Upcoming Iranian Nuclear talks.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The same UN that the US et al ignored when they went to war against Iraq in 2003? The same UN that the the US shields the state of Israel from regularly. Such hypocrisy.

The US and co like to throw about terms such as 'the will of international community' and other such faux displays of global unity. You will note that the non-aligned movement (which makes up the majority of the states on the planet) often do not subscribe to what the US describes as breaches of international norms.

Finally we get to the heart of your argument!

You dont think Iran should have to listen or abide by international rules because others ignore it. I disagree. I think the mission of preventing more people having nuclear weapons is far more important than people complaining about things being unfair.

The international community disagrees, so its a moot point on your part.

Something you will just have to deal with no doubt.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

When nations such as the US make demands of other countries under the threat of war the burden of proof that the risk is real and all alternatives have been exhausted falls with those who initiate the use of military force.

Whatever, you can bring that up when it comes to it.

The burden of proof rests with Iran to give the evidence required to lift the sanctions, it is entirelly easy for them to do so - if of course they are not seeking nuclear weapons.

Why does that have anything to do with it being a good idea to push another country, a non signatory of the relevant treaty, to do something on nothing more than basically the threat of continued Iranian enrichment/ un co operation, and the consuences of doing so?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Again you are wilfully ignoring the context of western aggression against Iran and a long history of meddling, to put it mildly, in the M.E. in general.

Stop using it as a defence for a nations push for nuclear weapons, or their continuing threats to foreign states. You might feel it is the sole cause for their actions, again it is irrelevant. THAT is why I "Willfully ignore" your caricature of history.

Why are you so convinced you own emotional position towards history and international relations is or should be a powerful argument for people acting or not acting a particular way, or for a particular international response to be appropriate?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I have no personal dislike against the people of the US or Israel so you can quit with your misrepresentation right there. The wars in Iraq and Afgh have been a disaster for the US in terms of blood, treasure and standing on the international stage. I am sympathetic to the people of Israel and would love to see them live in security and peace. I find the treatment of the Palestinians abhorrent and I believe Israeli aggression against its neighbours has gone too far but that does not make me anti-Israel by any rational person's standards.

Not what I said, all irrelevant except that you deem it fair to ignore the real fears of those countries because of their history with the state seeking to aquire weapons that would almost certainly be pointed at them.

You cant see how your opinion that Iran is acting rationally doesnt even come into the equation in how they react to it?

Completly disagree on Afghanistan, though I dont think anyone should have bothered trying to create a working democratic state in the region, THAT was a failure and a waste of lives. Anyway, its a complete red herring.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Now this ^^ just cannot be taken seriously. The narrative is the narrative. You do not get to choose the chronological parameters of the debate about the history of Iran and the west.

And you do not get to choose what nation should abide by certain rules, or how it is "fair" for nations to act based on it.

That you deem it necesarry to toss them a bone, regardless of the damage done (or more importanly what it could do) in the region and the world, because you think they were treated badly fifty years ago is, I think youll agree, a sh*t argument.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No. I believe that nuclear proliferation is bad. Focussing on Iran's nuclear ambitions while ignoring the historical context of western aggression, Israeli nukes, is tunnel vision and intellectually lazy.

To ignore Iranian aggression deliberatly to create your own one sided narrative is dishonest, and further, dangerous if it ever was used by anyone that made policy.

I know all about it, and dont see how or why it would mean the US or the West would not deal with Iran in exactly the fashion they are, much less forcing Israel to do something lest Iran pull the trigger.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You haven't and I don't think you can. Of all the people I have debated with on this forum I find your use of language the most difficult to decipher. Lots of words with very little substance. I have to read what you have written about 3 times before I can make head-or-tail of it and much of it still remains obtuse.

I find your analysis of international politics and history one sided and motivated by partisanship, your constant red herrings irritating, your inability to fact check (often over an embrassing number of posts) and your inability to address the actual issues tiring, but I like to make an effort.

To put it bluntly, I dont care - Ive done well enough in college and do well enough now to know my writing style makes perfect sense at the levels that matter.


Your yet to actually address the point made, or even give one reason why this is a good idea beyond its ability to allow Iran to save face. Making The Guardian readers nod sagely is not a good reason, Im afraid.

Try and imagine the idea like a snooker ball, you just hit the white with forcing Israel to be more open, on the threat of Irans continuing program. Now tell me which balls will move, and which exactly will be good for everyone, or anyone besides Iran.

RichieC wrote: »

What kind of bomb uses 20% enriched uranium anyway? .

The most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3 to 5%

For a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable), in theory even lower enrichment is sufficient for bomb making.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Dialogue is a plus at least, hopefully it may lead to a resolution of some sort.

Let's not kid ourselves. They had talks about having more talks. Lather, rinse, repeat. The problem is the P5+1 are hung up on an alleged nuclear-weapons program but as far as Iran is concerned there is nothing to resolve.

"What we are here to do is to find ways in which we can build confidence between us and ways in which we can demonstrate that Iran is moving away from a nuclear-weapons program," Mrs. Ashton said before entering the talks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303624004577341732619889346.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The P5+1 want to find a way to demonstrate Iran is "moving away" from an alleged nuclear-weapons program? That is clearly an irrational negotiating position and makes it very unlikely these talks will yield any major breakthrough.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I really hope something comes of these talks in spite of the doomsayers in the fawning corporate media.

The New York times are really showing a great deal of bigotry imho. Taqiya was used by Shia's. when they were a minority in Sunni dominated Muslim countries, to lie and say they were Sunni, so they wouldn't be killed, when Shia's were persecuted for there beliefs.

Pretty nasty for the New York times to resort to lies about what that is, and imho it ruins there credibility, when they resort to bigotry and lies. A lot of the US media in the past were pretty unquestioning cheer leaders for the Iraq war for the Bush admin, and in this case we see the US media cheer leading another way, against the current admin. IMHO, the US media has lost a lot of credibility due to there war mongering.

The Israeli wrote: »

Let's wait and see what all this brings before we open champagnes.

Who's opening champagne?

I think you should pay more attention to what Amano said instead of relying on quotes from shadowy unnamed "Western diplomats" who only want to foster disbelief.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4236554,00.html

That's what I was talking about.

The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said Thursday that new satellite images indicate that Iran is continuing in its efforts to "destroy evidence" of suspected nuclear activity.
"The images shows what appears to be further sanitization activity at the site in the Parchin military complex, where Iran is suspected to have conducted high explosive tests pertinent to the development of nuclear weapons," ISIS said.
UN nuclear watchdog stated that "based on satellite imagery, at this location, where virtually no activity had been observed for a number of years, the buildings of interest to the Agency are now subject to extensive activities that could hamper the Agency’s ability to undertake effective verification."
Western envoys who attended Wednesday's briefing said that two small side buildings at the Parchin military facility had been removed and ISIS said that they "have been completely razed."
The disclosure followed inconclusive talks between Iran and six world powers in Baghdad last week to address concerns about the nature of its nuclear activities, which Iran says are aimed at generating electricity.
"Heavy machinery tracks and extensive evidence of earth displacement is also visible throughout the interior as well as the exterior of the site's perimeter," the think-tank said.
The UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly asked Iran for access to Parchin as part of a long-stalled probe into suspicions that Tehran may be seeking the ability to assemble nuclear bombs, should it decide to do so.
The Islamic state has so far refused to let inspectors visit the facility – which it describes as a conventional military complex – saying there must first be a broader framework agreement on how to address the IAEA's questions.
Iran's IAEA envoy, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, dismissed such accusations by Western officials, telling reporters after the briefing at IAEA headquarters that "this kind of noise and allegations are baseless."

wes wrote: »

OK, but the problem is that this is a military base, and what there doing could be anything. Jumping to the conclusion of a cover up is imho a bit silly, especially as Iran did allow in inspectors there before, and they found nothing.

Maybe, but the problem is that if only authorized nuclear facilities for visits will be visited, and they would be prepared for the visits beforehand then all this inspections are of no use, and give Iran time to develop military nuclear projects (if they do) in the meanwhile.

wes wrote: »

Well the people who wanted military sites exempted was the US and Russia. If such an exemption makes the NPT useless, well we know who is to blame.

What's the alternative? It's better than doing nothing at all.
The Iranians are playing games, and the west should keep all options open. I don't know why this statement should anger anyone who opposes nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranian regime.