Iran Wants to Defuse Crisis with West

reply to post by Siberbat


The US presidents of late have started more wars than any other country over oil. Do you really believe they actually care if a president or dictator of another country isn't treating their citizens well? Why then are they not in Egypt right now? Not enough resources for them to justify a war with. Iran is perfect for them right now. Don't believe everything you read in the news...do some digging.

I think the time for chit chat and diplomacy is over? This is just another stalling tactic by Iran to get some of the heat off them by the West. Up to this time, they have been brilliant tacticians in public relations and international diplomacy. They have kept the pressure off them for quite some time, and even gained some sympathy points along the way. They have made it this far without facing the might of the US and Israel, but sooner or later the parlor tricks are going to be discovered. President Obama just signed the bill for more intrusive sanctions, and it is another step towards conflict.

Obama signs Iran sanctions bill into law

Iran already said that if more sanctions are imposed they will react militarily. The nuke program continues as it has for years. Peaceful or military use is the question that remains. They just completed their first nuclear fuel rod. According to some, it would give them the ability to make atomic weapons if they so wish.

Iran says it has produced it first nuclear fuel rod...

For all those jumping on the Iranian bandwagon and defending them? The regime is unhinged and their track record says as much. They have resorted to blistering rhetoric toward their neighbors in the region, and allegedly support extremist groups with military training and aide. I am sorry, but those running that government are not the peace loving, rug making, and long-haired cat stroking individuals everyone assumes the Iranians are. I have nothing against the people, but that government is wagering their people's peace and stability for their own personal power moves. They are doing more than bringing electricity to Tehran and other cities with their nuclear program, and one day we will learn about a test like we did with Kim Jong-IL in North Korea. Iran getting the bomb will thwart the strategic balance in the Middle East.

Now some will go on that Israel and US have them already and not only one, but hundreds and thousands? What does that have to do with any of this? Iran is just late to the party. The US only used two to end the hell in the Pacific during WWII, and Israel has never used them. So that argument is mute as far as I am concerned, and no one is threatening them in any way with nuclear attack. However, Iran has been threatening a whole lot lately.

I am all for them getting a peaceful nuclear program and the Western powers have said as much. They don't want them having a operable nuclear weapon! Personally, I have my doubts about the Iranian regime's candor on the subject. Keep up the deceptive practices, double-talk, self-imposed persecution complex, and any other trick they may have up their sleeve. They are just digging their hole even deeper. I have my doubts about this latest call for talks? It seems like just another stalling tactic, and I doubt those with the questions will get any assurances about the intentions for Iran's nuclear program?

reply to post by rigel4


Once Syria falls,expect Russia to be much more aggressive.From what I know they have initiated mobilization of WMD already.

reply to post by Jakes51


once nukes are used against iran,good chances are that it will degenerate into a world war with China.If Syria is mass attacked,great probability of world war with Russia.

In whose hands would you like death?

Russia or China?The options of the West will surely lead to mass genocide across the world on both sides.

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
reply to post by Krono

 

i don't think it's that simple. America has an agenda there, and it's not just to "protect" Israel

Israel was never on the agenda. Just like during medieval times, the elite of Europe are using Israel(Jew's)as a scapegoat. The EU and UK benefit far more from US actions in the Middle East then Israel ever could. As our actions their have actually made things more difficult for them.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by UberL33t

 

I feel sorry for the Iranian people. Just as I would for any bullied people. I hope they can talk some sense into their bullies.

Talk some sense? No. They need to batter the US into submission. Your nation is out of control and needs the international community to put you back into your place.

reply to post by miniatus


I agree with that. But you also have to remember what other countries possess nuclear arms. Two are India and China and those two can't stand each other. Not to mention the stock pile the Russians where sitting on, i wonder if all of those weapons are accounted for.

Israel was caught almost selling a nuke (i think they did, can't fully remember) to the apartheid South African regime, The North Koreans have it not to mention Palestine. Let them have it.. If i was pres and Iran is serious about using nuclear power and stuff, i'd offer to send some boys to help and get paid at the same time. Nuclear tech is old but considering how dangerous it is (thanks Chernobyl) you damn right it needs to be regulated and globally to.

In the game today, everyone pretty much knows not to use a nuke in a conflict, it instantly f*** things up. They are used as a deterrent. You'd think twice about invading another country especially one that would use it as i'm sure Iran is.

