Iran Makes Major Nuclear Concessions

[kuzadd]

but then so did Iraq.

anyway........

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...6778632,00.html

"VIENNA, Austria (AP) - In major concessions to international demands, Iran has agreed to answer lingering questions about its nuclear experiments and will let U.N. inspectors return to a plutonium-producing reactor it is building, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday.

The decision to cooperate more fully with the U.N. nuclear agency appears designed to weaken a U.S. push for tough new Security Council sanctions over Iran's nuclear activities, which Western countries suspect are cover for a weapons program.

Iran, which says it only wants peaceful nuclear energy, promised the concessions in a meeting this week between Iranian officials and a senior IAEA delegation, the agency said.

Iran also has scaled back its enrichment of uranium, IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei said Monday, although it is still refusing to freeze that enrichment, a key international demand. "

I find this little bit interesting

Diplomats told The Associated Press last year that the agency was trying to follow up on U.S. intelligence that described the project as linking uranium enrichment-related experiments to nuclear-related high explosives and warhead design. Iran dismissed that intelligence as ``based on false and fabricated documents.''

shades of 'yellow cake from Niger' ???????

[Bonam]

It's all stalling and buying time, unless they stop all enrichment. Even then, they probably have secret facilities for continuing the process at other sites.

[marcinmoka]

Iran Makes Major Nuclear Concessions

Major? This would be known as semantical sommersaults. Seriously, do you work for the Savak, or Ministry of Information or does this just come naturally?

Iran dismissed that intelligence as ``based on false and fabricated documents.''

Kuzad, did you even momentarily suspect they would admit to the validity of this, or any other piece of intel?

shades of 'yellow cake from Niger'

Difference is, every single nation, even partially friendly states such as China and Russia, not to mention more diplomacy oriented states such as Germany and France, all admit to having intel and grounded suspicions of Iranian inentions.

Edited August 3, 2007 by marcinmoka

[kuzadd]

Major? This would be known as semantical sommersaults. Seriously, do you work for the Savak, or Ministry of Information or does this just come naturally?

I wonder aloud why you insist on making everything with me personal?

It's quite pathetic, really.

Was the word "major" mine?

let's click the link, and read together, if you can.?

Iran Makes Major Nuclear Concessions

WOW, it's the headline from the NEWS story!!

amazing! stunning! shocking!

now let's read here together.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7071300321.html

Iran Makes Major Nuclear Concessions

It's another headline used by a news outlet!

shocking! stunning!

Do you think either of those news outlets work for "Savak, or Ministry of Information "??

Pfft!

[kuzadd]

.marcinmoka:

Difference is, every single nation, even partially friendly states such as China and Russia, not to mention more diplomacy oriented states such as Germany and France, all admit to having intel and grounded suspicions of Iranian inentions

Do they?

Well I don't know about that?

But let's say that's correct, "benefit of the doubt" type thing?

Anyway, all other countries allegedly had the same "suspicions" wrt Iraq, and what happened there?

NO WMD's, that what happened!

[marcinmoka]

Anyway, all other countries allegedly had the same "suspicions" wrt Iraq, and what happened there?

They did? Are there any Security Council meetings I am not aware of? The nations of the S.C did agree that there was a weapons program in Iraq, but every nation, except for the U.K and the U.S claimed that it their intel led them to believe these programs to be either inactive or grossly insufficient to not be deemed a threat. The same cannot even remotely be said about Iran. That is why nations such as Russia and France have been much more stringent on Iran than good ol' Ivanov and De Villepin were back in the day.

Was the word "major" mine?

It is how you titled your post and what you implied. So yes, you did re-hash it on your own volition.

But that is besides the point. While this may be a "major" concession for Iran, AP writer and the Guardian, it was in no way is a "major" concession for the U.N security council.

And being the pragmatist I am, I am concerned with real results, not trivial semantic gymnastics taking place in the propaganda war. Anyone of us could easily log into the Fox News page or that of the Guardian, and easily realize that the opposing headlines have less to do with providing the facts than they do in swaying public opinion to one view or another. Unfortunately, sheets of pure data are not as easy to sell as pre packaged information.

Now, had an independent, and often very conflicting body such as the United Nations Security Council decided to officially pronounce in a resolution that "major" steps have been taken by Iran towards ending the scenario, I would of agreed with you. But you simply accept the headline of an AP article as being the final word.

Pfft!

I concur.

Edited August 3, 2007 by marcinmoka

[jbg]

but then so did Iraq.

anyway........

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...6778632,00.html

I find this little bit interesting

shades of 'yellow cake from Niger' ???????

My view is that it's not important whether Hussein got his paws on "yellow cake from Niger" or if Iran is immediately successful. I think any approach to obtaining nukes by unstable, violent lands should be brought to a halt. And not be a UN-generated piece of paper.

[marcinmoka]

And not be a UN-generated piece of paper.

Sadly the real world is much more complicated than the "Rambo like" video game wars many uni-lateralists are accustomed to. Unlike the video games which tickle many a fancy, when a real soldier dies, gets injured or needs recovery time from duty, you must field actual people rather than pressing the "re-start" button on your controller. This is even more true when you are already engaged in two other simultaneous wars.

Unless jbg, you are willing to don the Rambo bullet belt and a bandana and go at it alone? Or naturally join forces with Donald Rumsfeld and Toby Keith to form the ultimate "go it alone" commando force this world has ever seen.

Edited August 4, 2007 by marcinmoka

[ScottSA]

Sadly the real world is much more complicated than the "Rambo like" video game wars many uni-lateralists are accustomed to. Unlike the video games which tickle many a fancy, when a real soldier dies, gets injured or needs recovery time from duty, you must field actual people rather than pressing the "re-start" button on your controller. This is even more true when you are already engaged in two other simultaneous wars.

Unless jbg, you are willing to don the Rambo bullet belt and a bandana and go at it alone? Or naturally join forces with Donald Rumsfeld and Toby Keith to form the ultimate "go it alone" commando force this world has ever seen.

Sadly the real world, if by that you mean the world the UN "multilateralists" lay about in, sits around on its arse pushing papers and being "concerned" and "regretful," while other parts of the real world keep doing whatever the hell it wants to do. You may not have noticed, but the "unilateralists" achieved in 2 weeks in Iraq what the "multilateralists" would still be unsuccessfully doing today. The "multilateralists" started screwing up in 1931 and have yet to achieve a single concrete victory or stop a single war. The odd time they do get their crap together enough to do something, their ROE are so strict that they have to sit by and watch events like Rwanda, Somalia and Sudan take place without doing a damned thing about it. So if you think it's sophisticated to do nothing while talking about how nice it would be if we all joined hands and lived in lalaland instead of actually doing something, then you have an interesting take on what the "real world" entails.

[marcinmoka]

You may not have noticed, but the "unilateralists" achieved in 2 weeks in Iraq

Fascinating point of view, but I must ask, what have they achieved Scott? Invasion or stabilization? Maybe you prefer to read tea leaves or something for something to stay up to date on your current affairs, but I would suggest taking a peek at ALL the media sources around you or talking to any troops. The current situation in Iraq is taking a 'little bit' more time than 2 weeks, in case you have not noticed.

So if you think it's sophisticated to do nothing while talking about how nice it would be if we all joined hands and lived in lalaland instead of actually doing something, then you have an interesting take on what the "real world" entails.

Scott. Take a deep breath, and think before you type. I am not asking for much. No where did I say it was ideal. I just said in the real world.

In the end, you have two choices, both which limit your fighting capability.

a. Wait for a multi-lateral consensus which is drowned out in self interest and bureaucratic red tape at which point too much damage has already been done. But how else are you going to field the extra troops which are needed.

-or-

b. Send in a vastly under - manned, over - exerted force which only puts your situation in peril because you are not fully battle ready. In the "real world" Scott, troops are finite. It is not pretty, but if you can find another solution, I am sure the world is all ears. While a "unilateral" approach in Iran could of been possible sans - Iraq (although Afghanistan should of been priority NO. 1), it is a no-go, which I know puts a dampner on your desire to fight with as many non-white people as humanely possible.

Your solution? How would you field the extra soldiers in a unilateral conflict?

Edited August 5, 2007 by marcinmoka

[ScottSA]

I find this conversation a bit pointless, since you admit readily enough that multilateralism is a farce that achieves nothing, but somehow attach moral weight to the notion that "concensus" and "multilateralism" are good in and of themselves.

The object in Iraq was to oust Saddam. It took two weeks to "unilaterally" achieve that (with the help of 26 other unilateral countries), and 10 years for "multilateralism" to achieve precisely nothing.

Bush had the notion that an island of democracy in the middle east would have far-reaching implications. He was right, but he underestimated the degree to which the surrounding authoritarian regimes would attempt to thwart him, and the degree to which his allies would betray him. Not to mention the useful fools in the west who trot about voicing the mantra that the "surge is not working," even though all military reports suggest exactly the opposite. The US is at this point still in Iraq for largely altruistic reasons, because if they left it would be anarchy.

My solution would be what it has always been: use draconian occupation measures, deadlines for the Iraqi government of the sort given the west German government in 1946, attacks on Syrian border bridges, quite possibly larger scale attacks on Iranian military installations, and a credible threat urging other gulf states to stay the hell out of the conflict. When the invasion went forward, the regional states kept a very low profile in the face of US resolve. Because that resolve is crumbling, the US is seen again as a paper tiger. Once again the press and the left have ensured that the US snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[jbg]

b. Send in a vastly under - manned, over - exerted force which only puts your situation in peril because you are not fully battle ready. In the "real world" Scott, troops are finite. It is not pretty, but if you can find another solution, I am sure the world is all ears. While a "unilateral" approach in Iran could of been possible sans - Iraq (although Afghanistan should of been priority NO. 1), it is a no-go, which I know puts a dampner on your desire to fight with as many non-white people as humanely possible. Your solution? How would you field the extra soldiers in a unilateral conflict?

At least the fighting is there, not here. It's not perfect, but better than the alternative (September 11 type attacks).

[marcinmoka]

since you admit readily enough that multilateralism is a farce that achieves nothing

I never suggested it achieved nothing. It achieves little. Very, very little. Whereas fighting a battle you know from the onset you will loose because you haven't enough troops achieves nothing..perhaps for humiliation and sending out a false message that you are down for the count, when in reality you are just bruised.

but somehow attach moral weight to the notion that "concensus"

Pardon? I attached a certain weight to this notion of consensus, and while "moral" it may be to some, it was not for a moral end in itself, since morality is a subjective minefield. The practical end I was concerned with was purely military. I will ask again, what good is it to launch a war knowing full well you lack the man power to secure the conflict zone.

I agree with the notion of instilling an island of democracy in the middle east in hopes of it fanning out, but such a process takes man power. And if ones nation lacks this manpower, from where are you going to field the additional troops?

My solution would be what it has always been: use draconian occupation measures, deadlines for the Iraqi government of the sort given the west German government in 1946, attacks on Syrian border bridges, quite possibly larger scale attacks on Iranian military installations, and a credible threat urging other gulf states to stay the hell out of the conflict

It is a good concept if we were playing "Risk" or if the U.S had twice the armies it currently has, but it still begs the question "Where would you find the troops necessary to engage in such a plan", especially one involving massive amounts of hostile forces from many more nations. The American Army is sans doute the most powerful army ever in existence, but even there, it has limits and cannot draw troops from thin air, bar reinstating the draft.

So I shall ask once again, what is your magic plan to draw in the required troops?

The US is at this point still in Iraq for largely altruistic reasons, because if they left it would be anarchy.

I agree with you on this, and have voiced the same opinion on a few occasions. And yes, the surge does appear to be working and it is a crying shame they did not plan for a "surge" from the get-go, as all the military brass requested, not to mention disbanding the Iraqi Army.

The object in Iraq was to oust Saddam.

Very long term strategic thinking. But I thought the objective was not just to oust Saddam, but to instill democracy in the power void which ensued. Well, at least you wrote:

Bush had the notion that an island of democracy in the middle east would have far-reaching implications.

And in that case, no, it did not take two weeks, unless this Island you speak of is still T.B.A.

I am all for securing our world, but as my signature says "Our addiction to wishful thinking only serves to make us weaker". This could not be more true. While it would be ideal, one must realize that war is not like film and one cannot take on everybody and anybody at the same time.

P.S. Damn shame Sen. McCain never took the top spot in 2000. Things would of been much, much smoother. Who knows, maybe the guidelines of war could of actually been dictated by those in the military.

-----------------------------

At least the fighting is there, not here

Poignant observation.

Edited August 5, 2007 by marcinmoka