Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Iranian Mullahgeddonists Gloat about EU victory

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Iranian Mullahgeddonists Gloat about EU victory
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4054069.stm

quote:
A top Iranian official has claimed a "great victory" over the US after the UN said it would not punish Iran's nuclear activities with sanctions.

Hassan Rohani said Iran would never give up its right to nuclear power.

He stressed its freeze in uranium enrichment was only temporary during talks with European countries.

The UN atomic agency IAEA has welcomed Iran's offer to freeze enrichment in a statement on Monday that did not mention any threat of future sanctions.

Washington had been pushing for Iran to be censured by the UN Security Council.

Mr Rohani said the "whole world had turned down America's calls".

"We have proved that, in an international institution, we are capable of isolating the US. And that is a great victory," Mr Rohani said.

He added that the US representative at the IAEA meeting in Vienna "was enraged and in tears, and everybody said that the Americans had failed and we had won".

It was Iran's first direct comment on the nuclear controversy since the IAEA resolution on Monday.

'Not too long negotiations'

According to Mr Rohani, Iran's offer to suspend uranium enrichment would only apply for the duration of talks with the EU.

"We are talking months, not years," the cleric and head of Iran's top security body said.

...Mr Rohani said "the length of negotiations must be rational and not too long".

But, he added, the talks were a "historical opportunity for Iran and Europe to prove to the world that unilateralism is condemned".

...US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Iran had repeatedly broken promises over its nuclear activities in the past 18 months.

Tehran stepped back from a similar offer to freeze uranium enrichment six months ago, sparking the current round of negotiations over its atomic ambitions.

Does anyone know if Bush managed to restart the tactical nuke program? Those super-bunker-busters might come in handy, soon, to get at a few underground nuclear facilities.

[ November 30, 2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"We have proved that, in an international institution, we are capable of isolating the US. And that is a great victory," Mr Rohani said.
Yeah, that's a major accomplishment with "allies" like France & Russia.

I'm having deja vu. Since they have WMD's, or are actively seeking them, and are a danger to us, we need to invade Iran .

KE

[ November 30, 2004, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: JLMyers ]

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Invade, no. Iran has a democratic structure in place. It simply needs to have a few tyrants removed, and it will run more smoothly. Full invasion is not only unnecessary, but would do more harm than good.

We simply need to collapse Iranian nuclear facilities, in a guided missile strike analogous to (but more complex than) the Israeli strike on Iraq's nuke facilities.

While we are breaching the pretended peace, we might perhaps knock off a few pesky old Ayatollahs & their flunkies (i.e. the non-elected ones), and camps of the terrorist organizations that send human bombs into Israel, and that killed the 200 Marines in Lebanon. But all that would be icing on the cake.

[ November 30, 2004, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Naldiin
Member
Member # 1840

 - posted      Profile for Naldiin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"We have proved that, in an international institution, we are capable of isolating the US. And that is a great victory," Mr Rohani said.
I think there's an interesting irony in this statement. The assumption that isolating the United States makes us less dangerous to everyone else. The idea that removing our diplomatic leverage makes you (the tyrants of Iran) safer. It's the same idea that overstreaching our military makes you safer.

It doesn't, really. Sure, we're less likely to invade or impose sanctions, but the Iranian government needs to consider what that makes us more likely to do. If options are removed, other options become more likely. If you remove diplomacy, invasion becomes more likely. If you remove Invasion, (via troops already busy in Iraq/Korea-DMZ) then you have to consider what options are still open to us.

There's
-Withdrawl and Backdown...but if you have a truly nuclear threat, the American populace has proven this is not an option through 50 years of Cold War

-Heavy Bombing Campaign-Without an invasion, the kind of bombing campaign needed would have to be WW2 style: Total War. Annihilate your opponent's means to make war by any way possible, including civilian centers.
And of Course
-Nuclear Strike.

I think Iran is being shortsighted here. By limiting our ability to be more friendly and less violent, they are, in effect, forcing us to crush them in the most violent and ruthless way. They're pleased that they've traded economic sanctions for an invasion, or worse.

Not something I'd cheer about. In Iran's current position, I'd be pleased to be at the table with us discussing sanctions. What I think Iran has forgotten is that the United States has a corner on the market for Geopolitical power. We can act unilaterially outside of our military ground forces. We can bomb you nation into rubble, and chances are, no one will stop us, because they don't want to risk the same.

They won't impose economic sanctions because an embargo on the United States would hurt them more than it would hurt us, odd as that may sound. Especially now that we have troops sitting on the second largest oil producing nation in the world. If you want to view Bush as a Machiavellian schemer, than he's been a brilliant one. He has put the United States in a position where it basically cannot be challanged.

The one resource the United States has to import to survive (Oil) we now have troops standing over it. Our Tin, Steel and Rubber comes from friends in Southeast Asia who cannot embargo us, it would make them paupers before we even felt the hit.

In otherwords, we've spent 60 years of Cold War and post-Cold War politics planning for the nightmare scenerio, and surprise: we're prepared.
We can withstand being isolated.

Posts: 239 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The one resource the United States has to import to survive (Oil) we now have troops standing over it. Our Tin, Steel and Rubber comes from friends in Southeast Asia who cannot embargo us, it would make them paupers before we even felt the hit.
What about Chinese sneakers? [Razz]
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Reading over this Iranian's remarks, I realize I wasn't aware the Iranians had hired the former Iraqi information minister to work for them.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I loved the Iraqi Information Minister. I still go back to his website every now and again to relieve his greatness. Maybe the DNC can hire him.

"There are no Republicans in the Senate, I tell you."

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Invade, no. Iran has a democratic structure in place. It simply needs to have a few tyrants removed, and it will run more smoothly. Full invasion is not only unnecessary, but would do more harm than good.

Pete, I don't disagree about not invading Iran. However, do you think a democratic Iran would be more willing to give up nukes (I don't), or to be an ally of the US? I see "democracy" thrown around a lot as synonymous with "friendly" and I'm just not sure that's the case. In fact, in the Middle East, the more "democratic" the regime, the more unfriendly it seems to be towards us (Although I don't think Iran could get worse in this regard, I'm not sure "democracy" will make it better).
Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Naldiin:
quote:
I think there's an interesting irony in this statement. The assumption that isolating the United States makes us less dangerous to everyone else. The idea that removing our diplomatic leverage makes you (the tyrants of Iran) safer.
Your assumption, and normally it would be a reasonable assumption, is that the ayatollas making this decision want Iran to be safer. What if they wanted to draw us into an invasion, to try to galvanize the Islamic war towards a confrontation?

I don't absolutely rule out invasion. I simply think -- and hope -- that we can get by without it. KE, you are absolutely right that "Democratic" does not equal friendly to us. I'm just saying that it's not in our interest to destroy a democracy, even one that is hostile to us, unless we absolutely have to. And here, we don't absolutely have to. All we absolutely have to do is crush their missile capability. Destroying the non-democratic forces in their government would just be icing on the cake.

We don't absolutely know that a Democratic Iran would remain our enemy, although that seems most likely. What we do know, is that the unelected ayatollas are an implaccable enemy. I think that they have underestimated our ability to take them out surgically, and that they overestimate their own personal value in the eyes of the Muslim world.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Naldiin
Member
Member # 1840

 - posted      Profile for Naldiin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Naldiin:
quote:
I think there's an interesting irony in this statement. The assumption that isolating the United States makes us less dangerous to everyone else. The idea that removing our diplomatic leverage makes you (the tyrants of Iran) safer.
Your assumption, and normally it would be a reasonable assumption, is that the ayatollas making this decision want Iran to be safer. What if they wanted to draw us into an invasion, to try to galvanize the Islamic war towards a confrontation?

I don't absolutely rule out invasion. I simply think -- and hope -- that we can get by without it. KE, you are absolutely right that "Democratic" does not equal friendly to us. I'm just saying that it's not in our interest to destroy a democracy, even one that is hostile to us, unless we absolutely have to. And here, we don't absolutely have to. All we absolutely have to do is crush their missile capability. Destroying the non-democratic forces in their government would just be icing on the cake.

We don't absolutely know that a Democratic Iran would remain our enemy, although that seems most likely. What we do know, is that the unelected ayatollas are an implaccable enemy. I think that they have underestimated our ability to take them out surgically, and that they overestimate their own personal value in the eyes of the Muslim world.

Well, I considered that. The thing is, radical islam is starting this culture war far too early. If all of radical islam lined up against the United States, they'd lose. We have more people, more technology, better soldiers, we have the high ground (the Atlantic is one big hill) and so on.

If all of Radical islam united in a War against the United States, I would actually (wierd as this may sound) welcome it. It would draw all our enemies out into the open from the shadows, where they are two weak to contest with us.

Posts: 239 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul C
Member
Member # 1804

 - posted      Profile for Paul C   Email Paul C   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pete, I don't disagree about not invading Iran. However, do you think a democratic Iran would be more willing to give up nukes (I don't), or to be an ally of the US?
Why worry about them being an ally of the US? That screams of empire building...

"Rome...and the United States...wasn't built in a day". [Wink]

Paul C

Posts: 188 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why worry about them being an ally of the US? That screams of empire building...

Because I don't want to spend our blood and treasure to put in place a new government in Iran that is just as bad for our interests as the current one. I don't want to build an empire, but if we are going to intervene militarily we may as well do it with an eye towards self interest. Otherwise, we could just randomly attack places without worrying about the results.
Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, if we're gonna be using military force to correct wrongs again, can we, um, perhaps spare a few thousand troops and stop the genocide in Sudan first?

It's just that the genocide in Sudan is ACTUALLY GOING ON NOW, so it seems even more urgent than Iran (imagine that). Easier, too. So whaddaya say, since we're flexin anyway, can we please swoop in and save the black sudanese from the janjaweed? Call it a practice run, if you like.

[ December 01, 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
towellman
Member
Member # 1462

 - posted      Profile for towellman   Email towellman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
France and Germany should have some spare troops since they didn't send any to Iraq. If they want they still want to claim any international relevance there should already be thousands of blue hats on the ground.
Posts: 220 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

I think it was AA that made the democracy doesn't equal likes US. From what I've heard a large percentage of the Iranian public does like us, and if they had "regime change" they would be our friends.

KE

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I think it was AA that made the democracy doesn't equal likes US. From what I've heard a large percentage of the Iranian public does like us, and if they had "regime change" they would be our friends.

Yep, it was me.

I don't think the general population of Iran would be worse than the mullah parade they've got now, but I think "friends" might be an awfully strong term for what a democratic Iran would be.

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"From what I've heard a large percentage of the Iranian public does like us"

I don't know where you're getting this. They "like" us inasmuch as they dislike the mullahs, but very few informed Iranians trust the US very much. Mossadeq may have been 50 years ago, but people in these parts have looooooong memories.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Rome...and the United States...wasn't built in a day".
Las Vegas was.

JL and AA -- I think there's room for either interpretation. If I had to pick, I'd say this:

If, inshallah, the Ayatolatalitarians suddenly vanished, through some nifty trick of Allah's, my guess is that Iranian people would be, as a whole, more inclined than not to become our friends.

However (since Allah seems either disinterested in our conflict or inclined to let us do his dirty work and take the heat for it), if the USA does the removing, then I think that the Iranian people would, as a whole, be less inclined to be our friends.

Nevertheless, I'd rather be at peace with a country that dispises us, then get nuked by a nation that loves us.

[ December 04, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Trust us? LoL! We don't even trust each other.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't know where you're getting this.
Chris Hitchens (author: "War, Poverty, and Religion") interview. He apparently lived there for a while. Not that I expect you to take his word as gospel, but I was suprised to hear that they liked us at all, what with the damn liberal media [Wink] only showing us Iranians burning US flags in the streets.

KE

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, KE. Good source.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


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


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1