quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I guess the Taliban massacre of Shiites and killing of 7 Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-sharif (1998) is nothing to worry about.

while i do conceed that horrific, barbaric and truly disgusting event was not helpful in the least, the Taliban never expressed aggression towards Iran itself. Mazar was at the opposite end of the country and represented the last territory the Taliban had yet to conquer. they had lost an effort to overtake it the year before.

additionally, the UN sponsored Iran and the Taliban to sit down together in Dubai in 1999. they smoothed things over and a Taliban spokesman Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil assured Iran they were was committed to punishing the killers of the Iranian nationals.

quote:

Niether are right on the border of Iran, which was the context of my statement.

well, your context or whatever the hell is wrong and yes, myopic. a percieved threat is a percieved threat. it doesn't matter where the threat is coming from.

quote:

If Iran launchs a war of aggression, then they will pay a heavy price. Let's stop playing international bogeyman. Iran hasn't launched a war of aggression in at least the past 100 years. Obama would do something your beloved Mr. Bush never did. Sit down and talk with our enemies. We talked with the North Koreans. We talked with the North Vietnamese. WE TALKED WITH THE SOVIET UNION. Please explain to how sabre rattling and diplomatic isolation has EVER worked??

what the hell are you going on about? you equated Iranian strength with their percieved threats.

the International community has leveled the strongest sanctions on a ME country since Saddam 1998. Israel has threatened to set their nuclear development program back 5-10 years. the US has countered their Navy with the promise to the world we'll keep the Straights of Hormuz open. HOW ARE THEY STRONGER NOW? HOW WERE THEY NOT STRONGER WHEN THE WHOLE WORLD WAS FOCUSED ON SADDAM FOR 12 YEARS?

quote:

You seem to think Iran is the next "Nazi Germany".

no i don't. i think their attitude towards the Jews invite eerie similarities (they're posers really compared to the Nazis) but i don't think they're going to Blitzkreig into Armenia any time soon.

you're the one that thinks they're so damn strong for some reason. i just want them to be transparent with their nuclear program and stop enriching uranium. thats all!

i'm not at all opposed to them developing nuclear power, just be f**king cooperative with the International community. simple.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no greater Democracies have ever been born than from a barrel of a gun. remember, this isn't the first time we've done this.

quote:

OLBERMANN: If the surge is over and it was successful, why are there still 18,000 more troops in Iraq than there was before the troop escalation? Shouldn`t we be at January 2000 levels or, gosh, maybe even lower than that? MADDOW: You might remember when Bush announced in January of 2007 that all these excess troops were going to go over, there was a little bit of a linguistic refusal (ph), with some people resisting Bush`s efforts to call this a surge, saying, instead, actually, this seems like it`s an escalation of the war. Bush won the linguistic battle. It did become known as the surge. But it turns out the people who wanted to call it an escalation were exactly right. There are more troops there after the surge is over before than there were before the surge started. That means that we`ve escalated our involvement in Iraq -- but with this sort of terminology and with the kinds of arguments they made about this -- they did succeed politically in turning most of the last 18 months into a debate about this one tactic, this one escalation tactic rather than a debate about the overall war. OLBERMANN: Or a debate about the last big topic, which was, of course, these benchmarks. The administration says the Iraqi government met 15 out of the 18 benchmarks. They`re supposed to be 18 out of 18, but, in fact, those are just done satisfactory in those. They`re not met and they are no where on internal disarmament and distribution of, internally, of oil money. Now, how is that a success? MADDOW: And the overall point of the surge was to bring about, to create enough breathing room for there to be political reconciliation. The whole point of the surge was to create a sort of temporary peace so that the Iraqi government could get its act together. And the oil law, while that is fraught with political meaning here in the United States, what it means to Iraqis is that there will be an economy in Iraq. That there will be a natural resource that is put on the market for the benefit of the Iraqi people and that that money will be distributed in a way that keeps Iraq from fracturing. The fact that there isn`t an oil law, even when we have no big contracts, or western oil countries, written by American advisors to the Iraqi oil ministry, means that there`s no guaranteed future that Iraq will continue to exist as a single country. There haven`t been provincial elections; they haven`t handed over security in all 18 of Iraq`s provinces the way they said they were going to. The surge may have done something. It may have reduced violence. There were also other things that contributed to that like the Mehdi Army cease-fire and the "Sons of Iraq" paying the Sunni militias not to fight us. But the point of the surge was to bring about political reconciliation. The main Sunni political bloc in Iraq still does not participate in the Iraqi government. The Kurds walked out yesterday. It just hasn`t happened.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...2885742&start=8

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo while i do conceed that horrific, barbaric and truly disgusting event was not helpful in the least, the Taliban never expressed aggression towards Iran itself. Mazar was at the opposite end of the country and represented the last territory the Taliban had yet to conquer. they had lost an effort to overtake it the year before. additionally, the UN sponsored Iran and the Taliban to sit down together in Dubai in 1999. they smoothed things over and a Taliban spokesman Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil assured Iran they were was committed to punishing the killers of the Iranian nationals.

The Iranians still considered the Taliban an enemy, and were actively supporting the Northern Alliance. Iran also considered Saddam Hussein's Iraq also to be an enemy. Now that their enemy is no longer Sunni Muslim regimes, but Zionist-American interests, it is obvious Iran is stronger than it was in 2000. Not only stronger, but more defiant.

quote:

well, your context or whatever the hell is wrong and yes, myopic. a percieved threat is a percieved threat. it doesn't matter where the threat is coming from.

Did I ever deny other threats beyond Iran's border? No. The context of my statement clearly was Iran's border enemies.

quote:

what the hell are you going on about? you equated Iranian strength with their percieved threats. the International community has leveled the strongest sanctions on a ME country since Saddam 1998. Israel has threatened to set their nuclear development program back 5-10 years. the US has countered their Navy with the promise to the world we'll keep the Straights of Hormuz open. HOW ARE THEY STRONGER NOW? HOW WERE THEY NOT STRONGER WHEN THE WHOLE WORLD WAS FOCUSED ON SADDAM FOR 12 YEARS?

It's call the "balance of power" equation. Eliminate Baathist Iraq, and Taliban Afghanist, who fills in the power vacuum? Iran. They realize this, and they are strong enough to fill that power vacuum in the absence of American forces. And if Iran isn't so strong, why is Bush trying to build missile defense shields in eastern europe?

quote:

no i don't. i think their attitude towards the Jews invite eerie similarities (they're posers really compared to the Nazis) but i don't think they're going to Blitzkreig into Armenia any time soon.

Iran supports by far the largest population of Jews of any Muslim country. Iran clearly is not against Jews, but against Zionism.

quote:

you're the one that thinks they're so damn strong for some reason. i just want them to be transparent with their nuclear program and stop enriching uranium. thats all!

I said they are stronger after their border enemies were eliminated (balance of power). I would like them to be transparent too. And if we actually show some respect for their sovereignty/self-determination, we will be able to negotiate. Iran has offered very generous terms, but have been rebuffed each and every time. Iran even sent Mr. Bush an offer where their support of Hezbollah was even on the table. Guess what happened? The offer was never answered. This was when the Reformist government was in power.

quote:

i'm not at all opposed to them developing nuclear power, just be f**king cooperative with the International community. simple.

Iran is open to negotiation and cooperation. But on a level playing field. They will not bow down to US pressure for what they perceive as their right under the NPT to develop peaceful nuclear programs. And there is not, as of yet, any evidence whatsoever for the existance of a nuclear weapons program. Here are but a few attempts by Iran to negotiate...

1. The IAEA reported that Iran had undertaken to submit the required information for agency verification and "to implement a policy of co-operation and full transparency" as corrective actions. CLICK

2. The Iranian government has repeatedly made compromise offers to place strict limits on its nuclear program beyond what the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Additional Protocol legally require of Iran, in order to ensure that the program cannot be secretly diverted to the manufacture of weapons.

Iran presented four proposals during the course of its 2004-2005 discussions with the Europeans. In addition to Iran's nuclear program, the proposals covered subjects such as Tehran's support for terrorist organizations, regional security issues, and economic cooperation. CLICK

3. These offers include operating Iran's nuclear program as an international consortium, with the full participation of foreign governments. This offer by the Iranians matched a proposed solution put forth by an IAEA expert committee that was investigating the risk that civilian nuclear technologies could be used to make bombs.CLICK

4. Iran has also offered to renounce plutonium extraction technology, thus ensuring that its heavy water reactor at Arak cannot be used to make bombs either. CLICK

5. More recently, the Iranians have reportedly also offered to operate uranium centrifuges that automatically self-destruct if they are used to enrich uranium beyond what is required for civilian purposes. CLICK

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The Iranians still considered the Taliban an enemy, and were actively supporting the Northern Alliance. Iran also considered Saddam Hussein's Iraq also to be an enemy. Now that their enemy is no longer Sunni Muslim regimes, but Zionist-American interests, it is obvious Iran is stronger than it was in 2000. Not only stronger, but more defiant.

