Talking to Iran - more foreign policy - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

tankdriver · #1 10-02-2009, 10:48 AM

Iran accepted a deal to ship most of its current enriched uranium stockpile to Russia to be refined to a point where it can only be used for energy purposes. The deal was announced after 7 1/2 hrs of talks in Geneva, involving high level US and Iranian officials. Iran also pledged to allow inspectors in a few weeks into the nuclear facility revealed recently.
The Russian refined uranium will go to France to be made into fuel rods and sent back to Iran to power a research reactor used to make isotopes for nuclear medicine.

Iran did not make any concession regarding its continuing to enrich uranium, and reiterated their right to pursue nuclear technology.

(Columbus Dispatch)

Looks like talking can accomplish something. Who would've thought? Besides liberals, that is.

lutzTD · #2 10-02-2009, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Iran accepted a deal to ship most of its current enriched uranium stockpile to Russia to be refined to a point where it can only be used for energy purposes. The deal was announced after 7 1/2 hrs of talks in Geneva, involving high level US and Iranian officials. Iran also pledged to allow inspectors in a few weeks into the nuclear facility revealed recently.
The Russian refined uranium will go to France to be made into fuel rods and sent back to Iran to power a research reactor used to make isotopes for nuclear medicine.

Iran did not make any concession regarding its continuing to enrich uranium, and reiterated their right to pursue nuclear technology.

(Columbus Dispatch)

Looks like talking can accomplish something. Who would've thought? Besides liberals, that is.

i would say the timing has more to do with it than the actual discussion. Irans president is on thin ice at home, and O is not Bush who Iran did not want to give a deal to no matter what

tankdriver · #3 10-02-2009, 01:12 PM

Of course. It couldn't possibly be an accomplishment.

First, get Russia and France to agree to stronger anti-nuclear language re: Iran. Then hit them with the secret facility they are forced to denounce. Then broker a deal where Russia and France are ~responsible for Iran having no weapons grade uranium.

Yeah, it's because Ahmedinejad is worried about more protests.

I'm thinking it turns out there may be something to this whole foreign policy thing.

Brandon_SLC · #4 10-03-2009, 01:54 AM

I have been closely observing Iran for over a decade. Don't be deceived by appearances. They can't be trusted in any way shape or form.

I'm not going to bother with trying to convince anyone they are wrong. Time will do that for me.

Iran will get their bombs. They are also one of the few countries, if any, who would use them.

Regime Change before they have a chance to use them is probably the only hope. Bombing their facilities would only slow them down.

Ahmadinejad isn't the real leader of Iran, he's little more than a puppet or pet monkey.

aklim · #5 10-03-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Looks like talking can accomplish something. Who would've thought? Besides liberals, that is.

Worked well with North Korea, didn't it? Lets wait a few years before we start the High Fives, back slapping and patting. Remember North Korea and their agreement? Can someone refresh my memory on how it worked out? IIRC, they accepted a deal in 94 to freeze their nuclear ambitions for economic aid. A lot of "Attaboys" were going around too. How did that deal turn out? IIRC, we found out they were lying all along. Yes, talking accomplishes something. The question is what it is accomplishing. That cannot be measured until we are sure the deal is being complied with. Words are meaningless.

cmac2012 · #6 10-04-2009, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Of course. It couldn't possibly be an accomplishment.

First, get Russia and France to agree to stronger anti-nuclear language re: Iran. Then hit them with the secret facility they are forced to denounce. Then broker a deal where Russia and France are ~responsible for Iran having no weapons grade uranium.

Yeah, it's because Ahmedinejad is worried about more protests.

I'm thinking it turns out there may be something to this whole foreign policy thing.

Scrapping the senseless missile defense systems in Eastern Europe was a good move. We would not respond well to such things in Cuba.

cmac2012 · #7 10-04-2009, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandon_SLC

I have been closely observing Iran for over a decade. Don't be deceived by appearances. They can't be trusted in any way shape or form.

I'm not going to bother with trying to convince anyone they are wrong. Time will do that for me.

Iran will get their bombs. They are also one of the few countries, if any, who would use them.

