Iran's economic sanctions have been softened since June in back door deals with US government with

matafuchs
Link

Propaganda? So, do we believe the leader of Iran or do we believe the IAEA when they state that the technology is there and has been for over a decade but it will not be used by a nation who is scared to death of an attack by the US or Israel. If they did NOT build them they would be stupid quite frankly.

I mean, what do you really think Iran would say? That they are? The evidence is there that they have.

Link

The Russian scientist showed Iranian counterparts techniques that could be used to make smaller nuclear weapons capable of bigger explosions, according to the officials, who have been briefed on the UN atomic agency’s eight-year probe. They spoke on the condition of anonymity, following diplomatic rules for discussing private information.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is scheduled to publish this week its quarterly report on Iran’s nuclear work, in which inspectors are expected to conclude for the first time that Iran is working toward nuclear weapons. The IAEA was “increasingly concerned about the possible existence” of weapons work in its last report issued in September.
Separately, a U.S. intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss classified information, said the U.S. hasn’t changed its judgment since a November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate and an update last year. Those reports concluded that Iran has been keeping open its options by developing capabilities short of a decision by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to build nuclear weapons.

I changed the title of this thread to show what this is really about. The fact that the US has been dealing with a new leader softening sanctions yet they are still moving forward with a program that can and will eventually produce nuclear weapons. It is a matter of time. Another line in the sand that will blow away...like Syria.

I think that I will NOT listen to a country who has chosen to not talk to us in close to 20 years...and how about that hostage crisis back in the day. Yeah, we can trust these guys with...

edit on 11am30amfu2013-11-08T10:55:32-06:001032 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)

The IAEA? The same organisation which does absolutely nothing to combat Israels illegal nuke stockpile? Yep, I guess they must be the ones to believe here.

It really is just as simple as that folks. We can gloss over the bit where the US toppled the democratically elected and very popular government of Iran, replaced it with a hideous dictator, then just to add salt to the wounds, blasted them with decades of sanctions, funded Iraqs war on them and surrounded their country with your military. Don't you people watch fox news like the OP?

reply to post by Act1Scene1


Oh, you mean like we helped topple Libya into chaos, let Egypt descent into chaos, tried and are still trying to let Syria devolve into madness ... ignored the Iranians when they tried to have their own uprising before the so-called Arab Spring ...

Look, every move this administration has made so far in the Middle East turned out to be pretty bad. Do you seriously expect this one to be any different?

I am frightened that there are posters who 'believe' what the Iranians are telling us. They stated almost 3 decades ago "We do not want these nuclear weapons as it is against the Muslim belief".

So, where in the Koran does it state that? We are supposed to believe them on this but not believe that all those who are not Islamic are infidels which, sorry to tell you, IS in the Koran. Non believers.

Picking and choosing is what you are doing and that is scarier than anyone watching an episode of Bill O'Reilly....

reply to post by matafuchs


So instead of showing a little trust, we should bomb the hell out of them? Get into another war in the ME? Topple another government and let the chaos reign. Sounds like a good time.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Did I say anywhere we should bomb anyone? I am saying we should not trust them.

reply to post by matafuchs


If we don't, and we keep the sanctions in place, we're creating Japan before WWII all over again. We're going to end up having to fight them because they will have no choice if they want to survive.

Or we can show a little trust, and possibly end up with a more stable Middle East, and who knows, a pretty good trading partner.

No one has said lift the sanctions add trust them completely, but this was is a HELL of lot better than the alternative.

reply to post by matafuchs


I don't think anyone completely trusts anyone - look at how much trust the US has placed in it's so called 'allies', spying on anyone and everyone for years - do you honestly think the US is going to take anything Iran says on trust alone?

But if we aren't going to break out of this constant cycle of mistrust and confrontation then we achieve nothing by maintaining the status quo and all the death and misery and complete bloody waste that goes along with it.
If that mindset prevailed we'd still be living in The Cold War along with the constant threat of M.A.D.

These are preliminary negotiations, nothing more. I suspect there will be a lot of talk before any deal is agreed - surely you can see the progress made in starting these talks and the possible benefits for all concerned that may eventually go with them, or would you prefer the status quo and the inevitable confrontation that would go with it?

matafuchs


I think that I will NOT listen to a country who has chosen to not talk to us in close to 20 years...

