Iran says nuclear freeze 'only temporary' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ml&sSheet=/portal/2004/11/30/ixportaltop.html Iran boasts 'nuclear' victory over US http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?cg=BreakingNews-InternationalNews&ao=126330 You can't trust the Iranians as far as you can spit...but hey, they're so desperate, the Euros will buy anything.
. Actually Karl, the inescapbale conclusion here is that it is you that is being played like a violin. With contemptuous ease, one must add. I mean, talk about easy ...
Ah, yes, but the game is not over. First of all, this was just one little parlay. We went along. For now. The hyperbole of the Iranian amabassador not withstanding, we're pissed, and righly so. The governments of Europe are only interested in getting an agreement -- ANY agreement -- that can allow them to ply trade with the Iranians, just like they plied trade with Saddam. Future regional consequences be damned. Tell me, do YOU trust the Iranians?? Do YOU think they are simply going to abandon uranium enrichment. And do YOU believe them when they say they are not interested in developing nuclear weapons? You know, the Iranians? Who fund terrorist organizations? Who have as a state policy the destruction of Israel? This head-in-the-sand attitude of the "sophisticated" Europeans is no more patently apparent than here.
Nope, not necessarily. I think this is purely a waiting game. If we can forestall the production of nuclear weapons long enough, thorugh rigorous inspections, sanctions, and threats of military action, then we have a shot of having the regime eventually crumble. For those who though the same thing could be true in Iraq, well, Hussein and his boy thugs were not going to be dislodged UNLESS by dint of force. We have got to be REALLY tough on the Iranian regime. That's all they understand. The pantywaist Euros don't have the stomach for it, as evidenced by this "confidence building" declaration. Ugh.
Two front war, coming from the west in Iraq and coming from the east in Afghanistan. Of course, all of the Arab world would rise up if this happened. And then I wouldn't have any gas to get to work. So I would get fired. Nay on the war in Iran. For my own personal reasons. I don't like riding bikes.
Yeah. And just like with Saddam, we'll call Rumsfeld the minute it's all sown up. So stop pestering. It's unbecoming. I believe they're as self-interested as the rest of us. Cut them a good enough deal and they'll do whatever is required to make the deal stick. It's a fine model for international relations, as the US proves on a more or less daily basis with more or less all her actions. Talk about "painting by numbers" intenet outrage. Here's another interesting part of the article you provided: Take a deep, deep breath, untwist your Star-spangled knickers and let the tackle breathe a bit and then think that one through a bit. In light of your oh-so-easy, oh-so-predictable, oh-so-shrill-and-still-pointless outrage. So the Iranians cut a deal with the EU. Then, when they walk away, the take one of the goal-posts with them. Standard practice, of course. Nothing notable. But my gosh it will get Keller of Outraged, Ohio on his uppers. It will, so the not particularly wily or inventive Iranian diplomat calculates, cause fault lines between Europe and the US to be exacerbated. Will increase the likelihood of more bother between traditional allies with common interests in the region. Will, in short, benefit Iran's evolving situation in this evolving negotation. Easy peasy. Because, as the entire world knows, you can always rely on some dumb Yank to come blundering in on something, all spittle-flecked, purile over-excitement. You can set your watch to it ...
Let's see...you say "Stop pestering" and then throw the phrase "dumb yank" around. Tell me, is talking out of both sides of your mouth an inherited talent, or is it a practiced skill? So go ahead, feel all high and mighty. Meanwhile, we ARE mighty -- economically, militarily, culturally, socially -- and there ain't nothin' you can do about it, except bend over and exchange bodily fluids with a bunch of wacko nuclear amibitioned fundamenalitst mullahs. You hate OUR fundamentalists, yet allow fundamentalists of a different stripe hide their salami inside you. Hope it feels right.
Awwwww. What happened to taking a deep breath, Karl? You're so much more likely to finally sound coherent if you could just swallow your pride and give it a go. And stop masturbating whilst typing posts to me. It's genuinely disturbing.
The Arab world wouldn't rise up. Iranians are Persian, not Arab. The Muslim world would object vociferiously. So would alot of others. Nevertheless, my guess is that, this time, we'd probably find a WMD program.
Let me add some perspective here, as the comments and quotes by Karl are very misleading. First, the quotes about Iran "claiming a victory over the US" are meant only for domestic consumption. This deal was very unpopular among the hardliners, who on this issue have attitudes that are in line with what many Iranian across the political spectrum feel. One hardline paper, in fact, criticized not just the deal, but basically went so far to brand Iran's negotiators as traitors. Those involved in making the deal, therefore, are trying to respond to those criticisms in Iran. Second, in reality, this deal is a punt: no side really wins. From a legalistic perspective, the deal does keep Iran's case as strong as it ever was under the NPT, but from a "real world" perspective, the deal buys time -- and the US gains more from that time than Iran. And, as is evident by comments throughout the span of these negotiations, the legalese is irrelevant: the very side that is breaking all the international norms and treaties will nonetheless be able to brand the other side the cheaters! Lets us be clear: as far as the NPT is concerned, Iran is wholly within its rights to build centrifuges and enrich uranium and do all the other things it has agreed (albeit "voluntarily", "temporarily", and in a "legally non-binding" fashion) to suspend. On the other hand, the NPT is clear that the carrot for nations abiding by Article 2's prohibition on actually building nuclear weapons is the promise that the 5 nuclear states in the treaty will assist the others in developing their nuclear energy program. Obviously, as it relates to Iran, the US specifically and the rest of the EU more generally, have been in breach of these terms. Additioinally, the NPT also sets forth more vague obligations on the part of the nuclear states to go down a process of eventual nuclear disarmament, which is completely at odds with US plan to introduce new class of nuclear weapons! Again, legally, Iran started with all the strong arguments. The agreement it concluded with the EU retains all those arguments as well, since it describes Iran's concessions as "legally non-binding" and "voluntary", while it reiterates in clear language Europe's recognition of Iran's rights to develop a peaceful nuclear program. In fact, in a provision never cited by the Western press but found in the text of the EU-Iran agreement, the Europeans have even agreed implicitly to allow Iran to develop the full nuclear fuel cycle. That is becuase the Iran-EU agreement even endorses Iran's efforts to be part of a group ("nuclear club") that is limited to only those who have mastered the nuclear fuel cycle. But the legalese mean little. The minute Iran restarts its enrichment program, the US is not going to mention the "non-binding" aspect of Iran's agreement. The Americans will claim that Iran is "cheating" and will try to haul Iran before the UN. In the meantime, the US and the EU have won time, which they need anyway.
ALL religious fundamentalists who want to use their "beliefs" as a system of law are scum, ours and theirs.
Nothing like blurring distinctions. First Saudi money funds terrorists, but it's not a GOVERNMENT practice. In Iran, the government explicity and openly funds Hamas and Hezbollah. Second, the Saudis have recently killed Al Quaeda operatives. It is likely Iran is hiding them, perhaps even OBL himself. But don't let distinctions get in the way of a "gotcha" leftist sensibility, where it's all about red herrings, false conclusions, and putative hypocrisy as being even worse than having no morals at all.
It's pretty simple actually... you think the hardline attitude will help US interests prevail. But you're wrong. In the end the US will have no options but to try and get a good deal. Might as well start adapting to that situation now and save the threats for a time when you can actually put your money where your mouth is. Maybe in another 5 to 10 years, although I wouldn't count on it. You can threaten some opposing governments sometimes, but you can't threaten all the opposing governments all the time. In the end it's not a bad thing to see the balance of worldpower levelled a bit. It might scare you, but it will do us all good in the end.
Brilliant. Not you, Karl. But this disinformation. Utterly, utterly impossible to disprove, and programmed to press every hot button in American foreign policy. Perfect for whipping up the hawks. A masterpiece of manipulation. Whoever came up with that deserves extra ice cream at the PNAC commissary.
My point was that we have an array of military options short of invasion/occuption, which should only be used in the rarest of circumstances. Iran will continue to do whatever the mullahs want to do, whether or not you or I consider it "permissible."
I had the pleasure of watching Fox News yesterday when I was working out at the gym. I figured, what the heck. See what these guys are saying. For about 20 minutes (my time on the exercycle) they went on and on about the failures of the UN, the failures of diplomacy, the corruptness of the UN and the inherent corruptness of diplomats. They were citing both the Food for Oil deals (although they proved zero facts, just hyperbole) and the Iranian nuclear program (and how we can't believe them.) Their profound anti-diplomacy bias was very disturbing. If you believe Fox's hyperbole about Iran, then we should get our military asses in there and clean the place up, just like we cleaned up Iraq. But if you can remember that far back, the Bush administration and their official propaganda outlet, Fox News, declared repeatedly that Iraq was a danger because of their weapons programs. $160,000,000,000 and 1,200 dead Americans later, we proved conclusively that Saddam was only a danger to his own people, and not to anyone else. Not even his enemy, the Iranians. I just can't understand how right wingers are going for the bait, again. How stupid are you guys, to get played like violins by Fox News and your daddy Bush?
Slightly different scenario this time (not Fox News playing people stupid enough to watch it seriously like violins). We've got real proof that Iran's nuclear programme exists and that, if allowed to become a weapons programme in the fullest sense of the word, it would constitute a threat to regional and perhaps global security. Not made-up "proof" that Bush and Co need to scare their gormless constituency into letting them kill Americans for no reason. So there is a reason for us to be sorting something out with the Iranians. Where you're absolutely correct is that any inherant anti-diplomacy bias is just stupid. As in, low, common, sorry-for-the-gene-pool stupid (especially from endemically wussy right-wing blowhards like ... everyone at Fox News ... and their entire viewership).