Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 64

Thread: World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

  1. #31
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Mya View Post
    I am not disagreeing with you in that.

    What I am saying is that I am very pessimist about these "new" round of talks because almost certainly Iran will use them to gain further time to obtain full military nuclear capability.

    A war would be a disaster for the whole world but regrettably sometimes wars are forced upon us whether we like it or not.
    And I don't disagree with your pessimistic view of the talks, either. But there's a slim chance something could come of it, and in the meantime ... there really aren't any good options. If we can keep delaying there's a chance that the Iranian people will toss out the ayatollahs. Again, slim, but a chance. And if they do get a bomb, that's probably not the end of the world, either. I don't think they're any nuttier than the Soviets, the Pakistanis, or the North Koreans.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  2. #32
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    Actually, the IAEA is potentially biased as

    On March 5, 2012, the IAEA chief, Yukiya Amano, said he had “serious concerns” over Iran’s nuclear program and its ambitions.[14] It’s interesting to note, however, that in a ‘Confidential’ diplomatic cable from the U.S. State Department in 2009, American diplomats discussed Amano’s appointment to head the IAEA, and stated that he “displayed remarkable congruence of views with us on conducting the Agency’s missions,” and speaking to an American Ambassador, Amano “thanked the U.S. for having supported his candidacy and took pains to emphasize his support for U.S. strategic objectives for the Agency.” Though, Amano informed the Ambassador, “that he would need to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.”[15]


    Sources are this (Iran: watchdog says suspicious activities continue at blocked sites - Telegraph) and this (US embassy cables: New UN chief is 'director general of all states, but in agreement with us' | World news | guardian.co.uk).

    This as well is relevant

    In 2010, the Pentagon’s report to Congress stressed that Iran’s strategy in the region was not one of aggression, as our media and politicians would have us believe, but in fact, was a “deterrent strategy.” The report stated, “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.” The U.S. approach to Iran, then, “remains centered on preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons and on countering Iran’s influence in the Middle East.”[24] Iran itself has claimed that it “pursues a defensive and deterrent strategy.”[25]


    The sources are this (Defense.gov News Article: Report to Congress Outlines Iranian Threats) and this (PressTV - 'Iran pursues deterrent defense strategy')

    The above excerpts were from this article.

    In addition to that, it has been stated that some people are quite skeptical of the IAEA's report as

    some, like former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, have grave doubts about the value of the IAEA report.

    I would be very skeptical about this report that is coming out from the International Atomic Energy Agency, because the IAEA doesn’t really have any intelligence capabilities of its own. It is relying on reports that are coming from other people. I would rather suspect these reports are coming from the US and Israel,” says Giraldi.


    The source is this (IAEA study as pretext for war on Iran — RT).

    Thus, the objectivity of the IAEA is in question due to the current director's potential bias.
    In a lot of ways it's like Groundhog Day. Inspectors and folks in the US and Israel were going nuts because Iraq was dragging its feet on inspections, of course assuming that Saddam was hiding something. When, as it turns out, what he was really hiding was the fact that he didn't have jack ****. He didn't want the Iranians to know how weak he was. I'm quite sure that a lot of Iran's actions are animated by a similar motive. If they can build a bomb or two, or at least create the impression that the MIGHT have a bomb or two, it would significantly enhance their national security.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  3. #33
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    Actually, the IAEA is potentially biased as

    On March 5, 2012, the IAEA chief, Yukiya Amano, said he had “serious concerns” over Iran’s nuclear program and its ambitions.[14] It’s interesting to note, however, that in a ‘Confidential’ diplomatic cable from the U.S. State Department in 2009, American diplomats discussed Amano’s appointment to head the IAEA, and stated that he “displayed remarkable congruence of views with us on conducting the Agency’s missions,” and speaking to an American Ambassador, Amano “thanked the U.S. for having supported his candidacy and took pains to emphasize his support for U.S. strategic objectives for the Agency.” Though, Amano informed the Ambassador, “that he would need to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.”[15]
    From this, we can see that Amano intends "to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent". So although he is firmly on the side of the US in desiring to be sure Iran does not get nuclear weapons, he also intends to be fair in his assessment of Iran. This tells us we're getting his most accurate report.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    In 2010, the Pentagon’s report to Congress stressed that Iran’s strategy in the region was not one of aggression, as our media and politicians would have us believe, but in fact, was a “deterrent strategy.” The report stated, “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.” The U.S. approach to Iran, then, “remains centered on preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons and on countering Iran’s influence in the Middle East.”[24] Iran itself has claimed that it “pursues a defensive and deterrent strategy.”[25]
    This tells us that the path we're already on, "The U.S. approach to Iran, then, 'remains centered on preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons' ," should be continued. This doesn't tell us to stop what we're doing. It specifically says to continue exactly as we are. We continue the sanctions and continue pressing Iran to reveal details about their nuclear program.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Invisible View Post
    In addition to that, it has been stated that some people are quite skeptical of the IAEA's report as

    some, like former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, have grave doubts about the value of the IAEA report.

