Iranian nuclear talks last an entire hour.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: piasabird
If the Iranians are sending weapons to terrorists, what makes you think they will not send a nuclear bomb to terrorists? Are we living in a utopia world where Iran does not support terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Isreal?

AK-47s are not nuclear weapons, the principles behind sharing guns with terrorist groups doesn't scale up at all...put another way, the slippery slope fallacy is especially true here. If common sense doesn't convince you, consider that the US and the USSR fought a proxy war through various less than reputable groups for decades, yet you didn't see communist and anti-communist groups in some dirtball South American country blowing each other up with H-Bombs. There is a reason for that, a reason every bit as valid as the reason Iran won't be slipping a nuclear weapon to Osama bin Laden any time soon.

Honestly, when discussing Iran, I think the best way to figure out if someone is full of crap is to find out to what degree they are willing to lump Iran in with "the terrorists". While Iran is no friend of this country, such simplistic generalizations and oversimplifications are dangerous and pretty naive.

They give them a hell of a lot more than just AK-47's! A HELL OF A LOT MORE!

There is also a huge fundamental difference between what went on US and the USSR and what goes on between Israel, US and Iran. The US and USSR did not hate each other they feared each other and wanted to see the others political ideals collapse. Iran on the other hand has a religion induced genocidal death wish for both the US and Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Socio hypothesis fails the sniff test. After Iran failed to beg, borrow, or steal the weapons to needed to defend itself during the Iraqi invasion of the 1980's, Iran learned its lesson. And has since developed a quite capable home grown armaments industry. Some of these Iranian arms have trickled out to Hezbollah and the world watched as they took out State of the arts Israeli tanks.

No weapons of equivalent power have been allowed to even trickle into Iraq. And if Iran wanted to fight a proxy war with the US in Iraq, it would not even have to leave its borders
but could still flood Iraq with such weapons. And the US occupation of Iraq would become untenable in a matter of days or weeks.

Socio, this has not happened, so your statement is ill thought out. Its simply not in Iran's interests to have Iraq go into an out of control civil war.

But when Uncle Sammy wanted to tweak the nose of the Russian bear in Afghanistan, they flooded Afghanistan with very effective stinger missiles as they armed terrorists. And then did not care when Afghanistan was thereafter left a basket case.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Participating in this thread is like trying to make sense to a heavily armed paranoid delusional psychotic before they get the straightjacket and a big jolt of anti-psychotic drugs.

"Giving Nukes to the terrarists!" is an absurdity.

"religion induced genocidal death wish for both the US and Israel" follows along the same lines.

"Iran has long since had a rather large well known stock pile of bio and chem weapons" is more of the same.

On and on... False premises lead to false conclusions, which is precisely why the Bush Admin and their allies have encouraged the dissemination of such notions...

Their current "talks" with the iranians are just more of the same, an attempt to legitimize the illegitimate. Iran has the right to nuclear enrichment under the the NPT, provided it's supervised by the IAEA, and that's what's happening. While accusations abound, there is no evidence that the Iranians are presently doing any more than that. No PU239, No highly enriched U235- No bomb.

That's a truth that's hard to avoid, which is why current spin from the Bushistas is so utterly desperate. It flies in the face of reality.

 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,730
2
81
Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
U.S. Stop Uranium Enrichment.
Iran: No.
U.S. Stop Uranium Enrichment.
Iran: No.
U.S. Stop Uranium Enrichment.
Iran: No.
U.S. Stop Uranium Enrichment.
Iran: No.
U.S. Stop Uranium Enrichment.
Iran: No.

They did that for an hour?

That about sums it up.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,730
2
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: piasabird
If the Iranians are sending weapons to terrorists, what makes you think they will not send a nuclear bomb to terrorists? Are we living in a utopia world where Iran does not support terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Isreal?

AK-47s are not nuclear weapons, the principles behind sharing guns with terrorist groups doesn't scale up at all...put another way, the slippery slope fallacy is especially true here. If common sense doesn't convince you, consider that the US and the USSR fought a proxy war through various less than reputable groups for decades, yet you didn't see communist and anti-communist groups in some dirtball South American country blowing each other up with H-Bombs. There is a reason for that, a reason every bit as valid as the reason Iran won't be slipping a nuclear weapon to Osama bin Laden any time soon.

Honestly, when discussing Iran, I think the best way to figure out if someone is full of crap is to find out to what degree they are willing to lump Iran in with "the terrorists". While Iran is no friend of this country, such simplistic generalizations and oversimplifications are dangerous and pretty naive.

They give them a hell of a lot more than just AK-47's! A HELL OF A LOT MORE!

There is also a huge fundamental difference between what went on US and the USSR and what goes on between Israel, US and Iran. The US and USSR did not hate each other they feared each other and wanted to see the others political ideals collapse. Iran on the other hand has a religion induced genocidal death wish for both the US and Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Socio hypothesis fails the sniff test. After Iran failed to beg, borrow, or steal the weapons to needed to defend itself during the Iraqi invasion of the 1980's, Iran learned its lesson. And has since developed a quite capable home grown armaments industry. Some of these Iranian arms have trickled out to Hezbollah and the world watched as they took out State of the arts Israeli tanks.

No weapons of equivalent power have been allowed to even trickle into Iraq. And if Iran wanted to fight a proxy war with the US in Iraq, it would not even have to leave its borders
but could still flood Iraq with such weapons. And the US occupation of Iraq would become untenable in a matter of days or weeks.

Socio, this has not happened, so your statement is ill thought out. Its simply not in Iran's interests to have Iraq go into an out of control civil war.

But when Uncle Sammy wanted to tweak the nose of the Russian bear in Afghanistan, they flooded Afghanistan with very effective stinger missiles as they armed terrorists. And then did not care when Afghanistan was thereafter left a basket case.

I think you need a new nose because the one you have has a broken sniffer;

MI: Iran is arming Hezbollah with missiles via Turkey

MI: Iran is arming Hezbollah with missiles via Turkey

Iran is arming Hezbollah with missiles sent via Turkey, according to intelligence received in Israel. Turkish authorities are unaware of the arms shipments, which are in violation of Resolution 1701.

A senior Israeli government source said Tuesday that Brigadier General Yossi Beiditz, head of the IDF research department, last week told European Union ambassadors in a briefing that Iran continues to transfer arms and equipment to Hezbollah, in spite of Tehran's denials.

Some of the weapons include long-range missiles that are being transfered through flights using Turkey's airspace, as well as overland though Turkey, under the guise of civilian cargo. From Turkey, the missiles are transfered to Syria and then Lebanon. Turkey has not permitted the use of its territory for such transfers.

Iran arming Taliban

WASHINGTON ? As NATO troops in Afghanistan have begun intercepting sophisticated Iranian arms bound for the Taliban, U.S., NATO and Afghan officials are growing more concerned about Iranian policy in Afghanistan.

Iraq Forces Focus on Arms Smuggling From Iran

With Al Qaeda falling away, U.S. forces in Iraq are turning their attention to another front: the Iranian border. They aim to crack down on weapon smuggling from Iran by tightening the frontier with Iraq's neighbor to the east, a U.S. commander told The Associated Press on Friday.

The effort is aimed at smugglers who supply Shiite extremist groups with rockets, missiles, mortars and assembled explosive devices that have killed many U.S. troops.

Just where do you think all their missiles, rockets, mortars, rocket propelled grenades, roadside bomb materials, sniper rifles, machine guns and ammunition etc... come from? They wave a wand and it just magically appears in mass quantity?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Why doesn't the article mention who these 5 other nations are? Personally, I know, but it just strikes me as a bit odd that they'd omit that kind of information.

The other countries are incidentals to the story. They have little say in what happens, and it appears that the article's target audience is the US. I don't see anything mysterious in it.

In any case, if the pre conditions are that one side surrenders before the discussion, then there is no point to having a talk. It's a method guaranteed to score points with some voters while making sure that no progress can occur. No one is going to change their minds so there's no reason not to make outlandish demands. Sells better.
What information do you have that shows the other 5 countries were not involved in the demands made of Iran?

Considering Iran has behaved the same way whether the US makes these demands or not (Do you recall their "talks" with the EU?) the one-sided viewpoint, at least in here, that this must be just GWB's doing seems a bit of a spurious claim with no real backing other than conjecture mixed in with a bit of partisan hackery.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Oh, please, TLC. the Bushistas' carrot dangling and arm twisting wrt our european allies and the proposed Iranian economic incentives was an epic undertakiing- certainly not the europeans' big idea, at all...
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Oh, please, TLC. the Bushistas' carrot dangling and arm twisting wrt our european allies and the proposed Iranian economic incentives was an epic undertakiing- certainly not the europeans' big idea, at all...
More speculation. Arm-twisting? You guys whined about the fact that the US wouldn't even participate in the talks. Now we were supposedly strong-arming them and pulling their strings against their will?

Sorry, but that sounds like specious reasoning and nothing more than pure conjecture on your part, all based on your own partisan leanings and nothing more.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Oh, please, TLC. the Bushistas' carrot dangling and arm twisting wrt our european allies and the proposed Iranian economic incentives was an epic undertakiing- certainly not the europeans' big idea, at all...
More speculation. Arm-twisting? You guys whined about the fact that the US wouldn't even participate in the talks. Now we were supposedly strong-arming them and pulling their strings against their will?

Sorry, but that sounds like specious reasoning and nothing more than pure conjecture on your part, all based on your own partisan leanings and nothing more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong again TLC, first GWB says he will not talk without an Iranian capitulation and now he barely gets to hello when he demands an Iranian capitulation.

There is not a dimes worth of difference between the two GWB positions. Bottom line, either way, GWB will not even talk and you TLC are trying to put lipstick on a pig and nothing more.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Oh, please, TLC. the Bushistas' carrot dangling and arm twisting wrt our european allies and the proposed Iranian economic incentives was an epic undertakiing- certainly not the europeans' big idea, at all...
More speculation. Arm-twisting? You guys whined about the fact that the US wouldn't even participate in the talks. Now we were supposedly strong-arming them and pulling their strings against their will?

Sorry, but that sounds like specious reasoning and nothing more than pure conjecture on your part, all based on your own partisan leanings and nothing more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong again TLC, first GWB says he will not talk without an Iranian capitulation and now he barely gets to hello when he demands an Iranian capitulation.

There is not a dimes worth of difference between the two GWB positions. Bottom line, either way, GWB will not even talk and you TLC are trying to put lipstick on a pig and nothing more.
Sure, LL. It's all on Bush. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with intransigence on the part of Iran at all.

Your little one-sided world where everything is Bush's fault is a pathetic one. I guess it's just how some people are in here. Thankfully BDS is being pushed aside by ODS and MDS. We have multiple examples of that partisan hackery already in P&N. And come September, we'll have an entirely new crop of DSers, all depending on who wins the election. Maybe when that happens you'll eventually recognize yourself in them? I don't hold out much hope for that happening, because I'm not sure you can deal with that reality, but I'm ever the optimist.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,554
2
76
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: piasabird
If the Iranians are sending weapons to terrorists, what makes you think they will not send a nuclear bomb to terrorists? Are we living in a utopia world where Iran does not support terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Isreal?

AK-47s are not nuclear weapons, the principles behind sharing guns with terrorist groups doesn't scale up at all...put another way, the slippery slope fallacy is especially true here. If common sense doesn't convince you, consider that the US and the USSR fought a proxy war through various less than reputable groups for decades, yet you didn't see communist and anti-communist groups in some dirtball South American country blowing each other up with H-Bombs. There is a reason for that, a reason every bit as valid as the reason Iran won't be slipping a nuclear weapon to Osama bin Laden any time soon.

Honestly, when discussing Iran, I think the best way to figure out if someone is full of crap is to find out to what degree they are willing to lump Iran in with "the terrorists". While Iran is no friend of this country, such simplistic generalizations and oversimplifications are dangerous and pretty naive.

They give them a hell of a lot more than just AK-47's! A HELL OF A LOT MORE!

There is also a huge fundamental difference between what went on US and the USSR and what goes on between Israel, US and Iran. The US and USSR did not hate each other they feared each other and wanted to see the others political ideals collapse. Iran on the other hand has a religion induced genocidal death wish for both the US and Israel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Socio hypothesis fails the sniff test. After Iran failed to beg, borrow, or steal the weapons to needed to defend itself during the Iraqi invasion of the 1980's, Iran learned its lesson. And has since developed a quite capable home grown armaments industry. Some of these Iranian arms have trickled out to Hezbollah and the world watched as they took out State of the arts Israeli tanks.

No weapons of equivalent power have been allowed to even trickle into Iraq. And if Iran wanted to fight a proxy war with the US in Iraq, it would not even have to leave its borders
but could still flood Iraq with such weapons. And the US occupation of Iraq would become untenable in a matter of days or weeks.

Socio, this has not happened, so your statement is ill thought out. Its simply not in Iran's interests to have Iraq go into an out of control civil war.

But when Uncle Sammy wanted to tweak the nose of the Russian bear in Afghanistan, they flooded Afghanistan with very effective stinger missiles as they armed terrorists. And then did not care when Afghanistan was thereafter left a basket case.

I think you need a new nose because the one you have has a broken sniffer;

MI: Iran is arming Hezbollah with missiles via Turkey

MI: Iran is arming Hezbollah with missiles via Turkey

Iran is arming Hezbollah with missiles sent via Turkey, according to intelligence received in Israel. Turkish authorities are unaware of the arms shipments, which are in violation of Resolution 1701.

A senior Israeli government source said Tuesday that Brigadier General Yossi Beiditz, head of the IDF research department, last week told European Union ambassadors in a briefing that Iran continues to transfer arms and equipment to Hezbollah, in spite of Tehran's denials.

Some of the weapons include long-range missiles that are being transfered through flights using Turkey's airspace, as well as overland though Turkey, under the guise of civilian cargo. From Turkey, the missiles are transfered to Syria and then Lebanon. Turkey has not permitted the use of its territory for such transfers.

Iran arming Taliban

WASHINGTON ? As NATO troops in Afghanistan have begun intercepting sophisticated Iranian arms bound for the Taliban, U.S., NATO and Afghan officials are growing more concerned about Iranian policy in Afghanistan.

Iraq Forces Focus on Arms Smuggling From Iran

With Al Qaeda falling away, U.S. forces in Iraq are turning their attention to another front: the Iranian border. They aim to crack down on weapon smuggling from Iran by tightening the frontier with Iraq's neighbor to the east, a U.S. commander told The Associated Press on Friday.

The effort is aimed at smugglers who supply Shiite extremist groups with rockets, missiles, mortars and assembled explosive devices that have killed many U.S. troops.

Just where do you think all their missiles, rockets, mortars, rocket propelled grenades, roadside bomb materials, sniper rifles, machine guns and ammunition etc... come from? They wave a wand and it just magically appears in mass quantity?

you gotta cut this out, people are going to stop debating on P&N because they will get sick of losing...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Just where do you think all their missiles, rockets, mortars, rocket propelled grenades, roadside bomb materials, sniper rifles, machine guns and ammunition etc... come from? They wave a wand and it just magically appears in mass quantity?

Those materials existed in mass quantities in Iraq prior to the invasion, and were subsequently looted right out from under the noses of the US military, who weren't tasked with protecting Iraqi arms depots until months afterwards...

If the Iranians dealt with the invasion of Iraq the same way that the US and Pakistan dealt with the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it'd be much, much more difficult for our troops...

As for the trickle of arms crossing the border out of Iran, we need to remember that, in many ways, Iran is very much a free country, so elements within their society, not necessarily the govt, have ways of supporting their friends on the other side...
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
The biggest threat Iran poses to Coalition forces in Iraq does not center around weapons... it's the training, funding, and cell leadership being provided by Quds Forces and Hezbollah agents,at the behest of the Iranian Government, that poses the most significant threat. We've lost many of our soldiers to attacks funded, planned, and even orchestrated by agents of Iran.

During the Afghan-Soviet war in the 80's, our own agents only entered Afghanistan on a handful of occasions over the course of an entire decade. In the current conflict in Iraq, Iran's agents play a very large role in the violence within Iraq... every day!

They're there, and they're there to cause us harm.

That said, I'll let you clowns return to your pointless debate over small arms...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
That's right, palehorse- switch to a line of attack based purely on the intangible, hearsay and innuendo. It's perfect- irrefutable simply because it's a chimera, a projection, an image having no real substance at all...
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,730
2
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Just where do you think all their missiles, rockets, mortars, rocket propelled grenades, roadside bomb materials, sniper rifles, machine guns and ammunition etc... come from? They wave a wand and it just magically appears in mass quantity?

Those materials existed in mass quantities in Iraq prior to the invasion, and were subsequently looted right out from under the noses of the US military, who weren't tasked with protecting Iraqi arms depots until months afterwards...

If the Iranians dealt with the invasion of Iraq the same way that the US and Pakistan dealt with the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, it'd be much, much more difficult for our troops...

As for the trickle of arms crossing the border out of Iran, we need to remember that, in many ways, Iran is very much a free country, so elements within their society, not necessarily the govt, have ways of supporting their friends on the other side...

That stock pile of explosives was looted over five years ago, those explosives were probably used up a within a year after they were looted.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
That's inane obfuscation and apologism, Socio. The Iraqi military was apparently well stocked, anticipating war with the US or the Iranians- they had the means to wage all out war, just not the will or the leadership to do so.

The level of activity since then doesn't even approach that of large scale open warfare between armies, meaning that stockpiles will last a lot longer... not to mention that basic military supplies are designed to be kept for many years and brought out of storage when needed... kept dark, cool, and dry, they'll last decades.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,730
2
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
That's inane obfuscation and apologism, Socio. The Iraqi military was apparently well stocked, anticipating war with the US or the Iranians- they had the means to wage all out war, just not the will or the leadership to do so.

The level of activity since then doesn't even approach that of large scale open warfare between armies, meaning that stockpiles will last a lot longer... not to mention that basic military supplies are designed to be kept for many years and brought out of storage when needed... kept dark, cool, and dry, they'll last decades.

Sorry but them still using munitions they looted 5 years ago seems more than a little farfetched.

They would have to show extraordinary discipline and patience to sit on looted munitions for over 5 years dispersing them a little at a time so they last. Insurgents MO tends to be bring everything thing they have, unloaded it all and retreat. So I am sure if they had it they certainly would have used it all up long ago.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
If the Iranians are sending weapons to terrorists, what makes you think they will not send a nuclear bomb to terrorists? Are we living in a utopia world where Iran does not support terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Isreal?

Because terrorists can turn back on you, just ask Pakistan.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Why doesn't the article mention who these 5 other nations are? Personally, I know, but it just strikes me as a bit odd that they'd omit that kind of information.

The other countries are incidentals to the story. They have little say in what happens, and it appears that the article's target audience is the US. I don't see anything mysterious in it.

In any case, if the pre conditions are that one side surrenders before the discussion, then there is no point to having a talk. It's a method guaranteed to score points with some voters while making sure that no progress can occur. No one is going to change their minds so there's no reason not to make outlandish demands. Sells better.
What information do you have that shows the other 5 countries were not involved in the demands made of Iran?

Considering Iran has behaved the same way whether the US makes these demands or not (Do you recall their "talks" with the EU?) the one-sided viewpoint, at least in here, that this must be just GWB's doing seems a bit of a spurious claim with no real backing other than conjecture mixed in with a bit of partisan hackery.

Maybe I wasn't clear. The other countries are incidental. They may agree with the Bush position, and they may not. Regardless, the US is the country with the teeth. Well, perhaps with the leader who loves to use them.

As far as Iran goes, no I don't think they will yield, but there is no chance that they are going to enter negotiations with the precondition that their are no negotiations.

Stop window dressing things. Iran doesn't want to back down, and Bush really doesn't care if they do or not. This whole thing is a sham on both sides.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Why doesn't the article mention who these 5 other nations are? Personally, I know, but it just strikes me as a bit odd that they'd omit that kind of information.

The other countries are incidentals to the story. They have little say in what happens, and it appears that the article's target audience is the US. I don't see anything mysterious in it.

In any case, if the pre conditions are that one side surrenders before the discussion, then there is no point to having a talk. It's a method guaranteed to score points with some voters while making sure that no progress can occur. No one is going to change their minds so there's no reason not to make outlandish demands. Sells better.
What information do you have that shows the other 5 countries were not involved in the demands made of Iran?

Considering Iran has behaved the same way whether the US makes these demands or not (Do you recall their "talks" with the EU?) the one-sided viewpoint, at least in here, that this must be just GWB's doing seems a bit of a spurious claim with no real backing other than conjecture mixed in with a bit of partisan hackery.

Maybe I wasn't clear. The other countries are incidental. They may agree with the Bush position, and they may not. Regardless, the US is the country with the teeth. Well, perhaps with the leader who loves to use them.

As far as Iran goes, no I don't think they will yield, but there is no chance that they are going to enter negotiations with the precondition that their are no negotiations.

Stop window dressing things. Iran doesn't want to back down, and Bush really doesn't care if they do or not. This whole thing is a sham on both sides.

Pretty much what i've understood of the situation too, i'm no expert of world affairs, in fact, apart from the area i am in, i don't really have much more information than anyone else, well, not that i can really talk about anyway.

Forget Iran, no one cares about Iran except morons who trust GW's BS yet again, we all know where the center of terrorism is now, or haven't you been paying attention, since the border has been crossed, they've been getting pissed off, good.

This is not over by a long shot and the entire free world is involved, this is where pretty much every free nation is assembled, NATO nations and non-NATO nations, to fight the worst scum this world has ever produced.

Is this a war against terror or a war against the ME? You could fucking fool me with the US actions so far. You were attacked by the fucking scum that you are leaving to grow and regroup, i'd never thought i'd say this but remember 9/11, that is what i, a Brit am here for, and the Canadians were to leave because the US didn't send reinforcements so you know who did? THE FRENCH.

Fuck Pakistan, i mean that, they are in the exact same situation now that Afghanistan was in the beginning, hiding the Talibans and protecting Al Quaida leadership, show me you got some fucking balls and lets finish this job.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
That's inane obfuscation and apologism, Socio. The Iraqi military was apparently well stocked, anticipating war with the US or the Iranians- they had the means to wage all out war, just not the will or the leadership to do so.

The level of activity since then doesn't even approach that of large scale open warfare between armies, meaning that stockpiles will last a lot longer... not to mention that basic military supplies are designed to be kept for many years and brought out of storage when needed... kept dark, cool, and dry, they'll last decades.

Sorry but them still using munitions they looted 5 years ago seems more than a little farfetched.

They would have to show extraordinary discipline and patience to sit on looted munitions for over 5 years dispersing them a little at a time so they last. Insurgents MO tends to be bring everything thing they have, unloaded it all and retreat. So I am sure if they had it they certainly would have used it all up long ago.


Authoritative sources disagree entirely-

http://www.armytimes.com/news/...nse_IEDorigins_070427/

The tactics you describe are standard practice in asymmetrical warfare- basic hit and run, and don't relate at all to whatever supplies insurgents may hold in reserve...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The other point is that there is a thriving international arms black market. If you have the dollars, Euro's, or rubles, you can buy arms and ship them in. Many Arab private citizens are donating to what they regard as a worthy cause at the same time mad king George is taxing American citizens to get the same arms funding levels. And if any large nation wants to fight a proxy war with us in Iraq, we might end up as doomed as the Russians when the USA opted to fight a proxy war against them in Afghanistan.

But making a case against Iran, which is basically nothing but GWB&co hype, goes almost no where in explaining anything. The basic Iraqi insurgencies are alive and well, they just do not have to use violence now to advance their
agenda. When and if the need for violence reasserts itself, it will be as if the surge never happened.

Even in an all out war, most of the time is spent deploying forces and moving them around, and very little time is spent in the decisive all out battles that decide the outcome of the larger war. In the case of our revolutionary war, George Washington and the rest of the army spent most its timing running and hiding from the British, but still ended up winning the last battle when the French Fleet cut the British supply lines.

Unfortunately the surge, has done little to solve any of Iraq political problems. And because the root causes are unaddressed, the potential for explosively renewed violence is always there.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Maybe I wasn't clear. The other countries are incidental. They may agree with the Bush position, and they may not. Regardless, the US is the country with the teeth. Well, perhaps with the leader who loves to use them.

As far as Iran goes, no I don't think they will yield, but there is no chance that they are going to enter negotiations with the precondition that their are no negotiations.

Stop window dressing things. Iran doesn't want to back down, and Bush really doesn't care if they do or not. This whole thing is a sham on both sides.
The other countries are "incidental?" Considering that China, Russia, France, and Germany don't always see eye to eye with the US on the Iran issue I fail to see how they are incidental. They sure aren't Bush's lap dogs.

How about a more balanced version of this story?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...4/ST2008061400868.html

The European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, presented the proposal to Iranian authorities Saturday on behalf of the United States, China, France, Germany, Britain and Russia. He told reporters in Tehran, the Iranian capital, that the offer was "generous and comprehensive and a starting point for real negotiations" on the country's nuclear program.

But Iranian officials said even before the offer was formally made that they would not consider any proposal that included halting its uranium enrichment as a condition to talks.

"If the package includes suspension, it is not debatable at all," Gholam Hossein Elham, Iran's government spokesman, told reporters at his weekly news conference, the Iranian press agency Farsnews reported. "The stance of the Islamic Republic is clear. Any precondition regarding suspension would be out of the question."

Iran says its nuclear research and facilities are solely for peaceful purposes. But the United States and some European countries reject that assertion, accusing Iran of using its civilian program as a cover for developing a nuclear weapons program.

Emphasizing Iran's rights according to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Solana said: "We are ready to fully recognize Iran's right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

The proposal promises Iran light-water nuclear reactors and built-in cooperation with the six countries. It also includes binding guarantees for supplying fuel to these installations and cooperation between the two sides on the management of nuclear waste.

Non-nuclear parts of the proposal involve regional security cooperation and trade liberalization between Iran and the six countries. It also mentions technological assistance for Iran's telecommunications infrastructure and support to help modernize its agriculture sector, education and emergency responses.

Independence from the influence of other countries is an important theme for the Iranian authorities, who say the nuclear issue is an international litmus test that will indicate how world powers will respond to developing countries.

In April, Iran offered its own proposal, which calls for a "new and more advanced plan for interaction" and "agreement on collective commitments to cooperate" on various political, economic, regional, international, nuclear and "energy security" issues. It also seeks steps to "bolster the stability and the advancement of democracy in the region."

The main difference between it and the proposal offered Saturday is that Iran does not accept any preconditions to talks, such as the suspension of enrichment.

Solana and representatives of five of the six countries -- the United States did not send an envoy -- did not meet with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They instead met with Iran's new chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

The Bush administration warned that Iran's rejection of the package would lead to new sanctions and "further isolation," a senior State Department official said in a conference call on the condition of anonymity.

"The Security Council members would be disappointed in a rejection by Iran of this package. So, yes, I do expect more international action," he said.

But despite Elham's remarks, the State Department official said subsequent comments in the Iranian press "sort of leave the door open."

President Bush, speaking from Paris, said he was "disappointed" by the reports that Iranian leaders had rejected the incentives. "It's an indication to the Iranian people that their leadership is willing to isolate them further," he said.

Bush did not say what additional steps against Iran the United States would take or whether he believed European countries would agree to them.

It's very clear that all of the 6 countries were in on this proposal. Even the suggestion that the US was leading China, or Russia, around by a leash doesn't begin to pass the smell test.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
...
Pretty much what i've understood of the situation too, i'm no expert of world affairs, in fact, apart from the area i am in, i don't really have much more information than anyone else, well, not that i can really talk about anyway.

Forget Iran, no one cares about Iran except morons who trust GW's BS yet again, we all know where the center of terrorism is now, or haven't you been paying attention, since the border has been crossed, they've been getting pissed off, good.

This is not over by a long shot and the entire free world is involved, this is where pretty much every free nation is assembled, NATO nations and non-NATO nations, to fight the worst scum this world has ever produced.

Is this a war against terror or a war against the ME? You could fucking fool me with the US actions so far. You were attacked by the fucking scum that you are leaving to grow and regroup, i'd never thought i'd say this but remember 9/11, that is what i, a Brit am here for, and the Canadians were to leave because the US didn't send reinforcements so you know who did? THE FRENCH.

Fuck Pakistan, i mean that, they are in the exact same situation now that Afghanistan was in the beginning, hiding the Talibans and protecting Al Quaida leadership, show me you got some fucking balls and lets finish this job.

I think it's a mistake when people try to conflate Iran with the war against the terrorists. I think they know it too, but they do it because doing things "to fight terrorism" is the latest "think of the children" magic go-to debating tactic for people too dumb to think of a REAL argument. So in that sense I think you're right.

But Iran DOES have the potential to be a problem, so I think it would also be a mistake to disregard them...just not for the reason the Bush crowd would have you believe. They want to be a regional superpower like you want a cold beer (well, warm beer since you're a Brit ;)) at the end of a long day, and they're going to do whatever they can to get to that point. Which is fine in the general sense, I don't think the US should be in the business of trying to squash fledgling superpowers. But Iran is probably not going to be a very good world citizen if they get to that point, so it would seem to be in our best interests to make sure they don't get out of hand in the Middle East.

Now I disagree with my conservative friends that this means we need to start bombing them tomorrow, I think that's idiotic and short sighted. But they ARE (or will be) an issue that we can't afford to ignore.
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
Originally posted by: jpeyton
New Bush = Old Bush = New McCain

How about more like:

New Bush = Old Bush = New McCain = New Obama = Old Hillary /= Old Obama

yup, that's right.. After winning the nomination, Obama looks just like them.