The Cellar
Page 19 of 32 « First 912131415161718 19 2021222324252629 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you." (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19488)

classicman 02-27-2010 07:57 PM
If anyone, ie: Israel attacks that one building, it will be the uniting force the Iranian Gov't so sorely needs. It will give them the common enemy they need and refocus all the energy, of those currently rallying against the Iranian leadership, back onto Israel or whatever other outside enemy.

Undertoad 03-02-2010 08:33 AM
US: "Syria, now that we have re-engaged diplomatic relations, the first thing we would like to talk about is Hezbollah. We would like you to stop sending them missiles."

Syria: "Missiles? Fuck you! What missiles?"

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1152777.html

Quote:
The U.S. administration has asked Syrian President Bashar Assad to immediately stop transferring arms to Hezbollah. American officials made the request during a meeting Friday with the Syrian ambassador to Washington.
...
During [Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William] Burns' meeting with Assad, the Syrian leader denied all American claims that his regime was providing military aid to terrorists in Iraq, or to Hezbollah and Palestinian terror groups.

Assad essentially told Burns that he had no idea what the American was talking about.

lookout123 03-02-2010 12:33 PM
It seems like we've seen foreign policy play out like this before but for the life of me I just can't remember where.

classicman 03-07-2010 09:33 PM
Iran says it has started cruise missile production
 
Quote:
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran said Sunday it has launched a new production line of highly accurate, short range cruise missiles, which would add a new element to the country's already imposing arsenal.

The world is already concerned about Iran's military capabilities, especially the implications of its nuclear program. The U.S. and some of its allies, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency, say Iran is apparently trying to produce nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies.

The West is considering stiffer sanctions against Iran to try to force it to halt uranium enrichment, a process that has civilian uses but can be also used for nuclear arms if the uranium is enriched over 90 percent.
Link

TheMercenary 03-11-2010 12:00 PM
There has been a re-newed discussion about the restriction of gasoline sales to Iran. I wonder what the black market response would be through Iraq or other friendly countries.

Quote:
As the Obama administration struggles to devise a strategy for dealing with Iran's intransigence on the uranium enrichment issue, it appears to be gravitating toward the imposition of an international embargo on gasoline sales to that country. Such a ban would be enacted if Iranian officials fail to come up with an acceptable negotiating plan by the time the UN General Assembly meets in late September — the deadline given by the White House for a constructive Iranian move.

Iran, of course, is a major oil producer, pumping out some 4.3 million barrels per day in 2008. But it is also a major petroleum consumer. And its oil industry has a significant structural weakness: Its refinery capacity is too constricted to satisfy the nation's gasoline requirements. As a result, Iran must import about 40% of its refined products. Government officials are attempting to reduce this dependency through rationing and other measures, but the country remains highly vulnerable to any cutoff in gasoline imports.

http://www.fpif.org/articles/iran_ga..._war_with_iran

classicman 06-21-2010 03:44 PM
How is that diplomacy thing working out anyway....

Quote:
Tehran said Monday it had banned two U.N. nuclear inspectors from entering the country because they had leaked "false" information about Iran's disputed nuclear program.
The ban is the latest twist in Iran's deepening tussle with the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency and the West over its nuclear program. The United States and its allies warn that Iran's program is geared toward making nuclear weapons.
Tehran denies the charge saying its nuclear activities are only for peaceful purposes like power generation.
The IAEA report in question stated that in January Iran announced it had conducted certain experiments to purify uranium, which could theoretically be used to produce a nuclear warhead. Iran then denied the experiments had taken place a few months later.
When the inspectors in May visited the Jaber Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Research Laboratory in Tehran, where the alleged high temperature pyroprocessing experiments were conducted, they said the equipment involved had been removed.
Link

Now what?

classicman 07-15-2010 08:20 AM
Quote:
Countering the new US embargo on petroleum and oil distillates embargo on Iran, Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko and Iranian Oil Minister Masud Mir-Kazemi Wednesday, July 14 signed a series of far-reaching energy-related agreements, including a deal to sell Tehran Russian petroleum products and petrochemicals.

debkafile's Moscow sources report that the pacts aim squarely at the law signed by President Barack Obama on July 2 to hit Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps' prime source of income, imported refined oil products including gasoline. The Russian and Iranian energy ministers contracted specifically to "increase cooperation in transit, swaps and marketing of natural gas as well as sales of petroleum products and petrochemicals."
The accords also set up "a joint bank to help fund bilateral energy projects."

This latter provision bypasses the US ban on the banks and insurance companies involved in funding refined oil supplies to Iran by creating a shared banking instrument for handling the funding of fuel purchases. Russian insurance firms connected with the new joint bank may insure shipments.
By this step, Moscow moved to offset the penalties America imposed on Iran in the wake of UN Security Council sanctions of June 9 and challenged the United States to blacklist Russian firms by invoking the new US law closing American markets to companies and banks doing energy business with Iran.
Link

Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you." ...
I guess we can add Russia & Turkey to the list.

Lamplighter 08-13-2010 09:18 AM
This caught my eye... maybe it was the words "Bushehr reactor"
Does our friend, GWB, hold the trademark ?

BBC World News article
13 August 2010 Last updated at 07:00 ET
Iran nuclear plant start date set

Quote:
Russia says it will undertake a key step next week towards starting up a reactor at Iran's first nuclear power station.
Russia's state atomic corporation, which is building the plant, said engineers will begin loading the Bushehr reactor with fuel.
Quote:
The fuel will be charged in the reactor on 21 August. From this moment, Bushehr will be considered a nuclear installation," spokesman Sergei Novikov said.
Quote:
Russia will run the plant, supply the fuel and take away the fuel waste.
For that reason, nuclear experts say there is little immediate danger of the reactor being used to build nuclear weapons.

classicman 08-23-2010 08:30 AM
Quote:
Iran has said it is prepared to return to talks with major world powers but the exact nature of such negotiations has yet to be defined.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said last week Iran would not talk to the United States unless sanctions and military threats were lifted.
Sounds like another hearty "Fuck You" to me.

classicman 08-26-2010 11:36 PM
1 Attachment(s)
..

TheMercenary 09-24-2010 11:21 PM
I would like to bring to the attention of anyone interested in this subject to two articles from the Sept addition of the Atlantic, one of my two fav magazines subscriptions....

One is a bit long, the other not so much. Two interesting views. Please read and feel free to comment. I would be interested in your views.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ear-iran/8193/

This one is a bit longer but worth the read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...o-return/8186/

Undertoad 09-25-2010 09:17 AM
Kaplan goes over the line. "We must be more willing, not only to accept the prospect of limited war but, as Kissinger does in his book of a half century ago, to accept the prospect of a limited nuclear war between states."

I don't think there is such a thing as a limited nuclear war. Anyone using a nuke preemptively has to face total destruction. That is why the US needs to stand up against Iran. There should be aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf right now. This problem only gets bigger while we wait it out hoping it will go away.

I like Hitchens' point (in the video) that Iran is making a joke of international law. The world has told Iran this is unacceptable. Iran has thumbed its nose right back. There are no consequences other than the respect and admiration of Syria, Lebanon, and now Turkey, whose leaders need to suck up to the bully or live in terror of being the next victim.

You don't get nukes unless you are mature enough to understand your responsibilities in the world. This is like giving keys to a Ferrari to a 16 year old boy and telling him to drive safely and under the speed limit. It's almost not even the kid's fault when he wrecks it and kills a bunch of people. The world is responsible for this situation and the world should get on with addressing it.

piercehawkeye45 09-27-2010 06:55 AM
I read a lot of the Iran debate on The Atlantic and the strongest point that sticks with me is what can we actually do about Iran getting the bomb and is it worth it? Ideally, I think is agreed across the board that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is hazardous to the interests of many countries in the area, notably Israel, but many of the disagreements lie on what we could actually accomplish and how Iran will react to our actions. Besides North Korea, Iran is possibly the country we have the least knowledge, or confidence in our knowledge, to predict a reaction. If we bomb them willl they curl up in a ball and play victim? Shut down the gulf and step up attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas? Go even further? If we bomb their nuclear facilities will they stop the program? Will it just be delayed and they try even harder to get the bombs? How will civilians in Iran act to an attack? etc.

Personally, I am against bombing Iran. Most people I've read have stated that there is nothing we can do stop the nuclear program and that Iran will most likely react violently and become more isolated after an attack. I can go into more detail but that is a more dangerous Iran in my opinion.

The unknowns are what makes it tough for any administration to make a good logical decision for this situation.

TheMercenary 09-28-2010 10:31 PM
I am against the US bombing Iran. But I don't really care if someone else does it.

Urbane Guerrilla 10-07-2010 12:24 AM
Further Developments

We'd be a lot more okay with Iranian uranium-fueled nuclear power were Iran a democratic republic instead of an anti-Western Islamofascistic oligarchy. Just sayin'... 'bout how many dead Islamofascists should it take? A tenth the total population or just a tenth of the ruling party?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 PM.
Page 19 of 32 « First 912131415161718 19 2021222324252629 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.