Pink I.D Card & Yellow Book

[Scott]

Troll post and replies removed.  

 

[Dumbastheycome]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

"Iran has always been adamant that it does  not desire  nuclear  weapons but wants to  develop  high  capacity energy  production for domestic development."

 

And yet, Iran's claims to this effect were rejected by relevant international organizations. Accepting Iran's claims at face value is a choice. The previous sanctions regime, and the JCPOA itself were a direct result of Iran's efforts to do other than claimed above.

 

"...the Iranians once again are being true to their word  by up scaling their nuclear development in line with  original stated purpose as they stated they would  if continued incremental ad hoc economic pressures were applied in contravention of  existing  agreement."

 

The Iranians are not "true to their word". The agreement doesn't make allowances for the sort of partial breaches Iran is currently engaged in. It also doesn't mandate much by way of specifics with regard to countries having to do business with Iran. 

 

"Iran has demonstrated it is amenable to the affirmation of the  fact  by allowing  the confirmation by UN continued inspection."

 

Not really. Iran is fully aware that scrapping the agreement and the inspections regime would imply the international sanctions being reapplied. Seeing it as goodwill is a choice.

 

 

The rest of your post is just the usual rant about supposed USA policies and goals, throwing in events dating 70 years back and whatnot.

 

Irans's  claims  were  rejected.

By  which  singular  nation ( including allied suck ups )?

On what legitimate  basis?

I  am bored  with  the adherence  to propagandist  excrement perpetuated  by devotees  of  us  foreign  policy.

But I am constantly saddened  by the  demonstrated  fact that it  is  only the genuine us expats who  can in  life  retrospect understand  my  statement  of  opinion.

Those  that  remain  under  the  daily influence  either  by   generic residence  or   dependent  affiliation  to the  basic  underlying  allied  subscription  to  us  foreign  policy are  victims   of  a  impressive  deception that I  detest!

For  the  record !  I am  not  anti  American persona.  I am  vehemently  anti  us  administration deception.

But I am sure  you  will  attempt  to  distort  that once  more. You are  welcome  . 

Free  thought  is  the   capacity of  the  free  mind.

 

 

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

How about making a deal to make sure they are not allowed to enrich uranium so that they can't build a bomb?

And then maybe let a 3rd party verify that they keep that agreement maybe with regular inspections.

Wouldn't that be a great idea?

Wow  !  Oh!  Went there . Did  not  give  us  back  the oil reserves we were  raping  them  for  before! 

Point the finger !  Point the  finger!

[Morch]

47 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Irans's  claims  were  rejected.

By  which  singular  nation ( including allied suck ups )?

On what legitimate  basis?

I  am bored  with  the adherence  to propagandist  excrement perpetuated  by devotees  of  us  foreign  policy.

But I am constantly saddened  by the  demonstrated  fact that it  is  only the genuine us expats who  can in  life  retrospect understand  my  statement  of  opinion.

Those  that  remain  under  the  daily influence  either  by   generic residence  or   dependent  affiliation  to the  basic  underlying  allied  subscription  to  us  foreign  policy are  victims   of  a  impressive  deception that I  detest!

For  the  record !  I am  not  anti  American persona.  I am  vehemently  anti  us  administration deception.

But I am sure  you  will  attempt  to  distort  that once  more. You are  welcome  . 

Free  thought  is  the   capacity of  the  free  mind.

 

 

 

 

 

Iran's claims were rejected by the IAEA. If you actually need a rehash of relates details and facts, either look it up, or go back to previous topics where we've discussed this.

 

The rest of your post is the usual nonsensical muddled half rant, half personal attack.

 

[Dumbastheycome]

On 9/1/2019 at 9:11 AM, Morch said:

 

Iran's claims were rejected by the IAEA. If you actually need a rehash of relates details and facts, either look it up, or go back to previous topics where we've discussed this.

 

The rest of your post is the usual nonsensical muddled half rant, half personal attack.

 

Can  you specify on what  date the IAEA "rejected" Iran's  claims?

Not that it  matters.

Perhaps you need revise my post.

