Looks like Iran is taking a page from Saddam's book "How to deal with the UN (or EU)"
-
we won't tell on you to the Security Council if you just stop making enriched uranium, and we'll even let you only stop when you want to, and only if you don't mind. :mad: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=GHDBD21NTA2MACRBAE0CFEY?type=topNews&storyID=6943088[^] Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
we won't tell on you to the Security Council if you just stop making enriched uranium, and we'll even let you only stop when you want to, and only if you don't mind. :mad: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=GHDBD21NTA2MACRBAE0CFEY?type=topNews&storyID=6943088[^] Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
so, what is your point? That Iran stopped making enriched uranium (so USA cannot invade them) or because you think they lied, and will invade them anyway, event against the security council vote? -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
so, what is your point? That Iran stopped making enriched uranium (so USA cannot invade them) or because you think they lied, and will invade them anyway, event against the security council vote? -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
Michel Prévost wrote: event against the security council vote? What Security Council vote, there was none, because of the "deal" that Iran made. Michel Prévost wrote: because you think they lied Do you think that a resolution that says there is no legal reason for Iran to not enrich uranium is going to keep them from making a nuclear weapon? Yes I think that they lied, and now due to the weak agreement that was made there is no reason for them to not continue. The media reports that I read said that they had continued to enrich uranium right up until the deadline and now there is this half assed attempt to stop them. My suggestion would be that a strong series of sanctions would force the government of Iran to have to deal in good faith to stop their attempts to make a weapon. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Michel Prévost wrote: event against the security council vote? What Security Council vote, there was none, because of the "deal" that Iran made. Michel Prévost wrote: because you think they lied Do you think that a resolution that says there is no legal reason for Iran to not enrich uranium is going to keep them from making a nuclear weapon? Yes I think that they lied, and now due to the weak agreement that was made there is no reason for them to not continue. The media reports that I read said that they had continued to enrich uranium right up until the deadline and now there is this half assed attempt to stop them. My suggestion would be that a strong series of sanctions would force the government of Iran to have to deal in good faith to stop their attempts to make a weapon. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: What Security Council vote, there was none, because of the "deal" that Iran made. I was talking about another vote, earlier in the 21st century, that the USA did not follow. And that is when the big mess started. Doug Goulden wrote: My suggestion would be that a strong series of sanctions would force the government of Iran to have to deal in good faith to stop their attempts to make a weapon. I agree, and this should be done with any country that produce nukes, not only Iran. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Doug Goulden wrote: What Security Council vote, there was none, because of the "deal" that Iran made. I was talking about another vote, earlier in the 21st century, that the USA did not follow. And that is when the big mess started. Doug Goulden wrote: My suggestion would be that a strong series of sanctions would force the government of Iran to have to deal in good faith to stop their attempts to make a weapon. I agree, and this should be done with any country that produce nukes, not only Iran. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
Michel Prévost wrote: I agree, and this should be done with any country that produce nukes, not only Iran. Appeasement isn't the way...... at some point people have to stand up to regimes such as Iran, wilting away from them only strengthens the hold the hardliners have over their own people. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Michel Prévost wrote: event against the security council vote? What Security Council vote, there was none, because of the "deal" that Iran made. Michel Prévost wrote: because you think they lied Do you think that a resolution that says there is no legal reason for Iran to not enrich uranium is going to keep them from making a nuclear weapon? Yes I think that they lied, and now due to the weak agreement that was made there is no reason for them to not continue. The media reports that I read said that they had continued to enrich uranium right up until the deadline and now there is this half assed attempt to stop them. My suggestion would be that a strong series of sanctions would force the government of Iran to have to deal in good faith to stop their attempts to make a weapon. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
If you attack Iran, you will destroy a great empire.
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
Michel Prévost wrote: I agree, and this should be done with any country that produce nukes, not only Iran. Appeasement isn't the way...... at some point people have to stand up to regimes such as Iran, wilting away from them only strengthens the hold the hardliners have over their own people. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Oh wow. We all want that, Pax Americana. You serve the exact same arguments as the war on Iraq, except this time you say nukes, instead of WMDs. I agree that we must stand against such threat, but the problem is that USA want to do it its way, no matter what the other countries think. And the USA way is war. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Oh wow. We all want that, Pax Americana. You serve the exact same arguments as the war on Iraq, except this time you say nukes, instead of WMDs. I agree that we must stand against such threat, but the problem is that USA want to do it its way, no matter what the other countries think. And the USA way is war. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
I'm not making the same arguement at all. I believe that in the case of Iran there seem to actually two different groups. The more extreme mullahs and their hard line supporters who instigated the revolution that occurred 20 some years ago, and the people who have had to live with it. Six months ago it seemed that democracy had a real chance in Iran when the people there were so outraged with the conservative mullahs who prevented many of the reformers from running from office. My suspicion is that if the West can force the mullahs to play nice by enforcing strict limits on arms and technology sales we can truly contain the threat in Iran. Why do I say that? Because in Iran there does seem to be a viable option to the hardliners who are currently in power. My fear is that the West (read that large foreign corporations and governments) will continue to support the hardliners while chasing the almighty dollar (or Euro). A poorly enforceable agreement like that which has been proposed will do little to contain the mullahs and their ambitions for a larger Islamic influence. By forcing a stronger enforceable agreement the West could contain the threat while the people of Iran change their government from within. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
If you attack Iran, you will destroy a great empire.
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygenpeterchen wrote: If you attack Iran, you will destroy a great empire. Not my intention or thought at all, if you read my last reply to Michael, I'm more interested in containing the mullahs and hardliners while allowing the people of Iran to change their government from within. I don't think there was any real chance that was going to happen in Iraq, but Iran there seems to be a lot of discontent over the lack of freedom that has been forced on people by the so called revolution. Sanctions would probably help if they were aimed and administered more effectively than the Oil for Food program was. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
I'm not making the same arguement at all. I believe that in the case of Iran there seem to actually two different groups. The more extreme mullahs and their hard line supporters who instigated the revolution that occurred 20 some years ago, and the people who have had to live with it. Six months ago it seemed that democracy had a real chance in Iran when the people there were so outraged with the conservative mullahs who prevented many of the reformers from running from office. My suspicion is that if the West can force the mullahs to play nice by enforcing strict limits on arms and technology sales we can truly contain the threat in Iran. Why do I say that? Because in Iran there does seem to be a viable option to the hardliners who are currently in power. My fear is that the West (read that large foreign corporations and governments) will continue to support the hardliners while chasing the almighty dollar (or Euro). A poorly enforceable agreement like that which has been proposed will do little to contain the mullahs and their ambitions for a larger Islamic influence. By forcing a stronger enforceable agreement the West could contain the threat while the people of Iran change their government from within. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
I agree with you on this, but we must not try to solve the problems with violence. It is not our job to overthrow the Iranian government. We will draw the wrath of the Islamic world event more, by providing them with reasons to go on with their religious wars. As per the nuclear threat Iran poses, they are not the only one. I read this week that Pakistan made 5 nuclear tests since the beginning of the year. IMHO, this more of a threat than Iran. Why do we ignore them? There must be a reason, but you may be able to enlighten me on this. And there is also North Korea. On a side note, your president is visiting us today and tomorrow, in the city where I live. I can already imagine my return home tonight, as I have to pass near the place where he's having dinner. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
I agree with you on this, but we must not try to solve the problems with violence. It is not our job to overthrow the Iranian government. We will draw the wrath of the Islamic world event more, by providing them with reasons to go on with their religious wars. As per the nuclear threat Iran poses, they are not the only one. I read this week that Pakistan made 5 nuclear tests since the beginning of the year. IMHO, this more of a threat than Iran. Why do we ignore them? There must be a reason, but you may be able to enlighten me on this. And there is also North Korea. On a side note, your president is visiting us today and tomorrow, in the city where I live. I can already imagine my return home tonight, as I have to pass near the place where he's having dinner. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
Michel Prévost wrote: As per the nuclear threat Iran poses, they are not the only one. I read this week that Pakistan made 5 nuclear tests since the beginning of the year. IMHO, this more of a threat than Iran. Why do we ignore them? There must be a reason, but you may be able to enlighten me on this. I don't think the US is ignoring Pakistan. I think what we are doing is balancing the need to cooperate with them to stop Al Quada and the Taliban and the need to try to limit their aspirations. After 9/11 it seemed like they went quickly from supporting the Taliban to at least attempting to support the US effort to topple them. I tend to think that Musharref (sp?) must have had some pretty serious arm twisting applied to make that happen. He has had several assasination attempts against him and has undoubtedly recieved a lot of pressure to resist cooperating with the US, so on the whole I would say that things have gone pretty well with Pakistan. Could they do more to stop proliferation? Probably so, but with a nation like Pakistan where many of the people have tribal ties and deeply held religous beliefs, its tough to make inroads in changing their culture, look at the mess in most African countries...... Michel Prévost wrote: It is not our job to overthrow the Iranian government. I agree that the West (the US and EU) should allow people who live in Iran to deal with their own affairs so long as they are not endangering others. Iran should have pressure applied to limit their nuclear aspirations and terrorist ties. The balancing act comes in when we have to apply the pressure without causing the population itself to embrace the hardliner's because of their perception of the West being against them. Thats a tough line to walk.... Michel Prévost wrote: On a side note, your president is visiting us today and tomorrow, in the city where I live. I can already imagine my return home tonight, as I have to pass near the place where he's having dinner. My sympathies there, that will really screw up your commute. I think that overall, you might be suprised how close our views on most of these things actually are. Even if I tend to vote Republican, that doesn't make me the brainwashed imbecile that you read about in the media. I support a strong national defense, while keeping in mind that we need to work with people to try to avoid conflict. Sometimes it is necessary to use force, but its never desirable. If more