Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 55

Thread: Why use force when talk works so well?

  1. #1
    Ubi dubium ibi libertas Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    04 Sep 03
    Location
    Boston, MA, USPRA
    Posts
    4,789

    Why use force when talk works so well?

    Iran to defy EU by resuming nuclear activity
    Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:14 PM EDT

    By Parisa Hafezi

    TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said on Sunday it would resume sensitive nuclear activities at once without waiting for EU compromise proposals, a move that the EU said was "unnecessary and damaging" and could derail their talks.

    Iran said it was acting after the EU failed to meet a deadline set by Tehran to deliver an offer to break the impasse.

    But the British Foreign Office said the EU -- represented by Britain, France and Germany -- had informed Iran that "full and detailed proposals" would be delivered in a week.

    The EU plans to offer economic and political incentives in return for Iran's indefinite suspension of uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel reprocessing and related activities.

    "We urge them not to take any unilateral step which would contravene the Paris agreement as that would make it very difficult to continue with the ... negotiations," it said.

    A senior Iranian nuclear official told Reuters on condition of anonymity: "As we did not receive the EU proposals, naturally we will definitely resume work at the Isfahan plant tomorrow."

    The EU and the United States suspect Iran is trying to build a nuclear arsenal and say if Iran restarts uranium conversion or enrichment, they will ask the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

    Tehran insists its program is peaceful and it only wants nuclear power to generate electricity.

    SANCTIONS?

    In Paris last November, Iran committed "on a voluntary basis, to continue and extend its suspension to include all enrichment related and reprocessing activities" and "all tests or production at any uranium conversion installation."

    The agreement also states: "The suspension will be sustained while negotiations proceed on a mutually acceptable agreement on long-term arrangements."

    It was unclear whether the EU would now submit its proposals.

    "Should the Iranians persist, we will as a first step consult urgently with our partners on the board of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)," the Foreign Office said.

    The IAEA board can recommend Iran be referred to the U.N. Security Council which could then vote to impose sanctions.

    But Iran said earlier it had little to fear from referral to the U.N. Security Council.

    "There is no legal basis for Iran's case to be referred to the U.N. Security Council. Besides, being referred to the council is not the end of the world. Some officials even believe it is better to be referred to the council," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a news conference.

    Russia and China, which both hold a veto as permanent members of the council, have close trade links with Iran and are less keen on the idea of sanctions than other members.

    But an EU diplomat close to the talks said two years of hard-bargaining with Iran over nuclear activities it kept secret for 18 years had seen a closer consensus emerge among Security Council members on the possible need for sanctions.

    (Additional reporting by Jon Hemming in Tehran and Madeline Chambers in London)

    http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/New...mber=1&summit=
    "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
    "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    NEVER FORGET

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    5,921
    Iran is going to have a 100 warheads and a devivery system long before the EU and/or U.N. can come to an agreement on what needs to happen in Iran. The blackmail Iran is using on the EU is sickening and clearly shows the ineffectiveness of the EU.

  3. #3
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional Shek's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 05
    Location
    Krblachistan
    Posts
    11,636
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead
    Iran is going to have a 100 warheads and a devivery system long before the EU and/or U.N. can come to an agreement on what needs to happen in Iran. The blackmail Iran is using on the EU is sickening and clearly shows the ineffectiveness of the EU.
    If they keep this up, I agree that Iran will have 100 warheads when all is said and done. However, they won't be able to reuse the delivery systems.

  4. #4
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Iyatollah, coming soon to an Iranian city near you.


  5. #5
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    23 Nov 03
    Posts
    2,045
    The EU isn't a military organisation and doesn't have a military mandate for intervention. Hence it can only use words and sanctions.

    The US on the other hand isn't averse to some interventionism. But it should get its skates on, since it won't want to attack once Iran has the capability.

  6. #6
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    05 Nov 04
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    Iyatollah, coming soon to an Iranian city near you.


    and one wonders why the iranians are so keen to have nukes....

    i'm intrigued to know why action against iran is considered so urgent while it doesn't have nukes - and won't have weaponised nukes for years, yet north korea - a nation that has weaponised nukes and a track record of both instability and flogging nuclear technology to the higest bidder - seems to be off the 'intervention' radar....

    if one was rabidly off ones rocker one might be forgiven for thinking that the united states only attacks 'rogue' countries that don't stand a chance but leaves the greater, more serious, threats alone.

    but of course no one really thinks that.
    before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    23 Nov 03
    Posts
    2,045
    After Afghanistan, Iran was the next main target for the "War on Terror". Problem was Iraq had to be dealt with first from a strategic point of view irrespsctive of its position in the War on Terror and hence the somewhat hastey information gathering that didn't stand up.

