Jump to content


Iran extends Olive branch to the US


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#1 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 01:23 PM

It's really pretty remarkable given the dastardly way we've treated their people.

Tip of the hat to Obama for a more realistic ME policy?

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

#2 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 05:31 PM

It has practically nothing to do with the rest of the world and practically everything to do with a man with a functioning brain (Houssani) who replaced that wackadoodle, Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad.

If he can continue this business-first approach, Houssani has a solid chance to bring Iran back to the table of functioning democracies. There are still two non elected people above President there, but it seems the correction is being gradually made.

And to be fair to Ahmadenijad, maybe a big-talk guy like hung was needed to get people open to a guy like Houssani.

#3 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 07:54 PM

Hope if they take some more constructive steps we meet them halfway by taking a more realistic stance re Israel and Irans right to nuclear weapons.



#4 Ned

Ned

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,581 posts
  • Location:Wahiawa, Oahu

Posted 20 September 2013 - 11:19 PM

That's funny because when I saw the news about this my first question was "where is the scam hiding?"



#5 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 11:52 PM

Hope if they take some more constructive steps we meet them halfway by taking a more realistic stance re Israel and Irans right to nuclear weapons.


FFS ... Iran agreed not to have any nuclear weapons.

They don't have a "right to nuclear weapons" because they specifically declared that they don't want them.

#6 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 12:10 AM

They changed their mind. They have an absolute riight to the weapons and with the renegade Israelis (nuked up) and Americans causing mischief in the general vicinity it is in their interest and reasonable for them to pursue nukes.

#7 Keith

Keith

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,804 posts
  • Location:Vancouver B.C.

Posted 21 September 2013 - 12:37 AM

And, you would trust this country?????  OMG  :blink:



#8 HardOnWind

HardOnWind

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts
  • Location:Tacoma, WA

Posted 21 September 2013 - 12:39 AM

It has practically nothing to do with the rest of the world and practically everything to do with a man with a functioning brain (Houssani) who replaced that wackadoodle, Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad.

Ya, the Holocaust-denier crowd is really a bunch of ignorant-idiots. Kind of on-par with those who deny man made global warming, evolution, that government jobs are actually real jobs and that our healthcare system in the US is last place in the developing world in terms of cost effectiveness. All those deniers are a bunch of lunatics.

#9 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 12:45 AM

And, you would trust this country?????  OMG  :blink:


Trust no one. But they have the right to the weapon like India Israel France Pakistan and any other country that wants them. If they use them their will be consequences.

#10 Keith

Keith

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,804 posts
  • Location:Vancouver B.C.

Posted 21 September 2013 - 12:50 AM

And, you would trust this country?????  OMG  :blink:


Trust no one. But they have the right to the weapon like India Israel France Pakistan and any other country that wants them. If they use them their will be consequences.

Wow, you can't be serious... its like giving a loaded gun to the 10 year old kids down the street, it wont ever turn out good, and its entirely your fault....  complete fail.



#11 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,075 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 12:52 AM

And, you would trust this country?????  OMG  :blink:

 

and you would trust the perpetrators of Operation Ajax?  :lol:



#12 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,075 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 12:54 AM

 

And, you would trust this country?????  OMG  :blink:


Trust no one. But they have the right to the weapon like India Israel France Pakistan and any other country that wants them. If they use them their will be consequences.

Wow, you can't be serious... its like giving a loaded gun to the 10 year old kids down the street, it wont ever turn out good, and its entirely your fault....  complete fail.

Israel should also comply... no?  



#13 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,461 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:07 AM

That's funny because when I saw the news about this my first question was "where is the scam hiding?"

 

 Might not be a scam. For Iran nuclear weapons are more trouble than they are worth. They may decide they will forfeit the ability to secretly or un-preventatively  construct one, put their fuel plants in an isolated place, right on the surface so they could be taken out anytime, and let the inspectors go where ever they wish, if it will lift the sanctions.    



#14 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:10 AM

Iran if they had nukes would be much less likely to use them than say the us or user during the cold war. The big risk is Pakistan/India.

#15 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:25 AM

They changed their mind. They have an absolute riight to the weapons and with the renegade Israelis (nuked up) and Americans causing mischief in the general vicinity it is in their interest and reasonable for them to pursue nukes.


No, they didn't change their mind. Because if they changed their mind they would have withdrawn from the NPT, which they didn't do.

You made that up, and you're wrong.

#16 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:29 AM


It has practically nothing to do with the rest of the world and practically everything to do with a man with a functioning brain (Houssani) who replaced that wackadoodle, Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad.

Ya, the Holocaust-denier crowd is really a bunch of ignorant-idiots. Kind of on-par with those who deny man made global warming, evolution, that government jobs are actually real jobs and that our healthcare system in the US is last place in the developing world in terms of cost effectiveness. All those deniers are a bunch of lunatics.

You realize, of course, that you just equated Holocaust deniers with people who disagree health care policy and global warming, along with government workers.

Congratulations, you just made Gator seem like a perfectly rational guy in comparison to you.

#17 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,637 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:37 AM

Hope if they take some more constructive steps we meet them halfway by taking a more realistic stance re Israel and Irans right to nuclear weapons.

 

Thanks for clarifying Obama's "more realistic ME policy".

 

Is that his, BTW, or yours?  Who do I tip the hat to and for what?



#18 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:37 AM


And, you would trust this country?????  OMG  :blink:

Trust no one. But they have the right to the weapon like India Israel France Pakistan and any other country that wants them. If they use them their will be consequences.

First off, Iran is trustworthy. Not all of Iran, not all the politicians there, but that's the same as here.

Second, you're wrong about their "right" ... they gave up many of those rights when they became signatory. If they ent their nuclear rights restored they can drop out of the NPT like North Korea.

Unlike France and Iran, India, Pakistan and Israel are not NPT signatories.

#19 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:39 AM

They changed their mind. They have an absolute riight to the weapons and with the renegade Israelis (nuked up) and Americans causing mischief in the general vicinity it is in their interest and reasonable for them to pursue nukes.


No, they didn't change their mind. Because if they changed their mind they would have withdrawn from the NPT, which they didn't do.
You made that up, and you're wrong.

They changed their mind but just won't announce it (Smart!) until they've got a weapon. They are under threat from the thuggish Israelis and the US It's a delicate balance if they are going to be are credible counterweight in the region.

#20 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,637 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:45 AM

 

They changed their mind. They have an absolute riight to the weapons and with the renegade Israelis (nuked up) and Americans causing mischief in the general vicinity it is in their interest and reasonable for them to pursue nukes.


No, they didn't change their mind. Because if they changed their mind they would have withdrawn from the NPT, which they didn't do.
You made that up, and you're wrong.

They changed their mind but just won't announce it (Smart!) until they've got a weapon. They are under threat from the thuggish Israelis and the US It's a delicate balance if they are going to be are credible counterweight in the region.

 

 

Eaxtly.

 

Tioh-ham-bta to Omamba!



#21 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:46 AM

Iran if they had nukes would be much less likely to use them than say the us or user during the cold war. The big risk is Pakistan/India.


And you justify this how? Just something else you made up?

#22 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:48 AM


They changed their mind. They have an absolute riight to the weapons and with the renegade Israelis (nuked up) and Americans causing mischief in the general vicinity it is in their interest and reasonable for them to pursue nukes.

No, they didn't change their mind. Because if they changed their mind they would have withdrawn from the NPT, which they didn't do.
You made that up, and you're wrong.
They changed their mind but just won't announce it (Smart!) until they've got a weapon. They are under threat from the thuggish Israelis and the US It's a delicate balance if they are going to be are credible counterweight in the region.

I am quite sure that their new president shut it down. They can benefit from functional international banking relationships more than from a nuke.

#23 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:52 AM

Involves # of weapons, deep distrust of other side, historical hatred, geopolitics and other things you wouldn't understand. You should try reading a little more. I suggest you start with the economist and FP

#24 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 02:10 AM

Speaking of untrustworthy nuke powers...

The US almost nuked south Carolina in 1961!

http://www.huffingto..._n_3964784.html

#25 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,637 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 02:12 AM

Involves # of weapons, deep distrust of other side, historical hatred, geopolitics and other things you wouldn't understand. You should try reading a little more. I suggest you start with the economist and FP

 

And Obama has a total grasp on that from his experience in Chicago as a community organizer? 

 

I have always given Obama credit for appointing Hillary as Secretary of State.  



#26 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 02:19 AM

It's called common sense. Kisinger has unparalleled int foriegn policy experience yet he is one of the worst advisors re that subject matter.

#27 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,637 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 02:35 AM

It's called common sense. Kisinger has unparalleled int foriegn policy experience yet he is one of the worst advisors re that subject matter.

 

 

Ever heard of a country called "China"? 

 

You spled kisigerln rowng, wtb



#28 HardOnWind

HardOnWind

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts
  • Location:Tacoma, WA

Posted 21 September 2013 - 06:09 AM

 


It has practically nothing to do with the rest of the world and practically everything to do with a man with a functioning brain (Houssani) who replaced that wackadoodle, Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad.

Ya, the Holocaust-denier crowd is really a bunch of ignorant-idiots. Kind of on-par with those who deny man made global warming, evolution, that government jobs are actually real jobs and that our healthcare system in the US is last place in the developing world in terms of cost effectiveness. All those deniers are a bunch of lunatics.

You realize, of course, that you just equated Holocaust deniers with people who disagree health care policy and global warming, along with government workers.

Congratulations, you just made Gator seem like a perfectly rational guy in comparison to you.

No, precisely the opposite is true. I equated Holocaust deniers with people who deny that our health care policy is bad.



#29 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,628 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 09:57 AM

It has practically nothing to do with the rest of the world and practically everything to do with a man with a functioning brain (Houssani) who replaced that wackadoodle, Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad.

Ya, the Holocaust-denier crowd is really a bunch of ignorant-idiots. Kind of on-par with those who deny man made global warming, evolution, that government jobs are actually real jobs and that our healthcare system in the US is last place in the developing world in terms of cost effectiveness. All those deniers are a bunch of lunatics.

You realize, of course, that you just equated Holocaust deniers with people who disagree health care policy and global warming, along with government workers.

Congratulations, you just made Gator seem like a perfectly rational guy in comparison to you.

No, precisely the opposite is true. I equated Holocaust deniers with people who deny that our health care policy is bad.
You equated holocaust deniers with people who understand that our healthcare policy is about to get much worse.

#30 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,075 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 10:35 AM

Speaking of untrustworthy nuke powers...

The US almost nuked south Carolina in 1961!

http://www.huffingto..._n_3964784.html

 

That would have been the start of ww3.... as they would have had to retaliate no question. 



#31 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,340 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:19 PM

Speaking of untrustworthy nuke powers...

The US almost nuked south Carolina in 1961!

http://www.huffingto..._n_3964784.html

 

That would have been the start of ww3.... as they would have had to retaliate no question. 

And it was N. Carolina. Lizard boy can't even reed gud. 



#32 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 01:51 PM

 

 


It has practically nothing to do with the rest of the world and practically everything to do with a man with a functioning brain (Houssani) who replaced that wackadoodle, Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad.

Ya, the Holocaust-denier crowd is really a bunch of ignorant-idiots. Kind of on-par with those who deny man made global warming, evolution, that government jobs are actually real jobs and that our healthcare system in the US is last place in the developing world in terms of cost effectiveness. All those deniers are a bunch of lunatics.

You realize, of course, that you just equated Holocaust deniers with people who disagree health care policy and global warming, along with government workers.

Congratulations, you just made Gator seem like a perfectly rational guy in comparison to you.

No, precisely the opposite is true. I equated Holocaust deniers with people who deny that our health care policy is bad.

 

Spin it how you feel you must. You equated Holocaust deniers with regular people on various sides of regular political issues.



#33 HardOnWind

HardOnWind

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts
  • Location:Tacoma, WA

Posted 21 September 2013 - 04:23 PM





It has practically nothing to do with the rest of the world and practically everything to do with a man with a functioning brain (Houssani) who replaced that wackadoodle, Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad.

Ya, the Holocaust-denier crowd is really a bunch of ignorant-idiots. Kind of on-par with those who deny man made global warming, evolution, that government jobs are actually real jobs and that our healthcare system in the US is last place in the developing world in terms of cost effectiveness. All those deniers are a bunch of lunatics.


You realize, of course, that you just equated Holocaust deniers with people who disagree health care policy and global warming, along with government workers.

Congratulations, you just made Gator seem like a perfectly rational guy in comparison to you.


No, precisely the opposite is true. I equated Holocaust deniers with people who deny that our health care policy is bad.


 
Spin it how you feel you must. You equated Holocaust deniers with regular people on various sides of regular political issues.


Spin? I just pointed out that you don't know how to read. If anyone is spinning here it's you --- trying to equate Holocaust deniers with those who perpetrated the Holocaust.

#34 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 08:04 PM

 

 

And, you would trust this country?????  OMG  :blink:


Trust no one. But they have the right to the weapon like India Israel France Pakistan and any other country that wants them. If they use them their will be consequences.

Wow, you can't be serious... its like giving a loaded gun to the 10 year old kids down the street, it wont ever turn out good, and its entirely your fault....  complete fail.

Israel should also comply... no?  

 

Comply with what?



#35 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 21 September 2013 - 08:09 PM

Spin? I just pointed out that you don't know how to read. If anyone is spinning here it's you --- trying to equate Holocaust deniers with those who perpetrated the Holocaust.

 

You could have equated Holocaust deniers with Global Warming deniers or Global Warming scientists and it wouldn't have mattered. Your mistake is in creating the proportionality in the first place.

 

Holocaust deniers are part of a chain of denial from those who perpetrated it.



#36 Ned

Ned

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,581 posts
  • Location:Wahiawa, Oahu

Posted 21 September 2013 - 09:51 PM

That's funny because when I saw the news about this my first question was "where is the scam hiding?"

 

 Might not be a scam. For Iran nuclear weapons are more trouble than they are worth. They may decide they will forfeit the ability to secretly or un-preventatively  construct one, put their fuel plants in an isolated place, right on the surface so they could be taken out anytime, and let the inspectors go where ever they wish, if it will lift the sanctions.    

I agree until sanctions are lifted.  It will be much harder to put them back on than lift them.  I'm sure they have it all planned for rapid development post sanctions.  

 

Or possibly there is a rare outbreak of common sense related to the complete economic beatdown they would be taking if the Chinese weren't buying their oil at a deep discount to market.  It would be good to maintain this environment for a while and make sure that the leaders truly understand their position is of weakness and a thorough and public dismantling of weapons production facilities is completed.  



#37 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 21 September 2013 - 10:38 PM

 

 

 

And, you would trust this country?????  OMG  :blink:


Trust no one. But they have the right to the weapon like India Israel France Pakistan and any other country that wants them. If they use them their will be consequences.

Wow, you can't be serious... its like giving a loaded gun to the 10 year old kids down the street, it wont ever turn out good, and its entirely your fault....  complete fail.

Israel should also comply... no?  

 

Comply with what?

 

Pretty much anything. Israel isn't a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Law of the Sea, ....



#38 HardOnWind

HardOnWind

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts
  • Location:Tacoma, WA

Posted 21 September 2013 - 10:41 PM

Holocaust deniers are part of a chain of denial from those who perpetrated it.

That's some serious creative-licence taking right there dude. The Holocaust was perpetrated by Natzi Germany. The deniers your referred to "Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad" had nothing to do with the actual Holocaust even considering some hypothetical "chain of denial" BS. http://www.timesofis...or-achievement/



#39 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,461 posts

Posted 22 September 2013 - 12:04 AM

 

That's funny because when I saw the news about this my first question was "where is the scam hiding?"

 

 Might not be a scam. For Iran nuclear weapons are more trouble than they are worth. They may decide they will forfeit the ability to secretly or un-preventatively  construct one, put their fuel plants in an isolated place, right on the surface so they could be taken out anytime, and let the inspectors go where ever they wish, if it will lift the sanctions.    

I agree until sanctions are lifted.  It will be much harder to put them back on than lift them.  I'm sure they have it all planned for rapid development post sanctions.  

 

Or possibly there is a rare outbreak of common sense related to the complete economic beatdown they would be taking if the Chinese weren't buying their oil at a deep discount to market.  It would be good to maintain this environment for a while and make sure that the leaders truly understand their position is of weakness and a thorough and public dismantling of weapons production facilities is completed.  

 

 There are no known weapons production facilities. The intelligence assessment is that their nascent weapons program was terminated within a month or two of our invasion of Iraq. This is about plants that are capable of producing weapons grade U clandestinely, and are bomb-proof.

 

 They could propose placing all their refinement facilities in one place. Say a mile or so from some town large enough to support a nice hotel and fine restaurants that inspectors could live at, and give them all the run of the entire country.    



#40 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,075 posts

Posted 22 September 2013 - 01:49 AM

 

 

That's funny because when I saw the news about this my first question was "where is the scam hiding?"

 

 Might not be a scam. For Iran nuclear weapons are more trouble than they are worth. They may decide they will forfeit the ability to secretly or un-preventatively  construct one, put their fuel plants in an isolated place, right on the surface so they could be taken out anytime, and let the inspectors go where ever they wish, if it will lift the sanctions.    

I agree until sanctions are lifted.  It will be much harder to put them back on than lift them.  I'm sure they have it all planned for rapid development post sanctions.  

 

Or possibly there is a rare outbreak of common sense related to the complete economic beatdown they would be taking if the Chinese weren't buying their oil at a deep discount to market.  It would be good to maintain this environment for a while and make sure that the leaders truly understand their position is of weakness and a thorough and public dismantling of weapons production facilities is completed.  

 

 There are no known weapons production facilities. The intelligence assessment is that their nascent weapons program was terminated within a month or two of our invasion of Iraq. This is about plants that are capable of producing weapons grade U clandestinely, and are bomb-proof.

 

 They could propose placing all their refinement facilities in one place. Say a mile or so from some town large enough to support a nice hotel and fine restaurants that inspectors could live at, and give them all the run of the entire country.    

Great from there they could do a tour Israel... :lol:  



#41 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 22 September 2013 - 03:06 AM

 
Pretty much anything. Israel isn't a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Law of the Sea, ....


How can someone comply with something to which they didn't agree to comply in the first place?

#42 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 22 September 2013 - 03:11 AM


Holocaust deniers are part of a chain of denial from those who perpetrated it.

That's some serious creative-licence taking right there dude. The Holocaust was perpetrated by Natzi Germany. The deniers your referred to "Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad" had nothing to do with the actual Holocaust even considering some hypothetical "chain of denial" BS. http://www.timesofis...or-achievement/

Ahmadenijad doesn't have to be a Nazi to make his Holocaust denial reprehensible, he could be a terrific person and his denial would still be a disgrace.

But in fact, he is not a terrific person, and he had his own version of tyranny, under his presidency, Iran persecuted, imprisoned and executed people like Sufis, Feminists, Socialists, Kurds, Jews, union activists and homosexuals.

#43 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 22 September 2013 - 03:25 AM

You probably meant why should someone comply with something they didn't agree to comply with in the first place. But even that argument has its limitations. The United States has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Our last nuclear test was in 1992. We are in voluntary compliance with a treaty which has no enforcement on us.

 

On the other hand, Israel violates the Chemical Weapons Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Law of the Sea so discussion of their compliance is pointless.



#44 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 22 September 2013 - 05:24 AM

You probably meant why should someone comply with something they didn't agree to comply with in the first place. But even that argument has its limitations. The United States has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Our last nuclear test was in 1992. We are in voluntary compliance with a treaty which has no enforcement on us.

 

On the other hand, Israel violates the Chemical Weapons Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Law of the Sea so discussion of their compliance is pointless.

 

I did mean how, not why. "Why" is a trivial question ... nations agree to comply with the treaty because they get something out of compliance; commerce deals, standing at the Secretariat, banking favors, etc.. There would be no need for a country to abide by the treaty without signing it, it would be like giving the milk without the getting the hay.

 

But "how" is a more interesting question. Think about it ... compliance is a mechanism defined by a contract, or a treaty, or a law of the land. There is no mechanism of compliance when there is no applicable contract, treaty or law. For instance, the citizens of Vanuatu may form a cargo cult that mimics compliance with some form of U.S. Law, but given that they are neither citizens of the USA, nor bound by any of its laws or contracts, there is no mechanism to define that compliance. I can agree to follow the laws of the State of Vermont, but since I don't live in Vermont, there is no mechanism of compliance for me to do that, it would just be edifice.

 

The U.S.A. voted to ratify the PTBT, so there is at least partial mechanism of compliance. You write that we are in "voluntary compliance with a treaty" as if that's something unusual ... ALL signatories to the NPT and other nuclear treaties are under voluntary compliance, and any signatory (for instance North Korea) can drop out any time they want. They may have to deal with the backlash of international sanctions, but the participants of those sanctions participate voluntarily too. The PTBT definitely has enforcement on us because our Senate voted to adhere to it, and we have our own internal methods of compliance.

 

Finally, your last paragraph is wrong. Israel is bound by the Chemical Weapons Treaty, and they apparently abide by it as well as most other countries. They seem to have some violations, but so does the U.S.A., my own state of Colorado has tons of stockpiled Mustard Gas, and there is Sarin in Kentucky, we haven't allowed full inspections in our own country.

 

Israel (along with India, and Pakistan) are not in violation of the NPT because they never agreed to be bound by it, there is no mechanism of compliance for people who do not agree to be bound by a particular treaty since there is no international law which binds without prior agreement. Again, all the signatories can get together and decide to impose sanctions on the nonsignatories, but those are tactics to get them to agree to be bound by the treaty, not compliance mechanism from within the treaty.

 

As for UNCLoS, neither Israel nor the USA nor Peru, Venezuala, nor Turkey or a few others agreed to abide by it, so they can't violate something they didn't agree to abide, there is no mechanism, except for areas that coincide with their existing treaties.



#45 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 22 September 2013 - 05:41 AM

States not Party to the Chemical Weapons Ban.

 

http://www.opcw.org/...-member-states/

 

Signatory States which have not yet ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention

 

1 Israel 13/01/1993.

 

Anything else or are we done here?



#46 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 22 September 2013 - 07:02 AM

States not Party to the Chemical Weapons Ban.

 

http://www.opcw.org/...-member-states/

 

Signatory States which have not yet ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention

 

1 Israel 13/01/1993.

 

Anything else or are we done here?

 

We're done if you want to be done, but this is still wrong.

 

You wrote "Israel violates the Chemical Weapons Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Law of the Sea ."

 

To which I pointed out that this is wrong. Israel can't violate the NPT because they're not a signatory to it, and they can't violate UNCLoS because they're not signatory to that either.

 

They could violate The Chemical Weapons Treaty because they HAVE signed it, and are thus bound by their own internal law on it, the same way the USA is bound by our own internal law when by agreed to abide the PTBT, but didn't complete the U.N. process, similar to Israel with the Chemical Weapons Treaty. I don't know the details of their violations of the Chemical Weapons Ban Treaty that you claim, but I pointed out that the U.S.A. is potentially one of the biggest violators of this treaty.

 

You've smooshed all these disparate treaties together and claimed that Israel is in violation of them all, the only one that they could possibly violate is the Chemical Weapons Treaty, because they've agreed to that on some level, regardless that it hasn't yet been ratified.



#47 Mohammed Bin Lyin

Mohammed Bin Lyin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 818 posts
  • Location:Dar Al Harb

Posted 23 September 2013 - 12:10 PM

It has practically nothing to do with the rest of the world and practically everything to do with a man with a functioning brain (Houssani) who replaced that wackadoodle, Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad.

If he can continue this business-first approach, Houssani has a solid chance to bring Iran back to the table of functioning democracies. There are still two non elected people above President there, but it seems the correction is being gradually made.

And to be fair to Ahmadenijad, maybe a big-talk guy like hung was needed to get people open to a guy like Houssani.

 

The supreme leader selects the candidates, so what makes you think this guy aint a nutjob like the previous nutjob?

 

Are the executions carrying on as usual?

 

When they use Ali's sword to dispatch the supreme leader in the traditional Islamic way then there is a possibility for progress.



#48 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,391 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 23 September 2013 - 12:40 PM

Speaking of untrustworthy nuke powers...

The US almost nuked south Carolina in 1961!

http://www.huffingto..._n_3964784.html

 

North Carolina, dumb shit!  I guess reading and geography was right up there with spelling as UFag educational priorities, eh?



#49 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,391 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 23 September 2013 - 12:52 PM

That's funny because when I saw the news about this my first question was "where is the scam hiding?"

 

 Might not be a scam. For Iran nuclear weapons are more trouble than they are worth. They may decide they will forfeit the ability to secretly or un-preventatively  construct one, put their fuel plants in an isolated place, right on the surface so they could be taken out anytime, and let the inspectors go where ever they wish, if it will lift the sanctions.    

 

Its probably not a scam but you never know.  I heard on the news this a.m. that the Israelis are saying they are within 6 months of getting a working nuke so this may be a delaying tactic to get through the next 6 months and then they are home free.  North Korea is a perfect example for them for what we will not do, even if they test a bomb. 

 

Of course its just as likely that the Israelis are trying to use scare tactics to get the world to react and keep up the pressure on Iran. 

 

Rohani is certainly saying all the right things.  I'd like to believe him and think that some new chapter is about to be written vis a vis US-Iranian relations.  But my inner skeptic is.... well.... skeptical. 



#50 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,461 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 08:03 PM

 

That's funny because when I saw the news about this my first question was "where is the scam hiding?"

 

 Might not be a scam. For Iran nuclear weapons are more trouble than they are worth. They may decide they will forfeit the ability to secretly or un-preventatively  construct one, put their fuel plants in an isolated place, right on the surface so they could be taken out anytime, and let the inspectors go where ever they wish, if it will lift the sanctions.    

 

Its probably not a scam but you never know.  I heard on the news this a.m. that the Israelis are saying they are within 6 months of getting a working nuke so this may be a delaying tactic to get through the next 6 months and then they are home free.  North Korea is a perfect example for them for what we will not do, even if they test a bomb. 

 

Of course its just as likely that the Israelis are trying to use scare tactics to get the world to react and keep up the pressure on Iran. 

 

Rohani is certainly saying all the right things.  I'd like to believe him and think that some new chapter is about to be written vis a vis US-Iranian relations.  But my inner skeptic is.... well.... skeptical. 

 

   The time is right.  I'm convinced these neo-Flower Children that make up about 70% of our congress right now are genuine. This is a real peace craze, and it's possible they might be open to the idea that Iran isn't Hitler. 

 

  I doubt Obama is going to bust a move until this budget stuff is settled. I'm worried he may be to timid too. The saying "Only Nixon could go to China" is based on Nixon making his bones as a Commie fighter with McCarthy. Obama lacks that sort of street-cred.   



#51 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,254 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 09:12 PM

 

 

That's funny because when I saw the news about this my first question was "where is the scam hiding?"

 

 Might not be a scam. For Iran nuclear weapons are more trouble than they are worth. They may decide they will forfeit the ability to secretly or un-preventatively  construct one, put their fuel plants in an isolated place, right on the surface so they could be taken out anytime, and let the inspectors go where ever they wish, if it will lift the sanctions.    

 

Its probably not a scam but you never know.  I heard on the news this a.m. that the Israelis are saying they are within 6 months of getting a working nuke so this may be a delaying tactic to get through the next 6 months and then they are home free.  North Korea is a perfect example for them for what we will not do, even if they test a bomb. 

 

Of course its just as likely that the Israelis are trying to use scare tactics to get the world to react and keep up the pressure on Iran. 

 

Rohani is certainly saying all the right things.  I'd like to believe him and think that some new chapter is about to be written vis a vis US-Iranian relations.  But my inner skeptic is.... well.... skeptical. 

 

   The time is right.  I'm convinced these neo-Flower Children that make up about 70% of our congress right now are genuine. This is a real peace craze, and it's possible they might be open to the idea that Iran isn't Hitler. 

 

  I doubt Obama is going to bust a move until this budget stuff is settled. I'm worried he may be to timid too. The saying "Only Nixon could go to China" is based on Nixon making his bones as a Commie fighter with McCarthy. Obama lacks that sort of street-cred.   

 

Street Cred?  Shit man he has that Nobel bling to show off.



#52 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 11:03 PM



It has practically nothing to do with the rest of the world and practically everything to do with a man with a functioning brain (Houssani) who replaced that wackadoodle, Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad.

If he can continue this business-first approach, Houssani has a solid chance to bring Iran back to the table of functioning democracies. There are still two non elected people above President there, but it seems the correction is being gradually made.

And to be fair to Ahmadenijad, maybe a big-talk guy like hung was needed to get people open to a guy like Houssani.

 
The supreme leader selects the candidates, so what makes you think this guy aint a nutjob like the previous nutjob?
 
Are the executions carrying on as usual?
 
When they use Ali's sword to dispatch the supreme leader in the traditional Islamic way then there is a possibility for progress.
I don't disagree with you about the dismal track record of the SL and the Chair, but they were somewhat forced into finding a moderate, they could only afford to have their banking tied in knots for so long.

Rohani has said that Iran never wants nuclear weapons and he already released nearly 100 of the previous nut's political prisoners. If Rohani is a Trojan Horse, then he's like none I've ever seen. He seems to be the closest to a secularist that Iran has seen in a long time.

#53 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 11:16 PM



That's funny because when I saw the news about this my first question was "where is the scam hiding?"

 
 Might not be a scam. For Iran nuclear weapons are more trouble than they are worth. They may decide they will forfeit the ability to secretly or un-preventatively  construct one, put their fuel plants in an isolated place, right on the surface so they could be taken out anytime, and let the inspectors go where ever they wish, if it will lift the sanctions.    
 
Its probably not a scam but you never know.  I heard on the news this a.m. that the Israelis are saying they are within 6 months of getting a working nuke so this may be a delaying tactic to get through the next 6 months and then they are home free.  North Korea is a perfect example for them for what we will not do, even if they test a bomb. 
 
Of course its just as likely that the Israelis are trying to use scare tactics to get the world to react and keep up the pressure on Iran. 
 
Rohani is certainly saying all the right things.  I'd like to believe him and think that some new chapter is about to be written vis a vis US-Iranian relations.  But my inner skeptic is.... well.... skeptical. 
It's very, very healthy to be skeptical with anything nuclear related. But remember that the last few years have brought us resonance ionization mass spectroscopy and advanced scintillation, if someone is enriching uranium or making plutonium we would know about it from hundreds and hundreds of miles downwind, it's just insanely hard to hide these days, like blue dye on the hands of a bank robber.

Each atom reads like a novel. If they continued the program after Ahmadenijad, people would know. It's literally easier to hide an aircraft carrier than it is to hide airborne nuclear components.

#54 2slow

2slow

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,282 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 23 September 2013 - 11:27 PM

I don't think its a scam.  Iran has too many people to take care of (population doubled in past 30 years) and need the sanctions to end to avoid really pissed off Iranians.  I heard something about the rivers, groundwater and aquifers being almost tapped in Iran.  Hungry citizens are  going to take precedence over nuclear weapons in all but the most psychopathic (N. Korea) and secure governments.



