the historic iran deal and its opponents

[carepov]

Here's my solution... agree to the plan, but ensure that all the inspectors responsible for verifying Iranian compliance are from Israel. Then we'll really know how serious they are about the deal.

"Doveryai no proveryai" / "Trust but verify."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canada-s-wrong-headed-position-on-iran-1.2441379

[segnosaur]

Good points rue I especially agree with you that the main concern is Iranian Religious extremism. That is why I am for the deal - it is an olive branch to the moderates in Iran. My opinion is that this deal is promising - certainly more promising than any alternative that I can imagine. If the P5+1 took Netanyahu's or Canada's approach, it would lead to increased influence by Iranian extremists over its moderates.

...

Also, can you please provide a link showing that: "In the middle of announcing this deal with Iran, the leader of Iran called yet again for the end of Israel."?

Keep in mind that even if there are 'moderates' in Iran, it remains to be seen whether those moderate individuals actually hold any sort of power or influence in Iran, or whether they're just being trotted out as a "dog and pony show". Iran is a dictatorship, and while the current president (Rouhani) is considered less extreme than Ahmadinejad (although one who is not sure the Holocaust happened), it the same Supreme leader who is ultimately in charge, and who had no problem with Ahmadinejad's follys.

At the risk of derailing the thread... this reminds me of people who claim the U.S. shouldn't have bombed Hiroshima because "Japan was ready to surrender". Only problem is, those that wanted to surrender prior to Hiroshima did not have the ability to do so, and their authority was completely overruled by those that wanted to continue the war.

[eyeball]

- They are lying

Around here it's quite common to see people comment on the naivete of those who are shocked and appalled when governments lie. OTOH its a little hilarious that the only thing we should trust out of any Iranian leader's mouth is their promise to wipe Israel off the map.

Yup, that one you can take straight to the bank all week long and twice on Sunday.

[segnosaur]

Here's my solution... agree to the plan, but ensure that all the inspectors responsible for verifying Iranian compliance are from Israel. Then we'll really know how serious they are about the deal.

"Doveryai no proveryai" / "Trust but verify."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canada-s-wrong-headed-position-on-iran-1.2441379

Umm... in case you missed it, the point of my post was not that there should be verification, but that Israel (a country that is viewed negatively by Iran and other Islamic states) should be supplying the inspectors. If Iran is serious about being more open about its nuclear plans, it will accept the inspectors. If instead it is a ploy, or if its hatred of Israel is more important than its quest for peace and better relations, it will reject the inspectors. Then we'll have a better idea of where exactly they stand.

[carepov]

Keep in mind that even if there are 'moderates' in Iran, it remains to be seen whether those moderate individuals actually hold any sort of power or influence in Iran, or whether they're just being trotted out as a "dog and pony show". Iran is a dictatorship, and while the current president (Rouhani) is considered less extreme than Ahmadinejad (although one who is not sure the Holocaust happened), it the same Supreme leader who is ultimately in charge, and who had no problem with Ahmadinejad's follys.

What do you mean "dog and pony show"? There are plenty of real moderates in Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9310_Iranian_election_protests

It is in our interest to support these moderates. The best way to do that is through peaceful dialogue and diplomacy. Hard-line stances just add to the influence and power of the extremists.

[segnosaur]

Around here it's quite common to see people comment on the naivete of those who are shocked and appalled when governments lie. OTOH its a little hilarious that the only thing we should trust out of any Iranian leader's mouth is their promise to wipe Israel off the map.

Yup, that one you can take straight to the bank all week long and twice on Sunday.

That governments (both dictatorships and democracies) regularly lie is not in doubt. What I thought was curious was the way that if there are lies made by Iran on the issue, they seem to be exposed by contradictory statements that Iran was involved in, rather than some uncovered new evidence.

As for the part about "wiping Israel off the map"... keep in mind that when lies are made, it is usually done in order to make the liar appear better than they are. ("Hey I drive a solid gold ferarri!") Making a comment like "wiping Israel off the map", if it is a lie, would seem to do the opposite... it would make Iran appear more barbaric/bloodthirsty than they really are.

[carepov]

Umm... in case you missed it, the point of my post was not that there should be verification, but that Israel (a country that is viewed negatively by Iran and other Islamic states) should be supplying the inspectors. If Iran is serious about being more open about its nuclear plans, it will accept the inspectors. If instead it is a ploy, or if its hatred of Israel is more important than its quest for peace and better relations, it will reject the inspectors. Then we'll have a better idea of where exactly they stand.

Sorry I did miss that. I think that a requirement to have Israeli inspectors in Iran is an unnecessary roadblock. It also makes no sense because Israel was not part of the negotiations. Why are US and other P5+1 inspectors not enough?

[eyeball]

As for the part about "wiping Israel off the map"... keep in mind that when lies are made, it is usually done in order to make the liar appear better than they are. ("Hey I drive a solid gold ferarri!") Making a comment like "wiping Israel off the map", if it is a lie, would seem to do the opposite... it would make Iran appear more barbaric/bloodthirsty than they really are.

It would also be like throwing red meat to his base for domestic consumption, something you see virtually everywhere you look in democracies too.

I get the sense that most people who are peeing on this deal are doing so because it was an apparent lefty president who helped secure it.

.

[segnosaur]

Keep in mind that even if there are 'moderates' in Iran, it remains to be seen whether those moderate individuals actually hold any sort of power or influence in Iran, or whether they're just being trotted out as a "dog and pony show". Iran is a dictatorship, and while the current president (Rouhani) is considered less extreme than Ahmadinejad (although one who is not sure the Holocaust happened), it the same Supreme leader who is ultimately in charge, and who had no problem with Ahmadinejad's follys.

What do you mean "dog and pony show"? There are plenty of real moderates in Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9310_Iranian_election_protests

Wow.... just totally wow.

I'm amazed. Really I am.

Here's the thing... go back and look at my post. I never said that there weren't moderates. What I questioned was whether those moderates had the ability to influence any sort of change within Iran.

The fact that you can miss the point of my posting was really quite impressive.

As for your link to Wikipedia... Yes, there were protests. But did those protests overthrow the government? Nope... the same dictator who was in power before is still in power. Did it improve freedoms? Well, plenty of people got arrested, and during the protests certain elements of censorship were actually enhanced.

It is in our interest to support these moderates.

Maybe, maybe not.

If "supporting the moderates" means giving Iran (the country has a whole) something beneficial, it could actually backfire... Things like an easement of sanctions (along with the economic benefits it would provide) might actually give those in charge more leverage to stay in power. ("Hey look, we're improving your lives. No need to rebel against us!") That's what I meant by "dog and pony show". Pointing to the protests gives people like you the ability to say "See? Moderates!". But if those who actually DO have power are unaffected, then you're not really benefiting anybody.

That doesn't mean that dialog is completely useless; nor does it mean I necessarily oppose the deal. But suggesting its something that's going to "benefit the moderates" is rather naive.

[segnosaur]

Umm... in case you missed it, the point of my post was not that there should be verification, but that Israel (a country that is viewed negatively by Iran and other Islamic states) should be supplying the inspectors. If Iran is serious about being more open about its nuclear plans, it will accept the inspectors. If instead it is a ploy, or if its hatred of Israel is more important than its quest for peace and better relations, it will reject the inspectors. Then we'll have a better idea of where exactly they stand.

Sorry I did miss that. I think that a requirement to have Israeli inspectors in Iran is an unnecessary roadblock.

Why is it a roadblock?

Is it because Iran really considers the deal as a sham, something they don't intend to honor, and they don't want to even pretend to play along if some of the Inspectors are Israeli?

It also makes no sense because Israel was not part of the negotiations.

Actually, both Iran and Israel are members of the IAEA, and the IAEA will likely be doing the monitoring. So no, the inspectors don't have to be members of the negotiating countries.

Why are US and other P5+1 inspectors not enough?

Wow, you really don't like to read other people's posts, do you.

I already explained my rational.... Iran likes to pretend its become more "moderate". They claim they want a deal. Using inspectors from Israel would be a true test to see how serious they really are.

Here's a suggestion.... before you go and hit that little button marked 'post', try actually reading what you might be responding to. You might find whatever point you're trying to make has already been addressed.

[bud]

what does the law say?

under the NPT, it is very clear that iran has the right to enrich uranium. there is no limit on how much you are allowed to have. this is the case for other NPT signatories such as germany, japan, brazil, etc. who all have over 5% enriched uranium.

"Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty."

does iran have nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program?

no it doesn't. all 16 u.s. intelligence agencies and the israeli intelligence community agree iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and has not even decided to produce nuclear weapons. they have not worked on weaponization. some bring up long range missiles, which are their right to have.

some in israel, including netanyahu and the neo-cons, such as rumsfeld, have been making false prediction after false predictions about iran's nukes for 30 years.

has iran tried to negotiate with p5+1 in the past?

yes. in 2003, an iranian negotiating team, which was made up of very similar people who are in the current iranian negotiation team offered something very similar to what was agreed upon last week. unfortunately, bush was the president back then and the u.s. decided not to negotiate and only dictate what iran can or cannot have.

washington post, 2006:

Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.

But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said.

Last month, the Bush administration abruptly shifted policy and agreed to join talks previously led by European countries over Iran's nuclear program. But several former administration officials say the United States missed an opportunity in 2003 at a time when American strength seemed at its height -- and Iran did not have a functioning nuclear program or a gusher of oil revenue from soaring energy demand.

result of bush's refusal to negotiate and instead threaten and implement more sanctions?

iran went from a few dozen centrifuges in 2003 to over 18,000 in 2013. not only that, but their capabilities and technology has increased.

Edited November 30, 2013 by bud

[Rue]

Care here the most recent threat from Iran was Nov.20 that I was referring to. Of course there has been a tit for tat with rhetoric for years.

This last one stated can be referred to here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-s-president-elect-calls-israel-a-wound-1.1347360

Here are some recent other ones:

http://www.evp.org.il/Iran-threatens-Israel-from-Lebanon.html

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/iran-threatens-tel-aviv-over-syrian-conflict

http://sreaves32.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/war-drums-iran-threatens-israel-first-victim-of-strike-on-syria/

http://freebeacon.com/iran-announces-34-new-nuke-sites/

There are a lot of publically announced comments that go back and forth. What the meta message is or the message underneath the message really is being sent you and I will not know.

What I myself have deciphered from many of these threats is the following:

1-Iran has made it clear they obtained sufficient technology and weapons from Russia to augment their North Korean-Chinese technology liquid fuel missiles to assure an accuracy of anywhere from 2,000-3,000 k's more than enough accuracy to hit Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel which Iran has theratened.

2-Iran has suggested they could now use their satellite to assist in delivering missiles on a more accurate basis and try jam Israeli electronic and internet comunication systems.

3-Iran has stated repeatedly it will attack Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey as well as the US if it feels a strike is imminent whatever that means.

Hope that directly answered what you asked me.

[Rue]

As usual Bud you have engaged in statements that are both illogical and misquote or misrepresent my comments which remain on this board for all to read.

I will attempt to respond to some of your comments.

You stated:

"...you trust bibi's so-called intelligence report above everyone else's? including the u.s.'? several former heads of mossad and other israeli intelligence have come out in support of the negotiations. perhaps bibi has faulty intelligence or is lying. let history be the judge of that:.."

Your question makes no sense. How would I trust netanyahu's intelligence reports when I have no idea what they say and neither do you?

I have stated on this board repeatedly none of us know what the real issues are beneath what we read. In fact other than you, I doubt anyone on this board thinks they know what is really going on.

As for your reference to former Mossad Chiefs, they release what they are deliberately allowed to release. You really think a former Mossad officer can release top secret information in contradiction of state security concerns? Can you get real for just once?

More to the point, being in favour of negotiating with Iran and approving this latest interim agreement are two different issues. Netanyahu has never stated Israel should not negotiate with Iran. What he is criticizing is the lack of guarantee in the interim deal to stop enriching uranium.

Again your questions make no logical sense and show you do not even understand what Netanyahu has challenged.

Your listing of comments by Netanyahu do not prove by themselves he was wrong and in fact you have offered zero evidence to show they are wrong.

In fact Iran disclosed when it obtained uranium. The fact is and again it is common knowledge for everyone except you, that any amount of uranium, can be used to make a dirty bomb. Any amount of uranium can be placed in a warhead to make a dirty bomb.

More to the point the UN and other nuclear technology experts not just Israel have stated to go from 5 to 20% enrichment needed for a conventional nuclear bomb would take a month at most and its probable Iran was there years ago. You do not know. Neither do I.

By the way Iran never agreed to neutralize anything at 20% or even 5%. That remains subject to discussion.

You state you did your "thesis" on the Iran-Iraq war. Since you are trying to play the role of expert, then finish what you started. What was this thesis for?

Did you even get a degree with it? What school was it for? Did you do it on behalf of the Iranian government? Lol. Can you get real just once. You made a point of attacking me for being a Jew and accusing this of automatically making me some tribal Zionist enemy, what about you? You refuse to disclose your tribe and now refer to yourself as writing a thesis and you have the audacity to pretend you never heard of Iran using gas on Iraqis and Kurds and ask me to provide a link? No. I do not play such games. Its public domain. Anyone can find that including you if you in fact did write your thesis as you claim. Lol. don't play Bud. Debate. Stop making references to being an expert then in the next breath try engage in a tactic to suggest things that are on public domain don't exist simply because I pointed them out. It won't work Bud. I know your play book.

You want to defend Irans' record Bud, then have the integrity to state what your religion is, what your connection to Iran is and why you are in support of Iran and Hezbollah and engaging in partisan comments for them constantly on this forum.

I have challenged you repeatedly and you run from the challenges. Finish what you started. Playing thesis writer and expert on Iran as an academic ain't gonna fly Bud not when you know you won't reveal who you are and can hide behind anonymity on this board.

Bud you stated to me:

"​you are desperately trying to paint a more extreme picture than there really is. you want extreme, then go to israel's bffs' country, saudi arabia."

Bud you come on this forum and in each and every response try paint Israel in extremist terms. Now you want to accuse me of making up extremist visions of Iran? Lol. By the way Bud. why are you even referring to Saudi Arabia to me? Have I ever once suggested they were not an extremeist state? Why would you even bring them up? They have nothing to do with my response to you. Nothing. As for Iran if you want to come on this forum and deny their human rights record and paint them as a decent, democratic regime, that Bud speaks for itself. You also came on this forum trying to suggest Hezbollah a terrorist organization is legitimate because it places representatives in the Lebanese parliament. Yah Bud I get your reasoning. Iran has a democratic assembly. You want to tell me how moderate it is and how it represents the people? Lol.

Bud you want to do another thread extolling the virtues of Iran start one. I need a laugh.

Now you stated Bud:

".. you need to read and understand the agreement, because it looks like you don't really understand what it is."

Bud for someone who claims to be an academic who wrote a thesis why would you state the above. First of all as an academic you would know that the above is spoken in a derogatory tone assuming only you can tell me what I must believe. That Bud is a tactic you have used not just with me but everyone else you disagree with and interestingly it is exactly the syntax, the exact syntax Hudson Jones uses in his responses. You assume to know and to dictate to others what they must know.

To me Bud that reveals in my opinion someone brought up in an environment where someone tells him what he must think, and he obeys, i.e., you are dictated to what you are allowed to say, and then you repeat it to me.

Yah I understand it Bud. I get it. I lived in the Middle East. I understand the cognitive process of someone told to repeat a script. I have watched as the man in the beard screams and points and his followers repeat in unison.

No Bud, I am not a script writer. No Bud, you don't sermonize and I repeat like a faithful follower.

Bud your assumption I do not understand what was agreed to is not only arrogant and patronizing but absurd. The interim agreement is not even finalized. How can you possibly even come on this forum and brag you know what it means when its not finalized? Lol.

Bud the agreement is not finalized and yah on this one you may have some sources;

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-enjoying-pre-implementation-window/

http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/US-Six-month-clock-on-Iran-nuclear-deal-hasnt-started-333246

By the way Bud. Its interesting you would attempt to lecture me on what was agreed to when Iran is already disagreeing with the US on what they think they are agreeing to and have not yet finalized-here you enjoy reading things as you stated earlier....in an attempt to think you found an article telling you what you wanted to hear about Israel....enjoy this as well....

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/here-we-go-iran-accuse-us-of-deal-dishonesty_112013

Bud your responses to me make even less and less sense.

It is absolutely absurd for you to engage me in a debate as to whether Iran has nuclear weapons when it says it does:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/iran-nuclear-weapons-israel/2010/10/05/id/372644.

Save your pro Iran spins for someone else Bud and when you want to explain what your tribe is, and give full details as to your thesis do let me know. The thing about you Bud is, you never finish what you start.

Here's another thing Bud, I don't care if you believe I am a law and psychology professor, mediator and lawyer. I don't. I don't care whether you know where I lived, what I saw, what I witnessed. I don't. I am not here to suggest to you that you must believe me.

I come on this board respecting anyone's opinion and I could care less what education they have. Some of the most knowledgeable people I know never finished school. Life experience to me is as important as academic experience. I learn from everyone especially those I disagree with.

I challenge you Bud because you entrench yourself in absurd positions pased on your partisan bias for Iran and pretend you are not pro Iranian and connected to Iran as you accuse me of being connected with Israel.

Unlike you Bud, I fully disclosed my biases and everyone knows them and not once have I suggested to anyone like you do with me, that they must think like me and agree with me.

Bud you and I are just two pissing pots in the grand scheme of things.

[Rue]

I will now clarify to those of you who think the deal with Iran is good why I have serious reservations.

On November 20, 2013, as the US, Europe and Iran entered into their negotiations the leader of Iran stated and I quote:

"After all, in our region there's been a wound for years on the body of the Muslim world under the shadow of the occupation of the holy land of Palestine and the beloved al-Quds [Jerusalem]"

The above words from Ayatollah Rohmeini are not exactly the kinds of words that lead me to believe Iran is seeking peace with Israel and its repeated words like that-which simply trigger Netanyahu to respond with beligerent words of his own.

The religious references and repeated calls to liberate Palestine have continued since the day the Shah of Iran was disposed.

Iran has financed Hezbollah, Syria and countless other terrorist organizations dedicated to wiping Israel out.

Israel knows it as does the world. Iran's clergy council consider Israel an abomination. Period.

So Israel fires back with words and in proxy limited attacks in Lebanon or Syria.

I believe Obama has undermined the sanctions against Iran that were working.

I believe without those sanctions, Iran will not feel any incentive to change and that is not simply bad for Israel but the entire Middle East and most importantly moderate progressive Iranians who are kept captive under the religious council and crave democracy.

I believe the timing of the deal has alienated Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and plays into the hands of Putin now trying to court all three while also claiming to be Iran's friend!

If Iran truly needs peaceful nuclear energy then have the uranium enriched outside the country and shipped in. End of story.

All this deal does is attempt to put pressure on Saudi Arabia to lower oil prices by trying to turn back on the Iranian tap.

The US is desperate economically and needs to do something to kick start its economy and lowering fuel prices is what it has

decided to do.

As I speak the US has told Israel it will engage in a military exercise with them at the end of this interim agreement. Its an attempt to

appease the moderates in Israel who want Obama's attempts to try negotiate peace, given a chance.

It does give them some room with Netanyahu. It does help Netanyahu a but now not look like the US has turned on Israel.

It helps.

I want moderate Iranians liberated from their clergy. I am sick and tired of war as well. No I do not want the US, Iran or Israel fighting.

But I also no appeasing Iran's clergy is a huge mistake. They will not be manipulated. Putin will see to it the US can not form an alliance with them.

Its in Putin's interest to have Iran and the US continue to fight so he can prop up everyone who has turned away from the US.

That is it. I have said my piece.

