seriously? I would think it easier to change the orbit of the moon.
Seeing as how nothing changed except that both countries are willing to talk to each other, there is no objective reason why there should be more sanctions. So if someone disagrees with me on that, then they must be smoking something. I don’t really need to know who’s doing it or why because what I do know is that Iran has not done anything deserving of more sanctions. They’ve been more cooperative now than they’ve been for years, and suddenly we’re thinking of more sanctions? Its irrelevant why, they don’t deserve any.
Maybe a complimentary blowjob for every citizen of neighbouring nations too, no questions asked.
We’ll just ignore their support of Hezbollah for a moment. What cooperation have they extended?
I have been following this issue closely. Iran is a main funder, supporter and encourager of terrorism. It hates and has for decades, I repeat, hates America. Just last week on their national Death to America day (their screams and chants) demonstrated that they are enemies to and not potential “partners” to the American people. They also continued, and while in “peace” negotiations with the G-5 plus 1, over their nuclear capabilities, to call out vile insults to Israel and continued making threats. Does this sound like a leader serious about making a deal for peace (well, actually not for peace, but for their own self interests)? On top of that, this new moderate leader of theirs (though not really…the Iatola K. (Sp?) is the one really calling the shots) has stated blatantly in his autobiography style book, yes penned by himself, only a couple of years ago…stated that he lied to the west pretending he was complying in order to deceive and buy time to develop (let’s call a spade a spade). Isn’t it reasonable to assume that he is using deception again as a ploy to buy time. Experts, and many scientific groups that are watch dogs of his nuclear goings on, reputable institutions and credible spokesmen, all claim that Iran is only moments, weeks, a couple months at most, away from being good to go. And those are best guess estimates. No one truly knows just how close. Umm, nuclear bombs we’re talking here folks. And they are capable of reaching the U.S.A. As well as the west and the region. They commonly refer to America as the Big Satan and Israel as the little Satan. So, israel goes first, then the U.S. Is next. Remember Heroshima? It ain’t pretty.
I agree sanctions are useless. They are too close in nuclear capability for the world powers to dilly-dally around anymore. Stamp out any potential now before it’s too late. There is too much at stake. We in the west are naiive, they do not think the way westerners think. That is obvious if you know anything about Iran. As far as trusting Obama to do what he thinks best, because he’s the leader and deserves your support, umm it’s the great nation of America, you the people who must think these things through and make your positions known. After all, it is you who will suffer the ramifications of a God forbid, nuclear Iran. First time posting here, I am a newbie, so I hope I haven’t broken rules or offended.
“Terrorist is what the big army calls the little army”; we’re in no position to claim moral superiority. We’ve supported terrorism, we’ve committed what we would call terrorist acts if we weren’t the ones doing them. If anything the biggest encourager of terrorism is the US itself due to the way it flails about killing people right and left, funding dictators, overthrowing democratic governments and in general making enemies. And of course we were instrumental in creating the events that led to the rise of theocracy in Iran, and therefore indirectly share responsibility for that very terrorism you are complaining about.
Of course; we’re their enemy. We’ve been their enemy for decades. We’ve worked hard to earn their hatred. Why wouldn’t they hate us? If Iran somehow treated America like America has treated Iran, do you honestly think America wouldn’t hate them for it? If Iran had somehow engineered the overthrow of the American government and the installation of a dictator, do you think we’d feel forgiving towards Iran once we threw off the dictator?
Which is what we’ve been told for many years; they are always “just about” to develop nukes.
Not a chance. They aren’t going to nuke America (not that they could reach us), nor are they going to nuke Israel. That would be suicide and they know it. The main effect of them getting nuclear weapons would be that there’d be no danger of America invading them.
And exactly how do you think this should be done?
Funny, I didn’t see Iranian attack craft bombing funerals and first responders, or children living in fear of the Iranian bombers constantly flying overhead.
Because that worked out so well the last time you did it? Haven’t you learned anything from Iraq?
We’re slightly better at geography now. That’s about it. 
The sanctions were ongoing before the so called negotiations began. Current ones being proposed are only a continuation of initial strategy for deferment.
I’m guessing this is your also last post because you are so pumped your next step is full frontal assault on Iran, right?
I mean, you wouldn’t otherwise write what you wrote - nobody is that shallow and cowardly?
I assumed it was a parody of things people are actually saying.
I guess the problem is with the initial goals in the negotiations themselves. To not take a firm stance on the closing of the heavy water reactor, right from the start, leaves us at risk that by the time the interim deal leads to the next deal…it will be too late. To use an analogy…if there was a gun to one’s head, the first negotiation would not be to achieve an agreement, that the perpetrator stop purchasing anymore bullets. It would be to put the gun down. The gun has been risen with threats and refusals to comply with international laws regarding nuclear capability. This, even in spite of sanctions. To wait any longer (negotiate proposed interim deal) means to stare down the barrel of the gun, hoping he will not shoot. No one truly knows how close (or even if they are) nuclear capable. No, the gun must be taken away if not surrendered, and that would be achieved by closing the Arak heavy water reactor, and other steps to ensure there is no risk. But no one is even proposing that at this stage. Therein lies the problem.
International law regarding nuclear capability is kind of a joke. The NPT is there to separate the haves from the have-nots.
The US is also in violation of international law, because it supplies nuclear technology to India, a non-signatory. Are we pointing a gun at ourselves?
Indeed, and America’s behaviour has shown the world that the only way to protect themselves is to have nuclear weapons.
Going to war with Iraq has shattered any beliefs anyone had in the International Community.
It’s interesting that you assume my strategy would be one of “aggression”. I have not stated that that is my position. However, you choose to “attack” my character, simply because you do not agree with me. Debating, which I believe this forum is, is meant to be a platform for free expression of opinion as it relates to its topic. In my view, attempting to intimidate ones’ opponent by name calling, amounts to little more than bullying, and as such is difficult to take your response with any credibility. And as you can see, no, it isn’t my last post.
At the present time they are in production of ICBMs which have the capacity to reach intercontinentally. I don’t think it is too unrealistic to imagine that if they are nuclear capable soon, America and other western powers would be at risk.
The evidence is clear that the facilities required to achieve such a goal are in place, this is a fact. So, therefore it is a concern I take seriously.
As for “nuking” America or Israel, and its unlikelihood, the visions of 9/11 are still fresh in my mind…their theology is one of jihad. And that is cause for concern.
As for hatred, I am not referring to blame or the justification for it. I am speaking to the sense of reason of extending trust to a leadership that we clearly know harbours this degree of animosity and at the same time threatens and makes hostile comments while in the midst if the negotiations.
How would I approach it? I would enter into the negotiations, leaving zero room for a nuclear Iran. The International Community needs to insist that those demands must be met or there is no point negotiating. And in the final analysis, if there is no diplomatic solution forthcoming, then yes, the facilities will need to be removed. However that is done, is all up to Iran.
If we believe Bibi. Others disagree.
Whose theology? The Republic of Iran? Please do go on, I’m fascinated by the parallels between Al Qaeda and Iran.
Or is it just because they’re dark-skinned and Muslim?
And the US is also filled with religious whackos that have far too much influence on politicians.
People have also not forgotten how Bush called the war on terra a crusade.
Not sure which side you are speaking of. Look at this very thread; In the midst of negotiations Americans are itching for ‘action’.
That is not negotiating that is called making demands.
As I said there is no more International Community. It’s a thing of the past. You destroyed it.
You’re not very good at this negotiation thingy, are you?
You’ve taken a position that can only be enforced by aggression; so yes, you are advocating aggression.
That’s an amusing claim in a thread that’s basically about trying to intimidate Iran.
Really. Evidence? According to Wikipedia their longest range missile is a medium range ballistic missile, aka a MRBM.
By that logic we should attack Saudi Arabia instead, since it was mostly Saudis involved in 9-11.
9-11 is not a license to attack everything that moves. Nor is Al Qaeda affiliated with Iran last I heard; they aren’t even of the same Islamic sect. And for all our speechmaking about how “dangerous” Iran is, it’s America that keeps attacking people, not them.
Funny thing is, this phrase applies to both sides.
Ah, also known as blaming the victim. “You made us do that!” Of course, that’s the exact sort of reasoning used by terrorists to defend their attacks.
Yes, we should ignore it. Iran’s supported Hezbollah for a long time, nothing’s changed. Talks are an attempt to break that impasse