#55 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,461 posts

Posted 24 September 2013 - 02:59 AM

 Be a shame to let it slip by. I'd like to see a Shiite/moderate Sunni/Russia/Israeli loose alliance against violent Salifi's in the region.

 

 As good as it gets.  



#56 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,075 posts

Posted 24 September 2013 - 03:12 AM

 Be a shame to let it slip by. I'd like to see a Shiite/moderate Sunni/Russia/Israeli loose alliance against violent Salifi's in the region.

 

 As good as it gets.  

 

Moronic as it gets.... :ph34r:     



#57 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,391 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 24 September 2013 - 03:20 AM

 Be a shame to let it slip by. I'd like to see a Shiite/moderate Sunni/Russia/Israeli loose alliance against violent Salifi's in the region.

 

 As good as it gets.  

 

A girl can dream, can't she?



#58 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,461 posts

Posted 24 September 2013 - 03:25 AM

 It's the one thing we all have in common. 



#59 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,839 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 25 September 2013 - 12:03 AM

It's very, very healthy to be skeptical with anything nuclear related. But remember that the last few years have brought us resonance ionization mass spectroscopy and advanced scintillation, if someone is enriching uranium or making plutonium we would know about it from hundreds and hundreds of miles downwind, it's just insanely hard to hide these days, like blue dye on the hands of a bank robber.

Each atom reads like a novel. If they continued the program after Ahmadenijad, people would know. It's literally easier to hide an aircraft carrier than it is to hide airborne nuclear components.

Ze circle of mikew strikes again?
I seem to remember that this was my side of the argument last year, but this year you have hijacked it?

#60 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 04:34 AM

It's very, very healthy to be skeptical with anything nuclear related. But remember that the last few years have brought us resonance ionization mass spectroscopy and advanced scintillation, if someone is enriching uranium or making plutonium we would know about it from hundreds and hundreds of miles downwind, it's just insanely hard to hide these days, like blue dye on the hands of a bank robber.

Each atom reads like a novel. If they continued the program after Ahmadenijad, people would know. It's literally easier to hide an aircraft carrier than it is to hide airborne nuclear components.

Ze circle of mikew strikes again?
I seem to remember that this was my side of the argument last year, but this year you have hijacked it?

 

Talk about trying to revise history ...

 

Your position was the Iran wasn't in fact violating the NPT, you had the magical ability to disregard IAEA inspection reports as conspiracy theories propagated by Israel and the USA.

 

I kept pounding the point home that your armchair knowledge should be treated as armchair knowledge, and not some mysterious and wonderous link to divine truth.

 

Here's my position, and it's supported by actual evidence, rather than your conspiracy theories ... Iran was doing some naughty stuff with their nuclear program under Ahmadenijad. Now Ahmadenijad is gone, someone who apparently has a functioning logic center is in place and he has so far indicated that he wants his country to have full NPT compliance.

 

Are you trying to suggest that just because long-range isotope detection is a physical reality that we would have know about their programs? Regardless your "interest" in physics, you are apparently ignorant of just how complex nanoscale spectroscopy is ... it's the domain of a handful of superpower military intelligence services, not some lightly funded IAEA inspectors. If you think the Pentagon is going to show their hand with their long-range detection and ranging capabilities just to give juice to some U.N. inspectors, then the circle of make-believe must be inside your head.

 

Remember, those same U.N. inspection groups inspect the U.S. too, and we're apparently in violation of some of the treaties too. Our military isn't going to sell the rope used to hang themselves.



#61 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,839 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 25 September 2013 - 05:29 AM

Talk about trying to revise history ...
 
Your position was the Iran wasn't in fact violating the NPT, you had the magical ability to disregard IAEA inspection reports as conspiracy theories propagated by Israel and the USA.

No, this is just what you say my position is.

And yes, the biggest problem you have understanding what is going on relates to your rock-solid belief in the highly-political and openly manipulated IAEA process.
While they do not appear to have technically voilated the NPT since 2003, their distain/others abuse of the IAEA is causing some difficulties.

What has been needed for some time is a diplomatic reset. Unsurprisingly, the Iranians have been the bigger party and suggested it.

Here's my position, and it's supported by actual evidence, rather than your conspiracy theories ... Iran was doing some naughty stuff with their nuclear program under Ahmadenijad.

Ahem. Wild and unsupported allegations.

Now Ahmadenijad is gone, someone who apparently has a functioning logic center is in place and he has so far indicated that he wants his country to have full NPT compliance.

I think you'll find he's pretty sure that they already have compliance. The difficulty is that certain parties cannot handle the idea of the Iranians controlling the whole fuel cycle.

If you think the Pentagon is going to show their hand with their long-range detection and ranging capabilities just to give juice to some U.N. inspectors, then the circle of make-believe must be inside your head.

If they had anything at all better than that silly fake briefcase, you can be sure they would be using it.

#62 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 05:46 AM

No, this is just what you say my position is.

And yes, the biggest problem you have understanding what is going on relates to your rock-solid belief in the highly-political and openly manipulated IAEA process.
While they do not appear to have technically voilated the NPT since 2003, their distain/others abuse of the IAEA is causing some difficulties.

What has been needed for some time is a diplomatic reset. Unsurprisingly, the Iranians have been the bigger party and suggested it.

 
You still seem to think that violation of the NPT is just making bad stuff. Violation of the NPT is not agreeing to the terms of the treaty, and that means giving the U.N. access. For all we know they could be brewing nothing stronger than root beer back there, but if they're not allowing access then they're not in compliance.
 
Does that violate their national security or whatever else it was you complained about last year? The NPT is voluntary, they don't have to abide by it. The inspections are the result of climbing Mount Optional and agreeing to the treaty.
 
 

I think you'll find he's pretty sure that they already have compliance. The difficulty is that certain parties cannot handle the idea of the Iranians controlling the whole fuel cycle.

 

They're allowed to control the fuel cycle. They're not allowed to control the fuel cycle and then prevent inspections or hide data. If they want to prevent inspections and hide data than take the road of India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea and shitcan the agreement.

 

 

If they had anything at all better than that silly fake briefcase, you can be sure they would be using it.

 

It's not what they're using, but rather what they're willing to share with the U.N.. You still seem incapable of understanding that the IAEA is not the military. They're a lightly-funded treaty compliance outfit, they don't have access to what the U.S. military has access, unless the U.S. military graciously throws them a bone ... and since you know physics, you should probably guess that a bone might be some portable scintillation equipment, but probably not ion-resonance mass spec..

 

It's interesting though ... your take is that Iran isn't doing anything wrong, while Gator's take is that Iran is building a nuke and they should be allowed to just build away. You two seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum, and I'm right in the middle; if you agree to something abide by something. If you don't want to abide by something, don't agree to something.



#63 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 12:40 AM

http://www.businessi...th-obama-2013-9

I'm starting to worry ... maybe Rouhani is making so much progress, so quickly, that some wackadoodle radical extremist might try to assassinate him?

That shoe could have been a bomb, like with Bhutto.

Iran brought the world into the era of radical Islamic fundamentalism, they might be able to bring it out too.

#64 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 12:48 AM

Radical Islamic fundamentalism would be the product of Saudi Arabia and not Iran.

#65 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 01:32 AM

Radical Islamic fundamentalism would be the product of Saudi Arabia and not Iran.

Eh. We have and had full and good relations with Saudia, regardless the scattered radicals throughout the Muslim world.

But Iran is the cultural nervous center of Islamic radicalization because of what we did with Operation Ajax.

Ajax packed the powder, Western economic oil expansion set the fuse, and the Tehran Embassy takeover along with Khomeini lit the fuse. It's what took radicalization to the State level.

#66 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 01:57 AM

Ajax was the overthrow of a democratic secular government. (Yes, we were that fucking stupid.)

Moreover, Wahhabism has Ajax beat by 150 years and Wahhabism is explicitly allied to and financed by the House of Saud. And the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca easily trumps the seizure of our Embassy in Teheran.

Really, you have to give this guy a hand.

Juhayman_al-Otaibi.jpg

#67 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,075 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 02:18 AM

Radical Islamic fundamentalism would be the product of Saudi Arabia and not Iran.

Eh. We have and had full and good relations with Saudia, regardless the scattered radicals throughout the Muslim world.

But Iran is the cultural nervous center of Islamic radicalization because of what we did with Operation Ajax.

Ajax packed the powder, Western economic oil expansion set the fuse, and the Tehran Embassy takeover along with Khomeini lit the fuse. It's what took radicalization to the State level.

 

and let's not forget petro dollars agreement and the history of Saudi Arabia... 



#68 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,637 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 02:50 AM

And, you would trust this country?????  OMG  :blink:


Trust no one. But they have the right to the weapon like India Israel France Pakistan and any other country that wants them. If they use them their will be consequences.

 

And you have a right to use the comma key.  Please exercise that right.

 

You are correct when you say that if any of those countries uses a nuke there will be consequences - a shitload of dead people and likely another world war.  In your concept of global balance of power, perhaps the US should ship ready-to-launch nukes to Somalia and Ecuador.   Regional balance is a good thing.



#69 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 03:39 AM



Radical Islamic fundamentalism would be the product of Saudi Arabia and not Iran.

Eh. We have and had full and good relations with Saudia, regardless the scattered radicals throughout the Muslim world.

But Iran is the cultural nervous center of Islamic radicalization because of what we did with Operation Ajax.

Ajax packed the powder, Western economic oil expansion set the fuse, and the Tehran Embassy takeover along with Khomeini lit the fuse. It's what took radicalization to the State level.
 
and let's not forget petro dollars agreement and the history of Saudi Arabia... 
Definitely. And that was largely what triggered Mosadeq to nationalize Iran's oil industry ... U.S. dealt Saudi Aramco had a fair and equitable deal going with Saudia, 50/50 split, while Britain was paying pennies on the dollar to Iran for their oil. It was the fairness of the US in dealing with the Saudis that had Mosadeq demand equitable treatment from the Brits who were basically ripping off the entire country. Eisenhower refused Operation Ajax twice before the big gun of Winston Churchill called in the favor.

That's why I don't agree that modern, state-supported extremism is a Saudi invention ... Saudi-US relations have been strong for generations because at some point we were smart enough to treat them as intelligent business partners, rather than cows to be milked.

#70 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,391 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:00 AM

Mike, I'm going to have to go with Olson on this one.  While Iran might be the center of shia extremism, they are not the center of Islamic extremism.  And to a degree, shia extremism has been fairly isolated and somewhat pragmatic in its approach.  The Hezzies in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine are perfect examples.  And Iran's biggest regional ally is/was mostly secular.  Few of the cases of extremist violence there was violence for violence's sake.  Most usually ahd a good geoplolitcal reason (Isreal out fo the West Bank for instance).

 

Wahabbism, OTOH - reaches into so many corners of the world.  I would fathom to guess that close to 100% of the Madrasas in Pakistan, where radical sunni extremism is the most fervent are funded by the saudi gov't.  The same would likely be true in many of the more extreme brands of madrassas in Indo (Grumpy, weight in here please) and the rest of the ME.  I'm also sure that Saudi backing (officially or unofficially) of the sunni extremists in Iraq had much to do with the prolonging of the conflict there and a lot of US lives lost. 

 

I would charactorize sunni extremism as much more ideological and therefore much more dangerous than shia extremism.  And you can pretty much thank Saudi for most of that.....



#71 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:37 AM

Mike, I'm going to have to go with Olson on this one.  While Iran might be the center of shia extremism, they are not the center of Islamic extremism.  And to a degree, shia extremism has been fairly isolated and somewhat pragmatic in its approach.  The Hezzies in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine are perfect examples.  And Iran's biggest regional ally is/was mostly secular.  Few of the cases of extremist violence there was violence for violence's sake.  Most usually ahd a good geoplolitcal reason (Isreal out fo the West Bank for instance).

 

Wahabbism, OTOH - reaches into so many corners of the world.  I would fathom to guess that close to 100% of the Madrasas in Pakistan, where radical sunni extremism is the most fervent are funded by the saudi gov't.  The same would likely be true in many of the more extreme brands of madrassas in Indo (Grumpy, weight in here please) and the rest of the ME.  I'm also sure that Saudi backing (officially or unofficially) of the sunni extremists in Iraq had much to do with the prolonging of the conflict there and a lot of US lives lost. 

 

I would charactorize sunni extremism as much more ideological and therefore much more dangerous than shia extremism.  And you can pretty much thank Saudi for most of that.....

 

These examples you bring up happened after Iran shows the Muslim world that State-Supported extremism could be successfully used to get armaments, and to fight wars.

 

Do you have an example of State-Supported Extremism from before Ajax or even before the Tehran takeover? That would help your argument considerably, convince me considerably more than using these more recent examples that I suggested are tied in spirit to Iran.

 

I do agree with you that Iran's flavor of extremism is less violent than the others, but that's the point ... the flame from the match is usually tame compared to the flame from the pile of tinder that the match ignites.



#72 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,461 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:28 AM

Googled "fundamental Islam in history" and found a post that covers the basics pretty briefly for ya. 

 

 http://www.meforum.o...t-war-with-whom

 

 "State supported" Islam? From day one, all about "law". It's the "seamless garment that covers all aspects of life" stuff. In fact complete seperation of Church and State is a pretty recent Western invention. But there is a slight truth to a very distinct anti-American brand starting in Iran. However, 9/11 was done by some people who hate Iran, Persians, Shiites and the like very deeply, and they would have hated us whether or not there were Shiites at all. 



#73 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 07:00 AM

Mark, there is an elephant you left out with respect to anti-Americanism in the ME. Before the 1979 Iranian revolution we had already had a few decades of US support of Israel. The resulting street level anti-Americanism was hardly limited to Iran and it certainly didn't start there.

#74 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,391 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 29 September 2013 - 10:01 AM

What I don't understand is after helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, that they turned on us almost immediately after.  Ungrateful bastards!



#75 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,075 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 01:36 PM

Mark, there is an elephant you left out with respect to anti-Americanism in the ME. Before the 1979 Iranian revolution we had already had a few decades of US support of Israel. The resulting street level anti-Americanism was hardly limited to Iran and it certainly didn't start there.

 

In fact the hostage crisis had nothing what so ever to do with Israel.      



#76 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:11 PM

What I don't understand is after helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, that they turned on us almost immediately after.  Ungrateful bastards!

 

I assume you're just joking here, right?

 

Some of the original anti-Soviet Mujahideen warlords were successful anti-Taliban fighters.



#77 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,391 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:12 PM

What I don't understand is after helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, that they turned on us almost immediately after.  Ungrateful bastards!

 

I assume you're just joking here, right?

 

Some of the original anti-Soviet Mujahideen warlords were successful anti-Taliban fighters.

 

WTF, are you new?



#78 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:22 PM

Mark, there is an elephant you left out with respect to anti-Americanism in the ME. Before the 1979 Iranian revolution we had already had a few decades of US support of Israel. The resulting street level anti-Americanism was hardly limited to Iran and it certainly didn't start there.

 

In fact the hostage crisis had nothing what so ever to do with Israel.      

 

True, after the Shah's overthrow there was some rock-throwing at the U.S. Embassy, but it kept a small staff.

 

What really pissed them off to no end was Carter literally giving a toast to the Shah, but the straw that broke the camel's back was when we took in the Shah for medical treatment instead of returning him to some kind of justice for his crimes. Until we brought him here, there was some confidence that he would at least be brought to some neutral ground like the Hague for his trial, if not back to Iran. It was the Shah that triggered the embassy takeover, and as the Iranian's suspected, he never paid for his crimes before he died.



#79 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:27 PM

 

What I don't understand is after helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, that they turned on us almost immediately after.  Ungrateful bastards!

 

I assume you're just joking here, right?

 

Some of the original anti-Soviet Mujahideen warlords were successful anti-Taliban fighters.

