FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Hey, Europeans

   
Author Topic: Hey, Europeans
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Feel free to take care of Iran, rather than waiting on Israel or us to take care of the problem. [Wink]
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dantesparadigm
Member
Member # 8756

 - posted      Profile for dantesparadigm           Edit/Delete Post 
Don't hold your breath. France and Germany not only won’t do anything about Middle Eastern nuclear weapon proliferation, but they've actively supported their efforts. It's completely unfair; they know eventually we're going to do something about it, so they wont have to suffer the consequences. In addition, when one of us does do something, they get to pretend to be morally superior and call us warmongers and imperialists.

Maybe we just need to save some bombs for Paris.

Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anna
Member
Member # 2582

 - posted      Profile for Anna           Edit/Delete Post 
[Roll Eyes]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xan
Member
Member # 9015

 - posted      Profile for Xan   Email Xan         Edit/Delete Post 
What now?

I dont watch the news.

But from the sounds of dantesparadigm's post it sounds like France and Germany wont do anything.

So do you REALLY think Britan has even close to enough military power to pull something like that off alone?

Our troops went with Americas into Irac iirc; we'll probobly do the same again, as allies do, but since we are all supposed to be friends why should any one country do all the work?

*sigh*

Its a pain being part of Europe when the other parts dont even really like us that much...

Posts: 67 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Just out of curiosity, what does Hatrack think the West should do in regard to Iran's attempt at nuclear capability? Nothing? Sanctions? Bombs away?

I do really hope Europe takes the initiative in dealing with this, rather than just threatening Iran with the equivalent of the comfy chair. 'Stop! Or I'll say 'stop' again!'

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Xan, Britian and the U.S. are kind of joined at the hip militarily. They use a lot of our computer hardware to make a lot of their stuff work.

In any case, I'm sure that if Britain leads the way, the U.S. won't be far behind. I actually think most Iranians would be far more open to having the West kick over their government than the Iraqis were.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xan
Member
Member # 9015

 - posted      Profile for Xan   Email Xan         Edit/Delete Post 
I disagree with Nuclear weapons anyway; they are pointless for the simple reason if one goes off they ALL GO OFF.

Instant doomsday.

So of course i disagree with their attempt.

If your going to bash Europe can you at least leave Britan out? We have been Americas allies for years.
Our troops supported yours in Irac too; something we didnt need to do.

(I'm guessing your in the US?)

Posts: 67 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Er...if that last post was directed at me, I seem to not be communicating clearly again, as I certainly did not intend to bash Europe in my posts.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xan
Member
Member # 9015

 - posted      Profile for Xan   Email Xan         Edit/Delete Post 
Eh?

No, no i ment dantesparadigm again [Razz]

Posts: 67 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
What's sort of amusing about this is that the EU is doing exactly as much as the US is, or even a little more [Smile] .

Both the EU and the US agree that the current state of affairs should be referred to the UN Security Council (the EU as a whole will not state this; the EU does not have an office with the authority to make unilateral foreign policy pronouncements for member states, and the EU rarely does even when they get the needed consensus; foreign policy is mostly left up to member states. However, all the major states in the EU are trying to get the IAEA to hold an emergency meeting and refer Iran to the security council).

While the US has been saying Iran should be called before the security council, they have not before and are not now taking the steps necessary to make this happen. The EU is.

Until Iran broke the UN seals, the EU saw no need for UN Security Council action -- if Iran could be made to abandon the program absent it, that was better, and Iran was making no progress in the meanwhile. The US was making lots of noise but getting absolutely nothing done on the subject due to its hostility, while Iran would at least talk to the EU.

The EU said stop or we'll do what the US wants people to do but won't make happen itself -- and now the EU is following through.

Xan: Britain acted as part of Europe on Iran, for the most part.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xan
Member
Member # 9015

 - posted      Profile for Xan   Email Xan         Edit/Delete Post 
Ah, fair enough.

As i said i was going by dantesparadigm's post.

I dont keep up with these affairs.

Posts: 67 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:


Until Iran broke the UN seals, the EU saw no need for UN Security Council action -- if Iran could be made to abandon the program absent it, that was better, and Iran was making no progress in the meanwhile. The US was making lots of noise but getting absolutely nothing done on the subject due to its hostility, while Iran would at least talk to the EU.

