We just might finally have an excuse to nuke Iran

Page 1 of 1 [ 16 posts ] 

Sean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,505

05 Dec 2005, 12:17 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051204/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_larijani_dc

Iran's patience running out over nuclear issue By Paul Hughes and Parisa Hafezi
Sun Dec 4, 1:12 PM ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's patience regarding Western opposition to its nuclear program is wearing thin and Tehran will give the EU only a few months to settle the issue through talks, the country's chief nuclear negotiator said on Sunday.

Ali Larijani added Iran would only accept proposals to resolve the dispute which allowed it to produce nuclear fuel on its own soil.

The West wants Tehran to scrap plans to enrich uranium at home. Iran says it will only enrich uranium to a level useable in atomic power reactors but Washington and the European Union fear it could use the same technology to make bomb-grade material.

"We've been in talks for years with no result," Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told Reuters.

"We are following this case patiently but the nation's patience has a limit," he said.

Asked how long Iran's patience and its commitment to a two-year-old voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment activities would last, he said:

"A few months. We have a limited time framework for talks."

Talks between Iran and the EU trio of Britain, Germany and France will resume in the next two or three weeks, Larijani said.

The talks collapsed in August when Iran removed U.N. seals at its Isfahan nuclear facility and began processing uranium, the stage prior to uranium enrichment.

To allay concerns it may use its nuclear plants to produce arms-grade material, Iran has proposed that other countries participate in its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

It has also pledged to allow close monitoring of its activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

EU and Russian officials have said in recent weeks that they wanted to discuss a proposal whereby Iran would enrich uranium only in Russia under a joint venture.

IRAN WANTS RIGHTS RESPECTED

But Larijani, while insisting that no such proposal has been made to Iran, said Tehran would not forego its right as a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop its own nuclear fuel activities for peaceful purposes.

"We welcome any plan under which Iran's right to enrich uranium on its soil is respected," he said.

"Our nation has every right to enjoy the same rights that other IAEA members enjoy. We demand the same rights," he added.

Despite the apparent impasse over enrichment, Larijani said he was "not negative" about the upcoming talks.

"I see talks with the EU as a win-win game," he said. "Winning for Iran means having uranium enrichment for nuclear fuel and winning for the European Union means being assured that ... our nuclear program will not become a weapons program.

"A formula can be found to make both sides happy and satisfied," he said, reiterating Iran's offer to allow foreign companies to participate at Natanz.

But he urged the EU to drop threats to refer Iran to the Security Council for possible sanctions.

"Talks under threat are meaningless," he said.

"They should put aside slogans and stop threatening us with the Security Council ... (Threatening to send Iran to) the council is a useless method now. Now it is time to solve the problem logically."



TheBladeRoden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,208
Location: Wisconsin

05 Dec 2005, 12:51 am

and what excuse is that?


_________________
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own" -Adam Savage


psych
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,488
Location: w london

05 Dec 2005, 4:25 pm

Europe maintains strong diplomatic ties with Iran to protect the considerable trade revenue, if you look at nuclear negociations over the lst few years Europe has let them get away with murder - 'one last chance' ad infinitum.

the US simply wants to protect its US$ hegemony, Persian-EU business strengthens the euro and threatens the US$'s position as the global dominant currency.

The US nightmare is that the Euro will eventually grow & eclipse the US$ as the dominant global (& OPEC) currency. When that day comes the US will have to make good their 7trillion$ trade deficit. In other words, the US will cease to exist as a global superpower. That threat is the driving force behind US foreign policy and the real reason for the 'war on terror', Irag invasion etc.



Sean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,505

05 Dec 2005, 6:42 pm

Okay, so we have two good reasons to nuke Iran.



RobertN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 934
Location: Cambridge, UK

08 Dec 2005, 2:32 pm

Sean wrote:
Okay, so we have two good reasons to nuke Iran.


And Sean will be especially pleased because lots of innocent people will die. :roll:



Endersdragon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,662

08 Dec 2005, 2:34 pm

Now Robert nobody enjoys innocent people dying but if they have to would you prefer yourself???


_________________
"we never get respect ... never a fair trial
[swearing removed by lau] ... as long as we smile"
Im tired of smiling.

Vote for me in 2020 :-D


Ladysmokeater
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,048
Location: North of Atlanta, South of Boston, East of the Mississippi, and West of the Atlantic

08 Dec 2005, 3:12 pm

lock and load.....



psych
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,488
Location: w london

08 Dec 2005, 4:12 pm

I dont want Iran to be armed, & id rather Europe stopped supporting the current regime and excusing human rights violations, but its worth remembering that so far one only one nation has ever actually used nukes....



RobertN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 934
Location: Cambridge, UK

08 Dec 2005, 4:45 pm

psych wrote:
I dont want Iran to be armed, & id rather Europe stopped supporting the current regime and excusing human rights violations, but its worth remembering that so far one only one nation has ever actually used nukes....


