International community to resume nuclear talks with Iran

[nurofiend]

no i didn't base it just on the fact that he was jewish, i read the article... it was the content of the article that made me think it was biased... i didn't know he was jewish until after i read and checked

so don't brand me a racist, as that's an extremely offensive thing to call someone.

Then you shouldn't have said the exact opposite. I did not call you a racist. I don't know you. I only know what you write. Read what I actually wrote.

, biased as in from a jewish perspective written by a jewish person

You cannot blame readers for actually reading what you write. We cannot read your mind. All we have is what you write. Got it now?

you said i have a racist mindset! so people who have racist mindsets aren't racist in your world are they?

i didn't say the exact opposite, in my first post i said it was biased, that's all... i didn't mention anything to do with anything jewish, did i?

then someone said "biased towards common sense" which i replied no biased from a jewish perspective and written by a jewish person.

you can try and bs it to make it out that i hold my opinion about an article just based on it being written by a jewish person, and don't have my own ability to hold a view about a piece i read without there being some racist anti-semitic agenda... that sounds like your problem to deal with cos it ain't mine...

Edited March 17, 2012 by nurofiend

[Jingthing]

From 1600GMT Swift banking facilities are to be withdrawn from Iran, so they will be cut off from the banking system. According to the BBC news today the Belguim based Swift will cut the link on saturday at 1600GMT. This will be a big wake up call, presumably the only way trade can be done will either be in goods, services or gold.

so now iran will not be able to pay for food and will be pushed into a corner as they try to starve the iran nation,but they will not bite and attack anyone.

i wonder what will happen if any nation like russia or china trys to send food medical aid to help the iran nation,they will be attacked and murdered in open international waters,like the aid ferry from turkey.

some how i dont think so.

prey for the kids over there they always suffer

Interestingly, there are now reports that the Iranian REGIME itself is starting to really feel the impact of the different sanctions. Surely, the SWIFT blockage is a big deal. The idea of the sanctions is to bring Iran to the reality that the price is too high for them to continue with their nuclear technology potential weapons program. Will it work? Not likely, but there are certainly reasonable voices for this tactic short of attack tactics.

[Jingthing]

I'll let my posts stand without further comment. You are baiting for a fight now. Not interested.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Jingthing

[nurofiend]

no baiting whatsoever on my part, i'm more than happy to let this discussion end.

[Scott]

You can agree or disagree with other posters, however, any discussion should be about the OP.

Please stay on-topic.

[exeter]

All governments do what they wish and its the general public who end up feeling the pinch. The sanctions will hurt the people, the people in the government still get what they have been used to. The govt of Iran will not listen to the people nor will it consider what is happening to them. I am not sure the Russians or the Chinese would want to get involved and provoke the situation, whats in for them?Worth standing up to the West, for what? The West owes the Chinese lots of money for goods and depends on the Chinese for lots of goods, no cannot see the Chinese getting involved and the Russians do not seem to keen on supplying weapons to the Govt so Vetos are probably as far as they go.

The west Military option needs to be on the table but to be used only as a very last resort, if a way could be found for the Iranians to not lose face and fit in with the world community that would be a good option, the problem is that Iran does not like being told what to do by the rest of the world and to be honest if it were your country you would like it either would you, this is what needs resolving more than anything else I think.

In the meantime what of Israel a country that seems constantly at war with various factions? Utmost patience is required, their military option is always on the table, lets hope it stays there and a solution can be found, no one will benefit from raised temperatures or worse a conflict.

[metisdead]

Comment on moderation removed.

Edit: Another comment on moderation has been removed, please take the time to read the Forum Rules , in particular, read forum rule #21.

Edited March 18, 2012 by metisdead

[Steely Dan]

Talk softly, but carry a big stick.

http://www.debka.com/article/21837/

[nong38]

Talk softly, but carry a big stick.

http://www.debka.com/article/21837/

IT is a prudent step by the western powers, I hope that is all it is but for the US to have 3 carrier groups in one place and not in a time of conflict is very rare, unless , of course, you know differently.

[myfriendu]

All governments do what they wish and its the general public who end up feeling the pinch. The sanctions will hurt the people, the people in the government still get what they have been used to. The govt of Iran will not listen to the people nor will it consider what is happening to them. I am not sure the Russians or the Chinese would want to get involved and provoke the situation, whats in for them?Worth standing up to the West, for what? The West owes the Chinese lots of money for goods and depends on the Chinese for lots of goods, no cannot see the Chinese getting involved and the Russians do not seem to keen on supplying weapons to the Govt so Vetos are probably as far as they go.

The west Military option needs to be on the table but to be used only as a very last resort, if a way could be found for the Iranians to not lose face and fit in with the world community that would be a good option, the problem is that Iran does not like being told what to do by the rest of the world and to be honest if it were your country you would like it either would you, this is what needs resolving more than anything else I think.

In the meantime what of Israel a country that seems constantly at war with various factions? Utmost patience is required, their military option is always on the table, lets hope it stays there and a solution can be found, no one will benefit from raised temperatures or worse a conflict.

maybe they see it for what it truely is. oil,and maybe then dont want leaving out,libya who the brits and french now control and russian and chienese contract canceled.

does sway me a bit

[chuckd]

Talk softly, but carry a big stick.

http://www.debka.com/article/21837/

Normally this site provides good information, but I tend to question the part where it says the US Navy has three carrier battle groups IN the Persian Gulf. With the bottleneck at the Straits of Hormuz, there would be no effective way out without suffering some losses.

The Fifth Fleet is normally there and if the other carriers are in the area, I doubt seriously if they are inside the Straits of Hormuz. The three US carriers have around 220 attack aircraft that can get to Iran in very short order if need be. There is no reason to expose three battle groups to a confined area like the Persian Gulf.

[Steely Dan]

Talk softly, but carry a big stick.

http://www.debka.com/article/21837/

Normally this site provides good information, but I tend to question the part where it says the US Navy has three carrier battle groups IN the Persian Gulf. With the bottleneck at the Straits of Hormuz, there would be no effective way out without suffering some losses.

The Fifth Fleet is normally there and if the other carriers are in the area, I doubt seriously if they are inside the Straits of Hormuz. The three US carriers have around 220 attack aircraft that can get to Iran in very short order if need be. There is no reason to expose three battle groups to a confined area like the Persian Gulf.

Yes, I've heard about the lack of room for maneuver in the straight. Perhaps one group is replacing another, or even moving there for a very short time to coax a response out of Iran. I don't think we need wait very long to find out.

[exeter]

When looking at the narrowset parts of the straits it appears to be about 30 miles across, so taking national waters into account it does not leave much for room for others. Then there are the disputed parts. It does make much sense to have 3 carriers IN or near this area, far better to be within in range but out of harms way.

[Colin Yai]

Talk softly, but carry a big stick.

http://www.debka.com/article/21837/

Normally this site provides good information, but I tend to question the part where it says the US Navy has three carrier battle groups IN the Persian Gulf. With the bottleneck at the Straits of Hormuz, there would be no effective way out without suffering some losses.

The Fifth Fleet is normally there and if the other carriers are in the area, I doubt seriously if they are inside the Straits of Hormuz. The three US carriers have around 220 attack aircraft that can get to Iran in very short order if need be. There is no reason to expose three battle groups to a confined area like the Persian Gulf.

Yes, I've heard about the lack of room for maneuver in the straight. Perhaps one group is replacing another, or even moving there for a very short time to coax a response out of Iran. I don't think we need wait very long to find out.

Coax a response Dan?, nah my mate it just ain't going to happen!, I doubt very much that Iran has the backbone to adopt the Kamakazi stance, cos in essence this is what it would amount to ,I've no doubt though that this is just what the Americans want , however given that I agree that the Iranian regime are a set of crackpots ,but not that stupid enough to bring humiliation among themselves and their insane stone age religion by a load of infidels

[chuckd]

Talk softly, but carry a big stick.

http://www.debka.com/article/21837/

Normally this site provides good information, but I tend to question the part where it says the US Navy has three carrier battle groups IN the Persian Gulf. With the bottleneck at the Straits of Hormuz, there would be no effective way out without suffering some losses.

The Fifth Fleet is normally there and if the other carriers are in the area, I doubt seriously if they are inside the Straits of Hormuz. The three US carriers have around 220 attack aircraft that can get to Iran in very short order if need be. There is no reason to expose three battle groups to a confined area like the Persian Gulf.

Yes, I've heard about the lack of room for maneuver in the straight. Perhaps one group is replacing another, or even moving there for a very short time to coax a response out of Iran. I don't think we need wait very long to find out.

Coax a response Dan?, nah my mate it just ain't going to happen!, I doubt very much that Iran has the backbone to adopt the Kamakazi stance, cos in essence this is what it would amount to ,I've no doubt though that this is just what the Americans want , however given that I agree that the Iranian regime are a set of crackpots ,but not that stupid enough to bring humiliation among themselves and their insane stone age religion by a load of infidels

The biggest threat to shipping are mines sowed along the strait. The US has recently positioned Mine Sweeps in the Gulf to help prevent this from affecting the shipping lanes. The Iranians are stupid enough to try this. Today's MCM (Mine counter measures) are more sophisticated than previous and would likely negate most of this threat.

The Iranian Navy has some VFPB's (Very Fast Patrol Boats) that they could, and would, use as suicide boats to attack larger vessels, as was done against the docked USS Cole in Yemen. Rules of Engagement have changed so it is highly unlikely a small boat armed with explosives and piloted by suicide bombers could get close enough to a US Naval vessel to do any damage. A CIWS (Close in Weapons System) can do quite a bit of damage to a small boat at 3,000 (.20 millimeter) rounds per minute.

Unfortunately terrorists have to get it right only one time.

[Pakboong]

'Mossad, CIA agree Iran has yet to decide to build nuclear weapon'

New York Times report quotes senior American officials who believe there is little disagreement between Israeli and U.S. intelligence over Iran’s nuclear program, despite calls for a strike by Israeli officials.

By Haaretz

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-cia-agree-iran-has-yet-to-decide-to-build-nuclear-weapon-1.419300

So I guess the sanctions are to help them to continue to not decide.

[flying]

So I guess the sanctions are to help them to continue to not decide.

Same as it ever was...............Folks who look see this has been going on for over a decade.

I guess Iran works very slow in the same way as those other terrorist are bad shots with the rockets eh?

[Naam]

Talk softly, but carry a big stick.

http://www.debka.com/article/21837/

Normally this site provides good information, but I tend to question the part where it says the US Navy has three carrier battle groups IN the Persian Gulf. With the bottleneck at the Straits of Hormuz, there would be no effective way out without suffering some losses.

The Fifth Fleet is normally there and if the other carriers are in the area, I doubt seriously if they are inside the Straits of Hormuz. The three US carriers have around 220 attack aircraft that can get to Iran in very short order if need be. There is no reason to expose three battle groups to a confined area like the Persian Gulf.

DEBKA File provides not only good but also precise information. i remember they forecasted an imminent "bunkerbusting raid" on Iran and even specified the day, something like "monday next week". that was approximately four years ago

them Eyerainians might be stupid. but they are not that stupid making the first step (e.g. mines in the Straits of Hormuz) to justify any action by the "international community". much more, even highly, likely is a staged "Gulf of Tongking" charade by a party which has relevant experience and practice.

[myfriendu]

'Mossad, CIA agree Iran has yet to decide to build nuclear weapon'

New York Times report quotes senior American officials who believe there is little disagreement between Israeli and U.S. intelligence over Iran’s nuclear program, despite calls for a strike by Israeli officials.

By Haaretz

http://www.haaretz.c...weapon-1.419300

So I guess the sanctions are to help them to continue to not decide.

to push them into not building a pipeline or selling oil unless its in usd. the nuke smoke screen is just like saying my son will grow up and be a killer,because i was the forces.

iran wants peace,everyone else with nukes wants irans oil

[myfriendu]

Talk softly, but carry a big stick.

http://www.debka.com/article/21837/

Normally this site provides good information, but I tend to question the part where it says the US Navy has three carrier battle groups IN the Persian Gulf. With the bottleneck at the Straits of Hormuz, there would be no effective way out without suffering some losses.

The Fifth Fleet is normally there and if the other carriers are in the area, I doubt seriously if they are inside the Straits of Hormuz. The three US carriers have around 220 attack aircraft that can get to Iran in very short order if need be. There is no reason to expose three battle groups to a confined area like the Persian Gulf.

DEBKA File provides not only good but also precise information. i remember they forecasted an imminent "bunkerbusting raid" on Iran and even specified the day, something like "monday next week". that was approximately four years ago

them Eyerainians might be stupid. but they are not that stupid making the first step (e.g. mines in the Straits of Hormuz) to justify any action by the "international community". much more, even highly, likely is a staged "Gulf of Tongking" charade by a party which has relevant experience and practice.

spot on naam. false flag which will be the case

[Morch]

That actually could be a head start on the new world order

But as history shows none are allowed to sell oil in anything but USD

If one should try they will be suddenly thought to hold WMD's

or be a rouge terrorist or in need of UN bombing...

Anyone who has tried is no longer with us.

That is a very misleading post.

Not really.........IMHO coincidence 3x?

Saddam said he would sell oil in Euros

http://www.time.com/...,998512,00.html

http://www.oilempire.us/euro.html

It was not long after that he was deemed to no longer be a "friend"

Gaddafi said no more oil for Britain/France & would sell not in USD to China & Russia

Libya was Europe's largest supplier

UN soon bombed him to kingdom come.

http://www.salon.com.../06/11/libya_9/

It was not long ago that Iran moved to sell oil outside of USD

Look where Iran is headed today?

http://news.xinhuane...ent_8083804.htm

Wouldn't say "misleading".

I'm not so sure that the change (or threat to change) of trading currency, by itself, is a main feature.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, this particular step (maybe not a smart one) appears after the conflict is on the move.

The USA interest is to have as much control of oil (by that I mean all aspects - production, trade, whatever), as it can and exclude other contenders from having the same. You don't get to be an empire (or superpower, as they are called nowadays) by playing nice. Same goes for world trade in general, military capabilities of nations.

Disclaimer: I don't see this as necessarily "evil" or "bad" (doubt that such terms can be attributed to stuff like that, anyway). The USA is taking care of its interests, it is currently top dog, and as such things go, they aren't worse than the previous ones or than the other options around, probably somewhat better.

[Morch]

It doesn't look very hopeful that any talks between the international community and Iran

are going to stop the inevitable chaos

Brent At $126 As Israel Security Cabinet Votes 8 To 6 To Attack Iran

"Israeli political sources believe that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a majority Cabinet support Israeli military action against Iran without American approval.”

http://www.richardsi...inal-ultimatum/

The Israeli cabinet did NOT vote on the issue (or, for that matter, even held a proper discussion about it).

[Morch]

From 1600GMT Swift banking facilities are to be withdrawn from Iran, so they will be cut off from the banking system. According to the BBC news today the Belguim based Swift will cut the link on saturday at 1600GMT. This will be a big wake up call, presumably the only way trade can be done will either be in goods, services or gold.

so now iran will not be able to pay for food and will be pushed into a corner as they try to starve the iran nation,but they will not bite and attack anyone.

i wonder what will happen if any nation like russia or china trys to send food medical aid to help the iran nation,they will be attacked and murdered in open international waters,like the aid ferry from turkey.

some how i dont think so.

prey for the kids over there they always suffer

I was under the impression that Iran's leaders keep making light of the sanctions and their effects, surely, you don't mean to imply that they are misleading anyone? :-).

i wonder what will happen if any nation like russia or china trys to send food medical aid

Yeah, like...usually those two countries aren't really big on sending aid to needy places. Wonder what it would be like if they were.

[Morch]

Talk softly, but carry a big stick.

http://www.debka.com/article/21837/

Normally this site provides good information, but I tend to question the part where it says the US Navy has three carrier battle groups IN the Persian Gulf. With the bottleneck at the Straits of Hormuz, there would be no effective way out without suffering some losses.

The Fifth Fleet is normally there and if the other carriers are in the area, I doubt seriously if they are inside the Straits of Hormuz. The three US carriers have around 220 attack aircraft that can get to Iran in very short order if need be. There is no reason to expose three battle groups to a confined area like the Persian Gulf.

DEBKA File provides not only good but also precise information. i remember they forecasted an imminent "bunkerbusting raid" on Iran and even specified the day, something like "monday next week". that was approximately four years ago

them Eyerainians might be stupid. but they are not that stupid making the first step (e.g. mines in the Straits of Hormuz) to justify any action by the "international community". much more, even highly, likely is a staged "Gulf of Tongking" charade by a party which has relevant experience and practice.

Concur that Debka can be dodgy, and of course, the Iranians aren't stupid.

The situation in the Gulf is so tense and volatile as it is (likely to get even more so), that a real mistake or misinterpretation of action might lead to a conflagration.

Granted, that's not as sexy as a waving false flag.

[myfriendu]

Biased towards common sense.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501713_162-57399592/israelis-agree-iran-hasnt-decided-on-atom-bomb/

bit more biased info,thing is iran might build a nuke it would take 3-4 years if everything went as planned.

now 4 years down the line if they did have one,why would they fire it off and destory the iran nation,

if they dont build one and israel has no right to strike with nukes for something that may or may not happen

[Jingthing]

Oh, no! Another explanation of the Israeli point of view on the matter:

http://www.washingto...44NS_story.html

Iran is different because it has explicitly threatened Israel. It is different because it supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, both terrorist groups with a penchant for lobbing the occasional rocket into Israel. Iran is different because it acts irresponsibly, plotting just recently to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. This is just plain nuts — and very, very scary.

Teach your dog to talk?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riT6ku1DoJI

Edited March 20, 2012 by Jingthing

[myfriendu]

and some more http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/history-could-be-a-deterrent-to-iranian-aggression/2012/02/15/gIQA6UVcGR_story.html

[Ulysses G.]

_{Enough of the opinion pieces. There are plenty of editorials that disagree with those conclusions, but no point in linking to opinions.}

Edited March 20, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[nurofiend]

no i didn't base it just on the fact that he was jewish, i read the article... it was the content of the article that made me think it was biased... i didn't know he was jewish until after i read and checked

so don't brand me a racist, as that's an extremely offensive thing to call someone.

Then you shouldn't have said the exact opposite. I did not call you a racist. I don't know you. I only know what you write. Read what I actually wrote.

, biased as in from a jewish perspective written by a jewish person

You cannot blame readers for actually reading what you write. We cannot read your mind. All we have is what you write. Got it now?

Regarding the article with the apparent "Jewish problem" I would have very much appreciated some relevant comments about the actual CONTENT of the article.

BTW, you originally said you didn't find much talk about the emotional factor in the article. A quick superficial search for the word emotion in the three page article (leaving out headline text) shows TWELVE instances of it.

so in post 183 you say you'll let your posts stand (and mine stand.. pre-edit that is) and say i'm baiting for a fight and you're no longer interested... then you go back and heavily edit the post

oh mercy

[flying]

Wouldn't say "misleading".

I'm not so sure that the change (or threat to change) of trading currency, by itself, is a main feature.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, this particular step (maybe not a smart one) appears after the conflict is on the move.

The USA interest is to have as much control of oil (by that I mean all aspects - production, trade, whatever), as it can and exclude other contenders from having the same. You don't get to be an empire (or superpower, as they are called nowadays) by playing nice. Same goes for world trade in general, military capabilities of nations.

Disclaimer: I don't see this as necessarily "evil" or "bad" (doubt that such terms can be attributed to stuff like that, anyway). The USA is taking care of its interests, it is currently top dog, and as such things go, they aren't worse than the previous ones or than the other options around, probably somewhat better.

Actually 2 of the 3 coincidences? I mentioned were announced before a conflict.

Actually you could say 3 for 3 but Libya was slightly under pressure when he made the comment about Europe would no longer

get their oil....So maybe 3 for 3 as he was not being bombed & targeted.

Remember initially all it was supposed to be was a No Fly Zone enforcement.

It quickly escalated into much more

But Iran announced a couple years back.

Iraq also announced well before Saddam became a target

But as you say the US is taking care of *their* interest.

But at what point is it illegal for a customer to demand service by threatening the supplier in any way?

If any other country pulled such I know who would be the 1st to complain.

Edited March 21, 2012 by flying