It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran snubs Barack Obama's nuclear talks

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


Really, Gordon Brown's socialism and his belief in Obama's weakness are immaterial to the TOPIC of the OP.

The point of this thread is that Iran has run roughshod diplomatically and politically because Obama lacks principle.

He campaigned insiting that there would be "pre-conditions" to negotiations with Iran, and that a nuclear Iran was "unacceptable."

He lied. Iran knew it. The world knows it. It has a price.

Iran has taken advantage of the apparent and real wekaness of Obama's commitment to ANYTHING other than his own personal agenda.

The perceived (and obvious) weakness emboldens others to snub disarmament talks and encourages them to expand their proliferation activities.

Witness Russian attempts to sell S-300 missiles to Iran when it says it won't. Witness N. Korea's expansion of nuclear weapon development, even as it says it wants to open talks with the West.


For eight months the administration has reiterated its ultimatum that either Iran must agree to direct talks on its nuclear program by Sept. 30 or we will get economic sanctions from the United Nations -- during which eight months we have been dangling before Russia offers of rescission of our anti-missile commitments to Poland and the Czech Republic in exchange for Russian cooperation with sanctions (and general nuclear disarmament).

Then last week, in perhaps coordinated succession, Russia refused to support sanctions, Iran offered to talk maybe about nukes, we accepted talks, Iran then refused to discuss nuclear issues -- and we nonetheless continued to agree to talk under whatever terms are offered by the fraudulently re-elected murderer of his own people and aspiring Jewish genocidist, Mahmoud Amadinejad. For the greatest nation on Earth to accept such impertinent treatment by so vile a despot is a profound lesson in humility.

washingtontimes.com...

We are being taken advantage of at every negotiation solely because everyone else (including Gordon Brown, Merkel and Sarkozy, the rest of the EU, Venezuela, et c.), but Obamites, can see that Barack Obama has no spine in foreign policy and can be taken advantage of.

That's the point of the thread.

Call him "even tempered," if you want. The rest of the world sees him as a push over.

Deny ignorance.

jw




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Obama does not seem to have the diplomatic skills or steadfastness to handle Iran. I will guess that Iran will play him like a fiddle while they finalize/complete all their nuclear infrastructure, then withdraw from the NPT.

Course Israel will act before most of that. Then the administration will blast Israel for stopping any chance of "progress".

So far Obama hasn't shown any willingness to draw lines in the sand on anything....he just keeps moving his line back. Thats a bad precedence for a President, the whole world is taking note of his actions.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


And what a shame.

I don't care if others consider him "even tempered" or "levle headed," a leader without principles is little more than a pawn.

Obama has effectively abandoned any leadership role the U.S. can take on any issue.

Much as nuclear proliferation seem to be at the forefront in negitiation with the "rogue states," the real impact will come from elsewhere.

We are about to go into Copenhagen ready to sacrifice our economy in the name of global warming, while BRIC run all the way to the bank as their economies grow and they ignore the GHG terrorism being foisted upon the "industrialized" nations.

The UN and BRIC (again) are poised to displace the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

What do our "leaders" say to these?

"Um, OK."

American consumers will pay the price for this indifference to principle.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I know, its easy to get caught up in little stupid arguments on this site. Good fun tho


All Im saying is that Obama has brought about a newfound respect for the US in the EU.. who happens to be its biggest ally and holds the majority share of the Western and Global economy. Mainly because of his policies that you don't agree with... Americans say that the EU is not important to them but by next year the EU will have sovereignty as a nation, be expanding its armed forces and moving quickly to assert power in the world over the next decade. Obama can see this and obviously doesn't want to lose its biggest ally.

The EU and its people now absolutely hate war, the idea of it annoys us, probably because of the pro peace propaganda emanating from Brussels for the past 50 years. Obama basically promising he would stop the US infuriation of Russia (which would put us on the front line), quit with the anti France propaganda and slow the war on our land mass (where we have to deal with immigration from) obviously hit home with us. Which im sure you can understand.

Iran and NK are giving less respect to the US, that is true.. but much of that is also because the country is in so much debt and cant afford another war. Aggressive action by the US has caused a lot of problems for it.. namely the "terrorism" its people now fear on a daily basis. Do you not think it possible that by being nice to these people, their anti America attitude might subside.. similar to the way it happened in Europe.

Anyway, this is just two separate opinions and he's not my leader so mine doesn't really matter but what im saying about growing respect from this side of the Atlantic is true.

Take it ez



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


Your nation is closer to Iranian missile range, so if you think unfettered proliferation is good, then good luck.

We're closer to NK's.

You may not recall Chamberlain and his "appeasement" doctrine.

If it wasn't for the U.S. taking a stand, and giving blood and treasure on your behalf, you would be speaking German (instead of just enjoying their music).

Sometimes, a line must be drawn.

And, no, the EU does not respect the U.S. Many of the populace may see us as a reflection of their perception of Obama (his approval ratings are higher there than here), but your leaders have laughed at his weakness.

The most powerful among you (Germany and France) do not see Obama as a "friend," but as a foil.

Not a good bargaining position for us. On anything.

jw

[edit on 15-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Fair enough.. I see you have tunnel vision.

Best of luck with that. There may be a creme for it coming on the market soon.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


You may call my view whatever you like. Personal attacks do not change reality.

I didn't write the story in the OP. It reflects the world's overall impression of Barack Obama's "leadership" and "principle."

Even today, the administration's spokespeople tout "nuclear talks," even as Iranian leadership insists there will be no nuclear talks on THEIR agenda.


