Iran Really DOES Have A Case For Nukes (George W. Bush, Palestinians, middle east)

[rb4browns]

Originally Posted by doubbltunman

If the U.S. loses Israel as an ally, I could think of no better scenario! 80% of our problems in the middle east is the backing of Israhell and our foreign policies. Terrorism? The middle eastern countries had no problem with the U.S. until we backed Israel, and implemented our horrid "imperial" foreign policies on to them.

"Israhell" That's very clever. If you think that the "middle eastern countries" had no problem with the U.S. until we supported Israel in 1948, simply google "barbary pirates." The stupidity, ignorance and hate one can find on forums such as these will never cease to amaze.

[rb4browns]

Originally Posted by doubbltunman

Somehow I think the Palestinians would disagree. With the help of U.S. taxpayer dollars I might add.




WHO IS WIPING WHO OFF THE MAP?

I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.

... Winston Churchill to the Palestine Royal Commission (1937)

The funny thing about thses maps is the 1945 one that neglects to include the whole of "Palestine" which is the Palestinian Mandate. The country now knows as Jordan (Trans-Jordan after 1948 because the Hashemites did not want to claim responsibility for the Palestinian Arabs west of the Jordan River) was part of the Mandate, yet the map the poster provides does not include it.

Hilarious.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by rb4browns

The funny thing about thses maps is the 1945 one that neglects to include the whole of "Palestine" which is the Palestinian Mandate. The country now knows as Jordan (Trans-Jordan after 1948 because the Hashemites did not want to claim responsibility for the Palestinian Arabs west of the Jordan River) was part of the Mandate, yet the map the poster provides does not include it.

Hilarious.

Part of the reason I listed area by country, wanted to establish a flexible baseline. Amazing how much land outside of Israel, but all of the discussion...

BTW, Jordan is 4.5X size of Israel.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

They just now agreed to talks and they went no where with what was called gibberish if I remember correctly from the representative.

IAEA has been in Iran for roughly five years. They monitor 100% of the nuclear material. As the result of Iranian compliance and disclosure, they are satisfied that they fully understand each aspect of Iran's program save one, the so-called alleged studies. It is to cover that topic that, at Iran's invitation, the current talks are convened. The allegations are based on a series of unverifiable electronic files supplied to the UNSC by the US and reportedly others. The files bear none of the typical stamps or other official markings of Iran. They suggest past involvement by elements of the Iranian military and some studies of weaponization techniques that Iran has not previously disclosed. The US position is that Iran must disprove the content of the memos, rather than that the US must establish it. The Iranian position is that the studies did not occur. The IAEA position is that only full transparency on the part of Iran can resolve the matter, but that those who have provided the files should also provide for their verification. Given this administration's history of fabrication, it is entirely possible that the files are frauds. Given a potential for Iran's incentive to do so, it is entirely possible that the studies occurred and were not disclosed. We will see what these meetings eventually reveal.

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

How come they have so many sanctions if they are complying?

The US continues to insist that there are unresolved issues that Iran has not addressed. The UNSC is also not happy that Iran has scrapped the requested halt in enrichment activities.

Originally Posted by Mircea

How come they have two weeks to come back with a real answer.

That is the time frame for the next meeting.

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

I suggest you get a little more ind depth when reading things from official agencies.

I'll try to keep that in mind. Perhaps you should as well.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

Sounds like you are in as much denial as they are. They have been offered the option of having nuclear energy without uranium enrichment and they have absolutely rejected it. We will soon see if they are madmen or not.

Can you cite the date and venue for this rejection? Iran has only said that it will in no case give up the right of enrichment that it enjoys under the NNPT.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

No your right they haven't......they haven't been allowed to inspect.....just like Iraq did before that war.

Inspectors were all over Iraq for crying out loud, and per the above, IAEA has been in Iran since 2003.

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

They do have rights to have nuclear power.....once they comply like everyone else.

As has been pointed out at least once, "like everyone else" simply dioes not apply.

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

And all the oil they have they can't use because they have no refineries. They have to buy the oil from a country that does....but they do have oil.

Oil at the moment is their only significant viable export. Every drop that they either consume directly or swap out for refined products is a drain on funds available for much-needed economic development.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by saganista

IAEA has been in Iran for roughly five years. They monitor 100% of the nuclear material. As the result of Iranian compliance and disclosure, they are satisfied that they fully understand each aspect of Iran's program save one, the so-called alleged studies. It is to cover that topic that, at Iran's invitation, the current talks are convened. The allegations are based on a series of unverifiable electronic files supplied to the UNSC by the US and reportedly others. The files bear none of the typical stamps or other official markings of Iran. They suggest past involvement by elements of the Iranian military and some studies of weaponization techniques that Iran has not previously disclosed. The US position is that Iran must disprove the content of the memos, rather than that the US must establish it. The Iranian position is that the studies did not occur. The IAEA position is that only full transparency on the part of Iran can resolve the matter, but that those who have provided the files should also provide for their verification. Given this administration's history of fabrication, it is entirely possible that the files are frauds. Given a potential for Iran's incentive to do so, it is entirely possible that the studies occurred and were not disclosed. We will see what these meetings eventually reveal.

You seem to act like the UNSC is only us. There are 6 other members we know two don't normally agree with us ever (Russia, China). yes we will see in two weeks...If they decide to cooperate then sanctions would be lifted and nuclear material supplied. if not...more sanctions will be added.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Baron von Costume

I think this guy plainly has an agenda...

Yeah, Baron, I do. It's that if people are going to hold opinions on global issues, those should be based on something that at least reasonably approximates the available facts of the matter, not merely on endless repetitions of administration propaganda. One would think that the past six years would have served to underscore that point. Apparently not in the minds of some...

[saganista]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

saganista do you not believe that religions are the root cause of evil or the people that believe in them are irrational? I thought I heard you say that one time....I very well could be mistaken.

You are probably mistaken. I may have used all those words, perhaps within the same sentence, but not in that order. Religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for either morality or immorality. Faith-based beliefs are by defintion non-rational, a need for distinguishing between non-rational and irrational being not in every case evident...

[saganista]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Sag, at some point there are bad guys out there, including our friend in Iran.

Good, bad...it doesn't matter. You deal with who you can when you can, and who you have to when you have to. Bushie has done nothing but make it nigh impossible to work with anyone anytime. This is how we have become essentially hated almost universally around the globe. Dozens of opportunities lost. Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. These are the wages of electing dogmatic bumblers into positions of responsibility...