And let's just say Iran does let something slip to a cell so it can be detonated on American soil the Ayatollah (the real power in Iran) would know it's curtains for him and Iran, that would be committing suicide.

Back to what you said, yea... i sounds like they are buying time. Iran never backed down in a showdown like this before and everyone is watching. Sounds like a ploy so they can said "Hey we tried diplomacy first". It makes me wonder if they have "things" already in play here and they need more time. Could be to get that nuke rolled out!

reply to post by ludwigvonmises003


I don't see anyone exchanging nukes over Iran or Syria for that matter. Lets not jump to conclusions about WWIII and thermonuclear war. Both China and Russia tend to bark more than they bite. I doubt any one of them are going respond militarily in the favor Iran or Syria for that matter. They could, but it is highly unlikely. I see limited involvement by the US in the case of Syria, and I don't see it getting any further than sanctions and a no-fly zone which could be administered by Turkey.

Iran seems to be sitting on the back burner at the moment with more stringent sanctions about to be imposed on them. If they are to be attacked it will be Israel attacking first, and with support from the US if the need should arise. Remember, if anything is to happen in both situations it will be after the Presidential Election. This is an election year, and the only thing President Obama is going to concern himself with for the remainder of the year will be his re-election campaign. That is if some catastrophic incident does not happen first like an economic collapse, a massive attack by terrorists, or WWIII. Other than that, in case of Syria and Iran, there will be sanctions, UN resolutions, saber rattling, and the normal standard operating procedure up to this point.

After the election, who knows what is going to happen? Still, I don't see Russia or China over extending themselves in defense of either Iran or Syria. They will saber rattle, and maybe provide weapons and material aide. Other than that, I don't see much coming out of Russia or China on this issue. Now that is merely my speculation on what their actions will be with regard to their past opinions on other military actions conducted by the US, their allies, and NATO. Lets wait and see what happens. Crazy things have happened in the past.

Originally posted by Damnnatureyouscary

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by UberL33t

 

I feel sorry for the Iranian people. Just as I would for any bullied people. I hope they can talk some sense into their bullies.

Talk some sense? No. They need to batter the US into submission. Your nation is out of control and needs the international community to put you back into your place.

Battering into submission would be a lose lose situation for everyone. My nation? Where do I live exactly? Don't make assumptions based on your own opinions.

Originally posted by Praetorius
Don't be fooled by what? The EXACT SAME kind of propaganda that led us all into the Iraq War? It sure seems like you're falling for it to me!

it's not the same though, is it?

Iraq denied everything, even having possesion of old weapons let alone any new production. Now, granted none were found but some old storage sites were uncovered and old shells from the last decade were found, although totally unusable. Also, Saddam had a get out clause which would have avoided the war and kept him alive, but he chose to stand his ground and ignore the rather generous ultimatum by Bush to leave Iraq.

Iran denies developing a bomb, but has been cagey for years about it's activities, throws out inspectors when they start sniffing around, is in breach of it's NPT commitments and openly acknowledges the desire to have it's own nuclear programme complete with the entire fuel cycle under it's control, which means they would have the capability to develop weapons but so far have failed to show the IAEA that they are not going down that path.

reply to post by stumason

Iran denies developing a bomb, but has been cagey for years about it's activities, throws out inspectors when they start sniffing around, is in breach of it's NPT commitments and openly acknowledges the desire to have it's own nuclear programme complete with the entire fuel cycle under it's control, which means they would have the capability to develop weapons but so far have failed to show the IAEA that they are not going down that path.

Some NPT parties are adamant that the United States and other nuclear weapon states are not complying with their own obligations, namely, to pursue nuclear disarmament.

So, some countries are expected to follow their obligations because they are signatories, but others don't have to? Please explain...

The IAEA carries out regular inspections of Iranian nuclear sites but has not sent a senior official for talks since August, before it released its latest report containing what was described as intelligence showing Iran's nuclear military aims. Western countries seized on the IAEA report last month to ratchet up economic sanctions.

From here.

Plus they let the IAEA into their country to check a NPP.

What is so wrong with them developing their own self sufficient power? Even if they develop nuclear weapons, they won't use them. Who would let them get away with it? What would they have to gain? It would only be used as a deterrent against a full out assault against them, much like every other nuclear power.


Edit:

PS- It is the same. Most people are falling for it hook, line, and sinker. I wish more people could swim.

An ADVISER is PROPOSING...since when this means IRAN?

Its juts a weak, weak attempt to buy time...not gonna work for them.Not after NK experience.
On another note...how many times Iran proposed talks?Over 30 times or so in last 7 years?How many times did they ACTUALLY talk?Like 8 times in last 7 years?How many times they started a talk and never finished it?EVERYTIME in last 7 years.

When i will see the SUPREME LEADER Kamenei AND Ahmadinejad asking for talks...MAYBE i will believe it will happend.

Until then...Iran is closer and closer to become ( IRAQ + AFGHANISTAN ) x 10.

reply to post by Recollector


If you started talks in hopes of being a nuclear state, and someone told you that you can't do that, would you even entertain the idea of finishing the talks when the other side has drawn a line in the sand? What about your people? Oil isn't going to be around forever. When it becomes super profitable to ship most of the oil out of your country, why wouldn't you have nuclear power to power your country? Plus everything else I have said before. If the UN/US left countries alone instead of policing the countries that are in turmoil (only the oil countries though), I don't think they would be in the mess they are in now.

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by rigel4

 

Once Syria falls,expect Russia to be much more aggressive.From what I know they have initiated mobilization of WMD already.

Show me a link to your claim that Russia has raised it's threat level and deployed WMD'S,
A link please or you should really retract that.
Some people may be scared!

reply to post by stumason
Perhaps not entirely the same, but I see all too many similarities and inflated threats. Thanks and take care, friend.

A difficult thread to comment on as pretty much every argument in here is correct, even the ones that appear to contradict each other.

Yes Iran is reported as unstable (I've never been there, and had no interaction so I use "reported as"), and there leader apparently welcomes armagedon as the coming prophecy. (Whatever that means)

Yes, they should abide by the NPT they signed upto, but then so should all the other countries that signeed up to, and if they arent (I'm looking at you USA) why should Iran.

By the same token, why should Iran be the only power in the in the region without, or activly pursuing, a nuclear program (weapons or otherwise).

What I will comment on is this:

When "Dubya" was elected, a lot of the world had the same thoughts regarding stability in the US, I personaly worried about that god bothering tribulation welcoming muppet having control of nuclear weapons, you know what happened....nothing, nothing nuclear anyway.

And a final thought in support of the US use of atomic weapoms in WW2. Please try and remember that the use of those weapons ended a war, they were not used to start one.

reply to post by idmonster


I agree with everything you stated, except this:

And a final thought in support of the US use of atomic weapoms in WW2. Please try and remember that the use of those weapons ended a war, they were not used to start one.

So, if there is another great war, and let's say Russia or China is against the US. The US has all the might and money behind their military machine. So either Russia or China see that it will be a long drawn out battle where they will lose many millions of people (just to draw a parallel between this and WW2) so they decide to deploy a highly virulent and deadly strain of ebola virus, or substitute any other deadly disease. By doing this, they would effectively wipe out a significant population of their enemies, but, it would end the war. Would this be supported by you as well?

Edit: I am not saying you are wrong, just playing out a scenario where the US will be the losers just like Japan.

reply to post by superman2012


Absolutely not, and I can only support the initial use of atomic weapons with hindsight and and "victor POV". The point I make is purely that those who constantly state that the only use of atomic weapons in aggression was by the USA, should also remember Why they were used.

Its probably also worth noting that theyve not been used since, for any aggresive reason. In a way, I glad they were demonstrated then (with utmost respect to all who perished at the time). Imagine if WW2 had ended by some other medium, the super powers would still be itching to use their toys them in a war situation now, (my oppinion only)

How much more destructive are todays weapons in commparison to the early atomic bombs?

Hah! Stalling tactics? How Orwellian of you. Stalling for what? Buying time so they can build the bomb? How uncivilized do you think they are? There's 75 million people living there—one of the oldest civilizations ever—I doubt they're going to throw that all away.

When is the last time Iran has attacked anyone? Hell they've been spending most of their time defending themselves against colonial Russia, Britain, Iraq etc. They're going to get attacked for trying to power their country, it's disgusting. They're going to get attacked for something they haven't done and probably never will do—use a nuclear weapon on people; hasn't that already been proven to be really %#@%^ stupid?

But that's not the worse thing. The worse thing is how I hear some people justifying bombing them, by using political language "to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." You're justifying the murder of innocent people, congratulations.

reply to post by idmonster


Great answer! I wasn't sure if you were advocating the use of the nukes or just like you said, hindsight. I personally don't think it should have been done, but again, hindsight right?