you are wrongly, and again, myopicly, under the impression that some sort of multi-polarity existed between the then very weak powers of the fledgling government of the Taliban and the completely contained and demoralized government of Saddam Hussein. under those circumstances there is absolutely no reason to believe, that with the International focus on Saddam during that time, that Iran couldn't have and indeed became "stronger" and more organized in their efforts of hegemony throughout the region and nuclear ambition.

what i'm saying is that you are missing the other powers in your balance of powers equation. the real powers with regard to opposing Iran. Israel and the United States and now, the Secuirty Council. forget who is on their "borders"

quote:

Iran supports by far the largest population of Jews of any Muslim country. Iran clearly is not against Jews, but against Zionism.

you're being very generous with the word "support" here. but i agree that Zionism is more of a grief to Iran than it is just being Jewish. remebmer, Iran has been complicit in the murder of Jews all over the world not just in the Holy Land

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Iran is open to negotiation and cooperation. But on a level playing field. They will not bow down to US pressure for what they perceive as their right under the NPT to develop peaceful nuclear programs. And there is not, as of yet, any evidence whatsoever for the existance of a nuclear weapons program. Here are but a few attempts by Iran to negotiate...

you fail to get it. the only "playing field" Iran is allowed to play on is within the constraints of the NPT, just like everybody else who are signitories of it.

instead of placing yourself in the position of Iran's advocate for illegally enriching Uranium, how about you adhere to your own sentiment for International Law? sorry but the world does not revolve around your irrational hatred for Chimpy McBushitler.

quote:

1. The IAEA reported that Iran had undertaken to submit the required information for agency verification and "to implement a policy of co-operation and full transparency" as corrective actions. CLICK

sorry thats 2003. Iran has been reported twice to the Security Council by the IAEA since then. once in 2005 when they breached their own agreement on enriching uranuim and again in 2006 when they themselves announced they had mastered the technique.

quote:

2. The Iranian government has repeatedly made compromise offers to place strict limits on its nuclear program beyond what the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Additional Protocol legally require of Iran, in order to ensure that the program cannot be secretly diverted to the manufacture of weapons.

youre talking about the Paris Agreement to which they've already violated.

Last edited by Q5echo on Jul-21-2008 at 01:36

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you are wrongly, and again, myopicly, under the impression that some sort of multi-polarity existed between the then very weak powers of the fledgling government of the Taliban and the completely contained and demoralized government of Saddam Hussein. under those circumstances there is absolutely no reason to believe, that with the International focus on Saddam during that time, that Iran couldn't have and indeed became "stronger" and more organized in their efforts of hegemony throughout the region and nuclear ambition. what i'm saying is that you are missing the other powers in your balance of powers equation. the real powers with regard to opposing Iran. Israel and the United States and now, the Secuirty Council. forget who is on their "borders"

Well, I disagree. And I'll leave it at that.

quote:

you're being very generous with the word "support" here. but i agree that Zionism is more of a grief to Iran than it is just being Jewish. remebmer, Iran has been complicit in the murder of Jews all over the world not just in the Holy Land

The point is, Iran is not hell bent on carrying out the next halocaust, as McCain likes to put it.

quote:

you fail to get it. the only "playing field" Iran is allowed to play on is within the constraints of the NPT, just like everybody else who are signitories of it.

Rather I fail to agree with you. I very much get it. I agree Iran should abide by its international obligations.

quote:

instead of placing yourself in the position of Iran's advocate for illegally enriching Uranium, how about you adhere to your own sentiment for International Law? sorry but the world does not revolve around your irrational hatred for Chimpy McBushitler.

Now I'm Iran's advocate? I want to prevent another Iraq War! Which would mean I have an obligation to dispell what I view to be false or misleading information and points of view. It is not illegal to enrich uranium. What is illegal is diverting enriched uranium for military uses. I completely adhere to my "sentiment", or rather, respect for international law. I would like you provide any "evidence" of Iran's secret nuclear weapons program, of which the NIE declared halted in 2003. The IAEA has also catagorically stated there is no evidence whatsoever of Iran diverting uranium for military purposes. Brazil and Argentina have also began enriching uranium. Where are the Bush Administration's onjections there? Oh thats right, they are not our "enemies".

And my irrational "hatred" of Mr. Bush? The president violated international law. He's no better than any other war criminal. Because of his actions, hundreds of thousands are dead, hundreds of thousands more wounded, and millions of people displaced, in a war that is unjustifiable under any commonly accept theories of Just War or international law. So I would hardly call my extreme dislike of him irrational, but rather your own irrational submission to authority, even when they clearly hold a disregard for the constitution and international law, are more dangerous than anything Iran is capable of.

quote:

sorry thats 2003. Iran has been reported twice to the Security Council by the IAEA since then. once in 2005 when they breached their own agreement on enriching uranuim and again in 2006 when they themselves announced they had mastered the technique.

Iran has a right to enrich uranium, even under the NPT. The Security Council, under heavy American influence, can try all it wants to force Iran to give up its right. It catagorically will not. What both sides should be doing is negotiating. If Kim Jong (mentally) Il can be brought to the table, the Iranians sure are a better candidate. But I really don't expect that to happen with a hardline authoritarian executive administration at the helm.

quote:

youre talking about the Paris Agreement to which they've already violated.

The Paris Agreement? Can we be more specific?

___________________

Last edited by Krypton on Jul-21-2008 at 02:22

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Which would mean I have an obligation to dispell what I view to be false or misleading information and points of view. It is not illegal to enrich uranium. What is illegal is diverting enriched uranium for military uses.

two things. first, while you may feel obligated to show us the way through misleading information and points of view you must first be able to distinguish what is misleading and what is fact. incidentally, this is where i feel obligated.

what is illegal is about what Iran is doing is their bypassing the safeguards of imposed by the IAEA to make it difficult to develop the dual use technology they have legally in order to make weapons. IOW yes, Iran is free to enrich Uranium but ONLY under these safeguards to which they've agreed numerous times to do for the last two decades.

failing to do so under these safeguards constitutes a violation of the NPT. their incessant determination to violate subsequent agreements and those safeguards in particular only exacerbate the perception you so easily mock and dismiss out of nothing but your hatred for the Administration's foriegn policy. hence, irrational.

quote:

I would like you provide any "evidence" of Iran's secret nuclear weapons program, of which the NIE declared halted in 2003. The IAEA has also catagorically stated there is no evidence whatsoever of Iran diverting uranium for military purposes.

you are wrong, again. here is the IAEA's report to the Security Council in February THIS FRIKKEN YEAR!!! >LINK< and not 2003

read page 9 para. 54.

"whatsoever" my dying ass.

quote:

And my irrational "hatred" of Mr. Bush? The president violated international law. He's no better than Saddam Hussein. So I would hardly call my extreme dislike of him irrational, but rather your own irrational submission to authority, even when they clearly hold a disregard for the constitution and international law, are more dangerous than anything Iran is capable of.

wow this is a truly mind-boggling statement right here. words escape me other than to say dude, you've lost it.


anywho...>LINK< here's what happened the day before yesterday.

quote:

U.S. nuke summit with Iran accomplishes jack; Actually, that’s not true. It achieved the very important breakthrough of them telling us to our face that they’re not going to suspend enrichment. Just in case the point about suspension being off the table was unclear, another Iranian official reiterated it to Reuters>LINK<, as did lead Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili>LINK<, as have various other Iranian officials recently>LINK<. The west’s reply, per EU negotiator Javier Solana: Let’s give them more time. Another two weeks, specifically, in the idle hope that they’ll respond to the incentives offer they conspicuously avoided responding to earlier this month because … it called for them to suspend enrichment. Does everyone grasp the absurdity here? Iran’s behaving as though enrichment is merely one of several issues the west is interested in as part of some comprehensive detente between the two sides, in which case the impasse on this point shouldn’t prevent the negotiations from going forward. But that’s idiotic; enrichment is all we’re interested in. Any “grand bargain” that’s in the offing is wholly contingent (let’s hope) on suspension of their nuclear program. Until they decide there’s some carrot we can offer them to get them to do that, there’s literally nothing to talk about. Yet here we go again with another meeting in two weeks, which gives Iran another little breather in building a weapon and gives us … what, exactly? By way of companion reading, the left has been touting polls lately noting that Jews vastly prefer Obama to the GOP, especially on foreign policy. To which Politico replies: Not all do. Israel is quite possibly the only nation on earth right now where Maverick leads in the polls, and almost certainly the only one where he leads by anything like a 20-point margin. I wonder why. To be clear, the point here isn’t that the meeting is a failure because it failed to singlehandedly resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. The point is that it accomplished absolutely nothing, not even a conciliatory rhetorical gesture by Iran. In the spirit of compromise, they could have simply declined comment when reporters asked them about suspending enrichment; instead they went out of their way, via three different officials, to reject the only U.S. demand, and per the blockquote they didn’t even wait until the meeting was over to do it. It’s a rhetorical middle finger.

Last edited by Q5echo on Jul-21-2008 at 03:25

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo two things. first, while you may feel obligated to show us the way through misleading information and points of view you must first be able to distinguish what is misleading and what is fact. incidentally, this is where i feel obligated.

Hence the purpose of our debate now isn't it?

quote:

what is illegal is about what Iran is doing is their bypassing the safeguards of imposed by the IAEA to make it difficult to develop the dual use technology they have legally in order to make weapons. IOW yes, Iran is free to enrich Uranium but ONLY under these safeguards to which they've agreed numerous times to do for the last two decades. failing to do so under these safeguards constitutes a violation of the NPT. their incessant determination to violate subsequent agreements and those safeguards in particular only exacerbate the perception you so easily mock and dismiss out of nothing but your hatred for the Administration's foriegn policy. hence, irrational.

Iran was non-compliant with the safeguards of the NPT. How many other countries were also not compliant with the NPT? North Korea? Pakistan? India? I also believe that if you want Iran to cooperate fully, which they have offered on numerous occasions to do, the proper path is negotiation on equal terms. Nothing more (military threats) and nothing less (willful ignorance).

The perception I "easily" mock is one in which preemptive warfare is used as foreign policy. Threatening Iran hasn't worked, will not work, and only enhances the power of the regime you so dearly want deposed. You do realize that America/Israeli sabre-rattling only hardens Iranian resolve to resist?

quote:

you are wrong, again. here is the IAEA's report to the Security Council in February THIS FRIKKEN YEAR!!! >LINK< and not 2003 read page 9 para. 54. "whatsoever" my dying ass.

The NIE report did not come out in 2003. It came out less than a year ago, and said the program was HALTED IN 2003. Page 9, paragraph 54 states that the IAEA has questions about Iran's development of weapons capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. Notice how it also says, "However, it should be noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard." Hardliners seem to be adept at jumping to conclusions before any concrete evidence is presented. Sorry, but Page 9, paragraph 54 is not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

quote:

wow this is a truly mind-boggling statement right here. words escape me other than to say dude, you've lost it.

You quoted me before my edit. I wouldn't say he is no better than Saddam Hussein, but I would say he no better than any other war criminal. I would hardly call this assessment irrational or that I've "lost it". The consensus is clearly against you and the other <30%'ers. My editted statement, with very valid reasons....

"And my irrational "hatred" of Mr. Bush? The president violated international law. He's no better than any other war criminal. Because of his actions, hundreds of thousands are dead, hundreds of thousands more wounded, and millions of people displaced, in a war that is unjustifiable under any commonly accept theories of Just War or international law. So I would hardly call my extreme dislike of him irrational, but rather your own irrational submission to authority, even when they clearly hold a disregard for the constitution and international law, are more dangerous than anything Iran is capable of."

quote:

anywho...>LINK< here's what happened the day before yesterday.

"Recent Iranian statements suggest Tehran is looking to improve ties with the United States, with officials speaking positively of deliberations by the U.S. administration to open an interests section — an informal diplomatic presence — in Tehran after closing its embassy decades ago."

I think it's better to sensibly dialogue with Iran, instead of waving the fists in their faces.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss whoever made that quote you posted is projecting his feelings onto the soldiers who die. If he was on the battlefield, that's how he would handle it... like a sniveling litte bitch, crying for mommy. But he wouldn't be on the battlefield. I'm sure death comes pretty instantaneous for most, without time for them to regress to the infantile state this hack suggests they do. When it isn't instantaneous, I would bet more of them die like a man.

You bet ey? So you're willing to speak for those dead and say they died for a just cause but then not willing to die for it yourself?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what's democracy worth? are you really asking that question? what's it worth is just like most things, whatever you're willing to pay for it. no greater Democracies have ever been born than from a barrel of a gun. remember, this isn't the first time we've done this. touching appeal to sympathy, and is probably absolutely true of any soldier who has fought and died at any time for anything for any country or ideal, but ask yourself this. if the way of your life, or more importantly, the way of your children's life isn't worth dying for then what the hell is?

My way of life is the same now as it was before we decided to invade Iraq. Iraqis are living noticeably worse off than before. And why is Iraq more worthy of forced regime change than other tyrannic governments? What about the North Koreans?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis You bet ey? So you're willing to speak for those dead and say they died for a just cause but then not willing to die for it yourself?

If I'm not willing to die for that specific cause, that doesn't make it unjust. And exercising my right to not join the military and go to Iraq doesn't make me a hypocrite. I can't represent every cause I believe in... where would I find the time?

So if my speaking for those who died carries no weight, then why should that other person's quote from your post carry any either? He can speak for them in a way that you like to agree with, but I can't... because it doesn't fit your narrative.