The U.S., Iran and European Union expressed hope the Oct. 1 talks could lead to substantive negotiations — despite Iranian warnings it would not even discuss meeting U.N. Security Council demands that it freeze uranium enrichment.
www.msnbc.msn.com...

You see, THEY have set the agenda, and we will slink to the table and gladly take what they allow us.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 15-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wimbly
reply to post by jdub297
 



When they spot diplomatic weakness and lack of spine, the real threats will push as far as they can. They know Obama won't stand up to them.


Which is exactly why Republicans criticized his apology tour. It made him look like a fool and singled to many of our enemies that he is weak. All of those countries are going to play Obama left and right. Especially Iran and North Korea.


Sadly, so will our "allies."

"Allies Abandon US at Climate Confab"
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Western nations that spent the past several years slamming the Bush administration for not doing enough to deal with climate change were conspicuously absent from a recent global climate conference.

The Obama administration sent a large entourage to the third World Climate Conference in Geneva earlier this month, trumpeting the return of the United States to the climate change debate.

But representatives from Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Canada and Australia were nowhere to be found. The European Commission, the executive arm of the 27-member European Union, also failed to send a commissioner.

washingtontimes.com...

After years of finger-pointing at the Clinton and Bush administrations for their refusal to submit American industry and consumers to the Kyoto Protocol, the EU turns their back when the Obama administration capitulates and agrees to discuss ouline for the Copenhagen conference.

What did we expect?

jw

[edit on 16-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
The Obama administration cannot win on anything it seems.

If he says he will talk with NK and Iran without conditions he is weak. If he stands up to NK and Iran he is just following previous President's (I said PRESIDENT'S, not just Bush) and the World in general does not like that to much.

I personally think we elected a person who is great at giving speaches but really lacking on policy (not just foreign policy, I include domestic policy).

I believe that Obama has chosen the wrong path with NK and Iran thus far and is to stubborn to admit it. He thought that his "personal charisma" would win over both NK and Iran but it just encourages those countries to see him as weak on foreign policy.

You cannot reason with a madman and NK is led by one. Iran is just as stubborn now as it has been and will not change. They want the bomb and will not stop until they are one of the "big boys" on the block. Israel will eventually attack Iran (sooner than later) and we will just have to see where that takes us.

That is my two cents. Ohhh...one more thing, I think Chavez will begin an arms race in South America that Obama will have to deal with as well. Good luck with Chavez....He is as crazy as the other two. What a mess.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Sense says...
 



Ohhh...one more thing, I think Chavez will begin an arms race in South America that Obama will have to deal with as well. Good luck with Chavez....He is as crazy as the other two. What a mess.


Chavez has read Obama well, and knows he will not step in to reign in or criticize his "friend."

He sees a license to arm and is pursuing it with a vengeance.

Iran has welcomed Chavez with open "ARMS", as has Russia. Does Obama feel left out?

Despite Clinton's protestations, the administration will not intervene.
(This could be the "escape" Hillary wants to abandon Obama and his policies, especially since he has stripped her of her responsibility on the climate and in the Middle East.)

jw



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


You keep thinking the EU is one cohesive nation.... it's just a collection of countries with similar interests. They can't even get the EU constitution passed, what will happen when the U.K., France and Germany have to start looking out for themselves first? It won't be a pretty picture for some nations in the EU. The EU won't be all on the same page as often as you seem to think. It's more of an economic bloc than a military/political bloc.

I don't see the EU taking the lead on Iran or any other major issue. It would be nice if they did.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
1957: The United States and its then-ally Iran sign a civil nuclear cooperation agreement as part of the U.S. Atoms for Peace program. The agreement allows the lease of several kilograms of enriched uranium to Iran and calls for cooperation on peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
1959: The Shah of Iran orders the establishment of a nuclear research center at Tehran University.
1968: Iran signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on July 1, the day it is opened for signature.
1974: The U.S. and Iran reach a provisional agreement for the U.S. to supply two nuclear power plants and enriched uranium fuel to Iran. In the 1970s, Iran pursues other nuclear power deals with Germany, France and South Africa, among other allies.
1975: The Shah says his country has "no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons but if small states began building them, then Iran might have to reconsider its policy." Later in the '70s, the U.S. obtains intelligence data indicating that the Shah has set up a clandestine nuclear weapons development program.
1978: President Jimmy Carter and the Shah agree on a plan for Iran to purchase between up to eight light water nuclear reactors, pending approval by Congress.
Just Thinking That Maybe, Just Maybe, Once again on a world view, we did this to ourselves by having the wrong people in power for us, Again.

Sources: James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies/NTI, Council on Foreign Relations, Stratfor.com, Globalsecurity.org



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


I don't see the EU taking the lead on Iran or any other major issue. It would be nice if they did.


Sarkozy is now reportedly saying that Iran is definitely going for nuclear weapons.

Will he or Merkel do anything? Doubtful. They don't have a dog in that fight.

jw



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

"We cannot let Iran acquire nuclear" weapons because it would also be a threat to Israel, he added. ~ Sarkozy

www.jpost.com...

This is the only reason there would be a war.
A war that Israel has wanted for decades.

Why can Israel have nukes (200+) and yet Iran can have none?

Hypocrisy.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


Why can Israel have nukes (200+) and yet Iran can have none?


I don't think that Israeli leaders have vowed to "wipe" any other nations "off the face of the Earth." Or offered rewards for the murder of their people.

I could be wrong.

jw



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join