So when the US of A goes to war with Iran you will be the first to volenteer for the front lines right?

g146541
reply to post by Fylgje

 

I agree that NO country should possess nukes, however the sad truth is the cat is out of the bag.
We just need to be mindful to not step in the cat scat.

The best solution would be ban all nukes everywere and place all the currnet nukes under UN control (on a team made up of Gennrals from all on the security council) with the madate to nuke any country who ever illgealy developes WMD's and uses them.

MAD will still be implace but not one country or small group would have a monopoly over it.

reply to post by Freeborn


Valerie Jarrett was another point in the OP. You can 'trust' someone but you do not have to believe them or not prepare for an end result or specific outcomes. Libya turned out real well.

I just find it odd that after so many years we are suddenly at a point where our government is doing things against the grain while there is someone in the POTUS's ear that is an Iranian by birth with parents who tried to 'help jumpstart the country and sure would not want to see harm as well as want sanctions to be undone.

I do not want to country to starve but then again, that is a misnomer in it's own right of some of you 'read' where the Iranians are. They are a proud people who I think when it comes to nuclear arms and the possibility of their creation should not be trusted based on the position they are in. Surrounded by those that are scared they may have those weapons in development.

Also, I am not advocating war. Nowhere have I stated that. I am advocating for NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS...my god some of you regurgitate what I am stating like MSNBC and the other MSM rags....

crazyewok

g146541
reply to post by Fylgje

 

I agree that NO country should possess nukes, however the sad truth is the cat is out of the bag.
We just need to be mindful to not step in the cat scat.

The best solution would be ban all nukes everywere and place all the currnet nukes under UN control (on a team made up of Gennrals from all on the security council) with the madate to nuke any country who ever illgealy developes WMD's and uses them.

MAD will still be implace but not one country or small group would have a monopoly over it.

You really don't know much about the UN do you?
No country should ever trust the UN or NATO, they only kill civilians and never help.
Ban them all you like, the cat is out of the bag and others will still get them.
We just need to learn to live with them.

Is anything in these "talks" addressing the Iran/Petrodollar boycott ?

Or the fact that Iran shuns the Bank for International Settlements ?

Maybe the "negotiations" have a different agenda and what we see in the MSM is more smokescreen tactics.

reply to post by matafuchs

I just find it odd that after so many years we are suddenly at a point where our government is doing things against the grain .....

Against who's or what grain?
Your's?

It's called progress or diplomacy or even mutual compromise.
Whatever it is if it paves the way towards a peaceful solution and improved relations then I'm all for it.
It may not work out - but at least people have tried to talk and negotiate

....while there is someone in the POTUS's ear that is an Iranian by birth with parents who tried to 'help jumpstart the country and sure would not want to see harm as well as want sanctions to be undone.

So you mistrust Valerie Jarett's heritage?
What little I know of her suggests to me that she's everything America should be proud of and I certainly don't see any reason why she would want to be furthering or aiding Islamic fundamentalists at the expense or detriment of the USA or even Israel.

I do not want to country to starve but then again, that is a misnomer in it's own right of some of you 'read' where the Iranians are.

So you dispute that sanctions are beginning to hit the ordinary, everyday Iranians hard?
What makes you think that?

They are a proud people....

Indeed, and rightly so.

.... who I think when it comes to nuclear arms and the possibility of their creation should not be trusted based on the position they are in. Surrounded by those that are scared they may have those weapons in development.

Iran itself has no stated expansionist policy - it has however expressed it's intent to be able to defend it's own borders - don't you think it has a right to do that?

Also, I am not advocating war. Nowhere have I stated that. I am advocating for NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS

What, anywhere for anyone or just for Iran because you don't trust them?

...my god some of you regurgitate what I am stating like MSNBC and the other MSM rags....

I suspect my personal opinion is quite at odds to that of the vast majority of MSM.

Please give me one rational reason why there is anything wrong with entering into preliminary talks with Iran with the specific aim of eventually coming to a mutually agreeable solution to the current problem of Iran's nuclear weapon development programme.

matafuchs
I am advocating for NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS...

I dont want a possibley extrmist muslim country haveing nukes. But I also dont want a extremist Jewish nation haveing nukes either!

No, I do not trust Valerie Jarrett and not because she was born there but if there was a JEwish national in the POTUS ear advocating a strike I am sure you would have an issue with it.

