Talking with Iran....WORKED....

topic posted Fri, October 2, 2009 - 10:41 AM by  Jeff
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
It is amazing what an intelligent President who has the ability to actually engage in real diplomacy can achieve.....

WorldBreakthrough: Iran Agrees To Ship Most Of Its Uranium To Russia

www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02...02nuke.html

GENEVA — Iran agreed on Thursday in talks with the United States and other major powers to open its newly revealed uranium enrichment plant near Qum to international inspection in the next two weeks and to send most of its openly declared enriched uranium outside Iran to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that produces medical isotopes, senior American and other Western officials said.

Iran’s agreement in principle to export most of its enriched uranium for processing — if it happens — would represent a major accomplishment for the West, reducing Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon quickly and buying more time for negotiations to bear fruit.

If Iran has secret stockpiles of enriched uranium, however, the accomplishment would be hollow, a senior American official conceded.

The officials described the long day of talks here with Iran, the first such discussions in which the United States has participated fully, as a modest success on a long and complicated road. Iran had at least finally engaged with the big powers on its nuclear program after more than a year and had agreed to some tangible, confidence-building steps before another meeting with the same participants before the end of this month.

But despite the relatively promising outcome, the Obama administration was at pains to strike a cautious tone, given Iran’s history of duplicity, its crackdown on its own people after the tainted June presidential elections and President Obama’s concern about being perceived as naïve or susceptible to a policy of Iranian delays.

Mr. Obama, speaking in Washington, called the talks “constructive,” but warned Tehran that he was prepared to move quickly to more stringent sanctions if negotiations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions dragged on.

“We’re not interested in talking for the sake of talking,” Mr. Obama told reporters in the White House Diplomatic Reception Room. “If Iran does not take steps in the near future to live up to its obligations, then the United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely.”

France and Britain have spoken of December as an informal deadline for Iran to negotiate seriously about stopping enrichment and cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency. American officials say that timeline is “about right,” but Iran continues to insist that it has the right to enrich uranium for what it calls a purely civilian program.

Mr. Obama said Tehran must allow international inspectors into the site near Qum within the next two weeks, a timeline Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, agreed to here.

The atomic energy agency’s director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, will travel to Tehran this weekend to discuss the details and timing of the inspections, officials said. But the Americans also want Iran to cooperate with the inspectors and make personnel and documents about the site near Qum available.

Besides the scheduling of another meeting, the main practical accomplishment on Thursday was Iran’s agreement in principle — to be worked out by experts later this month in Vienna — to ship what American officials called “most” of its declared stockpile of lightly enriched uranium to Russia and France to be turned into nuclear fuel.

While American officials refused to specify the amount, other Western officials said it could be 1,200 kilograms, or more than 2,600 pounds, of enriched uranium, which could be as much as 75 percent of Iran’s declared stockpile. While there may be hidden stocks of enriched uranium, such a transfer, if it occurs, “buys some time” for further negotiations, a senior American official said.

Given the assessment that Iran has made enough low-enriched uranium to produce at least one nuclear weapon at some time in the future, a sharp reduction in its stockpile would be “a confidence-building measure to alleviate tensions and buy us some diplomatic space,” the official said.

Israel, the nation most concerned about a nuclear-armed Iran, has been informed of the discussions, another American official said.

Iran’s uranium is enriched to about 3.5 to 5 percent, the officials said; the Tehran reactor for making medical isotopes, last powered by Argentine-made fuel in 1993, needs uranium enriched to 19.75 percent, still far below weapons grade. And that uranium must then be fabricated into metal rods for the reactor.

Iran had told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it needed fuel for the Tehran reactor before December 2010. Washington, with its allies, pushed the agency to offer Iran the fuel, but made from Iran’s own enriched uranium as a feedstock. Mr. Jalili agreed to that in principle on Thursday.

The talks were between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France — as well as Germany, and led by the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana.

The tone of the discussions, held just outside Geneva, was considerably more positive than just a week ago, after the United States revealed the existence of the uranium enrichment site near Qum and, with its European allies, threatened Iran with tough new sanctions if it refused to halt its uranium enrichment program, which they suspect is meant for creating atomic weapons.

“This was a day very much for the engagement track of the two-track strategy,” a senior American official said, with the second track — increased sanctions — to be discussed only if this new round of negotiations founders.

After a plenary session in the morning, the participants adjourned to a lunch where informal discussions continued, followed by three hours of informal bilateral meetings. Those included a 45-minute session between the chief American diplomat here, Under Secretary of State William J. Burns, and Mr. Jalili, the highest level United States-Iranian talks in three decades.

Mr. Burns raised a range of topics, including the nuclear dispute and the plant near Qum and human-rights issues, American officials said, while the Iranians raised their own concerns, including the need for a world free of nuclear bombs and access to peaceful nuclear energy for all.

Mr. Jalili, in a news conference, called the discussions “good talks that will be a framework for better talks,” and expressed satisfaction that the world had engaged with Iran’s global agenda, which includes nuclear disarmament. He denied that there were any other Iranian nuclear facilities hidden from the I.A.E.A.

Many diplomats and analysts believe that the plant near Qum is only one of a series of hidden installations that Iran has constructed, in addition to its publicly acknowledged ones, for what is considered to be a military program. Iran insists that its program is purely peaceful and that it has a right under the nonproliferation treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. But it has regularly lied to the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency about its facilities.

Despite the uncertainties, nuclear experts hailed the tentative agreements. “It’s significant,” David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said. “The principle is important.”

Mr. Albright said the amount of low-enriched uranium to be shipped out of Iran was also significant. Iran’s stockpile has worried some arms controllers, who fear that Tehran may drop out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and further enrich the material into fuel for a bomb.

The new accord would end that prospect — at least for the exported uranium.

Mr. Albright cautioned that the deal would become a real solution only if Iran expanded the accord to cover all the uranium that it wanted enriched. “Iran’s made a concession,” he said. “But it has little meaning for the long term unless Iran continues to send out” its uranium for enrichment.
posted by:
Jeff
Portland
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Talking with Iran....

    Fri, October 2, 2009 - 11:01 AM
    "Iran’s agreement in principle...— if it happens —"
    "If Iran has secret stockpiles of enriched uranium...the accomplishment would be hollow..."
    "...a modest success on a long and complicated road..."

    Perhaps your subject title might be better phrased than the current "Mission Accomplished"-type tenor.

    Something along the lines of "Talking with Iran...haven't been fucked yet..."
    • Re: Talking with Iran....

      Fri, October 2, 2009 - 1:17 PM
      Yep. And getting Iran to sign the NPT "worked" too. Except for the part about violating it every step of the way. We will know the instant they start producing highly enriched uranium. Then, will you accept the fact that it didn't "work" and bet behind bombing their facilities? Perhaps they will see the light, and stop preforming clandestine nuclear work with the objective of building a bomb. Cool.
    • Re: Talking with Iran....

      Fri, October 2, 2009 - 1:18 PM
      This is a pretty major breakthrough. I mean, this is accomplishing as much as bombing their facilities would accomplish, which also wouldnt get all of it or effectively eliminate any hidden facilities. The only way to make sure there is no other enrichment going on would be a full scale war and occupation and America neither has the stomach nor the resources for that. This accomplished everything that bombing could do and did it without starting a regional war.

      Iran will still have some reserve fuel to power their own reactors, so they are not 100% dependent on outside sources which can be cut off, but this drastically reduces their stockpiles which reduces the threat of them having enough highly refined material to build a nuclear weapon in the time line previously stated.
      • Re: Talking with Iran....

        Fri, October 2, 2009 - 2:14 PM
        <<<I mean, this is accomplishing as much as bombing their facilities would accomplish, which also wouldnt get all of it or effectively eliminate any hidden facilities.

        And a perfect illustration that diplomacy trumps empty bluster, or the difference between Bush and Obama.
      • Re: Talking with Iran....

        Mon, October 5, 2009 - 10:02 PM
        <This is a pretty major breakthrough.>

        Do you ever think this shit through, Sent?

        A) They ONLY admitted it because they were about to be busted in an open UN session.
        B) They ONLY are allowing in inspectors because the next round of sanctions are very, very difficult for them.
        C) They ONLY are allowing in inspectors because the Russians are behind it, but not the Chinese.
        D) They are ONLY allowing inspections, but we don't know what is inside or if they'll allow full access.

        Where's the "major breakthrough"?

        <I mean, this is accomplishing as much as bombing their facilities would accomplish>

        No, bombing it would destroy it until they rebuilt it and it'd be bombed again.

        <This accomplished everything that bombing could do and did it without starting a regional war.>

        This has accomplished NOTHING yet. Why is getting them to agree to inspections for a plant that they lied about some kind of accomplishment to you?

        <Bombing them would not prevent them from having the ability to refine more uranium.>

        Bullshit. Depends where you bomb and with what kind of bomb, does it not? Do you really think that Israel, France, Russia and America don't know about this plant? Supposedly, they've known about it for FIVE YEARS. What about the NEXT one?

        What will you say then?