[dre]

If Iran truly needs peaceful nuclear energy then have the uranium enriched outside the country and shipped in. End of story.

WHy should they? THey are an NPT signatory and have an inalienable legal right to enrich uranium.

As for the deal... Its a hell of a lot more than Israel has accomplished. They have been claiming "Iran is 6 months away from having a nuclear bomb" for about 20 years, and have done precisely jack squat about it. If it was up to them, they would just piss and moan for another decade until Iran DID have nukes (if they even have such ambitions).

[bud]

rue. once again, you told a fib and failed to own up to it when confronted:

Can you guarantee Iran will only use its nuclear weapons for peaceful reasons? How? This is a nation that used chemical weapons against Kurd civlians in Turkey, Iran's northern region and Iraq.

either back up that the iranians used chemical weapons again kurds civilians in turkey or admit by not responding to this that you're a failure.

[GostHacked]

Here's my solution... agree to the plan, but ensure that all the inspectors responsible for verifying Iranian compliance are from Israel. Then we'll really know how serious they are about the deal.

I am sure that would be a complete fair and unbiased inspection if they were from Israel. Wait, what was I thinkin!?

[Rue]

Bud you told me I must provide information that Iran used gas on Iraqis and Kurds.

Interesting that coming from someone who when asked directly and repeatedly to disclose his "tribe" refuses.

Interesting considering you won't reveal your connection to Iran, your religion, your tribe, who you wrote your thesis for.

You see Bud, you took the bait as you always do. You show once again you refuse to debate me and respond, and try

focus away from yourself by trying to taunt me.

The tactic Bud is not working and I just demonstrated why.

In fact Bud for someone who refuses to disclose so many things on this forum, you accusing me of refusing to

back up what I say is hilarious and Bud you bet I placed that little piece of bacon out there for you to bite on.

Now Bud, how you going to walk away from this one hmmm?

You reveal your tribe and who you wrote your thesis for and your religion and I will be glad to get you the articles

you want.

Lol.

Once again Bud demands what he himself will not do on this forum.

Enough Bud. Stick to the issues. Taunting me won't work neither will attacking my religion and ethnicity while hiding yours.

As for the thesis reference like the Jew taunts pretexted as debate on Israel and Iran, finish what you start.

[carepov]

Here's the thing... go back and look at my post. I never said that there weren't moderates. What I questioned was whether those moderates had the ability to influence any sort of change within Iran.

The fact that you can miss the point of my posting was really quite impressive.

As for your link to Wikipedia... Yes, there were protests. But did those protests overthrow the government? Nope... the same dictator who was in power before is still in power. Did it improve freedoms? Well, plenty of people got arrested, and during the protests certain elements of censorship were actually enhanced.

Maybe, maybe not.

If "supporting the moderates" means giving Iran (the country has a whole) something beneficial, it could actually backfire... Things like an easement of sanctions (along with the economic benefits it would provide) might actually give those in charge more leverage to stay in power. ("Hey look, we're improving your lives. No need to rebel against us!") That's what I meant by "dog and pony show". Pointing to the protests gives people like you the ability to say "See? Moderates!". But if those who actually DO have power are unaffected, then you're not really benefiting anybody.

That doesn't mean that dialog is completely useless; nor does it mean I necessarily oppose the deal. But suggesting its something that's going to "benefit the moderates" is rather naive.

I never said that you said that there were no moderates in Iran. I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. My point was that the moderates do have strength - not enough to overthrow the government in 2009 but there is strength in numbers. IMO these numbers make it pretty obvious that there is at least significant potential for moderates to influence change in Iran.

When I say "it is in our best ineterest to support the moderates" - I am implying that we should not provide "support" that will backfire and actually increase the power of the extremists. I am not being naive as I do not claim to have any easy answers, I am purposefully being vague and uncertain and I agree with you that actions need to be weighed carefully as they could backfire.

Why is it a roadblock?

Is it because Iran really considers the deal as a sham, something they don't intend to honor, and they don't want to even pretend to play along if some of the Inspectors are Israeli?

I already explained my rational.... Iran likes to pretend its become more "moderate". They claim they want a deal. Using inspectors from Israel would be a true test to see how serious they really are.

Demanding that some inspectors be Israeli is purely a symbolic requirement. The true test of seriousness is already in the agreement - it is compliance with the concrete demands of the agreement. Your additional demand is a roadblock, and a bad idea, because it does nothing to help achieve the goal of stopping Iran from developing nukes and will unnecessarily add fuel to the anti-Israeli fire that the Islamic extremists are sure to stoke.

[Rue]

Now that Bud has told you I am a liar because I can't reveal sources for Iran's chemical warfare during the Iraq-Iran war and told everyone he has written a thesis on the war, I think its time he put up or shut up.

Its time for him to indicate who he wrote his thesis for, which university, how he does not know about Iran's chemical weapons and why he thinks it acceptable to attack me for being a Jew and suggesting its why I support Israel, while he won't reveal his religion and ethnic identity, his connection to Iran and of course his claim to academic expertise.

Bud engaged in a tactic of trying to avoid debating me by attacking me personally,

The bait is not taken Bud, in fact it now places you squarely in the position to put up or shut up and yes Bud we know your tactic as I respond with my sources, you will call them Zionist lies and then continue to refuse to hold your self to the standard you demand of me and everyone else on the forum.

www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/history-irans-chemical-related-weapons-efforts

[DogOnPorch]

Rue...I'm pretty positive Iran did not use chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War. Iran, however, apparently gave children plastic keys to heaven so as to calm their fears as they were pushed into human wave assaults against fortified Iraqi positions. Hard to verify such a claim but about 100,000 Iranian children died fighting at the front...key or no key.

Iranian child soldier circa 1985

[Rue]

Dog Iran used chemical weapons against Kurds according to kurd refugees and towards the end of the Iraq-Iran war. It is true Iraq initiated their use. There is contraversy as to whether some attacks were by Iranians or in fact Iraqis against their own soldiers. Here are some sources you can look at Dog,

1-victims of Iran chemical attacks:

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/623

2-a concise paper on use of chemicals by both sides during Iran-Iraq war (hint it was not written by Bud)

http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/81ali.pdf

also a reference to Iran's use of chemical weapons:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/cw.htm

Here's an article that advances the position Kurds were attacked by Iran:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5257.htm

Here is a wiki leak on China chemical weapons technology transfer to Iran (after the war of course):

http://shanghaiist.com/2011/04/22/wikileaks_chinese_company_zibo_chem.php

here's a citation for Iran supplying Libya with gas weapons-the interesting thing is this was done after Iran had condemned the use of chemical weapons:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4150853,00.html

Iran has acknowledged it has chemical weapons and would use them during a war not withstanding it has signed the international treaty to not use chemical weapons.

It supposedly condemned the use of chemicals in Syria but Syria and Hezbollah both acknowledge receiving chemical weapons from Iran publically.

What we do know is the earlier chemicals to Iraq came from Britain, France and Germany. Iran got their initial supplies from Russia then China.

It appears mustard gas has been used against Kurds and not just by Iraq and Iran but possibly by Turkey.

Interestingly although Turkey, Iraq and Iran have no love for each other they all hate the kurds.

cheers.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Rue

[DogOnPorch]

Well, there we go...and they used child soldiers. What a lovely bunch we're dealing with so trustingly.

[bud]

Dog Iran used chemical weapons against Kurds according to kurd refugees and towards the end of the Iraq-Iran war. It is true Iraq initiated their use. There is contraversy as to whether some attacks were by Iranians or in fact Iraqis against their own soldiers. Here are some sources you can look at Dog,

1-victims of Iran chemical attacks:

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/623

read your own links, rue. the only controversy is in your head.

your link talks about iraq using chemical weapons on iranians. i don't know if these displays by you are on purpose to spread misinformation or you are spreading misinformation because you have a terrible attention span and cannot tell the difference between iran and iraq.

your display here is extremely pathetic.

Edited November 29, 2013 by bud

[DogOnPorch]

The report claims it was Iran...not Iraq. You're free to disagree as usual.