Talks? There have been decades of talks as well as them working with the Soviets to use the technology that they are developing not for energy purposes. They are sitting on the largest oil deposits anywhere and have PLENTY of sunlight for solar research, which is much safer than nuclear technology. How about dams? How about wind? Please, they have been in the nuke business for decades and now, when threatened, kick it into overdrive and are refining weapons grade materials. That is what the discussions that they are not engaging in are referencing.

UN sanctions do nothing...nothing. They need to stop what they are doing or open up access, full access, to their program.

The ISraelis are who you should look to for better intel than the US can obtain. Operation Orchard. They saw something that should not happen and dealt with it. The fact the middle east was silent after the strike shows it was justified. Could have been that and not chemical weapons the line in the sand was drawn against.

What about Operation Opera? Again, if there is something it will be dealt with and should. The last people on the planet that needs nuclear arms are radical Islamists. Notice I say radicals. Seems the Iranians and the ISraelis were buddies then but what about now?

reply to post by Freeborn


I highly respect you opinion, but Valerie Jarrett?

example
patdollard.com...

Jarrett is the one who advised Obama “do not cooperate one iota on ObamaCare. Don’t given an inch. Let the Republicans stew in their own juice,“ Klein said.

Her reputation in Chicago is rotten. She is the kind of person that will negotiate with Iran but not republicans for the benefit of our own country.

I don't trust any of these players on the world stage at this point in history.

No one wants more war, no one, if Obama's hand is in it, it seems only bad things happen, look at Egypt, look at Syria, Libya.

Egypt turns to Russia as relations with Washington sour
www.ft.com...

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I disagree. I don't jnow if they want them, but I don't think they are pursuing them. I think you woul have to be naive to trust Israel or the Wests opinion on the matter.

The link you posted does not back up your statement.

matafuchs
No, I do not trust Valerie Jarrett and not because she was born there but if there was a JEwish national in the POTUS ear advocating a strike I am sure you would have an issue with it.

Well, you might want to see this:
www.youtube.com...
(Comming from a CIA operative, it DOES say a lot! As a plus, you can see just whom US lawmakers are REALLY working for) $$$

matafuchsTalks? There have been decades of talks as well as them working with the Soviets to use the technology that they are developing not for energy purposes. They are sitting on the largest oil deposits anywhere and have PLENTY of sunlight for solar research, which is much safer than nuclear technology. How about dams? How about wind? Please, they have been in the nuke business for decades and now, when threatened, kick it into overdrive and are refining weapons grade materials. That is what the discussions that they are not engaging in are referencing.

That just doesn't make any sense to me.
If the Soviets (earlier) or the Russians (now) wanted Iran to have nukes they could just give them some. They had&have PLENTY to spare...
And, as far as I know: The Sun shines everywhere, there's water everywhere, many nations have oil, and the wind blows in every country. Yet many nations (other than Iran) have nuclear reactors. Why single them out?!

matafuchsUN sanctions do nothing...nothing. They need to stop what they are doing or open up access, full access, to their program.

UN sanctions do a LOT! They hurt the ordinary Iranians. And that pleases Israel a lot, it seems.

And, the basic principle in law is EQUALITY!
If Israel has nukes, and is ready to use them, AND is threatening Iran all the time, why should Iran not have them?!
Imagine if your neighbor had the right to beat you or abuse you whenever he pleases to do so, but whenever you hint at trying to DEFEND yourself, you're sanctioned in some way...does that make ANY SENSE to you?!
Plus, Israel didn't sign the NPT and Iran did. Why should Iran be monitored and Israel shouldn't? It makes no sense!

matafuchsThe ISraelis are who you should look to for better intel than the US can obtain. Operation Orchard. They saw something that should not happen and dealt with it. The fact the middle east was silent after the strike shows it was justified. Could have been that and not chemical weapons the line in the sand was drawn against.

What about Operation Opera? Again, if there is something it will be dealt with and should. The last people on the planet that needs nuclear arms are radical Islamists. Notice I say radicals. Seems the Iranians and the ISraelis were buddies then but what about now?

So, according to you, Israel has a right to defend itself (even preemptively), but Iran has no right to defend itself what-so-ever?!
Seems to me, that sort of inequality is the way to go, if you want a war that is...

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I think you would have to be naive to trust any of them at this point.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I don't trust any of them, but you can observe their actions and it points to Israel creating the problems.