Nuclear Talks with Iran Collapse

Nuclear Talks with Iran Collapse

www.voanews.com

Talks in Istanbul, Turkey between the international community and Iran over its controversial nuclear program, have ended in failure amid mutual recriminations. The collapse in the talks, is expected to lead to further international pressure on Iran over its nuclear aspirations.

The European Union policy chief Catherine Ashton expressed frustration over the failure of the two days of talks, but said Iran was to blame.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm still a bit up in the air about all of this. On the one hand, I believe that Iran should not be granted any right to enrich uranium, or purchase enriched uranium, for nuclear power facilities. I believe that it already is their right to do so.

On the other hand, I do not believe that the UN sanctions are aimed correctly at quelling the threat of a nuclear weaponized Iran. I believe that they are focused on suppressing all nuclear avenues for the country instead. I would like to see a very specific proposal presented to Iran by the UN that states something to the effect of : "Iran shall be aided in creating a peaceful nuclear program, in return for granting complete transparency."

Is that really so hard for both parties?

There is, of course, the issue of supressing any states technology or industry for the "greater good", because it assumes that the "greater good" one speaks of is, in fact, better than the theorized alternative.

www.voanews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by sbctinfantry


Exactly. The countries with the most nuclear warheads are the ones that cry foul when another country begins to develop them.

Don't give me that BS "Iran is evil bla bla bla" that is a failed logic.

#1: We are the ones in the middle east, they do not have armies on our soil.
#2: America is the only country to have ever used nukes in time of war. Yes, more nukes than kim jong il.

I, for one, hope Iran develops nukes, and develops them quickly. Notice we don't stomp around in North Korea.
It's about defense.

So Iran is to blame. Wonder if they'll accept that blame or maybe have a different view on it.

Wish this had had a better outcome. Let's hope this doesn't trigger 5 (or is it 6 or 7 or 8) of the beating of the war drums.

Hmm, just read it again...one of the preconditions we couldn't agree to was lifting the UN sanctions? Really? Yet we can remove Taliban from the UN black list to appease murderers and criminals? And we can allow Israel to keep up its habit of ignoring sanction and mandates? Mmm okay. Also? I thought they were already exchanging enriched uranium. Surely there was more to it than this?

reply to post by sbctinfantry


i agree 100% if they want nuclear power plants let them but must agree to total tranparency of facilitys. if not they have somthing to hide.

I'm just wondering.. Are you guys supporting an Iran with peaceful nuclear energy?
Or do you wish they would get nukes?


Also, would you be angered if a "specific" airforce will destroy these nuclear factories?

What a surprise this is. One step closer to another meaningless war, unless you're with the right people and stand to earn from it.

Funnily enough Iran actualy acquiesced to all U.N and IAEA demands as long as Israel disarmed all there nuclear warheads. Surprisingly that never happend, odd that.

Theres also very good reason Iran doesnt want U.N or IAEA "inspectors" touring there nuclear facilities it essentialy allows America and Europe to spy on how advanced Russian technology is. Why would any country agree to that?

Thats a bit like Russia, China and the rest of the middle east saying to America, Yeah we demand to have a tour of your most top secret R&D facilities, if you deny us, your clearly terrorists up to no good so were going to bomb you. Sounds fair?

But lets be honest, theres one thing empires dont like, and thats competition. Cant be letting those savage idolaters get to far ahead of themselves by jingo!

Originally posted by Johnze
Funnily enough Iran actualy acquiesced to all U.N and IAEA demands as long as Israel disarmed all there nuclear warheads. Surprisingly that never happend, odd that.

Theres also very good reason Iran doesnt want U.N or IAEA "inspectors" touring there nuclear facilities it essentialy allows America and Europe to spy on how advanced Russian technology is. Why would any country agree to that?

Lol. How is it possible to contradict yourself that quick?
If Iran does not let the inspectors in it's facilities it is plain obvious it has not agreed to all of the demands now isn't it?

If Europe and America want to spy on Russian nuclear technology via inspections, Russia has got a huge problem on it's hands because Russia itself is allowing inspections.

reply to post by IsraeliGuy


Re read my post please.

So what if Iran get's a nuke, you can't drop 'em from camels!

Originally posted by Johnze
Re read my post please.

Nothing has changed except an errornous analogy.

My post still stands unanswered.

reply to post by IsraeliGuy


Sorry i thought you said i contradicted myself. Cant see where.

Id also familiarise yourself IAEA inspections lol, Russia aint exactly the most transparent of nations when it comes to nuclear facilities.