Iran is  incrementally  breaching conditions established under the  agreement as they  have warned they would in retaliation  for actions they perceive as  signatory breaches by those that ( in Iran's assessment) have in some  degree to  usa pressure.

They have made  no secret of it . The IAEA report   from last  month simply acknowledges the  fact.

"Board of GovernorsGOV/INF/2019/9Date: 8 July 2019Original: EnglishFor official us e onlyVerification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)Report by the Director General1.This report of the Director General to the Board of Governors and, in parallel, to the United Nations Security Council (Security Council), is on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s (Iran’s) implementation of its nuclear-related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in relation to the level to w hic h it is enr ic hing uranium. It provides an update on developments since the Director General’s previous reports.1Activitie s Re late d to Enrichme nt2.On 7 July 2019, Iran provided the Agency with updated design information indicating that the enrichment level of the UF6 product is up to 5% U–235 at the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) at Natanz. On 8 July 2019, Iran informed the Agency that, based on the operator’s assessment, the enrichment level of the UF6 product at FEP “is about 4.5%”. On 8 J uly 2019, the Agency, using its on-line enrichment monitors, verif ied that Iran was enriching UF6above 3.67% U-235 at FEP.2 On the same date, the Agency took samples of the UF6 product for analysis."

 

Where  have there been  screams of  horror?

 

 Half personal attack?

Do I conclude near all posts in response to those  addressed  to me or others in an open  forum not in accord  with  your  opinion or assumed 'correctness" with dismissive derisive assumptive superior "instruction" to  reacquaint ( rehash) myself in accord to your point of  view?

If so take it to someone who  cares.

 

[Morch]

 

@Dumbastheycome

 

Iran's claims regarding efforts to obtain military nuclear capability and breaches of the NPT were rejected. That led to international sanctions regime, and later on to the JCOPA. If you wish to pretend you're not familiar with the timeline or with events, that's fine. But to repeat - this was discussed on past topics, in which you participated. There's no need to re-establish these facts on each and every topic.

 

Wouldn't know what "screams of horror" you're on about. Same goes for the point of linking and quoting the current IAEA report. And, by the way, IAEA reports are usually carefully phrased, nothing special about that one.

 

I'm pretty sure that you have some comprehension issues with regard to the term "rehash" as it was used in my post. But hard to say, as the last part is again, rather muddled.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by Morch

[Dumbastheycome]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

@Dumbastheycome

 

Iran's claims regarding efforts to obtain military nuclear capability and breaches of the NPT were rejected. That led to international sanctions regime, and later on to the JCOPA. If you wish to pretend you're not familiar with the timeline or with events, that's fine. But to repeat - this was discussed on past topics, in which you participated. There's no need to re-establish these facts on each and every topic.

 

Wouldn't know what "screams of horror" you're on about. Same goes for the point of linking and quoting the current IAEA report. And, by the way, IAEA reports are usually carefully phrased, nothing special about that one.

 

I'm pretty sure that you have some comprehension issues with regard to the term "rehash" as it was used in my post. But hard to say, as the last part is again, rather muddled.

 

 

So you are referencing  historic  rather  than  current ?

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

So you are referencing  historic  rather  than  current ?

 

I was replying to a point you raised - "Iran has always been adamant that it does  not desire  nuclear  weapons but wants to  develop  high  capacity energy  production for domestic development."

 

Try and keep up with your own posts, please.

[Dumbastheycome]

On 9/1/2019 at 10:47 AM, Morch said:

 

"Iran has always been adamant that it does  not desire  nuclear  weapons but wants to  develop  high  capacity energy  production for domestic development."

 

And yet, Iran's claims to this effect were rejected by relevant international organizations. Accepting Iran's claims at face value is a choice. The previous sanctions regime, and the JCPOA itself were a direct result of Iran's efforts to do other than claimed above.

 

"...the Iranians once again are being true to their word  by up scaling their nuclear development in line with  original stated purpose as they stated they would  if continued incremental ad hoc economic pressures were applied in contravention of  existing  agreement."

 

The Iranians are not "true to their word". The agreement doesn't make allowances for the sort of partial breaches Iran is currently engaged in. It also doesn't mandate much by way of specifics with regard to countries having to do business with Iran. 

 

"Iran has demonstrated it is amenable to the affirmation of the  fact  by allowing  the confirmation by UN continued inspection."

 

Not really. Iran is fully aware that scrapping the agreement and the inspections regime would imply the international sanctions being reapplied. Seeing it as goodwill is a choice.

 

 

The rest of your post is just the usual rant about supposed USA policies and goals, throwing in events dating 70 years back and whatnot.

 

Did I say that the "agreement"  allows breaches on any part? I simply stated that Iran is  following through on  previous stated action in light  of  other parties  to said  agreement  not  being in  full compliance.

As  for  throwing  in "supposed" policies did I here  mention  70 years? Well if that is  now  irrelevant then  the  Holocaust  can be dismissed along with  the  blanket  bombing of Laos and  Cambodia killing an estimated  2  million  peasants as an aside  to the  fated associated  involvement in Vietnam leaving a legacy of  dioxin contamination  for both the  Vietnamese and the  poor sucker us Infantry and others?

As can the  bogus  undeclared war  in Iraq ? The list is  larger.

Very sad  legacy  for an administration that  declares itself as the  shepherd  of  world peace.

 

[Dumbastheycome]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I was replying to a point you raised - "Iran has always been adamant that it does  not desire  nuclear  weapons but wants to  develop  high  capacity energy  production for domestic development."

 

Try and keep up with your own posts, please.

Where is  my contradiction?

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 1:47 PM, Boon Mee said:

 Iran, whose #1 export is Terror - think Hezbolla etc, anything that can be done to stop them from getting the Bomb ???? is acceptable. 

Your country is the only one on earth who ever used it.

How many countries has Iran invaded compared to the USA.

Which country is at war non stop for over 200 years?

Which country has military bases all over the world surrounding Russia and Iran?  

Which country almost wiped out all his indigenous people and stole all their resources?

 

Learn some history before you blame others.

 

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Your country is the only one on earth who ever used it.

How many countries has Iran invaded compared to the USA.

Which country is at war non stop for over 200 years?

Which country has military bases all over the world surrounding Russia and Iran?  

Which country almost wiped out all his indigenous people and stole all their resources?

 

Learn some history before you blame others.

 

 

And all of the above still don't make a good argument for Iran having nuclear arms.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Did I say that the "agreement"  allows breaches on any part? I simply stated that Iran is  following through on  previous stated action in light  of  other parties  to said  agreement  not  being in  full compliance.

As  for  throwing  in "supposed" policies did I here  mention  70 years? Well if that is  now  irrelevant then  the  Holocaust  can be dismissed along with  the  blanket  bombing of Laos and  Cambodia killing an estimated  2  million  peasants as an aside  to the  fated associated  involvement in Vietnam leaving a legacy of  dioxin contamination  for both the  Vietnamese and the  poor sucker us Infantry and others?

As can the  bogus  undeclared war  in Iraq ? The list is  larger.

Very sad  legacy  for an administration that  declares itself as the  shepherd  of  world peace.

 

 

"I simply stated"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And all of the above still don't make a good argument for Iran having nuclear arms.

The point of contention I think many consider , or  certainly I do, is  not any desire, wish, agreement that Iran  should  possess nuclear weapons. It is  more to do  with a repeat of  the  bs  justification in  invading  Iraq.

[rickudon]

Iran has many enemies. It is one of only 2 significant Shia majority countries. (Iraq is the other). Shia are persecuted by Sunnis in many Islamic majority countries. Particularly in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But when Iran helps persecuted Shia minorities they are accused of funding 'terrorism'. When Saudis help persecute Shia minorities in other countries such as Yemen, Bahrain they are not terrorists …..

Al Quaeda, Isis, and their many spinoffs around the world are all Sunni …….  and we know who started this wave of fundamentalism.

Name one international 'terrorist' group supported by Iran …… if you say Hezbollah please tell me when they have routinely targeted people outside of Lebanon/Syria/Israel.

The USA is currently selling nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia ………...

Israel only ever pursues what is in their interest - strangely they and ISIS never came to blows?

 

Now tell me which countries are 'dangerous'.

[Dumbastheycome]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

"I simply stated"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compose  yourself. I can understand  you have some  problem.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

The point of contention I think many consider , or  certainly I do, is  not any desire, wish, agreement that Iran  should  possess nuclear weapons. It is  more to do  with a repeat of  the  bs  justification in  invading  Iraq.

 

Is this topic about Iraq?

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, rickudon said:

Iran has many enemies. It is one of only 2 significant Shia majority countries. (Iraq is the other). Shia are persecuted by Sunnis in many Islamic majority countries. Particularly in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. But when Iran helps persecuted Shia minorities they are accused of funding 'terrorism'. When Saudis help persecute Shia minorities in other countries such as Yemen, Bahrain they are not terrorists …..

Al Quaeda, Isis, and their many spinoffs around the world are all Sunni …….  and we know who started this wave of fundamentalism.

Name one international 'terrorist' group supported by Iran …… if you say Hezbollah please tell me when they have routinely targeted people outside of Lebanon/Syria/Israel.

The USA is currently selling nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia ………...

Israel only ever pursues what is in their interest - strangely they and ISIS never came to blows?

 

Now tell me which countries are 'dangerous'.

 

Iran doesn't simply "help" Shia groups. It uses them to promote its own regional goals. You want to take a romantic view of Iran's regional efforts - go right ahead. But do go on about other countries having them "interests".

 

Both Iran and Hezbollah were associated with several terrorist actions/attempts worldwide. Bangkok included.

 

Saudi Arabia arguably being worse is still not a good argument for Iran having nuclear weapons. Nor does going on about Saudi Arabia and Sunni extremism make Iran's actions and ambitions less of an issue. In other words, they can both be bad.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Iran doesn't simply "help" Shia groups. It uses them to promote its own regional goals. You want to take a romantic view of Iran's regional efforts - go right ahead. But do go on about other countries having them "interests".

 

Both Iran and Hezbollah were associated with several terrorist actions/attempts worldwide. Bangkok included.

 

Saudi Arabia arguably being worse is still not a good argument for Iran having nuclear weapons. Nor does going on about Saudi Arabia and Sunni extremism make Iran's actions and ambitions less of an issue. In other words, they can both be bad.

If you actually look at the terrorist incidents laid at Iran's door they have been very infrequent in the past several years and mostly have to do with targeting opponents of the regime. Not targeting random civilians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#Albania

[FritsSikkink]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

And all of the above still don't make a good argument for Iran having nuclear arms.

Nobody should have them but why should 1 country decide who gets them and who doesn't.

[bristolboy]

On 8/31/2019 at 3:23 PM, Morch said:

 

If Iran would take serious steps to achieve nuclear military capability the remnants of international support it gets would evaporate, and there would probably some serious consequences.

 

Those "remnants of international support" seem pretty darned supportive.

France Dangles $15 Billion Bailout for Iran in Effort to Save Nuclear Deal

A senior Iranian delegation arrived in Paris on Monday to work out the details of a financial bailout package that France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, intends to use to compensate Iran for oil sales lost to American sanctions. In return for the money, Iran would agree to return to compliance with a 2015 nuclear accord...

While Mr. Macron and Mr. Trump gave no hint of their differences in public comments, administration officials say the French effort, which other European nations appear to support, is undermining the administration’s effort to exert what Mr. Trump calls “maximum pressure” on Tehran.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/02/world/middleeast/iran-france-nuclear-deal.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

[Morch]

6 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Nobody should have them but why should 1 country decide who gets them and who doesn't.

 

It isn't one country that decides that. For reference, look up the NPT, JCPOA, UNSC and the IAEA. These are international organizations and agreements.

[FritsSikkink]

18 hours ago, Morch said:

 

It isn't one country that decides that. For reference, look up the NPT, JCPOA, UNSC and the IAEA. These are international organizations and agreements.

And who got out of the Iran agreement.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

And who got out of the Iran agreement.

 

The USA. What is your point? How does this relate to your previous, incorrect, comment - "1 country decide..."?