Interesting. So, Iran listens to the EU for a while because the EU is so polite, but still breaks the seals anyway.

quote:

The EU said stop or we'll do what the US wants people to do but won't make happen itself -- and now the EU is following through.

With...what? If the security council is going to resolution Iran to death over this, is that really going to accomplish much? Is the EU going to depend on Iran's good will to dismantle its nuclear program? Does the EU really care about Iran's nuclear program enough to actually take concrete steps to halt its development?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
smitty
Member
Member # 8855

 - posted      Profile for smitty   Email smitty         Edit/Delete Post 
The sad but simple truth is that sometimes, violence is the only solution. I just hope this isn't one of those cases. But you know what? If no one else will step to the plate, I'm sure the US will. We (for the most part) have a spine.

The UK rocks. I don't lump them in with Europe.

Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post 
Gotta give the US credit, we were just one letter off from the real threat.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
The EU does not pretend to be magical mind-readers of totalitarian leaders. However, they didn't lose anything by talking while the facilities were still under seal since Iran could make no progress. When your two options are "try to convince them otherwise while they are prevented from making any progress" and "act without a serious effort to convince them otherwise", is it little wonder someone tries the former?.

Its called diplomacy, not certainty. The EU has been extremely successful at using diplomacy against totalitarian policies in many cases -- take a look at Turkey and the Ukraine -- but its not always going to work.

Hard line stances might be sexy, but they get remarkably little done. Demanding action when that action is potentially unnecessary, and the delay loses nothing, strikes me as folly. Now that further delay would be detrimental, the EU has taken exactly the action the US has been ineffectually calling for.

As for your second, might as well ask the US; all we've been asking for is security council action, too.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Enigmatic
Member
Member # 7785

 - posted      Profile for Enigmatic   Email Enigmatic         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
I actually think most Iranians would be far more open to having the West kick over their government than the Iraqis were.

What is this opinion based on? I don't know enough about the current mindset of the Iranian people to argue whether it's right or wrong, but my gut reaction is that this sounds like wishful thinking.

--Enigmatic

Posts: 2715 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dantesparadigm
Member
Member # 8756

 - posted      Profile for dantesparadigm           Edit/Delete Post 
I definitely don't think Britain is as bad as the rest of Europe. They're constantly there supporting our efforts and I know if we took some initiative to further ensure the safety of the world they'd be right behind us. The British government has been refreshingly iconoclastic towards mainland Europe and it's great that we can count on at least one ally in Europe.

The only solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions is to take it out through military force. A quick air strike would be ideal, but their nuclear sites are scattered throughout the country in over 70 different sites. What we really need from mainland Europe is not military support, because that's never going to happen, but aid in the political aspects of such and endeavor.

Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
dantesparadigm: yes, because the last time someone bombed their reactor, that sure stopped them from trying again.

As far as aid in the political aspects, the EU's the group actually getting the Security Council involved (you know, the group the US has been ineffectually after so that military force could possibly be used?), so I'm not quite sure what your complaint is.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
smitty
Member
Member # 8855

 - posted      Profile for smitty   Email smitty         Edit/Delete Post 
Honestly, what has the Security Council done? Does it have any teeth? Bombing the reactor at least slowed them down, in that they had to rebuild. An old, toothless dog trying to growl (and whimpering) is less effective.

Stop it, Iraq. Stop it. Now. We're not kidding. OK, this time we're not kidding. We mean it. We'll write a memo. OK, that does it, we're sending a letter to your mom. She's dead? How dare you. Stop killing people. Now. We mean it.

Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

The EU does not pretend to be magical mind-readers of totalitarian leaders. However, they didn't lose anything by talking while the facilities were still under seal since Iran could make no progress. When your two options are "try to convince them otherwise while they are prevented from making any progress" and "act without a serious effort to convince them otherwise", is it little wonder someone tries the former?.

Why would, or did, the U.S. "act without a serious effort to convince them otherwise"?

quote:

Its called diplomacy, not certainty. The EU has been extremely successful at using diplomacy against totalitarian policies in many cases -- take a look at Turkey and the Ukraine -- but its not always going to work.

Extremely succesful? By what measure? Diplomacy kind of worked with Turkey and the Ukraine because the EU wielded an economic stick to get those countries to cooperate. Diplomacy has failed to some degree on other fronts with Turkey and the Ukraine and Russia and the Balkans and Cyprus and Greece.... And it's not like the U.S. hasn't used diplomacy before.

I think you're reacting to dante and being overly jingoistic about the EU, in reaction to his over-negativity. You make it sound like the U.S. is some hick in international affairs who just knows how to bully people and does nothing.

quote:

Hard line stances might be sexy, but they get remarkably little done. Demanding action when that action is potentially unnecessary, and the delay loses nothing, strikes me as folly. Now that further delay would be detrimental, the EU has taken exactly the action the US has been ineffectually calling for.

Can you elaborate on what you're refering to here? With links, if possible?

quote:

As for your second, might as well ask the US; all we've been asking for is security council action, too.

I think that that may be all that the U.S. and Europe have done so far, all that they're looking for at present, but your response misses the point of my post in asking what should be done in the future regarding Iran, not what has been done. Basically, it seems to me that it comes down to military force, no military force, economic force, or nothing.

Doing a quick check of headlines, it seems like sanctions are coming.

Personally, I find sanctions to be more inhumane and destructive to innocents than judicious use of military force. I also doubt that they will accomplish anything with the people of Iran, other than to sour them towards the West and make them more supportive of a regime that has little of their support.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
Why should any country honor the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty when the nuclear weapon owning members haven't fulfilled their own obligations?

quote:
Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament
quote:
Article VI

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Its fourty years later and we still have 10,000 estimated nuclear weapons. The United States is in violation of this treaty.

The NPT was a deal made between the nuclear weapon owning countries and the non-nuclear weapon owning countries. The deal was basically that they not try to get weapons, and we will make every effort to get rid of ours.

We obviously have no intention of doing this, so trying to hold other countries to a deal when one side is cleary not holding up to their end seems hypocritical to me.

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

What is this opinion based on? I don't know enough about the current mindset of the Iranian people to argue whether it's right or wrong, but my gut reaction is that this sounds like wishful thinking.

Several articles I've read. Give me a minute and I'm pretty sure I can pull up a link to something.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Smitty: Iran is a fairly powerful nation; every time they try again, they will go about it faster (knowing more), and be able to hide it better. I'd far prefer a real solution over a stopgap.

As far as the Security Council, you may remember their resolutions from such thrillers as "The Korean War" and "The First Gulf War", both involving decent amounts of "teeth" (by which, of course, we mean guns). The Security Council does not act directly; they authorize the use of force by states. The US having the largest military, and being the one wanting to attack someone else most often, it is usually the US who does most of the attacking.

Speaking generally about their resolutions, even the US tends to consider certain of their resolutions (under a particular article of the UN) as being legally binding on states.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
smitty
Member
Member # 8855

 - posted      Profile for smitty   Email smitty         Edit/Delete Post 
We'll never completely disarm. Pandora's box has been opened, we can't close it. And the threat of using one of these weapons is pretty much our only defense against having one used on us. Granted, this doesn't work in the new war on terrorism, but the point remains.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
Then why did we sign a treaty we had no intention of obeying? And why should any other country obey it?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
smitty
Member
Member # 8855

 - posted      Profile for smitty   Email smitty         Edit/Delete Post 
can't tell ya, Xavier. No clue.

Fugu, if you find a real solution, let me know. The Security councils' teeth are largely borrowed from the US. Basically, they say whether we have their blessing or not. Pardon me if I'm not impressed.

Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Enigmatic,

One
Two

The June issue of Time also had an article that corroborates that Iranians are very dissatisfied with their government and the state of things in Iran.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
As far as Iran goes, the US pretty much has acted with a one track mind. A few other countries, too.

The US has been trying to get the Security Council to authorize large sanctions even while Iran was willing to put the program on hold to talk. That certainly sounds like acting without taking the time to talk when there is an opportunity to talk to me.

For a good short summary of the situation, you might read today's Financial Times front page article.

Diplomacy did not just "kind of work" with Turkey and the Ukraine -- Turkey has over the past few decades undergone a huge transformation, instituting successful reforms far faster than we did. The EU's Ukraine efforts have led to the toppling of the old regime and the start of a complete political reform, not to mention Ukraine reducing its friendliness with totalitarian Russia.

Their diplomatic actions were far from wholly economic, particularly in the case of the Ukraine. And strangely enough, the economic stick is at least what got Iran to shut down the program and talk for a while, even if that wasn't productive.

What should be done in the future with Iran isn't for Europe, for the US, or for Israel to step in and "take care of", and your suggestion that the EU's not doing so is merely waiting for someone else to take care of the problem is juvenile.

The EU's actions prevented Iran's nuclear program from advancing, and they are now leading a likely successful charge (in contrast to the US's definitely unsuccessful charge when Iran had the program on hold) to impose sanctions on Iran for choosing to restart the program.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
smitty
Member
Member # 8855

 - posted      Profile for smitty   Email smitty         Edit/Delete Post 
That diplomacy thing always works out for the best, you're right. That Hitler thing was just a little hiccup.

That was too snarky, but not enough to delete. I hope diplomacy works - I really do. I don't like war, personally. But I'm enough of a realist to know it is called for, on occasion. Diplomacy working largely depends on BOTH sides wanting it to work.

Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
smitty: a real solution? I don't know what one is, but sitting down to talk while a program is on hold (despite US opposition) certainly doesn't hurt. It is of course worth noting the US wasn't proposing anything overly special, either -- sanctions. Iran is very familiar with sanctions. Perhaps they'll work, perhaps they won't. They're certainly the next step at this point.

Of course, military force generally isn't that great a bet either. Do we want to get into a discussion of why Iran's government is so conservative? (hint: its due to military action backed by a country whose name rhymes with Oonited Bates.)

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
smitty
Member
Member # 8855

 - posted      Profile for smitty   Email smitty         Edit/Delete Post 
We went through the sanctions route with Iraq, too. We do go thru the proper channels.

It's all right. Until they develop long range missles, they're Europe's problem, not ours. Maybe we oughta dip back into an "Isolationist" phase.

Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
smitty
Member
Member # 8855

 - posted      Profile for smitty   Email smitty         Edit/Delete Post 
oh, I think it's worth pointing out that sanctions and and isolationism contributed significantly to WW2
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
The sorts of sanctions Iran would be given are almost nothing like the practically obscene sanctions on Germany post-World War One.

As for whether or not we went through proper channels with Iraq, that doesn't particularly concern me. What concerns me is how much we've bungled a job we needed to do right, but that's a separate conversation.

On a side note, I rather suspect desire for a change in government is not even vaguely equivalent to desire for a US invasion.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
smitty
Member
Member # 8855

 - posted      Profile for smitty   Email smitty         Edit/Delete Post 
I would agree that the last of fugu's post. It doesn't matter how much they want a regime change, they don't want US to do it.

I'm not exactly sure how we "bungled" it. But agreed, is a seperate conversation, not for this thread.

The severity of the sanctions can be measured many ways. And I agree with the earlier sentiment that it hurts the people more than the government. And if the government doesn't care about the people...

Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

As far as Iran goes, the US pretty much has acted with a one track mind. A few other countries, too.

The US has been trying to get the Security Council to authorize large sanctions even while Iran was willing to put the program on hold to talk. That certainly sounds like acting without taking the time to talk when there is an opportunity to talk to me.

For a good short summary of the situation, you might read today's Financial Times front page article.

I need a link or obviously I can't read it. Which 'Financial Times' are you talking about? There are many. "Financial Times Iran" in google doesn't provide any likely links that I can see after a quick lookaround.

quote:


Diplomacy did not just "kind of work" with Turkey and the Ukraine -- Turkey has over the past few decades undergone a huge transformation, instituting successful reforms far faster than we did. The EU's Ukraine efforts have led to the toppling of the old regime and the start of a complete political reform, not to mention Ukraine reducing its friendliness with totalitarian Russia.

I do not contest your statement at this time.

Please note that I'm not saying diplomacy can't work. I'm saying that your implication of the EU as some kind of perfect worldly negotiator whose diplomacy never fails, an organization with nothing but good intentions, and the U.S. as a short-sighted war monger sound very simplistic and illogical. Why would the U.S. do something which was counter-productive? Why would the U.S. not be interested in productive negotiation with Iran?

quote:

Their diplomatic actions were far from wholly economic, particularly in the case of the Ukraine. And strangely enough, the economic stick is at least what got Iran to shut down the program and talk for a while, even if that wasn't productive.

K. I don't know of any economic stick used. I thought Iran's first shut down was 'voluntary'. In any case, while I agree that this was a diplomatic victory, I haven't seen any evidence that the EU was particularly responsible for it. All I see in the several articles that I've looked at is that Iran voluntarily agreed to shut its program down for a while.

quote:

What should be done in the future with Iran isn't for Europe, for the US, or for Israel to step in and "take care of", and your suggestion that the EU's not doing so is merely waiting for someone else to take care of the problem is juvenile.

That statement doesn't parse with the rest of your post when you combine it with your acknowledgement and support of sanctions against Iran by the EU.

quote:

The EU's actions prevented Iran's nuclear program from advancing, and they are now leading a likely successful charge (in contrast to the US's definitely unsuccessful charge when Iran had the program on hold) to impose sanctions on Iran for choosing to restart the program.


I am curious how the EU's actions prevented Iran's nuclear program.


quote:

and your suggestion that the EU's not doing so is merely waiting for someone else to take care of the problem is juvenile.

I will concede that it was a little juvenile on my part and was essentially no better than your descriptions of the U.S. in this thread (simplistic and overly sensational).
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
By the way, Fugu, if you don't feel like screwing around with links by way of elaboration, that's fine. I get your position and will keep it in the back of my mind in the future as I come across more information.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post 
IMO, even Britain isn't going to get involved in any military action in Iran, unless Iran is actively naming the UK as their prime target. I'd actually be very surprised if the UK was to get involved even as an ally of the US. It's not without precedent - they weren't part of Vietnam.

This opinion is mainly because of the intense unpopularity of the Iraq action in Britain - the Labour government aren't about to sacrifice power over this issue at the moment, and believe me, they would be out if the UK was involved in another war right now. There'd be millions of people on the street protesting, too. You don't even meet many serving soldiers who support the Iraq war in the UK at the moment.

Plus, there are reports like this one... linky admittedly rather out of date, but still.

Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
The Financial Times. Its one of the world's most respected news sources. Its also the top four hits on google and most of the google ads (though the ads change all the time) for this google search. The first result will lead you to what you seek.

I hardly think the EU is a perfect world negotiator; partly because the EU rarely acts cohesively in international affairs. However, there have been repeated imputations in this thread that the EU is incompetent at international negotiations; counterexamples are hardly out of line.

Some choice quotations from the article in question:

quote:
Iran’s step towards resuming its nuclear activities broke a “red line” that the EU has been insisting on ever since it reached a deal with Iran under which Tehran put the core activities of its nuclear programme on hold pending talks to deepen political and economic ties.
quote:
The US has been pushing since 2003 to refer Iran to the UN Security Council over the country’s nuclear activities, which Washington believes are designed to produce nuclear weapons.
I do believe those should settle some of your contestations. I had assumed a basic familiarity with the situation on your part.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bean Counter
Member
Member # 6001

 - posted      Profile for Bean Counter           Edit/Delete Post 
"Gotta give the US credit, we were just one letter off from the real threat"

Well if you look at a map we have significant forces all around Iran, they cannot hope to stop an invasion or to successfully preemptivly attack us, so they are hoping to be allowed to go about there business because we have lost our stomach for war.

The latest talk about our draw down of forces has emboldened them. They have to point to the Great Satan in classic misdirection from their political failures and like the Russians they believe Nukes make strength, not a weapon that offers many options. While I hardly am fool enough to believe that "if one goes up, they all do" it is not a weapon that you use to achieve moral high ground. It is a weapon that says "I am out to totally crush you and will stop at nothing to do it." Then leaves it up to the other side to decide what to do about it. In this case, Iran can never hope to be in a position to match Isreal, they can only hope that some sort of allience with Pakistan with a Pan Arab agenda will emerge if they can become a nuclear power.

In this our diplomancy with Pakistan seems to be a factor in our favor, leaving Iran alone amidst Democratic reforms and a great deal of internal grumbling. Hard liners might provide a bomb to Palistinian terrorist or they might try a missile strike at the Green Zone, but I cannot think the current regime has hope of retaining power for more then a few more years.

BC

Posts: 1249 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

I do believe those should settle some of your contestations.

Not really. The article doesn't support your conclusion that the U.S. hasn't been willing to take steps to refer Iran before the security council--quite the opposite. It doesn't really make it clear that the U.S. wouldn't negotiate with Iran, or whether Iran wouldn't negotiate with the U.S. or what. It doesn't get into why. The article merely repeats the things you already mentioned. It doesn't assign motive, as you did, ie that the U.S. wasn't really interested in negotiations. In other words, it seems to me that you are reading things into the article that aren't there.

In the end, for whatever reason, the EU is where the U.S. has been (according to the article, and my link below) for the last several years--referring Iran to the security council to force it to acquiesce.

For what it's worth, here is the summary of events that I have been going by, that provides a basic understanding that perhaps all of us could use. [Smile]

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
I've never said they haven't been willing, I've said they've been willing but haven't succeeded, the latter part being plain fact and the former being part of the general record (that is, the US has made several statements to that effect).

Note they wanted to do this even while the facilities involved were under seal.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
That's a little different than this

quote:

While the US has been saying Iran should be called before the security council, they have not before and are not now taking the steps necessary to make this happen. The EU is.


but whatever.

quote:

Note they wanted to do this even while the facilities involved were under seal.

It's not clear to me from the FT article that this is exactly true that they were pushing for this during the time that the facilities were under seal, or if true, whether the US was the only country who 'wanted to do this'. It's also not clear what the context was, if it is true. They only say that

quote:

The US has been pushing since 2003 to refer Iran to the UN Security Council over the country’s nuclear activities, which Washington believes are designed to produce nuclear weapons.

More information would be good, but again, it's not incumbent upon you to provide it. You have given your opinion on the matter.

From the previous wiki link I provided, we should note that

quote:

On October 24, 2004, the European Union makes a proposal to provide civilian nuclear technology to Iran in exchange for Iran terminating its uranium enrichment program permanently. Iran rejects this outright saying it will not renounce its right to enrichment technologies. A decision to refer the matter from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the United Nations Security Council is expected on November 25, 2004.

so it's not just the U.S. before now. It also brings up the point that the desire to bring up the matter before the Security Council can have many ramifications, not just punitive, as you seem to imply the U.S.'s motives are.

Also

quote:

On August 11, 2005, the 35-member governing board of the IAEA adopted a resolution calling upon Iran to suspend uranium conversion, and instructing director general Mohammed ElBaradeil to submit a report on Iran's nuclear program by September 3, 2005. The resolution is considered by many to be weak since it does not include the threat of referal to the security council.

indicates to me that the threat might have been useful.


Further, if you read through the timeline at the bottom of the wiki, you will notice that Iran has not been acting in accordance with the U.N. wishes for some years, that it has rejected several compromise solutions and acted in secret, indicating that it's not, perhaps, interested in seriously compromise with the U.N., which would lend support to the U.S.'s (according to you) weaker support for negotiations and its insistence on the Security Council.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Bean Counter:
In this case, Iran can never hope to be in a position to match Israel, they can only hope that some sort of allience with Pakistan with a Pan Arab agenda will emerge if they can become a nuclear power.

Why not? They have ten times the population, 80 times the land area, far more natural resources, and no terrorist problem. Seems an excellent starting point to me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Xan:
I disagree with Nuclear weapons anyway; they are pointless for the simple reason if one goes off they ALL GO OFF.

Instant doomsday.

So true [Frown]

And I just LOVE [Roll Eyes] the constant argument in favor of nuclear weapons: Its perfectly logical that we need to built more and more (though we have enough to destroy the entire planet!) because others might do exactly the same thing if we weren't doing it FASTER!!!! [The Wave]

Please folks, lets really all just sit down with a giant glass of logic juice (now with added protien) and think this one over really hard. We have enough weapons to destroy EVERYTHING. Do we need more? Should we have, maybe less of them? Maybe not enough to destroy EVERYTHING? Maybe none? Maybe when we say they are dangerous, we mean for everyone?

Good luck on that score. I on the other hand, would like to try a large logic juice.

Ps. Lets all keep in mind the major hype that got Americans and Brits behind the Iraq war. There was no Holden Caulfield stuff, (madman) it was about weapons. Weapons that OOOPS! didn't exist. How odd.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
smitty
Member
Member # 8855

 - posted      Profile for smitty   Email smitty         Edit/Delete Post 
No one suggested building more. I said we aren't going to get rid of the ones we have. And, MAD is pretty well a thing of the past. The larger countries don't want to use them, because they're not insane. The smaller countries think that nukes = political clout.

They don't all go off if one goes off. It's not like a string of firecrackers. In today's political climate, it would be near impossible for a responsible country to use a nuke - the political fallout would nearly equal the nuclear fallout. A country whose sworn purpose is the annihilation of Isreal, though, might be a little less picky about where a nuke goes off.

Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2