One of the demands is letting your facilities be inspected.
Saying that Iran is agreeing to all of the UN's demands, and then one paragraph after giving a reason why Iran does not let the inspections happen (eg; not agreeing to the demands), is contradicting yourself.

The reasoning is not only flawed (spying via inspections lol) but it's also irrelevant.

It does not meet the demands, period.

reply to post by IsraeliGuy



Sorry, i thought you said you re read my post. Now your just wasting my time to be honest.

Funnily enough Iran actualy acquiesced to all U.N and IAEA demands as long as Israel disarmed all there nuclear warheads. Surprisingly that never happend, odd that.

Theres also very good reason Iran doesnt want U.N or IAEA "inspectors" touring there nuclear facilities

See the bit about Israel disarming all there nuclear warheads?,

Iran had no problem with agreeing to any demand placed on them by the U.S, Europe, U.N and the IAEA

AS LONG AS ISRAEL DISARMED THERE NUCLEAR ARSENAL

Israel did not do this. So Iran does not feel obliged to adhere to many demands placed on them.

Please re read my post.

I will however give you, Iran probably knew full well, Israel would never disarm there nuclear arsenal they so effectively saying they would adhere to any and all international demands is a bit of red herring on there part but still, it was a good chance to make both Israel and America look like fools, as they often do.

Oh and IAEA inspectors have inspection Iran quite often, just not quite to the satisfaction of America, but thats another matter.

You can't really be surprised that talks have failed so soon after the Stuxnet worm had singlehandedly set back Iran's nuclear program a good 5-10 years. This was a very malicious worm which was traced back to Israel, a strong US ally. And then you have the media basically saying that it was a joint US-Israeli project. Why would Iran ever trust us after something like that?

Personally, I fully support Iran wanting to have a nuclear program. I see nothing wrong with that. Sure, they could get nuclear weapons like most of the Allied countries on the planet. But they would never use them.

These days, nuclear weapons are nothing more than a political tool. If you have them, you will always have a bargaining chip.

Could it be used for bad? Of course, it's a weapon. Could they give some of that nuclear material to extremist terrorists? Of course. But that has also been happening in Russia and states formed after the collapse of the soviet union for a few decades now.

Originally posted by IsraeliGuy
I'm just wondering.. Are you guys supporting an Iran with peaceful nuclear energy?
Or do you wish they would get nukes?


Also, would you be angered if a "specific" airforce will destroy these nuclear factories?

Being up in the air means I have not reached a logical conclusion as to what I would do, if I were in the driver's seat. For clarity, being in the driver's seat means being in a position to dictate how the scenario plays out.

I, however, will go as far as I can to answer your .. questions.

I am for liberty. First, you must get past your armchair, beer guzzling, idea of liberty. Once you can wrap your head around that, the replies to which you are referring to will become very clear.

Originally posted by Johnze
Iran had no problem with agreeing to any demand placed on them by the U.S, Europe, U.N and the IAEA

AS LONG AS ISRAEL DISARMED THERE NUCLEAR ARSENAL

Israel, fortunately enough, is not a stupid nation and for sure is not going to shut down a nuclear facility just to have the Iranian one inspected and not shut down aswell.

This still does not mean Iran meets all of the demands. It doesn't.

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
I am for liberty. First, you must get past your armchair, beer guzzling, idea of liberty. Once you can wrap your head around that, the replies to which you are referring to will become very clear.

Dodgy answers again. How cute.

It's really not that hard.
Are you supporting the creation of a peaceful nuclear energy reactor in Iran, or are you supporting nuclear bomb facility in Iran?

It's a real simple question.

Originally posted by allenidaho
You can't really be surprised that talks have failed so soon after the Stuxnet worm had singlehandedly set back Iran's nuclear program a good 5-10 years. This was a very malicious worm which was traced back to Israel, a strong US ally. And then you have the media basically saying that it was a joint US-Israeli project. Why would Iran ever trust us after something like that?

Two things here...

The Stuxnet worm was created by the US and Israel, confirmed.

Second, take two alternate scenarios that equate to the same conclusion.

Nation (A) is cyber attacked by nation (B). Nation (A) has been secretive about their nuclear program. Nation (A) benefits from exaggerating the damage, because it alleviates further scrutiny.

Nation (B) cyber attacks nation (A). Nation (B) can not possibly know the extent of the damage done, because nation (B) doesn't know how far along the nuclear program of nation (A) is to begin with. Nation (B) benefits from the stated damage, or creates it by itself.

Make sense? There is no truth in numbers, most of the time.