 

WTF, are you new?

 

Ah, I apologize.

 

Still punch-drunk from the beatdown I took in your pickem.



#80 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:38 PM


 


What I don't understand is after helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, that they turned on us almost immediately after.  Ungrateful bastards!

 
I assume you're just joking here, right?
 
Some of the original anti-Soviet Mujahideen warlords were successful anti-Taliban fighters.
 
WTF, are you new?
 
Ah, I apologize.
 
Still punch-drunk from the beatdown I took in your pickem.

It was pretty horrendous. Face it your gasbaggery is second only to lame kitten's

#81 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,461 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 09:42 PM

What I don't understand is after helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, that they turned on us almost immediately after.  Ungrateful bastards!

 

I assume you're just joking here, right?

 

Some of the original anti-Soviet Mujahideen warlords were successful anti-Taliban fighters.

 

 If they had looked to build a nation instead of fiefdoms the Taliban would probably had more difficult time, The Paki's selected the Taliban as their agent to gain control of the place so India didn't set up shop on their back door too. India was all up in their face on the front porch already. We let the Paki's have their choice in this, and since we kept friendly relations with the Paki's, and we did help them beat the Soviets, they weren't carrying any grudge against us. They liked Osama and other rich Saudi's as more for their money.

 

They are Puritans. Puritans tend to be trying to set up a place to fence off so they can live the way they want to far more often than they seek global, or even regional domination. They probably assumed OBL was just looking for a place to live as a religious aesthetic, like them. It appears he never read them in on 9/11 and Mullah Omar appears to have had a bit of difficultly believing it at first. In the "Oral History of The Taliban" there is much resentment over what that Arab did to them. 

 

 Conflating the Taliban and Al Qaeda was probably a big mistake.   



#82 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 09:52 PM

Conflating the Taliban and Al Qaeda was probably a big albeit easy mistake. The T made it so easy by being all wacko pre-911 and getting all guest-host afterwards. If our single purpose was to get OBL then that's what we should have done, mercilessly without thought of nation building or staying.

#83 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,254 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 11:04 PM

Conflating the Taliban and Al Qaeda was probably a big albeit easy mistake. The T made it so easy by being all wacko pre-911 and getting all guest-host afterwards. If our single purpose was to get OBL then that's what we should have done, mercilessly without thought of nation building or staying.

 

Yeah, you can see how islamist extremism has just totally faded away since his death.



#84 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,075 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 11:14 PM


Mark, there is an elephant you left out with respect to anti-Americanism in the ME. Before the 1979 Iranian revolution we had already had a few decades of US support of Israel. The resulting street level anti-Americanism was hardly limited to Iran and it certainly didn't start there.

 
In fact the hostage crisis had nothing what so ever to do with Israel.      
 
True, after the Shah's overthrow there was some rock-throwing at the U.S. Embassy, but it kept a small staff.
 
What really pissed them off to no end was Carter literally giving a toast to the Shah, but the straw that broke the camel's back was when we took in the Shah for medical treatment instead of returning him to some kind of justice for his crimes. Until we brought him here, there was some confidence that he would at least be brought to some neutral ground like the Hague for his trial, if not back to Iran. It was the Shah that triggered the embassy takeover, and as the Iranian's suspected, he never paid for his crimes before he died.

Spot on.

#85 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,461 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 11:21 PM

Conflating the Taliban and Al Qaeda was probably a big albeit easy mistake. The T made it so easy by being all wacko pre-911 and getting all guest-host afterwards. If our single purpose was to get OBL then that's what we should have done, mercilessly without thought of nation building or staying.

 

 One of the spooks at Tora Bora said that there were more reporters there than US troops and Tommy Franks was pulled off the job by Rumsfeld, who wanted an updated plan to attack Iraq...NOW!  It's been reported there were long discussions in the Executive branch about attacking Iraq on 9/11. 



#86 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 11:32 PM

Conflating Saddam and Al Qaeda was a really big mistake.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

#87 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,075 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 03:46 AM

Conflating Replacing Saddam and with Al Qaeda was a really big mistake.

 

 

fixed...



#88 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 30 September 2013 - 05:14 AM

Have to agree with that. It takes vision and perseverance to be the worst President ever.

#89 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,461 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 06:01 AM

Conflating Saddam and Al Qaeda was a really big mistake.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

There's no way Dick Cheney didn't know that OBL broke (well...extremely anyway...) bad when the Saudi's called on us, and not him and his "The Base" organization, with the threat to Saudi Arabia (Mecca and Medina -in OBL's thinking) caused by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. 

 

 It was about making the ME safe with a domino theory of Democracy. Bibi testimony for a Congressional committee around 2001 or 2002 says it all. "I do know that after the first one, the next is easier."  Paraphrased from memory. 



#90 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,269 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 30 September 2013 - 06:37 AM

OBL wanted to get together a bunch of well regulated militias and go Second Amendnent on Saddam's ass. The Saudis kind of laughed at him and made him go sit in the corner.

#91 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,075 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 10:45 AM

Have to agree with that. It takes vision and perseverance to be the worst President ever.

 

The worst in this life anyway. However obombya is running a close second by supplying weapons of war and training to terrorist thugs and kidnappers in Syria and he still has three more years to go so I wouldn't count him out just yet.. 



#92 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,839 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:20 AM


No, this is just what you say my position is.

And yes, the biggest problem you have understanding what is going on relates to your rock-solid belief in the highly-political and openly manipulated IAEA process.
While they do not appear to have technically voilated the NPT since 2003, their distain/others abuse of the IAEA is causing some difficulties.

What has been needed for some time is a diplomatic reset. Unsurprisingly, the Iranians have been the bigger party and suggested it.

You still seem to think that violation of the NPT is just making bad stuff. Violation of the NPT is not agreeing to the terms of the treaty, and that means giving the U.N. access. For all we know they could be brewing nothing stronger than root beer back there, but if they're not allowing access then they're not in compliance.

Does that violate their national security or whatever else it was you complained about last year? The NPT is voluntary, they don't have to abide by it. The inspections are the result of climbing Mount Optional and agreeing to the treaty.


You still fail to come up with anything to dispute the Iranian argument that the process is being manipulated and twisted to harass them and kill their scientists.

Iran was signed up for the NPT by the US's poodle shah decades ago.
I am sure if they felt it was politically feasible they would have withdrawn a long time ago.

They're allowed to control the fuel cycle. They're not allowed to control the fuel cycle and then prevent inspections or hide data. If they want to prevent inspections and hide data than take the road of India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea and shitcan the agreement.

Except, of course, that they have not been demonstrated to be hiding data.
Also I am struggling to think of any valid inspection site which has not been inspected. They have even let the inspectors into completely unrelated sites so they can confirm that nothing is occuring there.
Occasionally they have been told to fuck off when their time-wasting is too obvious.

It's not what they're using, but rather what they're willing to share with the U.N.. You still seem incapable of understanding that the IAEA is not the military. They're a lightly-funded treaty compliance outfit, they don't have access to what the U.S. military has access, unless the U.S. military graciously throws them a bone ... and since you know physics, you should probably guess that a bone might be some portable scintillation equipment, but probably not ion-resonance mass spec..

Mike, where do you think the stupid laptop came from?
There have been more "anonymous sources" in this farce than you can poke a stick at. Your viewpoint doesn't pass the smell-test.

It's interesting though ... your take is that Iran isn't doing anything wrong, while Gator's take is that Iran is building a nuke and they should be allowed to just build away. You two seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum, and I'm right in the middle; if you agree to something abide by something. If you don't want to abide by something, don't agree to something.

Oh no. I think Iran is being quite childish. But then, they don't have many other options.

The thing you don't seem to realise is that the infantile display currently visible in DC is also how they relate with the rest of the world.

#93 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:38 AM

You still fail to come up with anything to dispute the Iranian argument that the process is being manipulated and twisted to harass them and kill their scientists.

 

You're talking a whole President ago. Get with the program. As for the day of yore, what did you think they would say? Something like "yeah, we're dabbling in the uranium cycle which might be why the U.N. is screwing with us Israel killed some of our weapons scientists."

Cheesey, you're writing about a country that has documented human rights abuses that are off the scale for any other industralized nation. How you can realize that they imprison, execute and torture their own people but then assume every press release that they issued was gospel, is just beyond me.

 

Iran was signed up for the NPT by the US's poodle shah decades ago.
I am sure if they felt it was politically feasible they would have withdrawn a long time ago.

 

They signed up so they could get the schwag bags from the Atoms for Peace Program. Blame the nuclear industry for that one, they wanted a nuke in every garage.

 

Except, of course, that they have not been demonstrated to be hiding data.
Also I am struggling to think of any valid inspection site which has not been inspected. They have even let the inspectors into completely unrelated sites so they can confirm that nothing is occuring there.
Occasionally they have been told to fuck off when their time-wasting is too obvious.

 

Life's a bitch, the nuclear game is a game, if they don't play by whatever rule the IAEA thows down then they lose and get grounded. That's just the way it goes, if they don't like it, they can drop out of the NPT.

Oh yeah ... they want to remain in the NPT and claim they want to be compliant.

 

Mike, where do you think the stupid laptop came from?
There have been more "anonymous sources" in this farce than you can poke a stick at. Your viewpoint doesn't pass the smell-test.

 

But it passes the IAEA's "smell test" and your opinion doesn't release their banking restrictions.

 

Oh no. I think Iran is being quite childish. But then, they don't have many other options.

The thing you don't seem to realise is that the infantile display currently visible in DC is also how they relate with the rest of the world.

 

So wait, the U.S. politicians are just as back-assward as the Iranians? We torture people just like the Iranians? Okay. And? What's your point? Are you taking the high ground here and claiming that Canberra is full of maturity that doesn't exist elsewhere?

 

 

You seem to expect some kind of international justice for some reason. If you don't show up and vote in your next Australian election then you have violated your nation's law and are subject to punishment. Is that fair? I think not, but who the hell cares about my opinion? The reality is that this is the law in your land, and if you don't like it, then you can change it.

 

The law of the international community is that nations who want to remain signatory to treaties have to subject themselves to the whims of the international community. Is this fair? Is it equitable? Probably not, but that's just the way it is and nobody is forcing them to play. Maybe you don't like the monopoly that the U.N. has on international relations? Okay, but they're the biggest dog in town, and if you don't like it, make a new governing body.



#94 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,839 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 08 October 2013 - 10:40 PM

>>You still fail to come up with anything to dispute the Iranian argument that the process is being manipulated and twisted to harass them and kill their scientists.

You're talking a whole President ago. Get with the program. As for the day of yore, what did you think they would say? Something like "yeah, we're dabbling in the uranium cycle which might be why the U.N. is screwing with us Israel killed some of our weapons scientists."

And the UN has not found any of their dabbling which hints they are not fully complying with the NPT.
I'm not sure why you think that assassinating scientists affiliated with perfectly legal activities is cool.

Cheesey, you're writing about a country that has documented human rights abuses that are off the scale for any other industralized nation. How you can realize that they imprison, execute and torture their own people but then assume every press release that they issued was gospel, is just beyond me.

Lots of countries execute prisoners. By your metric people should also ignore the USA.
Of course, many of them do, but this is a separate issue.


Except, of course, that they have not been demonstrated to be hiding data.
Also I am struggling to think of any valid inspection site which has not been inspected. They have even let the inspectors into completely unrelated sites so they can confirm that nothing is occuring there.
Occasionally they have been told to fuck off when their time-wasting is too obvious.

Life's a bitch, the nuclear game is a game, if they don't play by whatever rule the IAEA thows down then they lose and get grounded. That's just the way it goes, if they don't like it, they can drop out of the NPT.

Oh yeah ... they want to remain in the NPT and claim they want to be compliant.


It is pretty clear that Iran has no need of the NPT to further it's nuclear industry.
The problem they have is that they were signed up by a US Poodle government, and there is no way to exit.

Please do not suggest that Iran could just revoke the treaty, and then the US would drop all sanctions and strike them off the Axis Of Evil ™.

>> Mike, where do you think the stupid laptop came from?
>> There have been more "anonymous sources" in this farce than you can poke a stick at. Your viewpoint doesn't pass the smell-test.

But it passes the IAEA's "smell test" and your opinion doesn't release their banking restrictions.

And again, Mike doesn't like the issues being raised, so he pretends something else was written.

Whatever.

Denial is strong with this one...

#95 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 10:57 PM

It's not denial.  It's gasbaggery.  Plus Mikey is a Zionist.



#96 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:31 AM

It's not denial.  It's gasbaggery.  Plus Mikey is a Zionist.

 

Damn straight.



#97 mikewof

mikewof

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,117 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:46 AM

And the UN has not found any of their dabbling which hints they are not fully complying with the NPT.
I'm not sure why you think that assassinating scientists affiliated with perfectly legal activities is cool.

First off, the U.N. agreed that they're noncompliant. That's enough.

Second, nobody really knows who killed those Iranian nuclear scientists, it could have been the Iranian Mujahedin who did a paid contract gig for the Israelis or Russians, or the Saudis, direct assassinations by the Kurds or even the USA. Third, you write that they're "perfectly legal" but you're just some guy in Australia, you know about as much as you read in the newspapers which is about the same amount that I know. That Iran is noncompliant with the NPT is unarguable, because the IAEA voted on their noncompliance.

Lots of countries execute prisoners. By your metric people should also ignore the USA.
Of course, many of them do, but this is a separate issue.

There is a pretty big difference between executing people for crimes and executing people for being of a certain ethnicity or being a union leader, or being Gay or being a feminist.

And if as an Australian, you want to ignore the USA then go ahead. Trust me, plenty of Americans know next to nothing about Australia. You would find yourself in similar company.

Except, of course, that they have not been demonstrated to be hiding data.
Also I am struggling to think of any valid inspection site which has not been inspected. They have even let the inspectors into completely unrelated sites so they can confirm that nothing is occuring there.
Occasionally they have been told to fuck off when their time-wasting is too obvious.

They've been agreed to be noncompliant. If you think that is wrong, take it up with your ambassador.

It is pretty clear that Iran has no need of the NPT to further it's nuclear industry.
The problem they have is that they were signed up by a US Poodle government, and there is no way to exit.

Please do not suggest that Iran could just revoke the treaty, and then the US would drop all sanctions and strike them off the Axis Of Evil ™.

Thems the breaks. A country can no more drop out of international treaties without censure than they can drop out of their client-state economy without being invaded like Grenada. Life's a bitch, 'aint it?

And again, Mike doesn't like the issues being raised, so he pretends something else was written.

Whatever.

Denial is strong with this one...

The noncompliance is documented. They might be as pure as uncut cocaine, but they're noncompliant. Spin this one up any direction you want, they're noncompliant. They're trying to get compliant again. If the country was filled with people like you they wouldn't be trying to do that.

#98 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:54 AM

Thankfully they are not trying to be compliant.  Otherwise there would be no counterweight to Israel in the region. (Pakistans focus is on India).

 

Another year and they should have a nuke. 



#99 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,519 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 09 October 2013 - 01:49 AM

Thankfully they are not trying to be compliant.  Otherwise there would be no counterweight to Israel in the region. (Pakistans focus is on India).

 

Another year and they should have a nuke. 

 

That you even imply that you'd support such a thing would be unconscionable, if anyone actually thought that you were capable of producing an intelligent, independent and defensible idea. 

 

Since you're commonly accepted as an idiot here, please - carry on.  

 

"The Voice" is on DVR, and I just finished my last proposal input - I'm gonna go drink wine, eat prosciutto and enjoy watching who stays. 



#100 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 01:57 AM

You're going to watch the voice?

Troubling.

Ps I waited on your ass at the hotel in ybor. You were too cowardly to even make the trip

Troubling.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users