    The Iranians are providing the "dark side" justification themselves, by pushing for Nukes. Syria might have got to the top of the US list, were it not for the Iranian nuke issue.

    NK is a harder target, but it is also a less important one in the current climate.

  8. #8
    Patron
    Join Date
    13 Feb 05
    Posts
    245
    F that Kim is a huge ass, and he deserves a smart bomb to land in his kimchi! But in the current climate a divided Korean is much more acceptable to the world, I am very concerned that a united Korea would be a threat to both China and Japan.

  9. #9
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    26 Aug 03
    Posts
    3,169
    Quote Originally Posted by dave angel
    and one wonders why the iranians are so keen to have nukes....

    i'm intrigued to know why action against iran is considered so urgent while it doesn't have nukes -
    If they get one, they could kill millions of American citizens, that is unacceptable.

  10. #10
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    05 Nov 04
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by Praxus
    If they get one, they could kill millions of American citizens, that is unacceptable.

    'if they get one'.

    a) there is a timescale involved.

    b) iran, while not a democracy by any stetch of the imagination, has a government that is vastly closer to 'the people' than north korea has. suicide bombing - for that is what such an iranian attack would be - is not something done by those who feel connected to their society.

    none of those conditions could be said to apply to the north korean government.

    the iranian government has few reasons to attack the US with a nuke and lots of reasons not to. iran also has other enemies than the US - heretical as it may seem to some americans, theirs is not the only country in the world - pakistan has nukes, as does israel. iran has no nukes and an airforce that no one would describe as first-class, israel has 200 (at least) weaponised nukes and a very well equipped and trained airforce. yet iran is a threat to israel...

    'they could kill millions of american citizens'.

    so could we. we have 192 nukes on trident D5 SLBM's.

    what'cha gonna do?
    before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

  11. #11
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,042
    dave, the difference is intentions. America and Israel have no intention of nuking Iran or of using nuclear blackmail against Iran.

  12. #12
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    23 Nov 03
    Posts
    2,045
    Not sure i would put that much faith in Israel avoiding a pre-emptive strike.

    Regarding nuclear blackmail. That is a two way street. Its entirely acceptable for a country to want to defend itself (such as the US and Israel having nukes). Being coerced (by say the US) to give up some of that defence is the corollary to said blackmail - and a situation Iran faces.

  13. #13
    Staff Emeritus Confed999's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 03
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    10,026
    Quote Originally Posted by dave angel
    so could we. we have 192 nukes on trident D5 SLBM's.
    Nobody thinks you're insane enough to start lobbing them about though...
    Quote Originally Posted by Trooth
    and a situation Iran faces.
    Ummm, didn't they sign the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation" treaty? Hard to make it blackmail with that in mind.
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor Asim Aquil's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jun 04
    Location
    Dubai
    Posts
    2,034
    Actually I'd support Iran here, they asked for some conventional goodies and economic benefits if the EU wanted them to stop with their nuclear plan and actually thats what was agreed upon.

    Not much was given, a deal is a deal. They did suspend major work on their nukes since november now didn't they? Who knows with enough supply of conventional power, oil deals, and some trade, they might just be willing to get their nuclear system dismantled. You see Iranians just don't see Americans and the Europe as a threat, or Israel. They've got major problems with the Arabs as well. They've got a lot more reasons to go nuclear, than not to. If the EU doesn't want them to go nuclear, they've got to tilt them by putting more things on their side of the scale.

  15. #15
    Ubi dubium ibi libertas Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    04 Sep 03
    Location
    Boston, MA, USPRA
    Posts
    4,789
    "They've got a lot more reasons to go nuclear, than not to"

    I wonder what reason balances: the US will end Iranís farce of a government if they do.
    "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
    "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    NEVER FORGET

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Random Thoughts on the Mighty Hog - Part 2
    By Shipwreck in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 219
    Last Post: 12 Dec 17,, 00:10
  2. US Air Force loses out in Iraq war
    By troung in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20 Dec 06,, 01:59
  3. PLAN Analysis
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12 Jun 06,, 20:05
  4. Zaraqawi shat his pants
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10 May 06,, 07:59

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •