Looks like Putin has betrayed the western world

[Annie]

day late, dollar short anyone?

No joke, the whole concept is moot anyways:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051208/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_ahmadinejad_dc_1

Iran won't halt drive for nuclear fuel: Ahmadinejad

Thu Dec 8, 9:47 AM ET

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday said Iran would not halt its drive to produce its own nuclear fuel because it did not trust the West to guarantee a supply to feed its planned atomic power reactors.

Speaking in Mecca, where he was attending an Islamic summit, Ahmadinejad said Iran's right to develop a full civilian nuclear program was non-negotiable.

"We are not allowed to negotiate on the principle of having peaceful nuclear technology," Iran's official IRNA news agency quoted him as telling a news conference.

European Union leaders warned Iran on Wednesday not to pursue work on machines able to make uranium fuel enriched to the grade used in nuclear bombs, saying such moves defied efforts to ease an international crisis over Tehran's atomic program.

Iran has cold-shouldered an offer by the "EU3" powers -- Britain, France and Germany -- to resume dialogue this month based on Russia's proposal to process Iranian uranium as a joint venture to minimize the risk of bomb-making by Tehran.

The Islamic republic says its nuclear project aims only to produce electricity, not weapons as the West suspects.

Ahmadinejad said the West had no right to suspect Iran.

"Those who have many nuclear weapons and have used them in the past century against defenceless people ... are accusing Iran of deviating toward nuclear weapons," he said.

"You are telling us we can't produce nuclear fuel, that we will give it to you. You who imposed medical embargoes on nations that caused the death of countless numbers of people, what guarantees are there that you will give us nuclear fuel?

"Is there any real guarantee that when you give us fuel and we become dependent on you that we receive the fuel at the proper time and a reasonable price?"

 

[dilloduck]

International diplomacy works great doesn't it?

 

[deaddude]

International diplomacy works great doesn't it?

Would you prefer that we just shot everyone and let god sort it out? It may not work all of the time, but a peaceful solution will always kick the crap out of a violent one (pun intended).

 

[Annie]

Would you prefer that we just shot everyone and let god sort it out? It may not work all of the time, but a peaceful solution will always kick the crap out of a violent one (pun intended).

And talking while being hit doesn't make any sense. For instance, France and Germany wish to talk and talk, while letting the US take hits, the US decided not to play, at that point in time, we were strong enough. There are many that wish that to change.

 

[deaddude]

And talking while being hit doesn't make any sense. For instance, France and Germany wish to talk and talk, while letting the US take hits, the US decided not to play, at that point in time, we were strong enough. There are many that wish that to change.

Yes we did take a hit, and the resulting war in afganistan recieved almost universal support (I dont even think that france was protesting overmuch). We both know our differing oppinions on Iraq, no need to go into that oft repeated argument, suffice to say that we took a hit, and we destroyed the taliban, established a new government, sent Al Queda under ground, attacked Iraq, overthrew and captured Sadam, and are now bogged down in a nation building mission. In short we have done (and are doing) quite a bit. Perhaps we should get through our current situation before launching into combat again. Perpetual war is not a thing to be desired.

 

[Annie]

Yes we did take a hit, and the resulting war in afganistan recieved almost universal support (I dont even think that france was protesting overmuch). We both know our differing oppinions on Iraq, no need to go into that oft repeated argument, suffice to say that we took a hit, and we destroyed the taliban, established a new government, sent Al Queda under ground, attacked Iraq, overthrew and captured Sadam, and are now bogged down in a nation building mission. In short we have done (and are doing) quite a bit. Perhaps we should get through our current situation before launching into combat again. Perpetual war is not a thing to be desired.

My point was that when dealing from a position of strength, talk may work. When dealing from a position of weakness, ala France and Germany, the weakness speaks much more loudly than the words.

For the US, the years of blather had merited the assessment of OBL, that we were a paper tiger. We were well on our way of dispelling that canard, when the Howard Dean's and John (I was in Vietnam and taped it to prove it) Kerry decided to backstab the effort.

 

[deaddude]

Too much talk can lead to the appearence of weakness. You are absolutly correct. However too much war and we will spread ourselves thin. We already have people serving double tours in Iraq because of a man power shortage, going into Iran would only aggravate the problem. If we have to move into iran, we should at least pull out of Iraq first.

 

[Annie]

Too much talk can lead to the appearence of weakness. You are absolutly correct. However too much war and we will spread ourselves thin. We already have people serving double tours in Iraq because of a man power shortage, going into Iran would only aggravate the problem. If we have to move into iran, we should at least pull out of Iraq first.

I'm not sure what we will do with Iran. My gut tells me that US and/or Israel are going to hit those nuclear sites we know of. On the other hand, we did allow India and Pakistan to develop and deploy. So

 

[deaddude]

I'm not sure what we will do with Iran. My gut tells me that US and/or Israel are going to hit those nuclear sites we know of. On the other hand, we did allow India and Pakistan to develop and deploy. So

I think our best shot is to delay them with peaceful "attempts" untill such a time as we can leave Iraq. And if any of the attempts succeed, then all the better.

 

[Annie]

I think our best shot is to delay them with peaceful "attempts" untill such a time as we can leave Iraq. And if any of the attempts succeed, then all the better.

There is not time. We'll be 'in' Iraq for a long time. Not at 130k or more, but we'll be there. I heard somewhere today that the problem isn't training troops, but rather giving enough time for the leadership to form. Seems that it takes nearly 10 years before the best and brightest are ready to become a staff sargaent or field commander. We've been in Iraq about 2.5 years. Iran isn't going to give us 10 years.

 

[deaddude]

Then we use Isreal. We take out the defences, they actually take out the facillities.

 

[Annie]

Then we use Isreal. We take out the defences, they actually take out the facillities.

That may be what comes to pass.

 

[dilloduck]

Then we use Isreal. We take out the defences, they actually take out the facillities.

The Arab world already accuses the United States of using Israel for it's lap dog. ( oh-and do you think Israel really wants to do this?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Iran is not going to settle for any proposal short of giving them weapon grade materials.

Iran is sitting on some of the worlds richest oil supplies, why do they need to use nuclear for energy? They dont. Claiming so is just a charade. Hence, any alternative we suggest, they wont accept.

 

[deaddude]

The Arab world already accuses the United States of using Israel for it's lap dog.

It is true that they do accuse us of such, why should that particularly matter? They accuse us of alot of things.

( oh-and do you think Israel really wants to do this?

Yes, they have more interest in keeping Iran a non nuclear power than we do.