Obama repoprted to accept Iranian civilian nuclear program

[Skybird]

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=265132

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4213414,00.html

Idiot.

Reason for calling Obama an idiot:

1. Taciyya. He obviously never has heared of it, or does not take it serious. Possibly a case of "it cannot be what shall not be". Taciyya makes any diplomacy and treaties pointless.

2. Promises are just words. They can be broken.

3. It is almost impossible to reliably separate technology for civilian use of nuclear energy from military use of nuclear energy.

4. Iran'S record of being notoriously untrustworthy, is legendary.

5. Iran sought nuclear weapons since the time of the Shah, and Khomenei only temporarily stopped that developement, while in 1985 ordered the program to go on. Khomenei still is seen as a paramount authority in Iran. Khamenei 15 years later has denied that, but by rules of tacciya he is allowed and even called for to lie if it helps "the cause". See point 1: taciyya makes any diplomacy, traty, promises pointless and untrustworthy.

6. It weakens in general the official position of being determined to prevent Iranian nukes. Not that I bet any money on that claimed "determination" anymore.


I am not surprised, since I am 90% certain that Obama already has decided to accept a nuclear Iran anyway - no matter whether civilian or military.

Israel must realise that the US since longer time is no longer a reliable ally, but probably has turned into a false friend. If I were them I would seek a new orientation - India on my mind. It remains to be seen to what degree India would allow to get drawn into the ME swamp, however. But they have theirt troubles with Pakistan, and with growing Islamism in India as well. Plus they already have very good relations and military ties with Israel.

It has been reported that there are hints speaking for Israel's coup with Azerbajan having been intentionally leaked to the media by the Obama administration, in order to weaken Israel's position.

The only thing I am wondering about is what the US would do if Israel all of a sudden strikes. That the Israelis wil not give an early warning to Wahsington, I take as certain. But will Washington - angry or not - jump onto the rolling train, or not?

[JU_88]

So what?
I should remind you that Iran is not actually the U.S.A's problem. Unless Iran atacked the USA..... which it cant.
The U.S is broke, they have to print money now, you think that can really afford another war? most americans are fed up with war - U.S soldiers included.

The chances of Iran ever randomly nuking some city in an unprovoked attack is rather unlikley. If they did they would be wiped off the map. And if they got a third party to do it (terrorist) you think it wouldn't be traced back to them?
As for Isreal - maybe if they actually practiced some diplomicy once in a while they wouldn't feel quite so threaterned.

Anyway after the non-existant WMDs in Iraq, I thought you of all people (sky) would be smart enough to not fall for that rhetoric again.
Sometimes you just gotta wait and see. You cant pre-empted strike your way out of everything on the planet, it just doesn't work.

[mookiemookie]

So what?
I should remind you that Iran is not actually the U.S.A's problem. Unless Iran atacked the USA..... which it cant.
The U.S is broke, they have to print money now, you think that can really afford another war? most americans are fed up with war - U.S soldiers included.

The chances of Iran ever randomly nuking some city in an unprovoked attack is rather unlikley. If they did they would be wiped off the map. And if they got a third party to do it (terrorist) you think it wouldn't be traced back to them?

Anyway after the non-existant WMDs in Iraq, I thought you of all people (sky) would be smart enough to not fall for that rhetoric again.
Sometimes you just gotta wait and see. You cant pre-empted strike your way out of everything on the planet, it just doesn't work.

You've summed it up beautifully.

[Platapus]

This is one of the few decisions Obama made that I actually agreed with.

Perhaps Obama has read Plato "Do not forbid that which you lack the power to prohibit"

There is simply no way that demarches and sanctions are going to force Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons if that is Iran's intention (which has not been demonstrated). It is written in the Iranian constitution that they will never bow to such foreign influence. Perhaps a better way would be to try to convince Iran that they don't need nuclear weapons?

How long will it take the US to realize that using "the stick" is not working?

Diplomacy, actual diplomacy, not hegemonic demarches, is the only other rational path open to us.

If we keep pushing our hegemony, all Iran is going to do is withdraw from the NPT and then where will we be? We want Iran in the NPT so we can still maintain IAEA inspections.

It is time we put our hurt pride away and start working with other nations instead of just telling them what we want them to do.

I don't know if it will work out. But clearly our current paradigm is not working well.

But we have to realize that if Iran truly intends on developing nuclear weapons (which has not been demonstrated yet), there is, actually, little we can do short of an invasion.

[CaptainHaplo]

We want Iran in the NPT so we can still maintain IAEA inspections.

You mean like how well they have been letting inspections happen over the last decade? Restricting where inspectors are to go, taking them only to locations that have been sanitized, etc? That helps us out so much....

But clearly our current paradigm is not working well.

Too true - our current paradigm of appeasement and acceptance is doing absolutely no good. Of course, back when Israel had our full support to knock such programs backwards, and did so, it was success. Now they are sabotaged at every turn, when they could act and again cause massive and long term delays. The current ruler of Iran isn't going to live forever, and once the power struggle starts - more opportunities arries. Unless you'd like to see a nuclear Iran in civil war over a power vacuum... yea that would be great for the world wouldn't it?

[Betonov]

Why I don't want an Iranian civil nuclear project:

Iranians have a lot of smart scientist and engineers. But those people wont be in charge of nuclear facilities. Party members and fammily of said members will. A proven recipee for a disaster (Chernobly khm).

Ahmadinejab is sitting on a throne of hot air. Destruction of the US to apease the extremists, destruction of Israel to apease the religius nuts, nuclear programes to apease the nationalits and you have a large enough voter base to get re-elected (add some fraud, carrot and stick and elections are cemented in your favor).
He wont risk his position and life going jihad. The americans are worried about extremists getting nukes from Iran and blowing up New York. So are the Russians, ''friends'' of Iran, worried that Chechens would get a nuke from fringe elements in Iran.

[mookiemookie]

Let someone else do it. We're absolutely broke in large part from two major decade-long wars. And yet some people still want to spend more money we don't have and American lives on an Iran misadventure. Insane. Absolutely insane.

[Skybird]

The immediate threat from Iran with nukes is not to just one or two states, but two several.

The indirect threat from proliferation and a new cold war under more dangerous conditions than the last one, is affecting the whole world.

So indeed, the US should not be left alone with this, nor should it finance it all alone. All Europe should pay its share, and then some more. The biggest share maybe even shzould not be payed by Europe or the US at all, but Sunni Islamic countries namely in the Gulf region.

Yes, the US is broke, and that is the dilemma here. Preventing nukes in Iran is a war not of choice, but a war of needs. But nobody is able to really pay for it: not only the US - but Europe as well.

The whole issue is smeared from left to right and from top to bottom with smelly brown stuff. This is what bhappens if one let things slide for too long and political dilettants without long vision are allowed to control the nation's helms. Iran should have been stopped already in the mid- and late 80s. One has not, like one has not stopped Pakistan. Has not stopped North Korea. Instead one arranged oneself with wishful thinking - and called that "diplomacy".

Two stupid wars in ten years that were not needed by cause and by the way they were fought, and now that the need for a really needed one has materilasied, rserves are eaten up. Great, that is the signature of big-mouthed wannabe-greats and incompetent dilettants responsible for said two stupid wars - and for so many other stupid things as well.

Iran is winning this. That simple the truth is.

Beside this, it was the argument of Bush's America that Saddam should not be allowed WMDs, and that he had played with the inspectors his cheting games for so long that it had to be brought to an end. These two points were the primary reasons given for the war 2003.

But the same logic that was claimed to be legitimate back then for a country that had left behind its WMDs many years before 2003 - this logic is no longer valid now, for a country that different to Saddam's Iraq does actively seek WMDs now and poses an aggressive threat to the region and the world ? Iraq was helpless in 2003, Saddam's teeth had been pulled a decade earlier. Iran is far more potent and dangerous, and it does not hide its aggressive intentions.

[CaptainHaplo]

Let someone else do it. We're absolutely broke in large part from two major decade-long wars. And yet some people still want to spend more money we don't have and American lives on an Iran misadventure. Insane. Absolutely insane.

I don't recall anyone suggesting we go to war over this.... Why does it have to be an "either/or" proposition?

Iran has been "at war" with us for years - providing supplies to those who would kill us. Most of the IED's used in both Iraq and Afghanistan have parts (if not the majority of) that come from Iran.

Yet none here have suggested an invasion of that nation. However, assisting or carrying out a specifically targetted raid to knock back their nuclear program is entirely different. No "pullout" needed - no "stabilizing force" required.

[gimpy117]

So what?
I should remind you that Iran is not actually the U.S.A's problem. Unless Iran atacked the USA..... which it cant.
The U.S is broke, they have to print money now, you think that can really afford another war? most americans are fed up with war - U.S soldiers included.

The chances of Iran ever randomly nuking some city in an unprovoked attack is rather unlikley. If they did they would be wiped off the map. And if they got a third party to do it (terrorist) you think it wouldn't be traced back to them?
As for Isreal - maybe if they actually practiced some diplomicy once in a while they wouldn't feel quite so threaterned.

Anyway after the non-existant WMDs in Iraq, I thought you of all people (sky) would be smart enough to not fall for that rhetoric again.
Sometimes you just gotta wait and see. You cant pre-empted strike your way out of everything on the planet, it just doesn't work.

I also agree with you an mookie. It's not time for another war like Faux news and the GOP might have you believe..or anybody else for that matter says

I don't recall anyone suggesting we go to war over this.... Why does it have to be an "either/or" proposition?

Iran has been "at war" with us for years - providing supplies to those who would kill us. Most of the IED's used in both Iraq and Afghanistan have parts (if not the majority of) that come from Iran.

Yet none here have suggested an invasion of that nation. However, assisting or carrying out a specifically targetted raid to knock back their nuclear program is entirely different. No "pullout" needed - no "stabilizing force" required.

really? plenty of people....including Israel have says we ought to attack Iran's nuclear sites.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327727/Republican-Senator-Lindsey-Graham-calls-pre-emptive-strike-neuter-Iran.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/mitch-mcconnell-iran_n_1322508.html

http://www.payvand.com/news/12/apr/1063.html

I've found news stories back to 2009 with people calling for strikes on iran.

Second of all...how is bombing Iran NOT going to war?? It by definition IS and act of war. We can pretend dropping bombs on a sovereign nation is just a little flyover where we just happened to lose 5,000 pounds of ordinance on the way...but we all know what it is. Honestly, We have no room to talk when it comes to Iran arming ones who oppose us. We did and still do the same thing. Heck, we armed Iraq when it went to war with Iran back in the day. We armed the Taliban when it was after the Russians.

[mapuc]

Found these two videos on youtube.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoOZgDNuBtw&feature=g-hist&context=G28e2630AHT3-AwwANAA

part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo7siWua94U&feature=context&context=G28e2630AHT3-AwwANAA

Just watch them as a sci-fi movie.

Markus

[TLAM Strike]

The immediate threat from Iran with nukes is not to just one or two states, but two several.

The indirect threat from proliferation and a new cold war under more dangerous conditions than the last one, is affecting the whole world.
Exactly. Lets not forget how many countries got nuclear technologies from A.Q. Khan. :yep:

[mookiemookie]

I don't recall anyone suggesting we go to war over this.... Why does it have to be an "either/or" proposition?

Iran has been "at war" with us for years - providing supplies to those who would kill us. Most of the IED's used in both Iraq and Afghanistan have parts (if not the majority of) that come from Iran.

Yet none here have suggested an invasion of that nation. However, assisting or carrying out a specifically targetted raid to knock back their nuclear program is entirely different. No "pullout" needed - no "stabilizing force" required.

A "specifically targeted raid" is an act of war. Dropping bombs on another country is war. Using military forces against another country is war. War does not necessarily include invasion.

I'm sick and tired of this country being in a perpetual state of war. Before Iraq 2, there was Afghanistan. Before Afghanistan there was Kosovo. Before Kosovo there was Somalia. Before Somalia there was Iraq 1. Before Iraq 1 there was Panama. Before Panama there was Grenada. And that's just the last 30 years.

Enough is enough.

[Skybird]

It's not so much whether bombing the Iranian bomb program is an act of war or not (it is, btw., but who said it is not?).

What is more important is that Iran is at war with several countries since many years, that it fights proxy wars by supporting fighting factions, delivering the weapons, assisting and equipping terrorism, sending trainers, and having elements of the Revolutionary Guards operating in special operations in several countries from Lebanon over Iraq to Afghanistan and Gaza. Because proxy wars are nevertheless wars, and actively supporting and keeping alive terrorism in other countries is an act of war, too.

