• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time to kick Iran

pmurray said:
Needless to say, the US in particular has simply ignored the treaty, just like it ignores the canadian softwood agreement and the various treaties it made with the indian nations. A treaty that any party to it decides to ignore is dead.
Click to expand...

True.
To be said that Russia did not work particularly hard on disarmement, too.
 
Last edited:
Matteo Martini said:
The catch 22 comes from your assertions.
Leave Iran alone, do not threathen them, and they will not need to develop nukes.
Click to expand...


Because the only possible reason that Iran might want nuclear weapons is to protect themselves from the USA?

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
If Russia and China don't have a problem with Iran they really should do something about those UNSC Resolutions they keep authorising...

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Apparently, those light sanctions did not have any effect in stopping nor slowing down Iran` s program.
BTW, I have the suspect that they ( China and Russia ) have been " pushed " a little bit by the US, and they just voted them as they knew the sanctions were very light..

The proof is in the pudding..

Putin: Iran nuke plans 'peaceful'
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/16/putin.iran/index.html

Also China does not seem to cooperate that much, in isolating Iran..

China, Iran Sign $2 Billion Oil Production Agreement (Update2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=akKRGh8SSyMI&refer=asia
 
Don't these points prove that the only reason bigger sanctions haven't been implemented is because Russia and China are benefiting from Iran be it from oil or the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome?
 
Policenaut said:
Don't these points prove that the only reason bigger sanctions haven't been implemented is because Russia and China are benefiting from Iran be it from oil or the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome?
Click to expand...

Or they are pissed off by the foreign policy of the US
 
Sure. And they have nothing to gain right? They're standing up for the rights of Iran cause they really care.
 
Policenaut said:
Sure. And they have nothing to gain right? They're standing up for the rights of Iran cause they really care.
Click to expand...

No, as maybe they are pissed off by the US foreign policy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has compared US plans for a missile shield in Europe to the Cuban missile crisis of the 1960s.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7064428.stm

Anyway, that is a possible explanation
 
Last edited:
Interesting comparison... I hope you're aware how ridiculous this is, even if many politicians in Europe parrot Putin's line for some reason I'm unable to fathom. You would have to wield some pretty huge distortions of logic to view a missile shield as an attack.

I'm telling ya, if someone like Putin feels threatened by the West, it's evidence that we're doing things just fine. That doesn't mean we should attack Russia, but we should keep it in check. Things are looking glum over there.
 
danielk said:
Interesting comparison... I hope you're aware how ridiculous this is, even if many politicians in Europe parrot Putin's line for some reason I'm unable to fathom. You would have to wield some pretty huge distortions of logic to view a missile shield as an attack.
Click to expand...

Well..
I do not think he is that wrong.
How many people in the US would be happy if ( let` s say ) China puts a missile defense system in Mexico, not that far from the border with the US?

danielk said:
I'm telling ya, if someone like Putin feels threatened by the West, it's evidence that we're doing things just fine. That doesn't mean we should attack Russia, but we should keep it in check. Things are looking glum over there.
Click to expand...

Looking glum or better than, let` s say, 30 years ago?
BTW, it is only Russia which is not cooperating that much with America in isolating Iran.
China and India are also making business with them.
And even some European countries are opposed in pushing sanctions further
 
Last edited:
Matteo Martini said:
Well..
I do not think he is that wrong.
How many people in the US would be happy if ( let` s say ) China puts a missile defense system in Mexico, not that far from the border with the US?
Click to expand...

If China had bases and allies in Mexico and central america and was afraid several south american countries were going to attack them then I would support the defense system.

Russia is looking pretty glum to me except now they have money. The only reason they have money is because oil prices are so high. The Kremlin seems to be taking back all the power it once had and then some. Were reporter assassinations this common back in the cold war era?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia
 
Policenaut said:
If China had bases and allies in Mexico and central america and was afraid several south american countries were going to attack them then I would support the defense system.
Click to expand...

I think many ( US ) Americans would not be of the same opinion as yours

Policenaut said:
Russia is looking pretty glum to me except now they have money. The only reason they have money is because oil prices are so high. The Kremlin seems to be taking back all the power it once had and then some. Were reporter assassinations this common back in the cold war era?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia
Click to expand...

Nothing has changed in Russia in the last 30 years, excpet that now they have more money?
In the cold war era, there were no assassinations of journalists as there were no free newspapers, maybe.
 
Last edited:
Sorry I meant political assassinations in general. It was a poor question though but I think it's staggering how many reporters have been murdered in Russia since Putin came to power.

Obviously things have changed in Russia but my point is that they seem to be losing some freedoms the 90's brought about and the Kremlin is stepping up to become more powerful, secretive, and dangerous with the help of Putin. The pro-kremlin youth movement funded by the kremlin is a rather scary image as well. They're also bringing back an old tactic:
http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/14-12-2007/102862-basyrov-0

I don't know but Russia doesn't seem all peachy keen to me.
 
Policenaut said:
Sorry I meant political assassinations in general. It was a poor question though but I think it's staggering how many reporters have been murdered in Russia since Putin came to power.
Click to expand...

Can not but agree.

Policenaut said:
Obviously things have changed in Russia but my point is that they seem to be losing some freedoms the 90's brought about and the Kremlin is stepping up to become more powerful, secretive, and dangerous with the help of Putin. The pro-kremlin youth movement funded by the kremlin is a rather scary image as well. They're also bringing back an old tactic:
http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/14-12-2007/102862-basyrov-0

I don't know but Russia doesn't seem all peachy keen to me.
Click to expand...

Agreed on that, but, in this very moment, the majority of the Russians believe in him and they have their reasons
 
Matteo Martini said:
Today` s news..
Russia Delivers First Shipment of Nuclear Fuel to Iran
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121700220.html?hpid=topnews
Click to expand...
Good link, thanks.
Russia, which is building the $1 billion Bushehr facility, had halted construction at the plant this year, ostensibly because of a financing dispute. But Western diplomats and analysts here said Moscow was in fact expressing its displeasure at Iran's failure to cooperate fully with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations watchdog organization. They said Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, were also alarmed at the bellicose rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Click to expand...
Money talks, the rest walks.
the article said:
The Russian foreign ministry said in a statement that it had received written assurances from Tehran that the 82 tons of fuel will be used only at the Bushehr power plant, which has been dogged by delays amid suspicions that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The oil-rich country insists that the plant, which will generate electricity, is part of an effort to diversify its energy sources.
Click to expand...
the article said:
"All fuel that will be delivered will be under the control and guarantees of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the whole time it stays on Iranian territory," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "Moreover, the Iranian side gave additional written guarantees that the fuel will be used only for the Bushehr nuclear power plant."
Click to expand...
Godwin moment: Hitler and Stalin gave each other written guarantees in the form of the infamous "Non Aggression Pact."

Scraps of paper.

FWIW, I hope the government in Teheran is actually being upright in this matter, and not dissembling.

DR
 
Last edited:
Matteo Martini said:
The US went to Iraq for oil.
Click to expand...

I've said this before and I'll say it again, the sentence I quoted from you is ambiguous. Does it mean:

1) going to war to take control over oil
2) going to war to maintain control over oil
3) going to war to get access to oil
4) going to war to maintain access to oil
5) going to war to deprive someone else of control of that oil
6) going to war to maintain someone else's control of that oil
7) going to war to deprive someone else of access to that oil
8) going to war to prevent someone else from having access to it

These are not the same thing, but they all fall under "for oil". Usually it's implied that we went into Iraq for #1. But if we did, we've done an amazingly bad job at following that up. And there is no indication from your link that Greenspan thought #1 was the reason. Furthermore, it was actually rather plain from subsequent statements by Greenspan that he believed the initial stories about his statements badly misconstrued them:

In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom