• 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.

Breakthrough in Iranian nuclear talks!

Jocko

Philosopher
J
Joined
Dec 4, 2001
Messages
5,467
Great news from Tehran for a change. Turns out all we need to do is keep begging and bribing Iran to give peace a chance, and in exchange they promise to keep moving ahead with uranium enrichment anyway.

Let the cynics eat their hateful words, now that we're finally making some progress:

But the semi-official Fars news agency reported that Iran rejected calls to suspend "nuclear activities" _ or uranium enrichment _ and "instead has offered a new formula to resolve the issues through dialogue."
Click to expand...

W. T. F?! If this is what they call "serious negotiations," then it suddenly makes sense why Saddam was surprised to learn that "serious consequences" might mean actual conflict.

Apparently, serious ain't what it used to be.
 
Last edited:
Additionally, I think the word "negotiation" translates to the Farsi equivalent of "to jerk around expectant fools. see also Dupe, Hornswoggle."
 
Gee, I wonder where they learned such a negotiation stretegy.

"Hezbollah indicated it would be willing to pull back its fighters and weapons in exchange for a promise from the Lebanese army not to probe too carefully for underground bunkers and weapons caches, the officials said."

"Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, had insisted that any disarmament of his militia - even in the border area - should be handled in longer-term discussions within the Lebanese government, according to government ministers."

Yep, in exchange for us agreeing to talk with you about disarmament, which wouldn't happen until the "longer term" (whatever that means), you have to agree not to inquire about our... armaments...
 
But the semi-official Fars news agency reported that Iran rejected calls to suspend "nuclear activities" _ or uranium enrichment _ and "instead has offered a new formula to resolve the issues through dialogue."
Click to expand...

I demand semi-evidence.
 
Iraq has demonstrated that if you want to be sure to keep the infidels (the USA) out you need to have nukes. Just look at North Korea.

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
Iraq has demonstrated that if you want to be sure to keep the infidels (the USA) out you need to have nukes. Just look at North Korea.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

What in the hell are you talking about? North Korea has never had a problem keeping people out. Their biggest challenge is keeping people IN, and it has nothing to do with nukes.
 
Jocko said:
What in the hell are you talking about? North Korea has never had a problem keeping people out. Their biggest challenge is keeping people IN, and it has nothing to do with nukes.
Click to expand...

Are you that obtuse, or are you just trying to be a smart @ss?

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
Iraq has demonstrated that if you want to be sure to keep the infidels (the USA) out you need to have nukes. Just look at North Korea.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

Jocko said:
What in the hell are you talking about? North Korea has never had a problem keeping people out. Their biggest challenge is keeping people IN, and it has nothing to do with nukes.
Click to expand...

daredelvis said:
Are you that obtuse, or are you just trying to be a smart @ss?

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

Jocko said:
Are you that off topic, or are you just being a dumb@ss? Get to the point or get gone, DD, I've no patience for your derails.
Click to expand...

Settle down. By your reply I will go with obtuse. Like I said in my first post, it is no surprise that Iran would like to have nukes. If Iraq had nukes, like North Korea does, we would have been a lot less likely to have invaded. North Korea has a very large problem keeping people out that they address in part by having nuclear weapons.

What in the hell do you mean by derail? The thread is about Iran and nuclear weapons. I have no patience for your petty bullying.

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
Settle down. By your reply I will go with obtuse.
Click to expand...

Whatever blows your skirt up, tough guy.

Like I said in my first post, it is no surprise that Iran would like to have nukes. If Iraq had nukes, like North Korea does, we would have been a lot less likely to have invaded.
Click to expand...

Assumes facts not in evidence, and in fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq, if you recall. That, and a whole lot of other nastiness that didn't seem to protect Hussein from invasion. The fact that they didn't materialize - after the fact - is irrelevant to the perceived threat beforehand, which I presume is your rather opaque version of a point.

North Korea has a very large problem keeping people out that they address in part by having nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Again assumes facts not in evidence. Who's trying to get into North Korea, and why? Back that up, and then we can discuss the deterrent effect of nukes.

What in the hell do you mean by derail? The thread is about Iran and nuclear weapons. I have no patience for your petty bullying.
Click to expand...

Oh, so sorry, apparently I barged into your thread and started calling you names. I do apologize. Now, how about backing up some of the more ... er, counterintuitive premises you raise in this slightly more coherent post?
 
Jocko said:
What in the hell are you talking about? North Korea has never had a problem keeping people out. Their biggest challenge is keeping people IN, and it has nothing to do with nukes.
Click to expand...

daredelvis said:
Are you that obtuse, or are you just trying to be a smart @ss?
Click to expand...
Has North Korea had nuclear weapons since 1953?

'Cuz that was the last time there were any American soldiers there.
 
Jocko:
"Assumes facts not in evidence, and in fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq, if you recall."

Absolutely not...only if you believed the media spin and the propaganda from the Whitehouse at the time.
Informed comment did not belive Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.
 
demon said:
Jocko:
"Assumes facts not in evidence, and in fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq, if you recall."

Absolutely not...only if you believed the media spin and the propaganda from the Whitehouse at the time.
Informed comment did not belive Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

So the media also controlled Hans Blix, the UN security council, 99% of the planet's intelligence communities... See, there's a whole new perspective when you're able to remember (or at least look up) contemporary events from a whopping 4 years ago. Spread your lies elsewhere, demon, you're out of your depth.
 
I predict Iran's nuclear capabilities will end when Israel unilaterally bombs the crap out of a "baby food factory".

8 months maybe?
 
Jocko:
"So the media also controlled Hans Blix, the UN security council, 99% of the planet's intelligence communities... See, there's a whole new perspective when you're able to remember (or at least look up) contemporary events from a whopping 4 years ago. Spread your lies elsewhere, demon, you're out of your depth."

Well, let`s see your evidence...or are you out of your depth?
 
Jocko said:
in fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq
Click to expand...

Developing, yes. If they actually had functional nuclear weapons, do you think we would still have invaded? I think not - so does Iran, I imagine.
 
demon said:
Jocko:
"Assumes facts not in evidence, and in fact it was widely believed that a nuclear threat WAS developing in Iraq, if you recall."

Absolutely not...only if you believed the media spin and the propaganda from the Whitehouse at the time.
Informed comment did not belive Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
The problem, demon, was the uncertainty. Informed commentary was divided for the simple reason of not knowing. This uncertainty was partly due to Saddam's own strategy of bluff and disinformation, which was aimed more at Iran than at the US.

DR
 
Who was supplying the information that Saddam had a nuclear programme, or WMD?
And on the matter of WMD, I`ve never quite understood this idea that Saddam was engaged in some great strategy of bluff and disinformation on the matter of WMD. There's a real reluctance by some to acknowledge one simple fact - on the matter of WMD, Saddam told the truth and western leaders lied.
Iraq had been trapped in a Kafkaesque world since the Gulf War. If weapons inspectors could not find any stocks of WMD, well, that just went to show how cunning Saddam was at hiding them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom