Iraq signs weapons purchase contract with Iran

[K1052]

And, what is your point?

Iran is advancing its nuclear program, and now it is made a weapon deal with iraq.

Obama is working to lift trade sanctions against iran, which will allow it to progress its weapons development.

The Iranian nuclear program has advanced to the point that they would likely be able to assemble a basic weapon within a couple years, regardless of US action taken short of full scale intervention or nuclear strikes. Needless to say our allies and domestic political situation make neither of those viable options. Accepting reality instead of living in rhetorical fantasy land of zero sum foreign policy as framed by the Republicans is rational.

Dealing with them in the capacity of yet another state that possesses breakout potential makes sense for a lot of reasons. Their internal political landscape has changed, sanctions have pressured their leaders to come to the table, and the populace at large in Iran is hungry for relief and change in US-Iranian relations.

 

[Texashiker]

The Iranian nuclear program has advanced to the point that they would likely be able to assemble a basic weapon within a couple years, regardless of US action taken short of full scale intervention or nuclear strikes. Needless to say our allies and domestic political situation make neither of those viable options. Accepting reality instead of living in rhetorical fantasy land of zero sum foreign policy as framed by the Republicans is rational.

And somehow loosening sanctions is supposed to punish iran and slow its nuclear progress?

Iran is making allies with Iraq and Russia while obama does nothing.

By iraq making a weapons deal with iran, both nations are thumbing their nose at the US.

 

[bshole]

Iran is making allies with Iraq and Russia while obama does nothing.

By iraq making a weapons deal with iran, both nations are thumbing their nose at the US.

Well you and your neocon buds need to lock and load and let slip your dogs of war.

I would personally contribute money towards a fund to ship ALL neocons to Iraq/Iran. Let neocons have some fun for once. They can do the wet work.

 

[K1052]

And somehow loosening sanctions is supposed to punish iran and slow its nuclear progress?

Iran is making allies with Iraq and Russia while obama does nothing.

By iraq making a weapons deal with iran, both nations are thumbing their nose at the US.

Iran basically froze it's nuclear program and down-mixed their enriched uranium stockpile to below 20% in return for very modest sanction relief and coming to the table to iron out a larger permanent deal. So yes...it's been working so far.

Russia brings nothing to the table that Iran wants long term. Continued western tension with Iran is in Russia's interest due to oil exports.

Iraq just wanted to throw a little hissy and engaging Iran on a largely symbolic arms deal (less than 10% of US arms sales to Iran) is how they chose to get attention. Iran would drop Iraq in a heartbeat if this looked to derail the nuclear/sanction talks since they have many billions to gain.

 

[Texashiker]

Iran basically froze it's nuclear program and down-mixed their enriched uranium stockpile to below 20% in return for very modest sanction relief and coming to the table to iron out a larger permanent deal. So yes...it's been working so far.

Prove it. Do you have reports from UN regulatory inspectors?

Who says Iran has not moved its enrichment underground?

In other words, do you believe everything you are told?

 

[K1052]

Prove it. Do you have reports from UN regulatory inspectors?

Who says Iran has not moved its enrichment underground?

In other words, do you believe everything you are told?

So even if I provide such proof it would be a lie.

You have already decided what you believe (regardless of the facts) so further discussion is pointless.

 

[Texashiker]

So even if I provide such proof it would be a lie.

No, not at all.

The world only knows what iran allows them to know.

I personally think Iran is gaming the system to buy itself some time.

You have already decided what you believe (regardless of the facts) so further discussion is pointless.

What are the facts?

That Iran made a weapons deal with Iraq, and might be making a nuclear deal with Russia?

Those are what we know. The part that worries me is what we do not know. Can you say for certain iran has been 100% forthcoming with its nuclear program?

What is Iran going to do with all that money it got from Iraq? Is iran going to buy wheat and bake bread with that $195 million? Maybe build some new hospitals? Or maybe spend that money on its nuclear program?

 

[BUnit1701]

Iran basically froze it's nuclear program and down-mixed their enriched uranium stockpile to below 20% in return for very modest sanction relief and coming to the table to iron out a larger permanent deal. So yes...it's been working so far.

Russia brings nothing to the table that Iran wants long term. Continued western tension with Iran is in Russia's interest due to oil exports.

Iraq just wanted to throw a little hissy and engaging Iran on a largely symbolic arms deal (less than 10% of US arms sales to Iran) is how they chose to get attention. Iran would drop Iraq in a heartbeat if this looked to derail the nuclear/sanction talks since they have many billions to gain.

That would seem to be Dear Leaders version, but when the Iranians are asked, they sing a different song.

http://world.time.com/2014/01/22/iran-denies-agreeing-to-dismantle-nuclear-program/

“The White House tries to portray it as basically a dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again,” he said. “We are not dismantling any centrifuges, we’re not dismantling any equipment, we’re simply not producing, not enriching over 5%."[\Quote]

 

[Jaskalas]

So it was "fixed" under Saddam?

Geez.

Fern

They were a fairly secular (in comparison) dictatorship who was a sworn enemy of Iran. Removing them from the equation helped boost Iranian power in the region, leading us to the current nuclear situation.

Tough to say whether this all blows up in our faces or not.

 

[Texashiker]

So it was "fixed" under Saddam?

Geez.

Fern

Believe it or not, Saddam played a large role in maintaining peace in the middle east, and maybe the world.

Allow me to explain why.

By the time Iraq and Iran finished fighting each other, both nations had depleted their resources to wage war. Both nations combined lost anywhere from 500 thousand to close to a million men.

Saddam ensured Iraq was always at war with Iran, or at least an uneasy peace. With Saddam out of the way there is nothing to stop the two nations from becoming allies.

Overthrowing Saddam left a power void.

Rather than two brothers fighting against each other, they are going to put their differences aside and probably join forces.

Staying in a constant state of conflict was draining resources from Iran. They could not develop their nuclear program while at war with Iraq.

If Saddam were alive today and still in power, chances are he would have already bombed Irans nuclear facilities.

Invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam has allowed Iran to develop its nuclear program.

I fear this weapons deal between Iraq and Iran is a sign of things to come.

 

[Jhhnn]

And, what is your point?

Iran is advancing its nuclear program, and now it is made a weapon deal with iraq.

Obama is working to lift trade sanctions against iran, which will allow it to progress its weapons development.

And the fucking sky is falling, right?

What weapons development? The IAEA is all over their production facilities like stink on shit, telling us that there is no evidence of weapons grade material production. W/o that, the rest of it doesn't matter. The world needs to find a way to extend appropriate safeguards to the other kinds of nuclear facilities Iran will build anyway, short of War. Those safeguards need to be evenly applied to all such facilities around the world.

If all goes as planned, we'll be out of Afghanistan later on this year, so the Neocons & friends really, really need to keep our "enemies" puffed up in the eyes of the public. That'll be tough when there are no troops deployed in combat roles anywhere in the world, huh?

It's a whole different headset, being a nation at peace. Hell, we haven't had that since the Clinton years. If we could just figure out that the Terrarist Threat! is 99.99% bullshit & .01% real possibility, we might even get our heads screwed on half-assed straight.

Some of us, anyway.

 

[Texashiker]

If all goes as planned, we'll be out of Afghanistan later on this year, so the Neocons & friends really, really need to keep our "enemies" puffed up in the eyes of the public. That'll be tough when there are no troops deployed in combat roles anywhere in the world, huh?

And what, leave all of that oil and other resources for Russia and China?

Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran are rich in natural resources. There is no way wall street is going to allow the US government to simply walk away from that kind of money.

Obama might look like he is going to pull out before the 2014 elections to win votes for the democrats. But after that, there is going to be something that will cause us to go back in.

If we are out by the end of 2014, look for some kind of incident that causes the US to invade Iran before 2016. We simply can not allow those resources to fall into the hands of China and Russia.

I look for Iran to become another North Korea in terms of military importance.

 

[Genx87]

Iraq ordered 18 f-16s from the U.S. three years ago... None have been delivered. The committee on foreign relations has denied requests by Iraq for attack helicopters.

Maliki should just say he is part of al-Qaeda and he will get all types of military hardware by way of Libya.

Sadly this may be true.

 

[Jhhnn]

And what, leave all of that oil and other resources for Russia and China?

Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran are rich in natural resources. There is no way wall street is going to allow the US government to simply walk away from that kind of money.

Obama might look like he is going to pull out before the 2014 elections to win votes for the democrats. But after that, there is going to be something that will cause us to go back in.

If we are out by the end of 2014, look for some kind of incident that causes the US to invade Iran before 2016. We simply can not allow those resources to fall into the hands of China and Russia.

I look for Iran to become another North Korea in terms of military importance.

You seem a bit confused. One moment, you're raving on like Dick Cheney about Iran as an "enemy", and the next you're saying it's all a put up deal by Wall St.

Can't have it both ways. Pick one.

 

[Texashiker]

You seem a bit confused. One moment, you're raving on like Dick Cheney about Iran as an "enemy", and the next you're saying it's all a put up deal by Wall St.

Can't have it both was. Pick one.

Is Iran our enemy? No, I do not think so. I believe they are doing a lot of talking, and that is about it.

However, who is to say their nuclear technology will not fall into the wrong hands 5 or 10 years from now?

My main concern is the illusion of Iran being our enemy. I imagine the people of Iran want peace as much as we do.

 

[Sonikku]

We spent all this money on nukes. Why not use them? Iraq, Iran, NK, Russia etc. Though not China. They make our smart phones.

 

[Jhhnn]

Is Iran our enemy? No, I do not think so. I believe they are doing a lot of talking, and that is about it.

However, who is to say their nuclear technology will not fall into the wrong hands 5 or 10 years from now?

My main concern is the illusion of Iran being our enemy. I imagine the people of Iran want peace as much as we do.

If you don't think Iran is our "enemy", then why the desire to "punish" them with sanctions? Why the continued fearmongering?

If Iran, Iraq & others are making deals with each other, the Russians, & the Chinese, maybe that's because they getting better deals that way than the ones our Neocon faction offers & raves on about?

While Obama is trying to facilitate a rational relationship, they're snapping it off in his back, demanding new sanctions. They miss Dick & Dub waving their military industrial cranks at the world. That's their idea of diplomacy, & apparently yours as well.

Our own hard liners merely encourage Iranians to elect their own. Sanctions & threats merely encourage them to be militant, and have gotten us precisely nowhere since the Carter years. That's the truth.

Talking the way you are, all we'll get is more of the same.

 

[Fern]

Well you and your neocon buds need to lock and load and let slip your dogs of war.

I would personally contribute money towards a fund to ship ALL neocons to Iraq/Iran. Let neocons have some fun for once. They can do the wet work.

You won't have any money if Iran acts up and impedes shipments through the straights.

Fern

 

[Fern]

They were a fairly secular (in comparison) dictatorship who was a sworn enemy of Iran. Removing them from the equation helped boost Iranian power in the region, leading us to the current nuclear situation.

Tough to say whether this all blows up in our faces or not.

Believe it or not, Saddam played a large role in maintaining peace in the middle east, and maybe the world.

Allow me to explain why.

By the time Iraq and Iran finished fighting each other, both nations had depleted their resources to wage war. Both nations combined lost anywhere from 500 thousand to close to a million men.

Saddam ensured Iraq was always at war with Iran, or at least an uneasy peace. With Saddam out of the way there is nothing to stop the two nations from becoming allies.

Overthrowing Saddam left a power void.

Rather than two brothers fighting against each other, they are going to put their differences aside and probably join forces.

Staying in a constant state of conflict was draining resources from Iran. They could not develop their nuclear program while at war with Iraq.

If Saddam were alive today and still in power, chances are he would have already bombed Irans nuclear facilities.

Invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam has allowed Iran to develop its nuclear program.

I fear this weapons deal between Iraq and Iran is a sign of things to come.

Getting rid of Saddam wa snot the problem. He needed to be gone. Only the Dem/progs are stupid enough to believe (actually, I doubt even they believe it) that Saddam wouldn't have caused more problems have been left in power.

No, the problem was that we allowed the Shia to control Iraq. Saddam was Sunni. Iran is, of course, Shia.

The Sunni Ba'ath Party should have been left in power o contain Iran. The fact the Ba'ath are aligned with Syria is much less of a concern than Iran IMO.

Fern

 

[Fern]

And the fucking sky is falling, right?

What weapons development? The IAEA is all over their production facilities like stink on shit, telling us that there is no evidence of weapons grade material production.
-snip-

NICOSIA — Iran, despite its agreement with the West, continues to
deny international inspectors access to a key nuclear military site.

Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization has rejected appeals by NATO states
for the inspection of the Parchin military site southeast of Teheran.

The Iranian government body said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would not be granted access to Parchin, believed to have hosted nuclear warhead experiments.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/02/11/iran-refuses-to-allow-inspection-of-parchin-nuclear-site/

Did something change in the last week or so, or are you making crap up?

Fern

 

[bononos]

FTFY.

Obama has had 5 years to develop a strategy to deal with Iraq. 5 yrs to come up with his own master plan. 5 yrs to use his awesome powers of persuasion.

al-Maliki has proven far easier to deal with than Saddam. I haven't noticed them attacking any nearby countries murdering and raping their populations and creating hazards, economic and ecological, like setting oil wells on fire. Or offering rewards for suicide bombers in Palestine etc.

Obama declined the request for military arms. Now who could have possibly thought al-Maliki might to turn to Iran when denied?

Oh damn! Being President is soo complicated. It's just not fair!

Fern

You can't be serious about your Maliki comment, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait plus the oil well fires was way back in 1990. GWB just ruined the Iraq situation beyond what any US admin can hope to salvage in the near term.

And I thought Obama didn't decline the request, but it was the Senate foreign relations committee that shot it down, people like McCain.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p..._blasts_senators_for_blocking_iraq_arms_sales

 

[bononos]

Getting rid of Saddam wa snot the problem. He needed to be gone. Only the Dem/progs are stupid enough to believe (actually, I doubt even they believe it) that Saddam wouldn't have caused more problems have been left in power.

No, the problem was that we allowed the Shia to control Iraq. Saddam was Sunni. Iran is, of course, Shia.

The Sunni Ba'ath Party should have been left in power o contain Iran. The fact the Ba'ath are aligned with Syria is much less of a concern than Iran IMO.

Fern

Saddam would've caused more problems for Iraqi the longer he stayed but as the invasion showed, the Iraqi state was crumbling due to the long sanctions and its military weak.

Putting the Sunni Baath party back into power would be like handing over the reins to the Nazi party after WW2. Continually oppressing the Shia in Iraq is a ready made excuse for Iran to interfere in Iraqi politics. And what you've said flies in the face of American constant championing of democracy.

 

[Fern]

Nobody would have been putting the Ba'ath "back into power".

You simple remove Saddam for the crimes of mass killing his own people. Send him for trial at the Hague. Another Ba'ath party official could have replaced him. You skirt the entire "championing of Democracy" issue.

Fern

 

[bononos]

Nobody would have been putting the Ba'ath "back into power".

You simple remove Saddam for the crimes of mass killing his own people. Send him for trial at the Hague. Another Ba'ath party official could have replaced him. You skirt the entire "championing of Democracy" issue.

Fern

??? You posted "The Sunni Ba'ath Party should have been left in power o contain Iran...."

How am I skirting the issue of democracy? The majority Shia were marginalised by Saddam's administration and the Baa'th party which is Sunni dominated and his political instrument.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/02/11/iran-refuses-to-allow-inspection-of-parchin-nuclear-site/

Did something change in the last week or so, or are you making crap up?

Fern

Parchin is not a production facility, but you already knew that, dishonest propagandist that you are. It's a place where Iran is suspected of having done weapons related development a decade ago. Those allegations never had more than tenuous credibility, anyway.

None of that is about the future, but rather trying to use the past to discredit Iran today.

As I offered, none of that really matters if no weapons grade materials are produced. That's the whole point of safeguards, isn't it?

What is the point here, anyway? To get Iran to agree to reasonable & uniform safeguards, or to give fear mongers something to go on about?