|
The War on Terror Fallacy (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Iran has ambitions that reach much further throughout the region than just within it's own borders. |
but are you, an american really going to take issue with that? ;) :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
but to answer you larger question calling them part of an "Axis of Evil" i think their "staying out of the way" during Enduring Freedom was more a response out of necessity negating any percieved associated guilt with 9/11 in addition to their disdain for Sunni extremists. |
and what about the slap in the face the iranians received for their aid in northern afghanistan?
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
the Frontline episode said it was an edict from the hardliners to curb anti-americanism for however short-lived it was. |
yes, but these are the moments that statesman should seize upon, but perhaps that's my darn naivete getting in the way again.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
are you saying that Iran would have never meddled in Iraq if it wasn't for Bush's rhetoric? |
no, of course not. But there could have been much more dialogue and diplomacy regarding the new power vacuum in iraq. Of course the iranians would be interested, they are after all the people that bore the brunt of saddam. But their "meddling" could have been made to align itself with US interests (at least insofar as it relates to security and stability) had washington used a carrot instead of a stick.
I don't understand why a cordial relationship with iran in 2003ish was either impossible or undesirable. surely rebuilding a nation is much easier if you choose to do it with others and not by yourself?
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
the Al-Askari Mosque bombing was carried out by Al-Queera as a guerilla tactic. it worked because of the importance of the mosque among it's sect not because of Iran's influence in the region. |
no, it worked because the US had failed to provide adequate infrastructure (political and social) and security and had given the big finger to the iranians, so when the hit the fan, what incentives did the iranians have to use their influence in the region for stability?
why not destabilise the region and sell explosives to insurgents? exactly what choices have the hawks given the iranians re iraq?
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
about what? Iran's meddling in Iraq? we talk about that. |
making accusations via CNN is hardly what i would call adequate diplomacy.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
it's the nuclear issue we don't have direct talks about. they talk to the IAEA and the UN. they talk to the EU3. in a way Rnegade is right, to go a step further and have direct talks with them, to have a US President sitting down with Ahmedinijad (because we can't talk to the real powers in Iran) de-legitimizes our position instantly. |
but why? am i THAT out of touch with IR that diplomacy is now considered passe? :conf:
Surely the US' recent invasions are cause for alarm in iran? Even if we accept that iran IS developing nuclear technology for use with weapons, would that not relate closely to being constantly threatened? Would a more "touchy-feely" foreign policy alleviate iranian fears of US attack? Would reduced fear also reduce the perceived need for such weapons? |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
disengagement and conspicuous brinksmanship, followed by diplomacy. |
Yeah, nothing fosters amicable discussion like a decade of isolation and intimidation.
| quote: | | it's Iran. what they want and what we're asking has no evidence of any reconciliation |
Who said anything about reconciliation? Diplomatic solutions don't have to be friendly, but they shouldn't be antagonistic either. We're just trying to get them to stop -stirring: there doesn't need to be any ideological reconciliation for that to happen.
| quote: | | ....and why is the current multi-lateral diplomacy ilegitimate? |
It isn't, which is why the administration should let the process run its course without the constantly interrupting it with fatuous threats. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no, it worked because the US had failed to provide adequate infrastructure (political and social) and security and had given the big finger to the iranians, |
thats describing a causation. that doesn't explain your notion as to why the Al Askari bombing worked so well against the Americans.
youre also giving a false impression of the events leading up to that day.
1. we weren't (Coalition forces) allowed anywhere near most mosques in Iraq at the time of the bombing.
2. security was handled exclusively by Iraqi personel
3. the perps were diguised as Iraqi security officers and spent the entire night rigging the place for explosives. it was detonated the next morning
4. Mosques, prior to Samara, just don't get bombed
i'd argue that determined jihadists are next to impossible to defend against in a pragmatic sense anywhere in the world.
| quote: | | so when the hit the fan, what incentives did the iranians have to use their influence in the region for stability? |
forgive my naivete, but shouldn't incentive be, if in fact Iran had the power to stabilize a potential civil war in another country which is a HUGE assuption BTW, that is to stop needless violence and bloodshed?....regardless of who America is?
what your basically defending is Iran's culpability either way if you seriously believe Iran could have done anything about it.
| quote: | | why not destabilise the region and sell explosives to insurgents? exactly what choices have the hawks given the iranians re iraq? |
again, what is the problem with giving Iran too much credit in this regard? because they're Iran thats why.
| quote: | | making accusations via CNN is hardly what i would call adequate diplomacy. |
i'm talking about the alleged Qud's Force commanders that were caught by American forces in 2006 >HERE<
there was also a negotiation for the release of Brig. Gen. Mohsen Chirazi and Col. Abu Amad Davari. in Jan 2007.
we continue to have at the military and low level dimpomatic talks with Iran with Iraq represesentatives present because it's in the interests of everyone for a peaceful Iraq. Iran has stated one time that they will talk to us about local and regional issues but will not talk to us about nuclear issues outside the IAEA.
in fact this whole argument about us not wanting to talk to Iran is a strawman. Iran has explicitly stated they will not have "face to face" with anyone but the IAEA. >LINK< why do you think that is? because our demands, the international community's demands are clear and explicit. Iran sees no room for compromise, yet, and neither do we.
| quote: | but why? am i THAT out of touch with IR that diplomacy is now considered passe? :conf:
Surely the US' recent invasions are cause for alarm in iran? Even if we accept that iran IS developing nuclear technology for use with weapons, would that not relate closely to being constantly threatened? Would a more "touchy-feely" foreign policy alleviate iranian fears of US attack? Would reduced fear also reduce the perceived need for such weapons? |
it's not an issue of whether they feel threatened by us or us by them. it's Israel. it's what they've threatened and their duplicitous past with eradicating Zionism.
this whole notion, and i'm not saying you're guilty of it, that Iran wants nukes because they are threatened by us or are afraid of us is absurd and ignores any history prior to March 2003. its a lazy and myopic argument that is contradicted by their own rhetoric. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
i just want to make clear that my response last night to you was made in haste as i was trying to leave work. i could have explained my positions a little better.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Yeah, nothing fosters amicable discussion like a decade of isolation and intimidation. |
look we stopped talking to Iran for many other reasons around 30 years ago. i'd argue that Iran has been in their own form of isolation for the bulk of that time. they've been anything but open and forthright about much of what they do militarily and in the region, much less their nuclear ambitions whether they be peaceful or not.
the argument here is (at least here in America) that why have we been so determined to not sit down with whomever it is that calls the shots in that damn country without pre-conditions.
it's those pre-conditions that are at the heart this debate. your guess is as good as mine as to what those conditions are. i doubt if the UN or the EU3 know what they are.
i would love to say that whatever we did to bring the NORKs to the table could apply to Iran but thats just not applicable here.
| quote: | | It isn't, which is why the administration should let the process run its course without the constantly interrupting it with fatuous threats. |
i assume you're talking about Bush's rhetoric "all options on the table"?
what incentive would there be for Iran to become completely transparent if we took certain options off the table? i can't think of any. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i assume you're talking about Bush's rhetoric "all options on the table"?
what incentive would there be for Iran to become completely transparent if we took certain options off the table? i can't think of any. |
Oh, but the "options on table" are working so well convincing the Iranians to be transparent... :o
You're talking about the former Persian Empire. They won't bow down to Western preconditions. They will not accept American dictation of how negotiations will be conducted. Maybe if we treated Iran as an equal partner in the region, maybe we could actually talk. The hardline approach failed. Bush failed. It's time for the hardliners to understand this and move on. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH YOU JACKASSES
The former spokesman of the President Mohammed Khatami’s government (1997-2005) acknowledges in a debate that a goal of the reformism was to lull the West into a false confidence so that Iran could pursue illicit nuclear activities:
| quote: | Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, Khatami-era government spokesman, on a panel with Mehdi Faza'eli, general secretary of the Muslim Journalist Association: "We did our outmost to prevent the case of Iran being sent to the Security Council, whose judge is the United States.... During the confidence building-era, we entered the nuclear club, and despite the suspension [of uranium enrichment] we imported all the materials needed for our nuclear activities of the country...We were not subjected to sanctions regime during the reform era, but today, even our ophthalmologists are not allowed to import laser products [needed for operations]... If we pursue the right to nuclear energy for bombs, it is clear that the world does not want this, and if we want it for electricity, they say 'you don't have nuclear power plants, what do you want nuclear fuel for?' Just take a look at what the Russians have done to us in the Bushehr nuclear power plant.
With the current speed of enrichment, it will take us 25 years before we reach enrichment self-sufficiency. And who knows where we want to find nuclear fuel? And our reserves are unknown... The solution is to prove to the entire world that we want the power plants for electricity. Afterwards, we can proceed with other activities... The peak of our goal is an honorable life for the people. Do we want to become another North Korea…?
There are only two ways of coming through the current crisis. One is what Khatami did by winning the election of 1997, and the other what [he did] after September 11th, which both guarded the country against war. Today, the solution is to marginalize the Ahmadinejad government from political decision-making in the nuclear energy field, with decisions be taken elsewhere.
As long as we were not subjected to sanctions, and during our negotiations we could import technology. We should have negotiated for so long, and benefited from the atmosphere of negotiations to the extent that we could import all the technology needed. The adversary wanted the negotiations to come to a dead end and initiate a new phase. But we wanted to continue negotiations until the U.S. would be gone from the circle of negotiations. We had one overt policy, which was one of negotiation and confidence building, and a covert policy, which was continuation of the activities...
We consider access to all sciences and technologies of the humankind a necessity, but we also prioritize confidence building. Today, in the field of confidence building, Japan is the most advanced country in the world, but Japan can produce a nuclear bomb in less than a week...We achieved to divide the Europeans from the Americans, but today it has come to a point that the Europeans and the Ameicans have harmonized their policies.
>LINK<
|
this is why you don't go to Iran without knowing what the you're getting yourself into. they lie. they always have, and they always will. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
they lie. they always have, and they always will. |
you make it sound like they are the only country in this world that lies. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
you make it sound like they are the only country in this world that lies. |
that sounds funny coming from someone that blames all the world's ills on the united states! |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
that sounds funny coming from someone that blames all the world's ills on the united states! |
I will continue to blame them untill they start changing their selfish politics towards other countries.;) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
I will continue to blame them untill they start changing their selfish politics towards other countries.;) |
and in so doing you make it sound as if the US is the only country that does these things ;) |
|
|
| Q5echo |
Iran rejects concessions approved by China, Russia, EU3 and USA.
| quote: | By Parisa Hafezi and Zahra Hosseinian
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said on Tuesday uranium enrichment was its "red line" and would continue, despite an enhanced offer of incentives from big powers to stop activity the West fears could yield nuclear bombs.
The EU's top diplomat, Javier Solana, presented Tehran on Saturday with an adjusted package of economic benefits designed to persuade it to curb its nuclear work, and said Iran should stop enrichment during negotiations to implement the offer.
"We have repeatedly said that enrichment is our red line and we should enjoy this technology. The work will be continued," deputy foreign minister Alireza Sheikhattar told reporters, according to the state news agency IRNA.
The incentive package agreed by the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany last month and delivered by Solana is a revised version of one rejected by Iran in 2006.
Western powers have warned Iran it will face more sanctions if it spurns the offer. Iran has shown no sign it will change its position, and suggested it was in no hurry to respond to the incentives proposal, saying it is being reviewed.
"We will give our answer as soon as possible. But we do not know exactly when it will be," the Iranian official said.
The incentives package offers Iran the chance to develop a civilian nuclear program with light water reactors -- seen as harder to divert into bomb-making than the technology Tehran is now developing -- and legally binding fuel supply guarantees.
It also offers trade and other benefits, including the possibility of Iran buying civil aircraft from the West.
A prominent Washington think-tank, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said the package contained two important new additions.
ISIS noted a passage saying the powers would "support" continued research and development (R&D) in nuclear energy "as confidence is gradually restored" in Iran's intentions. This suggested R&D could go on even during an enrichment halt and set a longer-term timetable for resolving core issues, it said.
ISIS said the offer also alluded to possible security guarantees, a prime Iranian concern, by citing readiness to "reaffirm obligations under the U.N. Charter to refrain ... from the use of force against (Iran's) territorial integrity".
NO STRAIGHT ANSWER
A senior Iranian official, who asked not to be named, told Reuters Iran's response would not be a straight yes-or-no answer. "It will be a discussable response. We might accept some elements of the proposal and reject some others," he said.
"But suspension of enrichment is not on the agenda."
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on Monday Europe would take further sanctions against Iran, speaking of immediate action to freeze the overseas assets of Iran's biggest bank, the Bank Melli.
But after a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in Luxembourg on Monday, Solana said the EU had yet to decide on a new round of sanctions. The U.N. Security Council has imposed three rounds of limited sanctions on Iran since 2006.
Iran insists, as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, that it has the right to master the complete nuclear fuel cycle, including enriching uranium, for peaceful purposes. It says it wants nuclear power only for electricity generation.
The process provides fuel for power plants or, if concentrated to heighten the enrichment level, atomic bombs.
Washington says it wants a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear row with the West that has helped push oil prices to record highs, but has not ruled out military action as a last option. Tehran says its response to attack would be "painful".
(Additional reporting by Mark Heinrich in Vienna; Writing by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Andrew Roche)
>LINK<
|
|
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Iran rejects concessions approved by China, Russia, EU3 and USA. |
yes, I read that the other day...... it seems that ol Iran is painting itself into a very dangerous corner......
and not just with the EVIL USA hardcore. Cause even China and mother Russia signed off...
I bet ya that SOB Ahmadinejad and the rest of them der muslims wants to start a war, He is the anti christ.... Obama will be his falseprophet and soon the lord jesus christ will be a coming! so you best get your life together!!!! the email my cousin Becky lou sent me today tells me so... :stongue: |
|
|
|
|