...the good ol' US of A!! :lol:



catwhowalksbyherself
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 125
Location: Reading, UK

08 Dec 2005, 4:58 pm

If Iran is invaded under whatever pretext then we can kiss goodbye to most of what remains of the West's own record on human rights.

Neither Bush nor Blair would dare. Certainly not Blair who is about to be chased out of Downing Street by Labour MPs with flaming pitchforks (should have been in May but his supporters went round stuffing ballot boxes full of dodgy postal votes). When he goes, the whole country goes.



ascan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

08 Dec 2005, 4:59 pm

psych wrote:
I dont want Iran to be armed, & id rather Europe stopped supporting the current regime and excusing human rights violations, but its worth remembering that so far one only one nation has ever actually used nukes....

Why? Whoever had developed them first would most likely of used them first (I'm guessing that statement is intended as some kind of slur against the US). The fact that they've not been used since only proves that the philosophy of mutually assured destruction worked within the 20th century geo-political context — when the players acted in reasonably rational ways. The leadership of many of the countries obtaining nuclear technology now, aren't noted for this way of thinking.



catwhowalksbyherself
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 125
Location: Reading, UK

08 Dec 2005, 5:11 pm

ascan wrote:
Why? Whoever had developed them first would most likely of used them first (I'm guessing that statement is intended as some kind of slur against the US). The fact that they've not been used since only proves that the philosophy of mutually assured destruction worked within the 20th century geo-political context — when the players acted in reasonably rational ways. The leadership of many of the countries obtaining nuclear technology now, aren't noted for this way of thinking.


Today's leaders - Bush and Blair - are both too young to have remembered total war and its effects. War has gone back to the 19th century, in terms of involving a professional army and countries far away overseas. If Bush had had his finger on the button during the Bay of Pigs crisis, he would have behaved with much more thought rather than attacking Khrushchev and co.

It goes double for so-called rogue states, though I think it will be even harder for the White House to cook up some rationale for invading Iran than it was for invading Iraq, and it would be swift political suicide for Blair if he tried to follow Bush's lead this time round.

I did agree with Afghanistan, but afraid could see no rationale behind the Iraq war. However the same diplomacy that worked with North Korea in early 2003 could help, though that was conducted behind the smoke-screen of the buildup to Iraq. Still, I already stopped voting for Blair in 2004, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over his political funeral. (We should have finished Saddam off when he had actually done something against his neighbours that warranted invasion, like what we did with Hitler - I'm not a complete peacenik.)



psych
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,488
Location: w london

08 Dec 2005, 5:22 pm

ascan wrote:
The leadership of many of the countries obtaining nuclear technology now, aren't noted for this way of thinking.


could you give some examples of irrational actions made by those countries? I think much religious hatred is just traded in public for effect, whereas behind the scenes trade and industry is the real motivation.

eg. I dont believe the Iranian (parliamentary) leaders 'wipe israel off the map' comments are necessarily the product of heartfelt outrage*, more likely just a persian version of the kind of calculated spin we get from our own politicians here in the west.

*However, i would agree that on many levels it needs to be considered and discussed as if it were genuine.



psych
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,488
Location: w london

08 Dec 2005, 5:37 pm

catwhowalksbyherself wrote:
It goes double for so-called rogue states, though I think it will be even harder for the White House to cook up some rationale for invading Iran than it was for invading Iraq, and it would be swift political suicide for Blair if he tried to follow Bush's lead this time round.


there is a great deal of pro-US support in Iran cities (although the conservative faction within the armed forces would be a much tougher nut to crack) Had Iran been invaded instead, things mightve played out very differently. There might be pro-US support in Iraq, if they hadnt invaded a decade ago, encouraged enemy troops to willingly surrender then pulled out leaving the job half done and those same troops to be killed for desertion.

Bush/Blair's future prospects are an irrelevance now. Bush cant stand for election again anyway. Blair has served his corporate masters well, and presumably will be handsomely looked after in retirement. He is probably reaching the end of his usefullness and will therefore be considered expendable.



catwhowalksbyherself
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 125
Location: Reading, UK

08 Dec 2005, 5:45 pm

Blair made the mistake of not going with dignity after the election left him with egg on his face.

Still, it will be all the more painful when he does go, just like Maggie, pushed out by his own side rather than retiring with his dignity intact like Howard.



psych
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,488
Location: w london

08 Dec 2005, 5:55 pm

Quote:
Blair made the mistake of not going with dignity after the election left him with egg on his face.

Still, it will be all the more painful when he does go, just like Maggie, pushed out by his own side rather than retiring with his dignity intact like Howard.



Id take comfort in that, but i suspect his primary allegiance is to freemasonry, so the opinions of the public or his non-masonic party-mates are probably just a nagging pain in the remote depths of his conscience - assuming hes not a sociopath! :lol: