|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 8:02 am Post subject: Iran�s Uranium Deal a Serious Blow to War Party |
 |
|
Bring on the tri (quad?) polar world.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/05/17/irans-uranium-deal-a-serious-blow-to-war-party/
| Quote: |
In a move that will likely drive a stake into the heart of the near-term prospects for the US-backed �crippling sanctions� against Iran, Turkey and Brazil have managed to come up with a compromise deal that provides everything the Western nations claimed to have wanted from the third-party enrichment deal in the first place.
The deal was announced last night but details were only made available this morning. According to the announcement, Iran will ship 1,200 kg of its 3.5% enriched uranium to Turkey, exactly the amount sought in the P5+1 enrichment deal, and will receive fuel rods for its medical reactor one year later, again the amount of time given in the P5+1 deal.
Though the inclusion of Turkey is a new rub, everything else about the deal seems to be designed to be verbatim to the P5+1 deal in October, which the Obama Administration has repeatedly demanded Iran sign.
Iran�s problem with the initial deal with the use of France as an intermediary, as France has previously reneged on nuclear deals with Iran and was not trusted by many in the government, who thought they might simply make off with Iran�s stockpile.
Turkey on the other hand is an incredibly inconvenient intermediary for the war party, because they are simultaneously a key US-NATO ally in good standing and have trustworthy relations with Iran. Turkey would be obligated to return Iran�s uranium if the West fails to provide the fuel rods, and could likely be trusted to do so.
As Iran has now accepted the deal, President Obama will struggle to back out of it without doing serious damage both to his international reputation and to US-Turkey relations.
Western diplomats however suggested they would attempt to do just that, claiming that the 1,200 kg is no longer sufficient because, six months later, Iran has a slightly larger stockpile of low enriched uranium. This seems little more than a rhetorical obstacle, however, as the remainder of the low enriched uranium is bound for a Russian-built nuclear power plant in southern Iran.
Iran has been attempting to produce 20% enriched uranium itself in an effort to create the fuel rods for several months, but has suggested that it will stop that higher level of enrichment if a deal emerges to give it access to the fuel rods to create badly needed medical isotopes. |
The American reaction?
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/05/17/white-house-slams-iran-uranium-deal/
| Quote: |
The White House today angrily rejected an announcement that Iran had agreed to a third party enrichment deal with Turkey and Brazil, with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs promising to continue the push for sanctions.
Other US officials mocked the deal as a ploy, and one official termed it �too little too late,� even though the deal was materially the same one the US has been demanding Iran agree to for the past six months. Another official demanded that Iran submit the deal to the IAEA for consideration.
Though the US seems determined to continue on with its calls for sanctions it seems unlikely that they will be able to successfully sell the sanctions, ostensibly to punish Iran for refusing to accept the third party enrichment deal, now that they have accepted the deal.
Moreover, while the US fancies itself as having veto power over this matter the deal doesn�t really involve them directly or indirectly. Turkey will take possession of 1,200 kg of Iran�s low enriched uranium and, assuming Russia and France come through with the pledged rods for producing medical isotopes, will turn it over to those nations. If they don�t, Turkey will return the uranium to Iran.
At the end of the day all the US condemnations in the world are likely to change nothing, and whether or not they manage to stop France from cooperating in the exchange several members of the UN Security Council will likely be persuaded that the diplomatic process still has a chance or, if it does not, that it isn�t Iran�s fault. |
They want war god damn it. How dare Turkey and Brazil edge up on their game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your source has enough bias to have an office in NYC.
I question whether the deal is "the exact same."
| Quote: |
On Monday, within hours of the signing of the nuclear swap agreement, the Iranian government announced it would continue enriching some uranium to a level of 20 percent.
One Turkish diplomat in Ankara called the announcement "unfortunate." The White House later issued a statement calling this a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, saying the Iranian government "must demonstrate through deeds -- and not simply words -- its willingness to live up to international obligations or face consequences, including sanctions."
