Putin says no Iran nukes in the offing

February 19, 2005 4:03 PM

Why would he say that?"RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN says Iran isn't interested in nuclear weapons." via The Indepundit. Interesting. Is Putin being disingenuous? Wishful thinking, perhaps?
posted by alumshubby (39 comments total)

Putin is sincere. He has come to realize that war and terrorism are bad. He is showing an example to the US, so that just perhaps we can see the light too. Here for example, is how he sets an example to be emulated:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453419.0694444445.html
posted by Postroad at 4:18 PM on February 19, 2005

Putin disingenuous? I dunno, is he a politician?

Also, who the hell cares?
posted by delmoi at 4:33 PM on February 19, 2005

Note: Postroad's comment above can be used to test your Personal Sarcasm Detector plugin for Firefox.
posted by wendell at 4:41 PM on February 19, 2005

Wow, a link to a two-sentance + quote post on a warblog. That was totaly worth linking too.
posted by delmoi at 4:49 PM on February 19, 2005

Best. Post. EvBOOM 'terminated'
posted by mr.marx at 5:11 PM on February 19, 2005

Syria bombed by Christmas. Iran by Chanukah (by Israel).
posted by ParisParamus at 5:28 PM on February 19, 2005

he said it because he want to sell nuke tech to Iran--duh!
posted by ParisParamus at 5:36 PM on February 19, 2005

"Why would he say that?"

Umm... because he's got a deal selling nuclear stuff to Iran?

Is that not obvious? Did you not know that? Sheesh. What delmoi said. Bad fpp.
posted by koeselitz at 5:38 PM on February 19, 2005

I just don't know about this.
posted by dhoyt at 5:39 PM on February 19, 2005

Bush has repeatedly referred to nukes as "evil weapons". The world is a confusing place.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 6:21 PM on February 19, 2005

Maybe they're of that new up-and-coming underground-blasting kind. Rumsfeld loves those!
posted by mr.marx at 6:38 PM on February 19, 2005

why? ... oil ... the chance to make money selling nuclear technology ... the chance to bribe off some potentially dangerous people ... to keep the u s from getting too much influence in their back yard

the russians already have 5 nuclear powers close to them ... and 3 others that could potentially do something ... what's one more?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:59 PM on February 19, 2005

>he said it because he want to sell nuke tech to Iran--duh!

I think this argues for a regime change in Moscow, aid an dcomfort to the enema, and all that.

M.A.D. all round, Air Marshall Paramus?
posted by gsb at 10:38 PM on February 19, 2005

Why? Why not? We sit way on the other side of the world and try to pretend we understand anything about any other culture than ours, constantly insisting they all behave as we do. But Putin and his people have shared a continent with Iran far longer than we've even been a concept. So maybe, just maybe, he's one up on us in the area understanding Iran? And maybe W's an asshole afterall who should stop telling everyone else how to run their governments.

Sorry, you were saying?
posted by LouReedsSon at 3:44 AM on February 20, 2005

Umm, yeah, I guess we should just leave Iran alone. Let them make nukes, let them put the nuke on missles, let them bomb the shit out the region. Its none of our business right? We are on the other side of the world right? It has nothing to do with us, right?
posted by obeygiant at 7:08 AM on February 20, 2005

Umm, yeah, I guess we should just leave Iran alone. Let them make nukes, let them put the nuke on missles, let them bomb the shit out the region. Its none of our business right? We are on the other side of the world right? It has nothing to do with us, right?
posted by jaronson at 8:16 AM on February 20, 2005

LouReedsSon: Huh? I don't think Putin being something of a bastard has anything to do with Bush, no matter what one thinks of him. And Russia hasn't exactly "shared the continent" happily and rosily with the Muslim world. Nobody (not even Paris) has suggested "regime change" in this thread, nor even mentioned Bush's position on the matter. Why is this about Bush?
posted by koeselitz at 8:34 AM on February 20, 2005

delmoi, I'll be sure to check with your august personage before ever again deigning to sully your serene presence with a post that might not meet with your high standards.

You're so much wiser than us hoi polloi: Iran getting a nuke doesn't matter a bit, after all, now, does it? No, not a bit.
posted by alumshubby at 9:17 AM on February 20, 2005

Umm, yeah, I guess we should just leave Iran alone. Let them make nukes, let them put the nuke on missles, let them bomb the shit out the region.

Yeah, you're right, the US better act quickly to do the exact same thing first.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:18 AM on February 20, 2005

Why shouldn't a developed country have the right to defend itself against other (possibly hostile) nuclear-capable states?
posted by tommyc at 9:26 AM on February 20, 2005

Of course regime change is our policy on Iraq. And Syria. And North Korea. And Saudi Arabia.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:46 AM on February 20, 2005

"Why shouldn't a developed country have the right to defend itself against other (possibly hostile) nuclear-capable states?"

Because Iran has a clear record of sponsoring terrorism, and calling for the "destruction" of other states and governments, including Israel and the US. It has demonstrated itself to be untrustworthy. THAT'S WHY; WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?
posted by ParisParamus at 9:48 AM on February 20, 2005

(And the Upper West Side, including that amoral blight known as Columbia University)
posted by ParisParamus at 10:00 AM on February 20, 2005

Iran wants to destroy Columbia?
posted by dhoyt at 10:03 AM on February 20, 2005

Of course regime change is our policy on [....] Saudi Arabia.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:46 AM CST on February 20

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
posted by papakwanz at 10:17 AM on February 20, 2005

alumshubby: If you want to post about Iran and nukes, fine. But one quote plus a couple sentances of sarcastism does not a good mefi post make.
posted by delmoi at 10:57 AM on February 20, 2005

Wouldn't regime change be considered "destruction" of other states and governments? Demonstrating that the U.S. is untrustworthy, and therefore not deserving of nukes?

Not to mention our sabotaging of several Central American and democratic movements.

I might have to agree with PP on this one, no more nukes for America.
posted by formless at 11:03 AM on February 20, 2005

We're better than they are (government-wise). If you don't get that, you're hopelessly amoral, and there is no point discussing such things with you.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:34 AM on February 20, 2005

(or immoral)
posted by ParisParamus at 11:34 AM on February 20, 2005

Aah, so World War III is a game where the most democratic governments get to blow apart anyone who's less democratic than themselves, until there's only one left standing? Because, of course, governments are more important than the actual human beings suffering under them. Well, cool. I don't think the US will win.
posted by Jimbob at 2:20 PM on February 20, 2005

Well, the Caspian Sea/oil connection is old news. I heard Seymour Hersh give an interview a couple of weeks back saying that Russia would intervene if we pursued plans to invade Iran. When asked what he meant he said "I really can't talk about it while I'm working on the story." This was at a public lecture at our Main Library. There's got to be some other Khatami/Putin connection.
posted by punkbitch at 2:38 PM on February 20, 2005

Russia won't do anything except bark. Hersh is Mr.- Innuendo-As-Fact.

In any case, military intervention in Iran (or Syria, or NK) would consist largely of air strikes. If those air strikes kill Russian nuclear experts, so be it.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:48 PM on February 20, 2005

Here's an interesting editorial about Israel striking Iran.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:51 PM on February 20, 2005

Punkbitch: wow. I'm surprised they even allowed Hirsch into Utah.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:54 PM on February 20, 2005

delmoi, it's newsworthy and significant. I'm not shooting for a Pulitzer here, just bringing up the subject. If you want to add something constructive, chime in. Otherwise save it for the gray.
posted by alumshubby at 3:39 PM on February 20, 2005

Maybe Putin's right. A nuclear program is simply irrational for Iran, and its rulers are neither stupid nor irrational.

The mullahs are making a lot of money with $40-$50/bbl oil. The Iranian people barely protested in the last couple of years as the mullahs rolled back the modest concessions to democracy made in the mid-1990s to restore complete theocracy. In short, they've got it good.

Making nuclear weapons endangers their rule. Trying to use them is quite unthinkable, in that it would result in Israel's nuclear forces killing more or less every Iranian breathing within 20 or 30 minutes of the launch codes being released in Tehran.
posted by MattD at 4:07 PM on February 20, 2005

Of course regime change is our policy on [....] Saudi Arabia.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:46 AM CST on February 20


I'm amazed Paris is still posting
posted by destro at 4:13 PM on February 20, 2005

I'll admit I'm anti-Bushco., but honestly, how can the US claim to "know" anything about what's going inside another country? We "knew" Saddam was making nukes. We "knew" he had stockpiles, etc.

Unfortunately, Americans seem to have given up all pretense of things like "fact" and "truth."

Thankfully, Jesus loves our president so I'm sure this will all work out in the end.
posted by bardic at 8:09 PM on February 20, 2005

ParisParamus: I know. But, you know, . . . libraries! Thank God for freedom of expression.
posted by punkbitch at 3:17 PM on February 21, 2005