Regime Change before they have a chance to use them is probably the only hope. Bombing their facilities would only slow them down.

Ahmadinejad isn't the real leader of Iran, he's little more than a puppet or pet monkey.

Forcible regime change would be a disaster. Covert action and dirty tricks perhaps worse. Already did that once.

I think it's a mistake to assume that the people, or even the leaders, of Iran are lying snakes, end of story. The old ways are the best ways. We need to treat them as if their interests and fears are as worthy of note as are ours.

Brandon_SLC · #8 10-04-2009, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Forcible regime change would be a disaster. Covert action and dirty tricks perhaps worse. Already did that once.

I think it's a mistake to assume that the people, or even the leaders, of Iran are lying snakes, end of story. The old ways are the best ways. We need to treat them as if their interests and fears are as worthy of note as are ours.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Kuan · #9 10-04-2009, 07:12 AM

Iran has a pretty good track record really. They've never started a war in recent history.

link · #10 10-04-2009, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Looks like talking can accomplish something. Who would've thought? Besides liberals, that is.

This is great news. It is always worth while to maintain a dialog.

Iran leaders have to know that if they continue to stall or maintain a bellicose posture that they’ll have at least 2 countries that will send cruse missiles, at the very least.

BUT, once again, they leaders have more fuk you money than most other countries, and no one has a compelling reason to trust their in their good intent.
So there is no downside to dialog, and hopefully a nudge from France and Russia will keep warfare from breaking out.

The key question is if the leaders are ultimately suicidal. We know that they committed massive fraud at the last election. That’s telling and not in a good way.

aklim · #11 10-04-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I think it's a mistake to assume that the people, or even the leaders, of Iran are lying snakes, end of story.

So their election says what about them? Like I said, lets see what they DO instead of what they say they will do and then decide if it worked or not.

Hatterasguy · #12 10-04-2009, 11:20 AM

Its a step in the right direction. Time will tell if they are lieing or whatnot.

aklim · #13 10-04-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Its a step in the right direction. Time will tell if they are lieing or whatnot.

Yes, it is an INDICATION of steps in the right direction. When they have fully complied, it will mean something. Otherwise, it is just North Korea II. If you take 1 step forward and 1 step back, it doesn't mean a thing. Right now, all we have are words. Lets even see some sort of action before we start the back slapping and high fives, shall we?

Here is another step in the right direction.

The Saying: DON'T COUNT YOUR CHICKENS BEFORE THEY ARE HATCHED.
Who Said It: Aesop
When: c. 570 B.C.

The Story behind It: This saying occurs in the fable "The Milkmaid and Her Pail." Patty, a farmer's daughter, is daydreaming as she walks to town with a pail of milk balanced on her head. Her thoughts: "The milk in this pail will provide me with cream, which I will make into butter, which I will sell in the market, and buy a dozen eggs, which will hatch into chickens, which will lay more eggs, and soon I shall have a large poultry yard. I'll sell some of the fowls and buy myself a handsome new gown and go to the fair, and when the young fellows try to make love to me, I'll toss my head and pass them by." At that moment, Patty tossed her head and lost the pailful of milk. Her mother admonished, "Do not count your chickens before they are hatched."

cmac2012 · #14 10-04-2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandon_SLC

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I wasn't aware that I had. You mentioned regime change. I openly speculated about possibilities in that vein.

Elaborate on 'regime change.'

If you dare, sir.

tankdriver · #15 10-04-2009, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Yes, it is an INDICATION of steps in the right direction. When they have fully complied, it will mean something. Otherwise, it is just North Korea II. If you take 1 step forward and 1 step back, it doesn't mean a thing. Right now, all we have are words. Lets even see some sort of action before we start the back slapping and high fives, shall we?

Here is another step in the right direction.

The Saying: DON'T COUNT YOUR CHICKENS BEFORE THEY ARE HATCHED.
Who Said It: Aesop
When: c. 570 B.C.

First you have to strike a bargain before you can hold someone to one. No one said this was the end, but it's clearly a step forward and evidence that talks led to said step forward. Credit where credit's due. No one is under any illusion that the job is done.