At his press conference on Tuesday, Turkey's foreign minister said he briefed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by telephone on the nuclear swap agreement. |
From CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/05/18/iran.nuclear/?hpt=T2
Personally, I don't get it. It's Iran. They'll have a nuclear weapon as a result of secret refinement eventually, assuming someone doesn't intervene.
Economic sanctions will hurt the people of Iran. In the past we have learned that sanctions only work if the leader of the country cares about his people.
Too bad, too, because the travel blogs I've read about people traveling in Iran, many Iranians like the USA a great deal. By all reports they are also a very friendly and generous people.
It's problems like these you hate to see. Great people pitted between stubborn powers. It would be an easier decision between sides if Iran's dictator weren't so bloodthirsty for Jews. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I am sure they are going for nukes, but I am also sure they won't use it on anyone outside the region. Withdraw the troops and let the local actors sort this out themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Your source has enough bias to have an office in NYC. |
They're against war. The MSM in the US has never come across a proposed war it didn't like. They run propaganda as news. Anti-war.com was an excellent and perfectly accurate source destroying the propaganda about Iraq in 2002-3 and will be similar for the next war America is going to lose in the Middle East with Iran.
| Quote: |
| I question whether the deal is "the exact same." |
It is the same. Except it doesn't involve American client states like France. If the Iranians follow the agreement is a different topic. They have remained in full compliance with IAEA demands for years.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| On Monday, within hours of the signing of the nuclear swap agreement, the Iranian government announced it would continue enriching some uranium to a level of 20 percent. |
|
20% isn't sufficient for a nuclear bomb. 95%+ is needed. Iran can enrich by law provided it is under IAEA inspection. Which it is. And they're in full compliance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Spreading anti-war propaganda does not make one unbiased. Sometimes war is necessary. If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon and it intends to use it against a US nuclear ally (Israel) then that's that. That's bigger than Iraq. That's bigger than 9/11. That's nuclear war.
That said, Iran is a dictator-state that trains, arms, supplies, and finances Islamic radicals to kill US soldiers and Iraqi innocents. I'm not going to take their word for it. Nor Turkey's, nor Brazil's (although they're both fine in my book). They say 20%. Why should I believe them?
If the agreement is intended to cease Iranian uranium enrichment then they shouldn't be enriching it at all.
They can build houses out of 20% uranium for all I care. But we're not going to give them gifts of happiness and uranium sunshine for nothing. They have to stop enriching their uranium. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Spreading anti-war propaganda does not make one unbiased. |
I told you what their bias is. Their bias is in their name. What is the NYT/CNN/MSNBC bias?
| Quote: |
| Sometimes war is necessary. |
Only as defense and as a last option.
| Quote: |
| If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon and it intends to use it against a US nuclear ally (Israel) then that's that. That's bigger than Iraq. That's bigger than 9/11. That's nuclear war. |
That's hysterics. It is also speculation unsupported by facts.
| Quote: |
| Why should I believe them? |
The United States lied about WMD to go to war in Iraq. They are now doing the same thing with Iran. And you're worried about trusting Iran. Bias?
| Quote: |
| If the agreement is intended to cease Iranian uranium enrichment then they shouldn't be enriching it at all. |
That isn't the agreement.
| Quote: |
| They can build houses out of 20% uranium for all I care. But we're not going to give them gifts of happiness and uranium sunshine for nothing. They have to stop enriching their uranium. |
Why. They can't have nuclear power? Nuclear research? What are you scared of. You think Iran is so irrational as to launch a nuclear weapon at Israel? That would be the end of Persian civilization. The Israelis and Americans threaten Iran. Iran is in full compliance with the IAEA.
Is international relations the process of cleaning up from and preventing more American mistakes? The era of a restrained American government can not come soon enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 1:08 pm Post subject: Major powers agree on draft Iran sanctions |
|
|
| Quote: |
Major powers including China and Russia have agreed on a draft sanctions resolution against Iran over its nuclear program and will share it with the full U.N. Security Council on Tuesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.
The announcement appeared an implicit rebuff to a nuclear fuel swap deal that Brazil and Turkey worked out with Iran, although China - the major power most reluctant to sanction Iran - welcomed that deal and urged more talks with Tehran.
"We have reached agreement on a strong draft with the cooperation of both Russia and China," Ms. Clinton told U.S. lawmakers. "We plan to circulate that draft resolution to the entire Security Council today."
Ms. Clinton said the agreement was reached among the five permanent Security Council members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - as well as Germany.
The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover under which to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies this, saying its nuclear program is solely to generate electricity.
Iran agreed on Monday to send some of its uranium abroad, reviving a fuel swap plan drafted by the United Nations with the aim of keeping Tehran's nuclear activities in check.
But Tehran made clear it did not intend to suspend domestic uranium enrichment that Western governments have said appears aimed at giving it the means to make nuclear weapons.
Western powers have said the fuel swap offer promoted by Brazil and Turkey will not be enough to ease their worries and Israel, which regards Iranian nuclear capability as a direct threat, dismissed it.
"This announcement is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran in the last few days as any that we could provide," Ms. Clinton added, repeating that Washington has many questions about the fuel swap deal.
She said major powers "are proceeding to rally the international community on behalf of a strong sanctions resolution that will, in our view, send an unmistakable message about what is expected from Iran."
However, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said he was encouraged by the fuel swap. His reaction suggested that world powers discussing possible new UN sanctions against Iran may part ways on how much weight to give Iran's offer.
"China ... expresses its welcome and appreciation for the diplomatic efforts all parties have made to positively seek an appropriate solution to the Iranian nuclear issue," Yang said, according to the Foreign Ministry website (www.fmprc.gov.cn).
Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu later said his government hoped the agreement would "benefit the process of peacefully resolving the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiations."
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Spreading anti-war propaganda does not make one unbiased. |
I told you what their bias is. Their bias is in their name. What is the NYT/CNN/MSNBC bias? |
CNN is certainly biased to improving their ratings. They are not an organization pushing a specific agenda.
The section I quoted was pretty cut and dry, as opposed to "US instigating unnecessary war."
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Sometimes war is necessary. |
Only as defense and as a last option. |
Not something that I disagree with you on. However, defending our allies falls within our defense. Perhaps not something you may agree with, but it is our foreign policy.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon and it intends to use it against a US nuclear ally (Israel) then that's that. That's bigger than Iraq. That's bigger than 9/11. That's nuclear war. |
That's hysterics. It is also speculation unsupported by facts. |
Straight from Ahmadinejad's. There is nothing ambiguous about openly stating a desire to utterly destroy your neighbor. That he has claimed to be pursuing weapons sufficient to the task should not create much in the way of ambiguity. The same applies to the Norks.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Why should I believe them? |
The United States lied about WMD to go to war in Iraq. They are now doing the same thing with Iran. And you're worried about trusting Iran. Bias? |
I am inclined to believe the US, most of the European Union, the UN, and the IAEA. No contest there.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| If the agreement is intended to cease Iranian uranium enrichment then they shouldn't be enriching it at all. |
That isn't the agreement. |
This was the proposed agreement. The Turkey agreement does absolutely nothing, upon reading the text. It is very different than the proposed agreements of the past. Turkey holds 1200 kg of enriched uranium for Iran, gives Iran 120 kg uranium.
This solves what problem?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| They can build houses out of 20% uranium for all I care. But we're not going to give them gifts of happiness and uranium sunshine for nothing. They have to stop enriching their uranium. |
Why. They can't have nuclear power? Nuclear research? What are you scared of. You think Iran is so irrational as to launch a nuclear weapon at Israel? That would be the end of Persian civilization. The Israelis and Americans threaten Iran. Iran is in full compliance with the IAEA. |
That's precisely what I meant -- they can do whatever they want with fuel uranium. Further refining, however, is not acceptable.
Do not expect reason from dictators. Sadam Hussein showing rasberries at the US before they invaded wasn't the best way to perpetuate the Bath rulership, but it didn't stop him.
These people are nutters.
| Quote: |
| Is international relations the process of cleaning up from and preventing more American mistakes? The era of a restrained American government can not come soon enough. |
War with Iran would be a mistake. Allowing Iran nuclear weapons would be a bigger mistake.
The right solution?
Beats me. I'm not paid to broker international peace deals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| .38 Special wrote: |
I am inclined to believe the US, most of the European Union, the UN, and the IAEA. No contest there.
|
You are like a battered woman. You will buy into this war as well and the next and the next because deep down you believe in your man. Eventually he will change after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| .38 Special wrote: |
I am inclined to believe the US, most of the European Union, the UN, and the IAEA. No contest there.
|
You are like a battered woman. You will buy into this war as well and the next and the next because deep down you believe in your man. Eventually he will change after all. |
I think the Iran loss will be the last victory for the War Party for a long while. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| .38 Special wrote: |
Spreading anti-war propaganda does not make one unbiased. Sometimes war is necessary. If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon and it intends to use it against a US nuclear ally (Israel) then that's that. That's bigger than Iraq. That's bigger than 9/11. That's nuclear war.
|
It's not nuclear "War." It's nuclear "Iran slings a crudely manufactured device, atop a monkey navigated guided missile, then get bombed into a pile of rubble in return".
Let them build a bomb. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 5:16 am Post subject: Re: Iran�s Uranium Deal a Serious Blow to War Party |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
They want war god damn it. How dare Turkey and Brazil edge up on their game. |
This is nonsense. Who in the administration has called for strikes on Iran?
Now you can read Presidents' minds? Give me a break.
| mises wrote: |
20% isn't sufficient for a nuclear bomb. |
5% is more than sufficient for a nuclear energy program.
| JMO wrote: |
You are like a battered woman. You will buy into this war as well and the next and the next because deep down you believe in your man. Eventually he will change after all. |
What war? I think Iraq broke a lot of people in my generational cohort, like Vietnam broke a lot of Baby Boomers. There's a lot of nonsense on this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 5:40 am Post subject: Re: Iran�s Uranium Deal a Serious Blow to War Party |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This is nonsense. Who in the administration has called for strikes on Iran? |
All options are on the table. Haven't you read that? It is very clear what that means.
Sanctions are a path to war. Shortly after the sanctions are in place we will hear "the sanctions have failed".
| Quote: |
| Now you can read Presidents' minds? Give me a break. |
Israel will start it and the Americans will finish it. Iran can avoid this by starting a smaller war with Israel via their terrorist clients this summer. This is Eric Margolis's position. I'm inclined to trust him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 6:56 am Post subject: Re: Iran�s Uranium Deal a Serious Blow to War Party |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This is nonsense. Who in the administration has called for strikes on Iran? |
All options are on the table. Haven't you read that? It is very clear what that means.
Sanctions are a path to war. Shortly after the sanctions are in place we will hear "the sanctions have failed". |
The administration has not called for strikes on Iran, but has only said that 'all options are on the table' and has imposed sanctions with the co-operation of Russia, the EU, Britain, and even reluctant China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 7:46 am Post subject: Re: Iran�s Uranium Deal a Serious Blow to War Party |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
They want war god damn it. How dare Turkey and Brazil edge up on their game. |
This is nonsense. Who in the administration has called for strikes on Iran?
Now you can read Presidents' minds? Give me a break. |
THW, were you born within the past couple of years?
| On Oct 29, 2007, well before Obama was nominated or even favored to win it, bacasper on the Will a Republocrat save us? thread wrote: |
BO said on Sept. 4, 2007: "Hit Iran where it hurts." "Americans need to come together to confront the challenge posed by Iran. The war in Iraq has strengthened Iran which poses for us the greatest strategic challenge in the Middle East in a generation. Iran supports violent groups and sectarians in Iraq. Iran fuels terror and extremism in the Middle East. Iran is making progress on a nuclear program in defiance of the international community. Iran calls for Israel to be wiped off the map." He follows this up by calling for a pre-emptive military strike on Iran.
On Aug. 3, 2007, speaking at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of the International School for Scholars, BO called for a US attack on Pakistan, more troops in Afghanistan, and unilateral attacks on Iran and Pakistan, and strengthening the US military and intelligence apparatus across the planet. |
Last edited by bacasper on Wed May 19, 2010 7:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