All what Saddam has been accused of, for the most was wrong - he did not mess with active terrorism in other countries (knowing it would immediately make the Americans jump onto him), nor did he had special commandos operating in armed conflicts in other countries (knowing it would make the Americans immediately jump onto him), nor did he arm up to the teeth terror groups preparing to fight or already fighting wars against Israel or NATO troops in pother countries (knowing it would make the Americans immediately jump onto him). He did not had a WMD program active anymore since years when the war 2003 began. - But Iran qualifies for all that.

The state of war - is already there, since years and years. And it already has caused thousands of deaths, many more wounded, and great destruction.

[gimpy117]

A "specifically targeted raid" is an act of war. Dropping bombs on another country is war. Using military forces against another country is war. War does not necessarily include invasion.

I think congress has honestly come to believe that unless there are boots on the ground...anything we bomb isn't an act of war. and sadly it's bleeding over to the public.

[Tribesman]

Yet none here have suggested an invasion of that nation.
Which is why people like you are pissing in the wind with your talk of going to war.
As Platapus put it.....But we have to realize that if Iran truly intends on developing nuclear weapons (which has not been demonstrated yet), there is, actually, little we can do short of an invasion. ......
So if you are in favour of war as a solution then you are in favour of either full on invasion and occupation or a nuclear/chemical/bio complete destruction of the region and its people.
Since in reality I don't think you would be in favour of either option as they are both very stupid it means that your war talk is like the threats made by Chamberlain.

All what Saddam has been accused of, for the most was wrong - he did not mess with active terrorism in other countries
:har::har::har::har::har::har:
Sky is rewriting history:doh:
Saddam certainly was active in funding, supporting and training terrorists who were active in other countries. The only parts of that accusation over terrorism which fell apart was that the terrorists he was supporting were Bin Ladens fundy nuts and that the militaries anti terrorism training camp was being used to train people to hijack airliners.

[gimpy117]

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
Sky is rewriting history:doh:
Saddam certainly was active in funding, supporting and training terrorists who were active in other countries. The only parts of that accusation over terrorism which fell apart was that the terrorists he was supporting were Bin Ladens fundy nuts and that the militaries anti terrorism training camp was being used to train people to hijack airliners.

and we are active in funding groups that oppose these people as well, but ultimately Saddam did not declare war on us, and that was never out original reason for going there. Our reasoning would change every time the old version didn't hold water. First it was WMD's, there it was "terrorist camps", then it was "we'll were freeing the Iraqis" and then finally it was the ever so lame "we have to stay to course because of all the effort we have put in".

Lets put it this way, right now i think it's all point of view; lets put the Israel-Palestine conflict in perspective. We give Israel things and money and what not, and somebody else funds Hamas. Palestine shoots rockets in, Israel bombs them back. From their point of view, were the bad guys for funding their Air strikes, and from ours those dirty Hamas guys are extremists. But here's the thing; I think were so tied up in "american way is right" we've forgotten that we are so caught up in pulling strings around the world; we forget that somebody else is always gonna be put off by this and pull back.

what I'm saying is, we've kinda put ourselves in this situation...by doing things like invading Iraq and Afghanistan, or supporting places like Israel when they are caught up in the current conflict they are in. We get painted, and in my eyes somewhat deservingly, as the boogeyman running the show behind the scenes. And, the people who have been effected by this, or think they have been mistakenly will demonize us and want to get revenge. It's an equal and opposite reaction. We can't expect to monkey around in world affairs as much as we do and expect to be loved, and especially expect other countries to not be funding or aiding people who fight against us. especially when we do it right back, and sometimes on a level far above the other "evil" guys.

[Catfish]

Saddam certainly was active in funding, supporting and training terrorists who were active in other countries.

Was he ? He was certainly funded by the US, but did he also train terrorists ? Like he had weapons of mass destruction ?

What he says is not wrong .. :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4H_E8b-qmo

:shucks:

[Tribesman]

Was he ? He was certainly funded by the US, but did he also train terrorists ? Like he had weapons of mass destruction ?

Its easy to find out.

What he says is not wrong ..
Is he also going to slag off his countries foriegn policies and his countries support for Saddam?
Maybe he can start with Schenk, Carl Zeiss, Guildermeister Projecta AG, MBB, Lipro, Leybold, MAHO, Thermo Finnegan MAT, Canberra Elektronik GmbH......all his locals, all working with his governments approval and all involved in Saddams WMD programs in the 1980s
Perhaps then he can move onto slagging off the 57 German companies still funneling money directly to Saddam during the 1990s

Just for balance like:hmmm: