bit!

[ShortnFiery]

15. Stop blaming others ... if Chimpy buys into the Rhetoric, yes

Rhetoric, then we are goofy and gullible MARKS.

No use in getting all fired up over talk talk talk. How do you think the average 25 y.o. Iranian feels about our Chimperor threatening to use his "DIVINE STRAKE" tactical nukes?

The Iranian Leaders are not the only a**holes in the Middle East Sandbox. :P

[DetroitProle]

21. I know

I just know it is long past time for the anti-Israel setiments in the Middle East to be buried.
Also...history has shown us that Middle Eastern nations are willing to go much further than rhetoric against Israel. Time and time again.
So the situation worries me. A crazy man in power in Iran and a crazy man in power in the White House.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Their crazy in Iran has less power than OUR crazy ...

Best to worry more about Our Deal Leader's "Divine Strake" plans. If we don't stop these insane Neo-Conservatives who now hold the reigns of power ... well, The World will have Hell to Pay and * will be remembered as the most evil man in the eyes of the world community. And yeah, kiss our precious standard of living good-bye for generations to come. What a horrible legacy we will be gifting our children. :scared: :(

[alfredo]

9. 14% yes 86% no.

I voted yes just for the hell of it.

Until the UN can verify the opposite I have to take them at their word. Yeah, you say it is for peaceful use, but to make us all feel a bit more comfortable. give full access to the UN.

[julialnyc]

11. It's a loaded question

Do I think their quest for nuclear material is peacful..... No! But that does not mean I think we should bomb them. You know they will twist the poll to say how a high percentage of people find Iran's nuclear ambitions too dangerous.

[TahitiNut]

12. Do you believe the US pursued nuclear power for peaceful reasons?

:eyes:

I have two bridges. Which one would you like to buy?

[bdamomma]

13. boy, this is just sick

do americans really want nuclear war with Iran, more blood on their hands.

[ShortnFiery]

14. Talk about your skewed (all to hell) piss poor poll question!?!

They are seeking nuclear power for BOTH peaceful and protection purposes.

Damn whores at the Conservative News Network. :puke:

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. The question should be ...IS THE US PURSUING NUCLEAR POWER for peaceful

reasons? We're the only country who has ever bombed another country with a nuke and are planning to do so again.:grr:


Do you believe Iran is pursuing nuclear power for peaceful reasons?

Yes 13% 1621 votes

No 87% 10881 votes
Total: 12502 votes

[julialnyc]

18. Or if they are fishing for the answer they want rather than asking the

obvious question.

Do you feel we should go to war with Iran?

[rman]

17. Current Iran President Ahmadinejad is conservative,

and leaning towards the more radical religious groups in Iran. He replaced the relativly moderate ("reformist") Khatami, after some dubious electoral manouvring.

--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran

<snip>

In February, 2003, for the second time local elections had taken place since being introduced in 1999 as part of President Khatami's concept of a civil society at the grassroots level. 905 city councils and 34,205 village councils were up for election. In Tehran and some of the major cities, all of the seats were taken back by conservatives over reformists. This swing was caused by widespread abstention from the local elections. In Tehran only about 10% of the electorate voted, following appeals by reformist groups.

In February 2004 Parliament elections, the Council of Guardians(* banned thousands of candidates, including most of the reformist members of the parliament and all the candidates of the Islamic Iran Participation Front party from running. This led to a win by the conservatives of at least 70% of the seats. Approximately 60% of the elegible voting population participated in the elections.

<snip>

The closed loop of power

According to current election laws, a body of 12 experts called the Guardian Council oversees and approves electoral candidates for most national elections in Iran. The majority of the members of this body are appointed by the Supreme Leader. According to the current law, this council vets also Assembly of Experts candidates, which in turn in supervise and elect the Supreme Leader, which ultimately creates a closed loop of power.

In addition, current elections law requires Assembly of Experts candidates to be religious mujtahids, which greatly narrows the potential field.

Neither of these two laws are mandated by the constitution and are ordinary laws passed by the Parliament or the Assembly of Experts, which therefore can theoretically be reversed. However, despite efforts of many political activists, it has proven to be practically impossible to do so until now.

Many Iranian reformists (including Abdollah Noori) consider this to be the core legal obstacle for a truly democratic system in Iran.

----------

*)The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a high office within the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran which has the authority to interpret the constitution and to determine if the laws passed by the parliament are in line with the constitution of Iran. As such, the Council itself is not a legislative body, but it has veto power over the Iranian parliament. Its members are composed of Islamic clerics and lawyers. In function it is similar to a Constitutional Court.

Six members of the Council are clerics selected by the Supreme Leader, who serves as Iran's Head of State. The other six members are lawyers proposed by Iran's head of judicial branch (selected in turn by the Supreme Leader)...

[julialnyc]

19. In case anyone missed Seymour Hersh's article

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

A MUST READ

[LSK]

22. fuck, looks like many are drinking the Koolaid

[RedStateShame]

25. Well, it's not that easy

Of course that's not why Iran wants nuclear technology, but don't think those weapons are being built with Washington DC in the crosshairs. The reason Iran wants nuclear weapons is because other countries in the area have nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, and probably soon Iran, but most likely these countries want to be the big dogs in their yard. If we were serious about stopping nuclear proliferation in this country, we'd ask Russia what's being done with leftover nuclear weapons material from the USSR days.

[benburch]

26. You can seek a peaceful weapon!

One you think you will never use and which will PREVENT war.