    I would be very skeptical about this report that is coming out from the International Atomic Energy Agency, because the IAEA doesn’t really have any intelligence capabilities of its own. It is relying on reports that are coming from other people. I would rather suspect these reports are coming from the US and Israel,” says Giraldi.

    Thus, the objectivity of the IAEA is in question due to the current director's potential bias.
    Well, MarineTpartier suggested the following...
    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Here's the thing though. Who are we to tell them they can't have the friggin thing? If Iran wants a nuke, let em have it. As soon as we get intel that they are planning to strike us or an ally, we destroy the nuke. Simple as that.
    This suggestion is compelling, because this whole morass over Iran is causing a lot of trouble and tension for everybody. Maybe it would be easiest to take this suggestion and rely on MarineTpartier's backup plan of using intel for forewarning?

    BUT then this leaves us in an uncomfortable conundrum. Your source, Philip Giraldi, says we shouldn't trust the IAEA report because they get their intel from other people. He doesn't specifically know who, but guesses it comes from the CIA and Israel. This doesn't say much about bias from the IAEA, but does suggest bias from the CIA and Israel. Which means we shouldn't trust our own intel, which means we also can't trust our own intel about an impending launch from Iran. This compels us to be certain that Iran doesn't get a nuke.

    If we look at it the opposite way, we could trust our intel to give us accurate warning about a potential attack. But then if we trust the CIA about that, shouldn't we trust the CIA when we they provide intel about Iran's nuclear program to the IAEA?

    We can't say, "let 'em have the nuke," and trust in our intelligence services when, we want to believe in Philip Giraldi who essentially says don't trust in intelligence services! And if we do that, how can we trust a Pentagon report that get's its information from, Philip Giraldi's other people?
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  4. #34
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Iran wants us alive, prosperous, and buying their oil.
    Then how do you explain Iran's willingness to pursue activities that result in total boycotts of their oil from the West?

  5. #35
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    In a lot of ways it's like Groundhog Day. Inspectors and folks in the US and Israel were going nuts because Iraq was dragging its feet on inspections, of course assuming that Saddam was hiding something. When, as it turns out, what he was really hiding was the fact that he didn't have jack ****. He didn't want the Iranians to know how weak he was. I'm quite sure that a lot of Iran's actions are animated by a similar motive. If they can build a bomb or two, or at least create the impression that the MIGHT have a bomb or two, it would significantly enhance their national security.
    But that's not what they're doing. No one believes Iran has nukes yet. No one will believe that until there is seismographic evidence of a nuclear detonation.

    Iran isn't creating the impression that they have nukes; Iran is creating the impression that they are in the process of developing nukes. And giving your enemies that perception CERTAINLY does not afford you national security, as evidenced by recent events. On the contrary, it makes Iran's chances of being attacked by foreign entities incredibly higher.

    What you're suggesting is a massive strategic blunder. You try to keep your development of nukes as secret as possible. Which is exactly what Iran has been doing, by failing to disclose locations of its centrifuges, etc.

    edit: I mean, look your example of Saddam. Yeah, that strategy worked out well for him, didn't it?
    Last edited by the_recruit; 03-07-12 at 12:41 AM.

  6. #36
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by the_recruit View Post
    But that's not what they're doing. No one believes Iran has nukes yet. No one will believe that until there is seismographic evidence of a nuclear detonation.

    Iran isn't creating the impression that they have nukes; Iran is creating the impression that they are in the process of developing nukes. And giving your enemies that perception CERTAINLY does not afford you national security, as evidenced by recent events. On the contrary, it makes Iran's chances of being attacked by foreign entities incredibly higher.

    What you're suggesting is a massive strategic blunder. You try to keep your development of nukes as secret as possible. Which is exactly what Iran has been doing, by failing to disclose locations of its centrifuges, etc.

    edit: I mean, look your example of Saddam. Yeah, that strategy worked out well for him, didn't it?
    Yes, that's right. What I meant to say is that's what they're aiming for -- as opposed to aiming to develop nukes so they can run right out and drop one on Israel.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  7. #37
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by the_recruit View Post
    Then how do you explain Iran's willingness to pursue activities that result in total boycotts of their oil from the West?
    Because they know we won't follow through with it. They know that we need them. But one of the most important things to remember is this: Most of the actions taken by these regimes aren't about us. They really aren't. One of the big reasons to maintain some hostility towards the US is to look strong for their neighbors. That's why Saddam couldn't submit meekly to the UN like we wanted him to. He needed to look strong in front of Iran. And he probably wanted them to think he had dangerous weapons. It wasn't even really about keeping secrets from us. It was about keeping secrets from his enemies that were close to home.

    Come on, the world does not revolve around the United States.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #38
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 05:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,961
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

    [QUOTE=EagleAye;1060267909]From this, we can see that Amano intends "to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent". So although he is firmly on the side of the US in desiring to be sure Iran does not get nuclear weapons, he also intends to be fair in his assessment of Iran. This tells us we're getting his most accurate report.


    This tells us that the path we're already on, "The U.S. approach to Iran, then, 'remains centered on preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons' ," should be continued. This doesn't tell us to stop what we're doing. It specifically says to continue exactly as we are. We continue the sanctions and continue pressing Iran to reveal details about their nuclear program.
    Actually no. Since it tell us that Iran's reasoning for wanting a nuclear weapon is defensive it then raises the question as to why were are so busy threatening and pounding the drums of war.


    Well, MarineTpartier suggested the following...


    This suggestion is compelling, because this whole morass over Iran is causing a lot of trouble and tension for everybody. Maybe it would be easiest to take this suggestion and rely on MarineTpartier's backup plan of using intel for forewarning?

    BUT then this leaves us in an uncomfortable conundrum. Your source, Philip Giraldi, says we shouldn't trust the IAEA report because they get their intel from other people. He doesn't specifically know who, but guesses it comes from the CIA and Israel. This doesn't say much about bias from the IAEA, but does suggest bias from the CIA and Israel. Which means we shouldn't trust our own intel, which means we also can't trust our own intel about an impending launch from Iran. This compels us to be certain that Iran doesn't get a nuke.
    Actually, what you are saying is a problem. You suggest that we may not be able to trust our own intel, then say that this "compels us to be certain that Iran doesn't get a nuke." However, if we can't trust our own intel, then how would we be able to trust our own intel regarding Iran having a nuclear weapon. The fact of the matter is that a lot of former intelligence information is being ignored by the Obama administration in order to keep pushing for war against Iran. Such as the fact that National Intelligence Estimate released a report saying "that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003." (The Bush Administration’s operations in Iran : The New Yorker) In addition to this, Leon Panetta admitted that the US didn't think that Iran was making a nuclear weapon. In March of last year, intelligence officials stated that they "did not know if Iran eventually would decide to build nuclear weapons." (U.S. Updates Iran Assessment | Arms Control Association) And finally, it was reported that intelligence officials have said that "[Iran's] leaders have not decided about going ahead with an atomic weapon." (U.S. intelligence: Iran leaders reopened nuke debate | Reuters)

    However, the push to war is still going on and thus we must ask the question: If we don't think that Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon, then why are we still threatening them?

    If we look at it the opposite way, we could trust our intel to give us accurate warning about a potential attack. But then if we trust the CIA about that, shouldn't we trust the CIA when we they provide intel about Iran's nuclear program to the IAEA?

    We can't say, "let 'em have the nuke," and trust in our intelligence services when, we want to believe in Philip Giraldi who essentially says don't trust in intelligence services! And if we do that, how can we trust a Pentagon report that get's its information from, Philip Giraldi's other people?
    Yes, Giraldi is saying not to trust the intelligence services as the information they are giving out may very well be politically motivated. For example, during the lead-up to the Iraq war, everything one was saying that Iraq had WMDs when this turned out not to be true.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  9. #39
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,900

    Re: World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale
    Because they know we won't follow through with it. They know that we need them. But one of the most important things to remember is this: Most of the actions taken by these regimes aren't about us. They really aren't.
    As of January 2012, Iran exports 22% of its oil to China, 14% to Japan, 13% to India, 10% to South Korea, 7% to Italy, 7% to Turkey, 6% to Spain and the remainder to France, Greece (& other European countries), Taiwan, Sri Lanka, South Africa.

    One of the big reasons to maintain some hostility towards the US is to look strong for their neighbors. That's why Saddam couldn't submit meekly to the UN like we wanted him to.
    God this is just a terrible post. Saddam did "submit meekly" to IAEA inspectors (and sanctions and giving up national economic sovereignty, etc.) for a very long time and stopped when the searches became intrusive to matters of national security and it was found that some inspectors were spying on sensitive Iraqi sites. It was blatantly obvious that Iraq had absolutely zero weapons of mass destruction for quite some time prior to the invasion. It had absolutely nothing to do with Iran.

    And he probably wanted them to think he had dangerous weapons.
    No. He didn't. He wanted everyone to know that he didn't. The Ba'ath administration pretty much gave free reign to weapons inspectors for years.

    This entire thread is just pitiful.
    Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 03-07-12 at 01:22 AM.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  10. #40
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: World Powers Agree to Resume Nuclear Talks With Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Because they know we won't follow through with it. They know that we need them.
    Um, what? The US has had a total trade embargo on Iran since 1995...

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •