'Moment of truth' nears in Iran nuclear talks

[rijb]

I lived in Iran when the theocracy took over.

Using western logic to predict what a theocracy would (or would not) do is ridiculous.

It makes even less sense than using western logic in Thailand.

[mania]

Yet if we look at the historic facts maybe we should already have long been scared of those who have always had nukes & used weaponry such as this on non military targets.What does the actual scorecard really show about which countries have historically wreaked the most havoc?

It isn't a question about who is the most trusted with the weapons (even if that may be how world leaders try to spin it), nor is it a question of fairness and equality for all to be considered, it is simply a question of who you personally would rather have holding major power in the world and who you'd rather not be.

This is why Iran needs a deterrent.

While I understand your view (Lissos) ....I did not pose the question of who I trust most.

I said what does the historic scorecards show as fact.

Seastallion....I basically have the same thought of "good fences make good neighbors"

But only because I know there is really no other way forward.

It would be nice if those complaining the loudest would themselves draw down their Nukes as many

promised & signed treaties to do just that....Yet they that signed treaties & point fingers do not???

They will not practice what they preach....Yet they will preach? To the point of attack on a Sovereign Nation?

Then there are those that did not sign the treaty yet allow no inspections etc. themselves yet complain/threaten loudly.

Lastly their are those that have withdrawn as signatories of the Non Proliferation Treaty

So..........it seems nuclear disarmament world wide is never going to happen

As such the Pandora's box is open.

Who is to say who may or may not? Why? Because of fear mongering or because of historic facts?

Even now some of these seem to support an assault on a country to stop them having the power/deterrent

they themselves have above or below board approvals.

I can no longer tell the good guys from the supposedly bad.

Meh...what a mess.

Edited November 28, 2014 by mania

[snarky66]

The mullahs are negotiating with 2 of the biggest lightweight cowards of all time. Eric the red holder & barack hussein obama both of whom are bound & determined to allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. Their hatred of Israel is palpable.

[Morch]

I see Israel did not get a mention at the talks. 'O' that's right they said if they find out Iran has a Nuke they will flatten the place. Now that's the way to keep them in place.

Was there an official Israeli statement to that effect? Sort of doubt it.

Regardless, Israel is not part of the negotiations, even though it is obviously concerned about/to developments.

Words to that effect.

news.nationalpost.com/.../israel-threatens-to-strike-irans-nuclear-facilities...

Mar 21, 2014 - A rising chorus of Israeli voices is again raising the possibility of carrying out a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalpost.com%2F2014%2F03%2F21%2Fisrael-threatens-to-strike-irans-nuclear-facilities-in-attempt-to-ratchet-up-international-pressure-on-tehran%2F&ei=6BRzVJnaDdC1uASTuYCIDA&usg=AFQjCNGmXPrtFysvODHwPC4Qpqhbqv1-bw

Thank you.

I do however, notice a certain lack of the flattening aspect in the article linked.

Rather, it points out certain difficulties of carrying out such a strike. If "flatten the place" was indeed the goal, there is hardly

any need for a complicated coordinated air-force attack - Israel got other means to achieve that without the risks. The debate

regarding the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran was mostly carried out with the notion that it would be targeting specific

targets, not the whole country.

[Morch]

There is only one state of religious fanatics in the Middle East that currently and hypocritically possesses nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them.

It is only when one state has the superiority that there is a danger of their use. When the other side has them too, there is a deterrence and a balance of power.

The only other solution is neither side has them... a nuclear free zone. At the moment there is no honest superpower broker around willing to impose or police that..

Pakistan in not exactly in the Middle East, and most of their threats (if not all) were directed at their immediate neighbors.

In case you were referring to Israel - it is not a state of "religious fanatics" in any meaningful way to this discussion. As far

as I am aware, Israel did not directly threat to use nuclear weapons (and that goes along with not directly admitting it got

them).

Wonder how this wonderful deterrence would work out for the like of Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region often

at odds with Iran.

[Morch]

There is only one state of religious fanatics in the Middle East that currently and hypocritically possesses nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them.

It is only when one state has the superiority that there is a danger of their use. When the other side has them too, there is a deterrence and a balance of power.

The only other solution is neither side has them... a nuclear free zone. At the moment there is no honest superpower broker around willing to impose or police that..

MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction worked to end the Cold War.

The only way to bring peace in the area is for Iran to be armed (amongst other things).

Iran having nuclear arms will bring peace to the region...how?

Will it make IS go away? Will it make its Sunni neighbors feel warm inside? Will it have an impact on the so-called spring

thing? Or do you imagine, for some reason, that it would dramatically change things between Israel and the Palestinians?

[Morch]

I read many comments of how the world should be very afraid if this should come to pass. Yet if we look at the historic facts maybe we should already have long been scared of those who have always had nukes & used weaponry such as this on non military targets.What does the actual scorecard really show about which countries have historically wreaked the most havoc?

It isn't a question about who is the most trusted with the weapons (even if that may be how world leaders try to spin it), nor is it a question of fairness and equality for all to be considered, it is simply a question of who you personally would rather have holding major power in the world and who you'd rather not be. I for one, would want western nations to be in the ascendancy, I have no quarms about saying so and the fact that Pakistan and North Korea both have nuclear weapons, is already a flippin' disaster in my opinion. India's arsenal is also worrisome, less due to the kind of political instability and fundamentalism found in Pakistan or the nuttiness of North Korea's ruling dynasty, but because India is often incompetent from the top to the bottom and so corrupt and prone to taking short cuts on many things that I question the safety factor.

Looking at this issue of Iran and Nuclear capability through a lens of fairness and equality in the world (as some do) isn't the way to consider this (imo). Initially, years ago, I viewed this through a lens of - "If A,B,C and D own them, then it's not fair if E can't own them too". One day I sat down and asked myself if the thought of a nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Iran in the future made me feel content. It didn't.

It may well be true that (if) Iran's regime is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons rather than solely domestic nuclear power, that they may only want them as a major defensive deterrent to any attempt at future regime change by direct external forces. However, that's a major gamble to allow to go ahead with simply by looking at scorecards, and I fully understand why Israel is not willing to gamble that Iran's word on this issue is transparent. For me, my issue is not with Iranians, it is with a Shia Islamic theocracy posessing such devastating weaponry too (if it is proved that they are simultaneously building a nuclear warhead capability along with the domestic nuclear power program).

For the rulers of the Islamic theocracy (not the suits who they get to parade at banquets and international events to make it all seem so much more moderate and modern) , the U.S is still the Great Satan and Britain is the Little Satan. Israel, well we all know how the Islamic theocracy in Iran views Israel (it doesn't even refer to it by name, officially).

Many point at Israel as an example of a state that cleverly developed its nuclear capability under the radar, going to great lengths to conceal the work and getting away with it. So, for those who think that a nation developing under the radar like that is something to be avoided in the future, I would hope that they will be show full cooperation in asking for 100% transparency from the current rulers in Iran, and questioning incidents of delay and obstruction about where inspectors can visit and so on.

A measured and thoughtful view.

I do not accept, though, that a theocracy, even an Islamic Shia theocracy, if nuclear armed, would unleash their power in the full knowledge that retribution would be swift and tenfold devastating. It's the state that did develop their arsenal surreptitiously that is most likely to make an attack because retribution from the West would likely be only political in nature.

This is why Iran needs a deterrent.

A deterrent for what?

The only context in which a possible Israeli strike on Iran was ever mentioned was as a measure to neutralize Iran's nuclear

program. The so-called "deterrent" is itself the cause for its faux need.

Guess it would be only reasonable for Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region to get their own deterrent, something

which they somehow weren't too worried about before.

[mania]

A deterrent for what?

The only context in which a possible Israeli strike on Iran was ever mentioned was as a measure to neutralize Iran's nuclear

program. The so-called "deterrent" is itself the cause for its faux need.

Guess it would be only reasonable for Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region to get their own deterrent, something

which they somehow weren't too worried about before.

Just curious but... if back in the days that Israel was developing their nuclear arsenal without any input/inspections etc etc...

would you have been opposed to any other Nuclear capable country telling them stop now or be neutralized?

Same question for India, Pakistan or North Korea?

Or did you also consider those countries deterrents/needs/reasons for developing their own arsenal also a faux need?

Edited November 29, 2014 by mania

[Credo]

There is only one state of religious fanatics in the Middle East that currently and hypocritically possesses nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them.

It is only when one state has the superiority that there is a danger of their use. When the other side has them too, there is a deterrence and a balance of power.

The only other solution is neither side has them... a nuclear free zone. At the moment there is no honest superpower broker around willing to impose or police that..

You are right, but the problem is that one of those states has designs on everyone practicing their brand of religion. The other one doesn't.

[Morch]

A deterrent for what?

The only context in which a possible Israeli strike on Iran was ever mentioned was as a measure to neutralize Iran's nuclear

program. The so-called "deterrent" is itself the cause for its faux need.

Guess it would be only reasonable for Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region to get their own deterrent, something

which they somehow weren't too worried about before.

Just curious but... if back in the days that Israel was developing their nuclear arsenal without any input/inspections etc etc...

would you have been opposed to any other Nuclear capable country telling them stop now or be neutralized?

Same question for India, Pakistan or North Korea?

Or did you also consider those countries deterrents/needs/reasons for developing their own arsenal also a faux need?

It would have been much better if none of the above had nuclear arms. It would have been infinitely better if non at all would have them.

I would not have been opposed to applying pressure on any country developing them. I do recognize that once the cat it out of the bag, there's hardly a way to reverse the situation.

India developed its nuclear capability in response to the PRC (and Pakistan), Pakistan developed its own as a response to India's. Unsure if the PRC actually threatened India with a nuclear strike during their wars and border skirmishes, but these were different times back then, when countries were a bit more free about fooling around with such things (with the Cuba missile crisis being a good example). Pakistan and India had their own wars and border skirmishes, so seeing the other as a threat - yes.

Israel's rationalization for getting nuclear capability was based on having hostile neighbors on all sides, and having had wars with them. The threat was real enough at the time.

Iran only threat was Iraq under Saddam. That's it. Even Pakistan having nukes is not usually brought up as a major threat.

Not sure that North Korea can be included in this discussion, mainly because what they want/think/do seems unclear most times.

[mania]

It would have been much better if non of the above had nuclear arms.

It would have been infinitely better if non at all would have them.

I would not have been opposed to applying pressure on any country developing them.

I do recognize that once the cat it out of the bag, there's hardly a way to reverse the situation.

Therein lies the problem

Also as I have often said...who is to now say who may & may not & make demands?

Those who are in violation of treaties they themselves gave signed?Promising to wind down.

Those who never signed any treaty at all but did promise not to be the 1st in the ME with Nukes?

I of course also agree & have said the same as you do it would be infinitely better for all of mankind if none had such destructive force.

Perhaps even a good start/show of faith would be for those that have to be truly be winding down to a nuclear disarmament...

Those who have thru deception should also allow inspections etc.

Also this attitude that many seem to have is ....well they already have it & they slipped in so

well lets forget/trust them??

Why?? Why not demand those that slipped in to disarm or face worldwide economic sanctions against them?

Because despite historic actions they are deemed safe? Friendly? Non Zealots??

Again back to the Pandora's box it is open...Many who helped open it now want to be the only ones allowed

access to it?

I think many rational folks agree the world would be a better place without such devices for all of mankind.

But I do not subscribe to well some already have it so that is ok...Others do not we will blow them to hell if they try

to achieve what we have achieved.

Yes the fear mongering stirs the pot constantly...OH we dont want folks like them to have it.

Their zealots!!!.....555 talk about pot kettle black.

If we look at historical facts as a score card we may find stick & stones break bones but words are just words

Historically those that broke bones cry danger the loudest it seems

Quite the mess

[Morch]

It would have been much better if non of the above had nuclear arms.

It would have been infinitely better if non at all would have them.

I would not have been opposed to applying pressure on any country developing them.

I do recognize that once the cat it out of the bag, there's hardly a way to reverse the situation.

Therein lies the problem

Also as I have often said...who is to now say who may & may not & make demands?

Those who are in violation of treaties they themselves gave signed?Promising to wind down.

Those who never signed any treaty at all but did promise not to be the 1st in the ME with Nukes?

I of course also agree & have said the same as you do it would be infinitely better for all of mankind if none had such destructive force.

Perhaps even a good start/show of faith would be for those that have to be truly be winding down to a nuclear disarmament...

Those who have thru deception should also allow inspections etc.

Also this attitude that many seem to have is ....well they already have it & they slipped in so

well lets forget/trust them??

Why?? Why not demand those that slipped in to disarm or face worldwide economic sanctions against them?

Because despite historic actions they are deemed safe? Friendly? Non Zealots??

Again back to the Pandora's box it is open...Many who helped open it now want to be the only ones allowed

access to it?

I think many rational folks agree the world would be a better place without such devices for all of mankind.

But I do not subscribe to well some already have it so that is ok...Others do not we will blow them to hell if they try

to achieve what we have achieved.

Yes the fear mongering stirs the pot constantly...OH we dont want folks like them to have it.

Their zealots!!!.....555 talk about pot kettle black.

If we look at historical facts as a score card we may find stick & stones break bones but words are just words

Historically those that broke bones cry danger the loudest it seems

Quite the mess

The ones who got a say are the ones who wield enough power to enforce their view. Not pretty, but that's the way it is. Not so much a moral issue as a practical one.

It is very unlikely, considering the low level of trust between players, that a unilateral disarmament will be viable anytime soon.

The attitude is not about forgiving, its about accepting the real limits of exercising power. Once a country gets military nuclear capability the stakes are up and the ability to apply pressure changes. As long as country is not quite there, thing are different. You can't goad a nuclear capable country quite the same way. Doesn't mean its condoned, just acknowledged.

Sanctions are easier to carry out when no nukes are present. That's the simple reality.

And yes, past actions, stable nuclear policy and not waving the toys around do count for something. At the very least, they are a wee bit more promising than repetitive calls for the annihilation of another country by a would-be nuclear capable player.

[mania]

The ones who got a say are the ones who wield enough power to enforce their view.

Not pretty, but that's the way it is. Not so much a moral issue as a practical one.

And yes, past actions, stable nuclear policy and not waving the toys around do count

for something. At the very least, they are a wee bit more promising than repetitive calls

for the annihilation of another country by a would-be nuclear capable player.

That is sad to hear so basically your saying it is a good reason to achieve much power so you too may enforce your view?

As for waiving toys that would have to be those that already have them? I assume since those that do not have cannot wave nor use. More promising than Repetitive calls? That would be the words part vs the sticks & stones part. I would say all sides are guilty of repetitive calls as we can go back at least a decade & see the same threats against Iran for these very same reasons...Guess they work very slow

At the end of the day I have seen not one legitimate reason to threaten military strikes on a country who as far as I know ruling out the 1980 war in which Iraq/Saddam instigated the war with possible backing from two nuke capable countries......... Has no history of being a warring country Other than that although I am no historian I find it difficult to find an actual attack propagated on another country by Iran without going all the way back to the Zandie invasion of 1798 where Iran attacked Basra Iraq That is over 200 years without a show of force/ enforcement of "their" views. I would be hard pressed to see them as a fraction of the threat compared to those that want to enforce their views now as you say on Iran given these other folks actual historic fact based report cards of attacking others...even when considered their friends

Beats me but I guess they ( those who wield power as you say ) will do what they want....yet this is ok?

Mark me confused as ever....I guess I as well as some others do much like our representatives acting out in such a manner in our names.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Scott

[Ulysses G.]

At the end of the day I have seen not one legitimate reason to threaten military strikes

how about violating international agreements that they have signed? That is plenty legitimate.

[daveAustin]

^ how old is that article!

Anyone who thinks Iran should have the right to have nukes just because the US and others have them (even Israel) is living in cloud cuckoo land and slightly naive in my book.

[mania]

^ how old is that article!

Anyone who thinks Iran should have the right to have nukes just because the US and others have them (even Israel) is living in cloud cuckoo land and slightly naive in my book.

Date is right at the start of the article which as I stated is when this "latest" escalation re-started

By Garry White

9:00PM GMT 12 Feb 2012

If you have read this thread you have seen I have said many times none should have nukes

but the Pandora's Box has been opened.

The better choice is Nuclear Disarmament..........Any Chance?

The other point is not that Iran should have Nukes but that there is no justification for bombing a Sovereign Nation who has not

attacked another country in over 200 years on the basis of some BS Preventative Strike excuse.

Especially given the history/facts/scorecard of aggression of those who want most to do the bombing

Edited November 29, 2014 by mania

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[snarky66]

Only Iran is talking about wiping Israel off the map. Prudence would tell you that Israel is justified in defending itself by any means necessary.

[mania]

Only Iran is talking about wiping Israel off the map. Prudence would tell you that Israel is justified in defending itself by any means necessary.

Talking should not be confused/judged as doing..such as an act of aggression against a

sovereign nation who "supposedly/said something" but factually did nothing would be a terrible thing IMO

Edited November 30, 2014 by mania

[Ulysses G.]

Talking talking about wiping Israel off the map AND illegally developing nuclear weapons while sponsoring terrorist groups all over the place. That meets most people's definition of "aggression". The loony Mullahs in Tehran need to be stopped.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[mania]

Talking talking about wiping Israel off the map AND illegally developing nuclear weapons while sponsoring terrorist groups all over the place. That meets most people's definition of "aggression". The loony Mullahs in Tehran need to be stopped.

Stop those who Illegally developing nukes & sponsoring groups all over the place?

I guess we have not been consistent in the past then?

I am always a little surprised by folks calling for attacks/killing to save

the peace type preemptive intrusions. I really am

If we kill/bomb anyone "we" deem a loony the list would be quite long.

I guess we should start with those who factually have killed some of us?

Edited November 30, 2014 by mania

[snarky66]

UG is correct. Plus we would be crazy to ignore the threats. Lunatic mullahs don't need nukes. Barry has let them stall & enrich for 8 years because he is an islamist idealogue.

[mania]

UG is correct. Plus we would be crazy to ignore the threats. Lunatic mullahs don't need nukes. Barry has let them stall & enrich for 8 years because he is an islamist idealogue.

While no fan of Barry.........You do know this Iran/Nuke story has be cried about since the 1970's right?

Not 8 years

Edited November 30, 2014 by mania

[Ulysses G.]

I guess we should start with those who factually have killed some of us?

We should start with those who are trying, but have not already developed nukes: Iran.

[Morch]

The ones who got a say are the ones who wield enough power to enforce their view.

Not pretty, but that's the way it is. Not so much a moral issue as a practical one.

And yes, past actions, stable nuclear policy and not waving the toys around do count

for something. At the very least, they are a wee bit more promising than repetitive calls

for the annihilation of another country by a would-be nuclear capable player.

That is sad to hear so basically your saying it is a good reason to achieve much power so you too may enforce your view?

As for waiving toys that would have to be those that already have them? I assume since those that do not have cannot wave nor use. More promising than Repetitive calls? That would be the words part vs the sticks & stones part. I would say all sides are guilty of repetitive calls as we can go back at least a decade & see the same threats against Iran for these very same reasons...Guess they work very slow

At the end of the day I have seen not one legitimate reason to threaten military strikes on a country who as far as I know ruling out the 1980 war in which Iraq/Saddam instigated the war with possible backing from two nuke capable countries......... Has no history of being a warring country Other than that although I am no historian I find it difficult to find an actual attack propagated on another country by Iran without going all the way back to the Zandie invasion of 1798 where Iran attacked Basra Iraq That is over 200 years without a show of force/ enforcement of "their" views. I would be hard pressed to see them as a fraction of the threat compared to those that want to enforce their views now as you say on Iran given these other folks actual historic fact based report cards of attacking others...even when considered their friends

Beats me but I guess they ( those who wield power as you say ) will do what they want....yet this is ok?

Mark me confused as ever....I guess I as well as some others do much like our representatives acting out in such a manner in our names.

As my post said (not the edited cut down version you quoted) this has nothing to do with seeing it as good or bad,

just an observation on how things work. On how things always worked. One may not like it, see it as immoral, and

whatnot - the world is not fair.

Countries which have nuclear capability and make nuclear strike threats are obviously not something anyone likes

to have. As said, the issue is that once a country achieves military nuclear capability there is not much that can be

done about it. So when a the leaders of a country got one element of a potential threat (missile capability) and hard

at work on the other side of the equation (nuclear capability), repeatedly make statements regarding the destruction

of another country - that is definitely not a good indicator as to what lies ahead.

Words and sticks - perhaps when facing the distinct possibility of the stick becoming a reality things said need to be

taken more seriously. Acts of aggression, even if by proxy, need to be taken into account as well. The difference in

the threats lie in their scope, I do not think anyone threatened Iran with annihilation or destruction, whereas the way

Iran leaders convey their message is rather more encompassing and general.

Iran supports more than one terrorist organization. Been at it for years. These carried out many acts of aggression.

Spare the nonsense about Iran being a peace loving country, it simply does measure well against facts.

Again, this is not about "it" being ok, ours is not necessarily a fair or perfectly moral world.

[mania]

ours is not necessarily a fair or perfectly moral world.

Yes I can see where your world would not be

morals & fair play in the world I see is not situational nor is it sectarian.

An immoral act is an immoral act period. Matters not who is committing it nor does it matter

who the media is calling good or bad.

You also completely missed the point of the Sticks vs words analogy & choose to say those

who already use the sticks immorally should stop those with the words.

One act is already in progress & wrong many times historically.

The other is nothing more than interpretations & words.

Lets leave it at agreeing to disagree on this one.

We have our worlds/opinions & neither tends to see the other as a possibility.

Edited November 30, 2014 by mania

[Ulysses G.]

Morch is one of the most open-minded and well informed posters on the forum. He is definitely open to EITHER side when presented sensibly.

[mania]

Morch is one of the most open-minded and well informed posters on the forum. He is definitely open to EITHER side when presented sensibly.

Yes I like his posts that I often see. I would not say he is open minded especially regarding

a certain country but...He does throw in enough "we know they are bad too" type concessions to

seem open minded.

But I am not saying a person is not entitled to his opinion.

While I don't agree with his opinion I respect his right to have it.

Same for you.......I know from our posts we disagree...On this matter

That is not a problem nor a foul of any kind in my mind.

I would be concerned if we could not have opinions that differ.

But I think we can have different opinions & also I do agree with many of your posts

on other matters we have posted on in this forum.

Edited November 30, 2014 by mania

[Ulysses G.]

I don't want to dwell on the subject, but IMO, he is not on one side or the other concerning "a certain country". He has a lot of knowledge on the situation and is a lot more concerned with keeping both sides factual. He has corrected me a number of times and every other poster - on both sides - who posts information that he thinks is incorrect or hateful. He is a real bonus to the forum.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

I don't want to dwell on the subject, but IMO, he is not on one side or the other concerning "a certain country". He has a lot of knowledge on the situation and is a lot more concerned with keeping both sides factual. He has corrected me a number of times and every other poster - on both sides - who posts information that he thinks is incorrect or hateful. He is a real bonus to the forum.

He's Thaivisa member of the year whether there is a contest this year or not!