        <Being a nation of mostly non-insane people, Iran probably wants nukes purely as a deterrent, which means basically one or two, just to hold as wild cards; more than that being a matter of opportunity more than an end in itself.>

        Oh. I am sure!!!! Nothing to worry about there! Why not just let EVERYBODY have a few of them, I"m sure that they'll all just want basically one or two and then stop there, right?

        <It took them several years to build the facility at Natanz. It took them several years to build their only other facility near Qom. These are their only two.>

        How do you know that, Erik? Our government reportedly has known about this plant for five years - and now we're just finding out about it.

        So, how do you know that "These are their only two"?

        <We are already at war.>

        Yep.

        Iran wants nukes. They will not give up nukes. They will have to be bombed. That is a fact.

        <That the loudest IDF boosters would love to attack Iran comes as zero surprise.>

        That I support stopping Israel's sworn enemies from having nukes? That surprises you? Hell, I'd support an attack on ANY country that does not yet have nukes but is striving to attain them.

        <Do you not see how simpleminded your condemnations are? No, probably not.>

        Not a bit.

        Here's a question: If Iran was only making fuel for reactors - why hide this building inside a military installation?

        <And what are your feelings about israel's decades-long violation of the NPT?>

        You are so ignorant. Holy shit. You don't even know why I am saying that.

        <Again. Read Indyk's book.>

        He'll never do it. He can only read books that align with his bias.

        I even offered to send him a copy.

        <Let's see, Rabin was brave for negotiating with Arafat, but Arafat wasn't? gee that makes sense...>

        Rabin negotiated in good faith. Arafat did not. Read the Indyk book if you have any doubts. Hell, read ANY book except one from your Bias Book Of The Month Club.

        <Im reading Aaron Miller, he has just as much expertise as Indyk,>

        HA! YEah, he was in the room, 'eh? How you say these thinks and not know what the fuck you're talking about, I do not know.

        I tell you what, Elo. I will not only buy you the book, but I will give you $30 to read the book. What do you say?

        <Indyk himself hower said that Netanyahu when he negoatiated with him in the past INTENTIONALY tried to block peace.>

        OK - so you believe Indyk, right? Then why not read his book and read all the rest that he said that does not align with your bias?

        <Yes it does. Arafat was a coward. He was in a position to get 95% of what he demanded, and walked away out of fear for his personal safety if he didn't get it all.>

        That's a fact.

        <Bravery is not an absence of fear, but being afraid, and doing it anyway.>

        That's a fact.

        <You'll never stop the Palastinians by force alone>

        Bullshit. Israel could easily go in and wholly subdue Gaza, install a puppet regime and be done with it - but only after killing thousands of people. What, you think that there's a difference between the Gazans and the Japanese? Really? You think that the Gazans are more proud than the Japanese? Or, more stupid? What are you saying?

        <The Allies defeated Germany and Japan by bombing the hell out of them.>

        Yep.

        <Sri Lanka defeated the Tamil Tigers by bombing the hell out of them.>

        Yep.

        <Syria defeated the Islamic Brotherhood by bombing the hell out of them.>

        Yep.

        Hamas defeated their own AQ'esque terrorists by bombing the hell out of them and blowing up a mosque in the meantime. Did you know that, Sent? Elo?

        <What makes Hamas so different than the Tamil Tigers, the Islamic Brotherhood, and the Nazis such that these groups can be destroyed, but Hamas cannot?>

        Bias towards respecting Hamas on one hand and being ignorant about history on the other? Is that it?

        <Hamas defeated the PA forces in Gaza, and established complete control.>

        So, why could Israel not beat Hamas? If Hamas destroyed the PA in Gaza, killing and maiming all that they could find, why then could Israel not destroy Hamas if they had the will and interest to do it?

        <Had the Israelis completed the destruction of Hamas, and turned the keys over to the PA, Abbas and his fellow Fatah members would have cried their crocodile tears, wrung their hands, and pounded their fists on the table, and would have then been free to negotiate with Israel without the interference of a bunch of terrorists. Now? It will take longer, and many more will die.>

        Probably so, yes.
    • Re: Talking with Iran....

      Sat, October 3, 2009 - 7:51 AM
      >Something along the lines of "Talking with Iran...haven't been fucked yet..."

      Point taken here.

      OTOH, talking has so far worked better than not talking.

      The 'mission accomplished' analogy fails in that way; attacking Iraq had not worked better than not attacking Iraq at the time the banner was displayed.

      Are we supposed to think that talking with Iran was a mistake because they didn't all spontaneously convert to some pacifist, vegan religion
      and send every American flowers and organic free trade chocolates?
      • Re: Talking with Iran....

        Sat, October 3, 2009 - 12:02 PM
        <The 'mission accomplished' analogy> was more about making fun of declaring victory with the bulk of the 'struggle' still to be revealed.

        I am hopeful and thankful that a new route is being explored - but where's my godamned cookies!
  • Dan
    Dan
    offline 8

    Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

    Fri, October 2, 2009 - 1:35 PM
    "If Iran has secret stockpiles of enriched uranium, however, the accomplishment would be hollow, a senior American official conceded."

    "Trust but verify" Reagan always said, he was of course, a realist. Liberals are eternal optimists when it comes to our enemies. They would have us unilaterally disarm ourselves because they feel the other guy will just follow suit. They are for endless talks (going on 3 years now for Iran), while the enemy continues to consolidate their weapons of mass destruction, just as North Korea has done. The Russians were always willing to talk, make agreements they never intended to keep etc, while liberals pat themselves on the back for another "successful" negotion. We have gained nothing in Iran over 3 years, and it looks like a dangerous nation is about to move into the nuclear world.
    • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

      Fri, October 2, 2009 - 2:18 PM
      <<"Trust but verify" Reagan always said, he was of course, a realist. Liberals are eternal optimists when it comes to our enemies. They would have us unilaterally disarm ourselves because they feel the other guy will just follow suit.

      Yet more bullshit..... NOBODY is proposing unilaterally disarming ourselves. Seriously Dan, you need to delve deeper than Fox News talking points that dont' reflect reality. Nowhere is Obama indicating that we are not going to do our best to verify, quite the opposite actually.

      <<They are for endless talks (going on 3 years now for Iran),

      Bush was not directly talking to Iran for most of that Dan, thus we have not had endless talks for 3 years.

      <<while the enemy continues to consolidate their weapons of mass destruction, just as North Korea has done.

      Which of course demonstrates that Bush's approach DID NOT WORK.
      • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

        Fri, October 2, 2009 - 2:27 PM
        yaaa obamma

        at least it sounds good...........a step foreward


        as for the fuktards still waving the "go bush" flag...............why dont you all triple up on your ambien and go back to sleep.......
        • Un-uh

          Fri, October 2, 2009 - 6:28 PM
          <yaaa obamma>

          OK. I think we can all concede that truism. And dialog is good. Again, conceded.

          <fuktards>

          And then you lost us. Take that shit over to Facebook, hippy.
          • Re: Un-uh

            Fri, October 2, 2009 - 6:42 PM
            This is worth celebrating. . it is the best news I have heard in a long long time. I am not going to get all delusional euphoric about it, but YAY!!!!!!
            • Re: Un-uh

              Fri, October 2, 2009 - 6:48 PM
              Bombing Iran would only harden their resolve. . .people don't learn the lessons of history. . .well, maybe Obama has. . .we can only hope.

              Let us all hope for the best result. . .certainly there will need to be both the carrot and the stick. perhaps diplomatic recognition will come about at some point. it is sooo stupid to continue to demonize and refuse to talk. nothing ever comes of that. .

              Nixon was an asshole but he went to China, and he negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets. . .too many baboons don't get that. . .
              • Re: Un-uh

                Sat, October 3, 2009 - 7:59 AM
                You can resolve all you want. If you can't enrich uranium, you can't build a bomb.

                www.slate.com/id/2231167/

                Read carefully.
                • Re: Un-uh

                  Sat, October 3, 2009 - 9:41 AM
                  Bombing them would not prevent them from having the ability to refine more uranium. Israeli officials doubt that the IDF could find or destroy all of their facilities and equipment. Bombing Iran without invading also would not be effective but it would start a regional war, making things really difficult in Iraq.

                  Now Iran is refining enough uranium so that they are not completely hostage to foreign sources, but this will drastically slow down their refinement rate making the chance of them building a bomb in the next decade smaller.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Un-uh

                    Sat, October 3, 2009 - 10:32 AM
                    Being a nation of mostly non-insane people, Iran probably wants nukes purely as a deterrent, which means basically one or two, just to hold as wild cards; more than that being a matter of opportunity more than an end in itself.

                    Slowing down the enrichment process may not stop the first few high-priority bombs from being made, but it might stop a lot of extras from being made, thus assuring that the wild card bombs have to be played VERY carefully.
                    • Re: Un-uh

                      Sat, October 3, 2009 - 12:02 PM
                      "Bombing them would not prevent them from having the ability to refine more uranium. Israeli officials doubt that the IDF could find or destroy all of their facilities and equipment."

                      Sure it would. They need to use a cascade of centrifuges. They currently have several thousand at Natanz. It has taken them several years to make enough low level enriched uranium to build a bomb. Now, they must reprocess that low level enriched uranium into high level enriched uranium. It will take several months. It took them several years to build the facility at Natanz. It took them several years to build their only other facility near Qom. These are their only two. If they are destroyed, it will take them several more years to build another, which we could then destroy. These facilities are HUGE! They can't hide them. And, by the way, even if the Israelis knew where all their facilities were, they could not destroy them. Unless they used nukes. Not likely.

                      "Being a nation of mostly non-insane people, Iran probably wants nukes purely as a deterrent, which means basically one or two, just to hold as wild cards; more than that being a matter of opportunity more than an end in itself.

                      Slowing down the enrichment process may not stop the first few high-priority bombs from being made, but it might stop a lot of extras from being made, thus assuring that the wild card bombs have to be played VERY carefully."

                      IAW the treaty they have signed, they are not allowed to have any. Destroying their centrifuge cascades would keep them from building even their first. Let alone a second or third. They would have to rebuild, at the cost of billions, and over years. Their economy would collapse. Even further than it already has, if that is possible.
                      • Re: Un-uh

                        Sat, October 3, 2009 - 12:12 PM
                        "Sure it would. "


                        No it wouldnt. Not if you cant find all of their facilities or destroy all of the equipment inside the ones you hit. They would just regroup. It would slow them down, but so is this and accomplished without starting a war.
                        • Re: Un-uh

                          Sat, October 3, 2009 - 2:37 PM
                          No highly enriched uranium? No bomb. Natanz took close to ten years to build. The facility near Qom took over five. No cascade, no enriched uranium. We've known about the facility near Qom since they started it. Just now having outed them. How many more do you think they have built? They can "regroup" all they want. It takes years to build such a facility. They are HUGE! Sure, they could go ahead and spend the billions upon billions necessary, and we can go ahead and blow it up again. All, at huge cost to their shaky economy, with little cost to us. Sounds like a win-win to me.

                          We are already at war.
                          • Re: Un-uh

                            Sat, October 3, 2009 - 2:49 PM
                            I am not at war with Iran. Maybe you are.
                            • Re: Un-uh

                              Sat, October 3, 2009 - 3:19 PM
                              certainly looks to be positive, Russia turning already before will have made a big difference i think.

                              I’m not certainly this problem is over just yet, but i think its moving in the right direction.

                              I’m just as concerned to see Amerdinjad and is coup go and the green revolutionaries have freedom as i am for to see this take a positive turn.

                              Something tells me long term Obama is going to redeem his name, I don’t think he will have any big breakthrough with Israel for at least 4 years or so, but if he has a second term, he may even get success on there too, i think his style is very strategic, steady, and long term.
                              • Re: Un-uh

                                Sat, October 3, 2009 - 3:34 PM
                                you know under McPalin this would have been SO unlikely, it may well of ended in another war, which would of probably made the entire region implode, and god only knows where that would have left the world.

                                at the very least if things hadn’t have gone "hot" like that, they would have most likely been a solid Russian Iran vs West cold war developed and quite possibly they would have even alienated China.

                                While Erik talks of just one bomb surgical strike with little collateral damage, its entirely possible that could be a spark that ignited a raging fire in the whole region.

                                Obama’s calm approach will probably be key to dealing with Putin and Iran, and the Chinese i think have warmed to that, one thing Chinese don’t like is overly hot headed westerners, Obama and Hillary Clinton seemed to have opened up a positive rapor with the Chinese.

                                these connections and actions of Obama have been very long term strategic so they could really bear increasing fruit with time, we are only eight months in don’t forget.

                                not so sure if he is doing as good as he could on financial reform and health care, but there not easy task, be interesting to see where he is end of his term. I guess there is a chance he could steadily step up reforms on them, if they worked well that would probably be a much smarter way to change an big superpower country like America.

                                People react to short sharp shocks in an often negative way, look how bad it is already. Maybe his plan is to slowly change direction of the boat.
                            • Re: Un-uh

                              Sat, October 3, 2009 - 3:34 PM
                              <I am not at war with Iran. Maybe you are. >

                              That the loudest IDF boosters would love to attack Iran comes as zero surprise. They seem to think that the U.S.'s entire foriegn policy should be based on what the question: "What would a right-wing Israeli politican prefer"?
                              • Re: Un-uh

                                Sat, October 3, 2009 - 3:47 PM
                                "That the loudest IDF boosters would love to attack Iran comes as zero surprise. They seem to think that the U.S.'s entire foriegn policy should be based on what the question: "What would a right-wing Israeli politican prefer"?"

                                Which only goes to show how biased and narrow minded you are. Go figure.

                                All I want is for Iran to cease and desist from violating the NPT. Peacefully. Otherwise? Oh well. Realpolitik. Do you not see how simpleminded your condemnations are? No, probably not. Or, why your views are commonly ignored by the rational people in charge? Which, I might add, is a good thing.
                                • Re: Un-uh

                                  Sat, October 3, 2009 - 3:55 PM
                                  <All I want is for Iran to cease and desist from violating the NPT.>

                                  And what are your feelings about israel's decades-long violation of the NPT?

                                  If Iran said flat out: we'll open up our facilites to inspections if Israel does the same, what would your reaction be?
                              • Re: Un-uh

                                Sat, October 3, 2009 - 3:51 PM
                                yeah i mean ive nothing against a moderate iserali government isreal, just i dont like there current right wing government,

                                just because i didnt like Bush Chenney , Rumsfield doesnt mean i dont like America.

                                that Isreal prime minster who got assisnated, Rabin isnt it, he seems like he was pretty good, and aparantly they were very close to a deal being made under Barack untill Sharon got elected. Hopefuly we can have one of them again eventuly.
                                • Re: Un-uh

                                  Sat, October 3, 2009 - 3:57 PM
                                  Yep. Rabin was a brave man. It got him killed. Arafat was a coward. He lived to die of natural causes, leaving the Palestinians in their current plight. Sadat was pretty brave too. Ahem.

                                  www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch36ter3.htm

                                  Again. Read Indyk's book. You might begin to understand the complexity of the problem. You might (and others might) understand where their biases come from.

                                  "Hopefuly we can have one of them again eventuly."

                                  Brave men are few and far between.
                                  • Re: Un-uh

                                    Sat, October 3, 2009 - 5:25 PM
                                    Let's see, Rabin was brave for negotiating with Arafat, but Arafat wasn't? gee that makes sense...

                                    By the way, speaking of bravery, do you have the guts to honestly answer my question above about Israel's nuclear arsenal?
                                    • Re: Un-uh

                                      Sun, October 4, 2009 - 2:44 AM
                                      <Again. Read Indyk's book>

                                      Im reading Aaron Miller, he has just as much expertise as Indyk, infact possibly more, seems more intelligent and more balanced. Indyk himself hower said that Netanyahu when he negoatiated with him in the past INTENTIONALY tried to block peace. I think its extremely unlikely Netanyahu has changed, and Liberman is a whole ot worse and in quite an influential postiong.

                                      According to Foregin Policy the deal between Barack and Araft was VERY close to going through, but when Sharon won the election it sabotaged the deal and then Araft was blamed for that.

                                      Aaron Millers book "too much promised land" is coming soon and i will learn a lot more. I agree the details are important in understanding the complexities but i trust Miller more than Indyke.

                                      www.amazon.com/Much-Too-P.../0553804901

                                      www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm

                                      he's also one of the founding members of this organisation -

                                      www.seedsofpeace.org/about

                                      I do agree its highly simplistc to always paint Israel as the bad guy, as i say, I dont see either Rabin or Barack as bad guys at all but as good guys, they came close to achiving peace in a very difficult conflict, but the thing is about you guys, Erik and Adam, though Andrew has become a little better recently, your loath to accept any criticisim of Isreal, now that stance is simplistic.

                                      I can tell you that British people riped Tony Blair to pieces when they thought he had went too far on the Iraq war, he went from being our most populat PM to the least popular since records began aparantly.

                                      A bit self criticisim and especialy criticisim of there government would do Jews well. Thats not anything the same as being a "self loathing" jew, its very unhealty not to be critical of governments.

                                      I certainly accept the Palastinians, especialy Hamas do things wrong, not least there Jew hatred propoganda that some of them do, though the leadership seems to be taking a very difference stance on things like this recently.

                                      We dont even need a "hero" in as a PM in Isreal to have peace, just someone that isnt like Netanyahu who wil be very unlikely to compromise and is hard right. We need someone moderate who will be likely to compromise. And we also need Palastinian unity and
                                      modeartion there.
                                      • Re: Un-uh

                                        Sun, October 4, 2009 - 3:18 AM
                                        I've got plenty of criticism for Israel.

                                        They should have crushed Hamas when they had the chance. That was a big mistake. I hope they have learned from it.
                                        • Re: Un-uh

                                          Sun, October 4, 2009 - 4:07 AM
                                          "Let's see, Rabin was brave for negotiating with Arafat, but Arafat wasn't? gee that makes sense... "

                                          Yes it does. Arafat was a coward. He was in a position to get 95% of what he demanded, and walked away out of fear for his personal safety if he didn't get it all. Rabin stood up to the Orthodox, and got himself killed for doing so. Sadat was also a brave man, and paid the same price for making peace. Arafat got a Nobel Peace Prize he didn't deserve, and still never made peace before dying anyhow.

                                          Bravery is not an absence of fear, but being afraid, and doing it anyway.
                                          • Re: Un-uh

                                            Sun, October 4, 2009 - 8:18 AM
                                            and you reallly think bombing the crap out of Gaza to try and get rid of Hamas would make them go away ? Youd have to murder 1.5 million Gazans to do that, and that my friend is called Genoicide.

                                            For every Hamas member you kill, they'll be another replace him, and if you keep on being brutal there, youll end up with Al Quieda there not Hamas.

                                            You'll never stop the Palastinians by force alone - Rabin had the right idea (and Barack by the sounds of it) - Netanyahu does not.
                                            • Re: Un-uh

                                              Sun, October 4, 2009 - 12:39 PM
                                              Elo:
                                              > and you reallly think bombing the crap out of Gaza to try and get rid of Hamas would make them go away ? Youd have to murder 1.5 million Gazans to do that, and that my friend is called Genoicide.

                                              You're simply ignorant (deliberately so?) of not only history, but also current events.

                                              The Allies defeated Germany and Japan by bombing the hell out of them.

                                              Sri Lanka defeated the Tamil Tigers by bombing the hell out of them.

                                              Syria defeated the Islamic Brotherhood by bombing the hell out of them.

                                              What makes you so convinced that a sustained military campaign with the intent of destroying all of the militants in Gaza is incapable of securing a surrender?

                                              What makes Hamas so different than the Tamil Tigers, the Islamic Brotherhood, and the Nazis such that these groups can be destroyed, but Hamas cannot?
                                              • Re: Un-uh

                                                Mon, October 5, 2009 - 3:02 AM
                                                "and you reallly think bombing the crap out of Gaza to try and get rid of Hamas would make them go away ? Youd have to murder 1.5 million Gazans to do that, and that my friend is called Genoicide."

                                                And you, once again, demonstrate your ignorance. Hamas defeated the PA forces in Gaza, and established complete control. It was ugly, messy, and included plenty of massacres on both sides. But it certainly was not "Genoicide [sic] by any stretch of the imagination. You make pronouncements of such certainty, with so little knowledge of the subjects upon which you pontificate.

                                                Israel simply didn't finish the job. Largely because of people like you Elo, screaming about things they know so little of, and hyping the Hamas line of lies, into which you buy so readily. They stopped short of destroying Hamas because they are an open, Western style democracy and, unlike say the Russians who actually did wantonly murder hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Grozny, are impacted by international public opinion. Because of people like you Elo, many more will die in the future than would have had Israel been allowed to finish the job.

                                                Had the Israelis completed the destruction of Hamas, and turned the keys over to the PA, Abbas and his fellow Fatah members would have cried their crocodile tears, wrung their hands, and pounded their fists on the table, and would have then been free to negotiate with Israel without the interference of a bunch of terrorists. Now? It will take longer, and many more will die.

                                                That blood will stain the hands of all those who thus helped delay the successful negotiation of a peace agreement. It is a long list of co-conspirators. Some members of which helped for the right reasons based upon ignorance, some with evil intent knowing fully what they do, some just for ratings, and some because of long held prejudices.

                                                Read Adam's list. I could add a few (hundred) instances to it, if you wish.


                                                • Re: Un-uh

                                                  Mon, October 5, 2009 - 11:10 AM
                                                  Israel didnt stop short of destroying Hamas because they are progressive or a democracy. They stopped because of international pressure and the threat of losing US aid and support. It wouldnt matter if they were a dictatorship or a theocracy, they stopped for reasons that had nothing to do with being a liberal democracy.
                                                  • Re: Un-uh

                                                    Mon, October 5, 2009 - 2:01 PM
                                                    Sent:
                                                    > Israel didnt stop short of destroying Hamas because they are progressive or a democracy. They stopped because of international pressure and the threat of losing US aid and support. It wouldnt matter if they were a dictatorship or a theocracy...

                                                    Not really true.

                                                    A dictator is more free to take dramatic action without worrying what the public feels or world feels.

                                                    These can be more dramatic actions towards peace like Egypt and Jordan (both effective dictatorships) signing treaties with Israel. Or it can be more dramatic violence like Syria's massacre of 40,000 in Hama.

                                                    If Israel as a dictatorship, It probably just would have finished the job and wiped out Hamas.
                                                    • Re: Un-uh

                                                      Mon, October 5, 2009 - 7:08 PM
                                                      I am not saying that Israel is a dictatorship. They are a secular democracy if an ethno-religious-centric one. I am just saying that had nothing to do with why they were pressured to pull back from Gaza.

                                                      I dont think they pulled back because of domestic popular opinion so much as because of world opinion. A dictator would be just as subject to foreign relations and the threat of losing aid.
                                                      • Re: Un-uh

                                                        Mon, October 5, 2009 - 10:25 PM
                                                        Sent:
                                                        > I dont think they pulled back because of domestic popular opinion so much as because of world opinion. A dictator would be just as subject to foreign relations and the threat of losing aid.

                                                        It's indirect. It's the public that cares about world opinion, losing aid, foreign relations, etc, and the leadership in a democracy then has to care about public opinion.

                                                        A dictator can just tell the world to fuck off. A dictator probably would have finished the war in Gaza (maybe rightfully so).

                                                        And using Kim Jong Il as the classic example, does he seem to care much about foreign relations?
      • Dan
        Dan
        offline 8

        Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

        Mon, October 5, 2009 - 8:20 AM
        "Which of course demonstrates that Bush's approach DID NOT WORK."

        Which demonstrates that more of the same (talks), is a fruitless waste of time. They are buying time with negotiations. If I am standing in front of you and tell you not to cross this line, and you do so relentlessly for 3 years, while I keep telling you to stop, I am a fool. Gathering others who also suggest you stop makes no sense either. It is time for either a swift kick in the shins or let it go. With a large group of discontented Iranians looking for a regime change, their administration is vulnerable and can be exploited, but we do nothing, no blockades, nothing.
        • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

          Mon, October 5, 2009 - 11:26 AM
          <<Which demonstrates that more of the same (talks), is a fruitless waste of time

          You are not paying attention to either my point or history, Bush's approach was not even close to the same approach as Obama's. Bush's approach of NOT talking to our enemies was a miserable failure. Great Presidents throughout history always attempted face to face diplomacy and talks with those we were at odds with, either through high level officials or themselves personally.

          <<They are buying time with negotiations.

          Shipping Uranium to Russia is a bit more than negotiations Dan, you are once again not paying attention.

          <<With a large group of discontented Iranians looking for a regime change, their administration is vulnerable and can be exploited, but we do nothing, no blockades, nothing.

          Attacking Iran would be idiocy as it would only add strength to the anti-democracy forces in Iran.
          • Dan
            Dan
            offline 8

            Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

            Mon, October 5, 2009 - 11:50 AM
            Jeff: You are not paying attention to either my point or history, Bush's approach was not even close to the same approach as Obama's. Bush's approach of NOT talking to our enemies was a miserable failure. Great Presidents throughout history always attempted face to face diplomacy and talks with those we were at odds with, either through high level officials or themselves personally.

            No, I am paying attention. The problem with your thesis is it is just not true. The Bush administration engaged Iran more than any other president since Jimmy Carter. He also correctly identified them as "part of the axis of evil", which aptly describes this regime. The problem is, he put no teeth to anything and there is no evidence that the globe trotting apologizer will change anything in that regard.

            <<With a large group of discontented Iranians looking for a regime change, their administration is vulnerable and can be exploited, but we do nothing, no blockades, nothing.

            Jeff: Attacking Iran would be idiocy as it would only add strength to the anti-democracy forces in Iran.

            First of all, I am advocating strategic blockades to Iran. The goal is to get them to stop the movement toward Nuclear weapons, if it destabilizes the current government this might be an unintended benefit.
            • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

              Mon, October 5, 2009 - 12:09 PM
              <<No, I am paying attention. The problem with your thesis is it is just not true. The Bush administration engaged Iran more than any other president since Jimmy Carter.

              We are comparing Obama's approach of engagement in Iran with Bush's approach of non-engagement with North Korea which was a complete failure. Bush realized because of that failure that North Korea got nukes, and thus had to change his strategy behind the scenes. He did not come to this realization right away, I think in part his "Axis of Evil Speech" while in the process of pushing for invasion of middle east countries was a threat to both North Korea and Iran.....thereby encouraging them to push further toward creating a deterrent against US attack. Bush began to understand his mistake, and reivised some of his failed policies behind the scenes. In reality, Bush realized his policies were failures....... this exchange of nuke material is one of the biggest developments in quite sometime, and it seems Obama achieved it effortlessly.
              • Dan
                Dan
                offline 8

                Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

                Tue, October 6, 2009 - 10:00 AM
                Talking with Iran has not "worked". This was your thesis, and it is wrong. But what is funny about all this is how desparately you defend this laughing stock of a president. Did you see SNL? Even they mock him for accomplishing nothing so far except to drive us into greater indebtedness.

                Promise: More jobs
                reality: near double digit unemployment

                Promise: Heath care reform by August
                reality: this is October, no health care reform, despite bullet proof majorities in both houses of congress

                Promise: transparency
                reality: Helen Thomas, a liberal, calls him out in a press conference for being one of the most non transparent presidents ever.

                Promise: to close guantanamo
                reality: It is still open due to "legal issues"

                Promise: to get us out of Iraq and focus on the most important war, Afganistan
                reality: Still in Iraq, no date for withdrawl. Doesn't even meet with General regarding needs in Afganistan, apparent policy shift

                Promise; properly vet all cabinet and staff in admin
                reality, at least one commie nut was not vetted at all! Likely many more

                With the presidents popularity plummenting, he still has proven completely ineffective at working "across the isle" with republicans. He has the most partisan administration I can remember. He tells his opponents to "shut up". "We don't mind cleaning up your mess, but the least you can do is not talk too much".

                You are a wonderful apologist for Obama Jeff, you deserve to be paid. Who knows, you might be getting some cash funneled through ACORN, another embarrassing Obama connection. I suspect you will be in his camp when he has only 2 supporters, his wife and you.
                • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

                  Tue, October 6, 2009 - 12:40 PM
                  <<You are a wonderful apologist for Obama Jeff, you deserve to be paid. Who knows, you might be getting some cash funneled through ACORN, another embarrassing Obama connection

                  Yet again with an intellectually bereft response to what I said. As a matter of fact, you whole response was an attempt to divert from intellectually responding to what I said. You fail.
            • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

              Thu, November 12, 2009 - 10:08 AM
              <<He also correctly identified them as "part of the axis of evil", which aptly describes this regime.

              Actually, this Axis of Evil shit may be one of the reasons that propelled Irans nuke program forward. If the most powerful nation in the world lists you among three countries that are an "Axis of Evil", and then that country invades the first one (Iraq), would that not make you paranoid that your country was next? Certainly.... this Axis of Evil shit out of Bush's mouth may very well have emboldened Irans nuke plans.

              <<The Bush administration engaged Iran more than any other president since Jimmy Carter.

              Please demonstrate that with an examples of face to face talks by Bush administration officials.

              <<First of all, I am advocating strategic blockades to Iran.

              I am not sure I see a problem with that in regards to leverage. Althought this also may be used as political fodder by the anti-democracy forces in Iran. But what you don't know is that this blockade option is off the table for Obama, it very well maybe an option that is alive and well. Bush had 8 years to fuck it up, lets see if this new administration can make more progress.
        • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

          Mon, October 5, 2009 - 10:05 PM
          <They are buying time with negotiations.>

          This is of course correct.

          <Shipping Uranium to Russia is a bit more than negotiations Dan, you are once again not paying attention.>

          Jeff, do you really think that Iran does not want nukes, and that they'll day or do ANYTHING to get to being able to have nukes? You really think that they will give this up for some free uranium? Hell, they've been offered TOTALLY FREE URANIUM!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet, they want to make it themselves... Hmm.............
          • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

            Tue, October 6, 2009 - 12:42 PM
            <<Jeff, do you really think that Iran does not want nukes, and that they'll day or do ANYTHING to get to being able to have nukes?

            I certainly agree that they want nukes, Bush gave them a nice incentive with the whole Axis of Evil thing. Lets say America was a nuke free country, and then nuke country put us on a list of countries we were in the process of attacking......then imagine that this same country invaded and occupied Mexico right next door to us. Would it make sense to have a deterrent? Certainly..... now the question is how do we change this path? Bluster and Axis of Evil B.S. has only increased our problems, so we have to fundamentally change our approach to dealing with Iran.
            • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

              Tue, October 6, 2009 - 12:49 PM
              So, let's say Iran abided by their treaty obligations. Fuck 'em.

              Sorry.
              • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

                Tue, October 6, 2009 - 12:56 PM
                OOPS.

                Iran Plans Advanced Centrifuges at Nuclear Site
                By VOA News
                06 October 2009


                Iranian news agencies - Iranian state-run television and Kayhan daily - report the head of Tehran's nuclear program has announced plans to install a more advanced type of centrifuge at the country's newly-revealed nuclear facility near the Shi'ite holy city of Qom.

                The news agencies say Ali Akbar Salehi announced Iran is focusing more on research and development at the site. They quote him as saying Iran hopes to use a "new generation of centrifuges" to enrich uranium there.

                The United States and other Western countries suspect Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, and has agreed to let international inspectors visit the site near Qom.

                Meanwhile, U.S. lawmakers are debating whether Iran should be slapped with additional sanctions over the issue.

                Senate banking committee chairman Christopher Dodd, a Democrat from the northeastern state of Connecticut, said Tuesday that he plans to move ahead this month on a proposal to impose new sanctions and expand some existing restrictions on Tehran.

                In testimony before Dodd's committee, Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey said the U.S. would be "obliged to turn to strengthened sanctions" if Iran does not live up to its obligations concerning its nuclear program.

                Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates say last week's talks in Geneva between Iran and world powers were somewhat successful.

                The leaders spoke with CNN during an interview taped at George Washington University late Monday.

                Clinton said the meeting with Iran yielded three agreements that give world powers time to assess Iran's commitment to negotiations. She said Iran agreed to ship low-enriched uranium abroad for processing, to allow inspections of nuclear sites, and to meet with world powers later this month for another round of talks.
                • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

                  Tue, October 6, 2009 - 1:07 PM
                  <<the head of Tehran's nuclear program has announced plans to install a more advanced type of centrifuge at the country's newly-revealed nuclear facility near the Shi'ite holy city of Qom.>>

                  This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. "Advanced" centrifuges - probably Zippe-type - says nothing about whether their aims are peaceful or militant.
                  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipp...centrifuge
              • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

                Tue, October 6, 2009 - 1:35 PM
                <<So, let's say Iran abided by their treaty obligations. Fuck 'em.

                So, "Fuck'em" means what exactly?
                • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

                  Tue, October 6, 2009 - 3:37 PM
                  <So, "Fuck'em" means what exactly? >

                  I believe Erik is trying to explain in the shortest way possible that he is an extreme anti-Muslim bigot and hates anyone that the Israeli right wing regards as a threat or rival, so even if Iran was doing absolutely nothing that involved making nuclear weapons, he'd still ike to bomb them on general principle.
            • Dan
              Dan
              offline 8

              Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

              Tue, October 6, 2009 - 1:51 PM
              "I certainly agree that they want nukes, Bush gave them a nice incentive with the whole Axis of Evil thing"

              what a bunch of silly partisan nonsense. Do you eat democratic or republican hamburgers?
              • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

                Tue, October 6, 2009 - 1:57 PM
                <<what a bunch of silly partisan nonsense. Do you eat democratic or republican hamburgers?

                Again with the intellectually bereft response. Lets look again if the reverse were true. Iran has nukes, the US does not....... Iran lists Mexico, Canada, and the US as the Axis of Evil.....and then the US subsequently invades and occupies Mexico..... in this scenario you would be actively seeking a deterrent against Iranian agression. By no means am I defending Iran, but what I do realize is the practicality of proper diplomacy backed by the strength of the US and our allies over the failed Cowboy Bush Approach...... "bring em on" type bullshit was incredibly counterproductive to US policy. This is something even Bush is now beginning to admit.

                Now, intellectual address what I said and stop with the diversions Dan.
                • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

                  Tue, October 6, 2009 - 2:41 PM
                  Even I wouldn't try to blame W for NK trying to get nukes or getting them.

                  NK could give a damn who the US has for a president, or what he may have to say on the matter.

                  NK are in their own weird little mental universe.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

                    Tue, October 6, 2009 - 3:31 PM
                    <<NK are in their own weird little mental universe.

                    Absolutely, I agree that North Korea is a special case. My above scenario was in regards to Iran.
              • Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....

                Thu, November 12, 2009 - 10:11 AM
                <<"I certainly agree that they want nukes, Bush gave them a nice incentive with the whole Axis of Evil thing"

                what a bunch of silly partisan nonsense. Do you eat democratic or republican hamburgers? >>

                There is nothing partisan about it. The most powerful nation in the world puts you on a list of countries that are evil, and then invades 1 of those 3 countries. It makes complete sense that Iran would think they are next. I am certain if Russia listed us as 1 of 3 evil countries, then invaded the first country, you yourself would be advocating buffering our defenses in any way possible to preven an invasion.
  • Dan
    Dan
    offline 8

    Re: Talking with Iran....WORKED....????

    Sat, November 7, 2009 - 7:07 PM
    Hey Jeff. What about those Iranians?? It looks like the crowning jewell of Mr. Nobel Prize Winner Barack Obama might not have "worked" after all....
    • I think it's a bromance

      Sat, November 7, 2009 - 7:40 PM
      lol, this goes up there with declaring Obama's health care overhaul as the greatest achievement in Health care reform ever
      • Re: I think it's a bromance

        Sun, November 8, 2009 - 3:19 AM

        Yep. Talking to them only gave them a chance to extend this period.

        Now we have heard that they are researching explosives used ONLY to detonate nukes.

        The clock is ticking on Iran. There is no going back at this point. We'll see who acts first - Israel and America to bomb them or Iran to get a working nuke.
        • Re: I think it's a bromance

          Sun, November 8, 2009 - 4:05 AM
          Well, before their enriched uranium is weapons grade, it must be run through a centrifuge cascade once again. They now have enough to build at least one bomb, and continue enriching to this day. Undoubtedly, they intended to do this second enrichment at their "secret" facility near Qom. Now that that has been exposed, and is under IAEA observation, they won't be able to without our knowing. Unless, of course, they expel the inspectors. If that happens, all bets are off.

          They will probably continue their research, and may even construct inert warheads to test fire. Perhaps they already have, in their recent missile tests. They have been doing this research for years, and might have everything ready now.

          MOP
          • Re: I think it's a bromance

            Sun, November 8, 2009 - 5:18 PM
            <Undoubtedly, they intended to do this second enrichment at their "secret" facility near Qom.>

            What, you don't think that perhaps they have a third?

            <Unless, of course, they expel the inspectors. If that happens, all bets are off.>

            They'll get bombed within probably 30 days of that, for sure.

            It's going to happen at this point. All because the Iranians want to get nukes. They are creating this problem, no doubt. Their lies, their obfuscation - they may as well bomb themselves at this point, the end-product will be the same.

            <I think declaring that violent force is the only option is just as idiotic as Jeff's original declaration.>

            What, you think that the Iranians - who now are proven to be liars and IF this information about this new explosive research is true, the obvious fact to anyone that is not partisan is that Iran is working to build a bomb.

            NOW they say that they won't send any uranium out of the country? What - why?

            They are building a bomb. They WILL be bombed for it. As the sunset follows daylight, they will be bombed. There's very little chance at all of them stopping.

            <I look at blatant deceit as being an inherent part of international state craft.>

            HA! Yeah. In this case though? "state craft" will get them bombed. If that's what they want? Well. That's what they'll get.
            • Re: I think it's a bromance

              Sun, November 8, 2009 - 6:15 PM
              "What, you think that the Iranians - who now are proven to be liars and IF this information about this new explosive research is true, the obvious fact to anyone that is not partisan is that Iran is working to build a bomb. "

              *rolls eyes*

              No one is saying they are not trying to build a bomb, little munchkin. What i am saying is that we still have other, non violent means to stop them from building a bomb, and that these methods need to be exhausted before resorting to such force
              • Re: I think it's a bromance

                Sun, November 8, 2009 - 7:24 PM
                <No one is saying they are not trying to build a bomb, little munchkin.>

                More adhoms. You just can't help yourself. It's like you're your own self-replicating adhom machine.

                Really? No one is saying that Iran is "not trying to build a bomb"? Really? Really?

                Interesting.

                <What i am saying is that we still have other, non violent means to stop them from building a bomb, and that these methods need to be exhausted before resorting to such force>

                Got it. We can go down that road and I surely suspect that we will, a move which I support 100%. But, then - with Iran's lies and deceptions, eventually they'll be bombed.

                At least you agree that they should be bombed if they do not comply.
                • Re: I think it's a bromance

                  Sun, November 8, 2009 - 7:58 PM
                  "Really? No one is saying that Iran is "not trying to build a bomb"? Really? Really?"

                  You post accused me of thinking Iran wasn't building a bomb. My reply is that no one (me) claimed this.

                  Learn to behave and develop some self control


                  "Got it. We can go down that road and I surely suspect that we will, a move which I support 100%. But, then - with Iran's lies and deceptions, eventually they'll be bombed.

                  At least you agree that they should be bombed if they do not comply. "

                  See what happens when you don't play the part of a reactionary idiot?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: I think it's a bromance

                    Sun, November 8, 2009 - 8:06 PM

                    Hmm. Are you Dustin? I mean, the childish adhoms really seemingly are close to his MO.

                    But then, why would someone be so pitiful and ridiculous as to want to have TWO personalities here? Who is that stupid?
                    • Re: I think it's a bromance

                      Sun, November 8, 2009 - 8:18 PM
                      lol @ these childish tantrums from Andrew
                      • Re: I think it's a bromance

                        Sun, November 8, 2009 - 8:28 PM

                        Was it your father's cruelty to you that makes you act out like this? Your constant need to 'get' someone, really speaks of some action taken by a parent or another authority-figure that harmed you. Who are you angry with? What is this bad feeling that you have inside you that causes you to project this negativity? Keep LOLing, please. I like it. And, hiding behind an alt? I wonder where this came from? I remember reading somewhere from a psyche professor that people that 'need' to have alts generally speaking all suffer from some kind of mental disorder created during their youth that compels them to NEED to hide behind this faceless/nameless figure. Some sites that chose to not allow faceless, nameless alts noticed a great reduction of antisocial behavior. The theory was that these people that need this anonymity are nowhere near as comfortable acting out in such a manner as truly themselves, because they then feel badly about THEMSELVES being connected to their actions, and thus THEY are forced to deal with who they are, that THEY are not good people in this context and thus they cannot act out without recognizing that they are actually the bad person, not their alt.
                        • Re: I think it's a bromance

                          Sun, November 8, 2009 - 9:02 PM
                          "Was it your father's cruelty to you that makes you act out like this? Your constant need to 'get' someone, really speaks of some action taken by a parent or another authority-figure that harmed you."

                          Yes, it's clear that I should learn to take the high road, such as yourself


                          "Keep LOLing, please. I like it. "

                          As do I


                          "And, hiding behind an alt? I wonder where this came from? I remember reading somewhere from a psyche professor that people that 'need' to have alts generally speaking all suffer from some kind of mental disorder created during their youth that compels them to NEED to hide behind this faceless/nameless figure."

                          lol @ you reading.


                          "The theory was that these people that need this anonymity are nowhere near as comfortable acting out in such a manner as truly themselves, because they then feel badly about THEMSELVES being connected to their actions, and thus THEY are forced to deal with who they are, that THEY are not good people in this context and thus they cannot act out without recognizing that they are actually the bad person, not their alt."

                          It's all true


                          PS The above would easily be considered another tantrum
                          • Re: I think it's a bromance

                            Sun, November 8, 2009 - 9:23 PM
                            <Yes, it's clear that I should learn to take the high road, such as yourself>

                            Yes you should, but you are incapable of such an act. Incapable. For instance, I have repeatedly put out threads asking for reasonable discussion, only to have damaged people like YOU scuttle any reasonable discourse. I'm reasonable with people that are reasonable with me, but broken people such as yourself are incapable of confusing me and my beliefs with whatever it is that you feel that you need to take out on others. Speaking of sadism - now we shall speak of mine instead of yours - I have a happy little feeling knowing that you're damaged. I am not proud of it, but you're a nasty piece of work I do believe as evidenced by your ill-actions, and the thought that something happened to you to 'create' you? Well, that makes me happy. I will not just tolerate your sickness - I will look forward to it, knowing that you come here to be so negative behind this alt because your cowardice and devolved psyche demands that you act out. I like that.

                            <It's all true>

                            I know. I feel that you're right in this case. Go, Alt. Go and be yourself. Poison yourself some more.

                            <PS The above would easily be considered another tantrum>

                            You think that this is clever, do you not? Another brick in the wall.
                            • Re: I think it's a bromance

                              Sun, November 8, 2009 - 9:33 PM
                              "Yes you should, but you are incapable of such an act. Incapable"

                              lol...


                              "For instance, I have repeatedly put out threads asking for reasonable discussion, only to have damaged people like YOU scuttle any reasonable discourse. I'm reasonable with people that are reasonable with me, but broken people such as yourself are incapable of confusing me and my beliefs with whatever it is that you feel that you need to take out on others. Speaking of sadism - now we shall speak of mine instead of yours - I have a happy little feeling knowing that you're damaged. I am not proud of it, but you're a nasty piece of work I do believe as evidenced by your ill-actions, and the thought that something happened to you to 'create' you? Well, that makes me happy. I will not just tolerate your sickness - I will look forward to it, knowing that you come here to be so negative behind this alt because your cowardice and devolved psyche demands that you act out. I like that."

                              So is this another one of those attempts at reasonable discourse?


                              "You think that this is clever, do you not? Another brick in the wall. "

                              Nope, just pointing out that you constantly throw tantrums when you don't get your way
                              • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                Sun, November 8, 2009 - 9:44 PM
                                <So is this another one of those attempts at reasonable discourse?>

                                No. One cannot reasonably expect that to work with you. This is just my popsy view of your damaged self.

                                <<"You think that this is clever, do you not? Another brick in the wall. ">>

                                <Nope, just pointing out that you constantly throw tantrums>

                                Another of your coping tools evidenced here: You will create in your head what constitutes this "tantrum", and then because it makes you feel good, you will throw that out there, believing that it's true. See, some people will do such a thing but with an intent to create a reality - like Salil calling someone a "Liar" with his 'proof' of this lie being that he simply disagrees with them, so he repeats this lie until the Parrot Idiocy Crew follows his lead. You on the other hand? You actually THINK that what someone writes is this "tantrum". It makes you feel good that you 'affected' them to the degree of creating in them this "tantrum". I mean, you had an EFFECT on another person! Even better, a NEGATIVE effect! This is the act that you crave! You NEED to have affected someone with your negativity, and even if you can't (and you have not in this case), you will invent your own reality, in THIS case that I am having a "tantrum" because of you. Because you can do that, 'eh? You have that power, 'eh?

                                <... when you don't get your way>

                                How do you define and deduce when it is that I do not get my way? How is this figment created? See? You have decided when I do not get my way, even though in reality - not YOUR reality, but ACTUAL reality - you have no way to actually KNOW if I have or have not had this "tantrum".

                                What part of you do you not feel good about yourself?
                                • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                  Sun, November 8, 2009 - 9:54 PM
                                  "Another of your coping tools evidenced here: You will create in your head what constitutes this "tantrum", and then because it makes you feel good, you will throw that out there, believing that it's true. See, some people will do such a thing but with an intent to create a reality - like Salil calling someone a "Liar" with his 'proof' of this lie being that he simply disagrees with them, so he repeats this lie until the Parrot Idiocy Crew follows his lead. You on the other hand? You actually THINK that what someone writes is this "tantrum". It makes you feel good that you 'affected' them to the degree of creating in them this "tantrum". I mean, you had an EFFECT on another person! Even better, a NEGATIVE effect! This is the act that you crave! You NEED to have affected someone with your negativity, and even if you can't (and you have not in this case), you will invent your own reality, in THIS case that I am having a "tantrum" because of you. Because you can do that, 'eh? You have that power, 'eh?"

                                  No, it's just really due to you constantly throwing tantrums, Andrew



                                  "How do you define and deduce when it is that I do not get my way? How is this figment created? See? You have decided when I do not get my way, even though in reality - not YOUR reality, but ACTUAL reality - you have no way to actually KNOW if I have or have not had this "tantrum". "

                                  Sure, we can just read you frustrated ramblings.
                                  • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                    Sun, November 8, 2009 - 10:44 PM
                                    <No, it's just really due to you constantly throwing tantrums, Andrew>

                                    See? There it is. Your self-defined and fantastical "tantrum". Does it make you feel better to think of me throwing a "tantrum"? You have no idea what I am doing, but you enjoy to THINK that you have caused me to develop into such an emotional state that I throw a "tantrum". Or, another options is that want to apply the MEANING of this word on my writing here, associating it with the casual definition of the word, hoping that others will catch on and start to use your language? I wonder. Personally, I think that you have this fantasy of your having the effect of driving me to a "tantrum", so you SAY it, with the action that this creates this reality for you. You really think that I have a "tantrum".

                                    <Sure, we can just read you frustrated ramblings.>

                                    There it is. Your imagination, your "read" on my "frustrated ramblings". Yes, you really think that this is true. It'd be better for YOU if you were simply trying to be manipulative, but you really think that you can "read" me. HA! Love it. This fantasy that you have created. Or! Maybe you're a psychic!?

                                    Here - I'll be a psychic, too! I'll "read" you! In your future, I see your core unhappiness turning into a chronic illness. You of course don't think that there's anything wrong with you or how you act, so you won't try to seek help for your disorder. I like that.

                                    I'm off to have a drink. I'm going to invent a drink in your honor. It's going to be called the "Sad Bastard", and it's going to have LOTS of bad whiskey, Campari, lemon juice and bitters. It'll be perfectly suiting.
                                    • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                      Sun, November 8, 2009 - 11:03 PM
                                      "See? There it is. Your self-defined and fantastical "tantrum"."

                                      Actually they are pretty easily identified


                                      "Does it make you feel better to think of me throwing a "tantrum"? You have no idea what I am doing, but you enjoy to THINK that you have caused me to develop into such an emotional state that I throw a "tantrum". Or, another options is that want to apply the MEANING of this word on my writing here, associating it with the casual definition of the word, hoping that others will catch on and start to use your language? I wonder. Personally, I think that you have this fantasy of your having the effect of driving me to a "tantrum", so you SAY it, with the action that this creates this reality for you. You really think that I have a "tantrum"."

                                      Actually the whole thing strikes me as pretty sad


                                      "There it is. Your imagination, your "read" on my "frustrated ramblings". Yes, you really think that this is true. It'd be better for YOU if you were simply trying to be manipulative, but you really think that you can "read" me. HA! Love it. This fantasy that you have created. Or! Maybe you're a psychic!?"

                                      lol...


                                      "Here - I'll be a psychic, too! I'll "read" you! In your future, I see your core unhappiness turning into a chronic illness. You of course don't think that there's anything wrong with you or how you act, so you won't try to seek help for your disorder. I like that. "

                                      Andrew, most people think of you as a running joke on tribe. Why would I let anything you say bother me?


                                      "I'm off to have a drink. I'm going to invent a drink in your honor. It's going to be called the "Sad Bastard", and it's going to have LOTS of bad whiskey, Campari, lemon juice and bitters. It'll be perfectly suiting."

                                      Oh man, this must be really bothering you. I suggest if it's reached this point then you should just probably ignore me
                                      • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                        Mon, November 9, 2009 - 2:20 PM
                                        <Actually they are pretty easily identified>

                                        Yes! Yes, of course! ESPECIALLY when they are self-defined, 'eh?

                                        <Actually the whole thing strikes me as pretty sad>

                                        And I agree. Your sadism is "pretty sad". It's also "pretty sad" that something in your life has caused you to act out like this. It's also "pretty sad" that you will invent issues ("tantrums") just so you can feel good about something so STUPID as creating a reality for someone that you only 'know' online, who does not even matter to your 'real' world (Or, is THIS your 'real' world?). I find it "pretty sad" that you will argue against facts, while all the time not ever presenting your own facts to bolster your point. 'I am right!', you cry to the heavens. 'I am right because I SAY that I am right!'

                                        <Andrew, most people think of you as a running joke on tribe. Why would I let anything you say bother me?>

                                        Well, today I will continue to put as much time into worrying about people here as I did yesterday. And, yesterday, it was not much. And, it's not the point of you allowing anythng that I say to bother you. You don't have that control. You can't control what bothers you, and I feel that this conversation has bothered you. In fact, I have been wondering how long you will keep this up. I mean, you care enough to not want to STOP. You don't want to stop the conversation because then I might think that I 'got' to you. Well, obviously I did - which was my whole intent. You're a sad, sad individual, and I hope that your unhappyness IS chronic. You deserve what your karma demands.

                                        <Oh man, this must be really bothering you. I suggest if it's reached this point then you should just probably ignore me>

                                        "bothering" me? Ha. No. I tried to take the high road, but that obviously was wasted on you. No, I won't ignore you. I'll be here to remind you of your sad, sick shell, the same sad, sick shell that comes HERE pretty much ONLY to fuck with people. That someone would go online, that someone would create an alt JUST so that they can do this? THAT is "pretty sad".
                                        • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                          Mon, November 9, 2009 - 5:51 PM
                                          lol, oh man, you got it bad
                                          • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                            Thu, November 12, 2009 - 11:44 PM
                                            < lol, oh man, you got it bad>

                                            Yes. It's fun to see you struggle with your emotional baggage here on Tribe, Mr. Alt.

                                            Seriously, why hide behind an alt? What is it about being an alt that makes you feel better about communicating here or better about yourself? One can safely postulate that you DO feel better about yourself behind this alt, so...? What do you get to exercise that you can't do as a real person?

                                            • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                              Thu, November 12, 2009 - 11:48 PM
                                              "Yes. It's fun to see you struggle with your emotional baggage here on Tribe, Mr. Alt."

                                              Indeed



                                              "Seriously, why hide behind an alt? What is it about being an alt that makes you feel better about communicating here or better about yourself? One can safely postulate that you DO feel better about yourself behind this alt, so...? What do you get to exercise that you can't do as a real person?"

                                              Its because I see people like you, and know I could never hope to reach your intellectual stature
                                              • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                                Fri, November 13, 2009 - 12:02 AM
                                                <Its because I see people like you, and know I could never hope to reach your intellectual stature>

                                                Oh, come now. You can do better than that. You feel if you stop responding, that I will feel that I 'won', so you offer that precious little bit of nonsense. It's like your version of an adlib - you just fill in some blanks and move on to the next page.

                                                No, there's some truth, a lot of truth to what I say. You and I both know it, Mr. Alt. Keep hiding behind your alt, kid. Hey - if it makes you feel better about yourself as it OBVIOUSLY does - then go man go! I mean, this li'l Tribe should be SOMEHOW positive for you! If throughout your day you need to come here and hide behind an alt to say things that you'd otherwise not feel comfortable in saying? Why not, right!?
                                                • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                                  Fri, November 13, 2009 - 12:22 AM
                                                  "Oh, come now. You can do better than that. You feel if you stop responding, that I will feel that I 'won', so you offer that precious little bit of nonsense. It's like your version of an adlib - you just fill in some blanks and move on to the next page."

                                                  So right



                                                  "No, there's some truth, a lot of truth to what I say. You and I both know it, Mr. Alt. Keep hiding behind your alt, kid. Hey - if it makes you feel better about yourself as it OBVIOUSLY does - then go man go! I mean, this li'l Tribe should be SOMEHOW positive for you! If throughout your day you need to come here and hide behind an alt to say things that you'd otherwise not feel comfortable in saying? Why not, right!?"

                                                  Absolutely. Thanks for helping me work through my issues andrew.,
                                                  • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                                    Fri, November 13, 2009 - 1:12 AM
                                                    <Absolutely. Thanks for helping me work through my issues andrew.,>

                                                    No, your issues are your issues, you've not worked through them yet and you're not going to work through them. You're not here to change, that's the WHOLE reason for the Alt. You get to exercise that ugly, cowardly part of yourself that you recognize that you cannot exhibit in the real world as yourself.
                                                    • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                                      Fri, November 13, 2009 - 1:24 AM
                                                      "No, your issues are your issues, you've not worked through them yet and you're not going to work through them. You're not here to change, that's the WHOLE reason for the Alt. You get to exercise that ugly, cowardly part of yourself that you recognize that you cannot exhibit in the real world as yourself."


                                                      Very observant, Andrew. And I truly appreciate your help and concern
                                                      • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                                        Fri, November 13, 2009 - 1:27 AM
                                                        <Very observant, Andrew. And I truly appreciate your help and concern>

                                                        Can't not reply, 'eh? You should probably not hit that 'submit' button.
                                                        • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                                          Fri, November 13, 2009 - 1:35 AM
                                                          Really, what can I say? You have me nailed to the T.
                                                          • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                                            Fri, November 13, 2009 - 2:38 AM
                                                            < Really, what can I say? You have me nailed to the T.>

                                                            I don't know. It'd be tough to say. I mean, you're an alt, so no one knows if you're tall and fit or short and fat. No one knows if you're ambulatory or maybe laid up in a daybed. No one knows why you may choose to hide behind your 'personality' that you've chosen to assume.

                                                            What are you like when you're being 'you'? Does the real 'you' feel bad that you can't say the things that you like to say here?

                                                            Why the alt?
                                                            • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                                              Fri, November 13, 2009 - 3:02 AM
                                                              "I don't know. It'd be tough to say. I mean, you're an alt, so no one knows if you're tall and fit or short and fat. No one knows if you're ambulatory or maybe laid up in a daybed. No one knows why you may choose to hide behind your 'personality' that you've chosen to assume.

                                                              What are you like when you're being 'you'? Does the real 'you' feel bad that you can't say the things that you like to say here?

                                                              Why the alt? "

                                                              Really, like I said before. It's because I find myself constantly intimidated by the intellect of people like you.
                                                          • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                                            Fri, November 13, 2009 - 2:40 AM
                                                            First honest statement from you in awhile.
                                                            • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                                              Fri, November 13, 2009 - 3:02 AM
                                                              thank you, Erik. I hope to use this thread to start a new period in mylife
                                                              • Re: I think it's a bromance

                                                                Fri, November 13, 2009 - 3:22 AM
                                                                How odd that you would continue to contribute to this ridiculous discussion.

                                                                I mean, there's no skin in it for you - you're a nobody. You're an alt. OR. Hmm. How close have you become with your alt? For SOME reason, you continue to join this conversation. What do you get out of it... Hmm. Is it that you want..no, let me rephrase that,...it's that you NEED to 'win'. If you stopped, you'd have let ME have the last word. Hmm. Can't have that.

                                                                No, you'll answer this too. You don't really care, right? But, you'll answer...

                                                                Come on, Alt. Tell us about yourself. I'll go first:

                                                                I have a real name, and it's Andrew. I have pictures of me on my profile. It's me. I don't pretend to be someone else or make my beliefs known while behind a screen - a'la Wizard of Oz.

                                                                Hmm. You? An alt. You need to be an alt for some reason. Hmm. I do wonder why. Are you someone else here on Tribe, but you want to have two separate personalities? Why? Why would one need to do that?
        • Re: I think it's a bromance

          Sun, November 8, 2009 - 10:55 AM
          "The clock is ticking on Iran. There is no going back at this point. We'll see who acts first - Israel and America to bomb them or Iran to get a working nuke."

          I think declaring that violent force is the only option is just as idiotic as Jeff's original declaration.
          • Dan
            Dan
            offline 8

            Re: I think it's a bromance

            Sun, November 8, 2009 - 1:37 PM
            I think that declaring negotiations are a viable option in the face of blatant deceit is classic liberalism.
            • Re: I think it's a bromance

              Sun, November 8, 2009 - 2:14 PM
              I look at blatant deceit as being an inherent part of international state craft.

              An honorable an disinterested actor just doesn't exist on such terms
              • Re: I think it's a bromance

                Mon, November 9, 2009 - 4:11 AM
                I wonder if this might just come up as a topic of conversation when Bibi and Barack meet shortly.

                edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD.../index.html
                • Re: I think it's a bromance

                  Mon, November 9, 2009 - 2:55 PM
                  <I wonder if this might just come up as a topic of conversation when Bibi and Barack meet shortly.>

                  Another nail in their coffin.

                  It's a shame, too. It doesn't have to go this way. No one else needs nukes. They just are bringing this on themselves.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: I think it's a bromance

                    Thu, November 12, 2009 - 9:35 AM
                    And, another:

                    APNewsBreak: Sources: Iran Nuke Plant 7 Years Old

                    Article Tools Sponsored By
                    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
                    Published: November 12, 2009

                    Filed at 11:48 a.m. ET

                    VIENNA (AP) -- Iran's recently revealed uranium enrichment hall is a highly fortified underground space that is a year away from completion after fitful construction that first started seven years ago, diplomats told The Associated Press on Thursday.

                    The diplomats also said that a recent inspection of the facility near the holy city of Qom by the International Atomic Energy Agency has reinforced suspicions that it could have been planned as part of a secret military nuclear program. Iran says it wants to enrich only to make atomic fuel but the West fears it could retool its program to churn out fissile warhead material.

                    One of the diplomats -- a senior official from a European nation -- says the hall is too small to be able to house the tens of thousands of centrifuges needed for peaceful industrial nuclear enrichment but the right size for the few thousand advanced machines that could generate the amount of weapons grade uranium needed for a military nuclear program.

                    The construction timeline of the facility, near the holy city of Qom is also important because it could help shed light on Tehran's ultimate nuclear aims and reflect its determination to keep its activities secret as far back as the initial revelation seven years ago that Iran had a clandestine nuclear program. Iran says it wants to enrich only to make nuclear fuel but the West fears it could turn its program toward making fissile warhead material.

                    The diplomats said Thursday that Iran started building the plant near Qom in 2002, then paused for two years in 2004 before resuming construction in 2006.

                    Those years jibe with the years Iran's secret nuclear program was initially revealed, its suspension of enrichment -- a key international demand -- and its resumption of the activity.

                    All of the diplomats have access to information compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency. They demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing confidential matters.

                    Iran acknowledged in September that it was building the facility in a restricted note to the IAEA only a few days before the U.S., British and French leaders jointly denounced Tehran for keeping its existence secret. IAEA inspectors visited the planned enrichment plant last month.

                    Iran maintains it fulfilled its legal obligations in revealing it was being built, but IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has said Tehran was ''outside the law'' and should have informed his agency when the decision to construct it was made.
          • Re: I think it's a bromance

            Thu, November 12, 2009 - 9:59 AM
            Maybe I was overly optimistic, but it seems that neither engagement nor non-engagement has been successful. Unfortunately they see this as a chess game they are playing with us. We had 8 years of virtually no engagement with Iran under Bush, engagement with Iran is in its infancy, so maybe Iran will be more coooperative as things progress. Will speaking softly while carrying a big stick work? Maybe not, maybe we need to talk harshly while carrying a big stick. What we know for sure is that not talking with Iran got us nowhere.
      • Re: I think it's a bromance

        Thu, November 12, 2009 - 10:12 AM
        <<lol, this goes up there with declaring Obama's health care overhaul as the greatest achievement in Health care reform ever

        It is the most progress in health care reform in the 100 years progressives have been trying, regardless of the bills flaws.
        • Re: I think it's a bromance

          Thu, November 12, 2009 - 11:45 PM
          <It is the most progress in health care reform in the 100 years progressives have been trying, regardless of the bills flaws.>

          Yep. A fact forgotten by the blue-skyers.

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"