War With Iran - Yay!!! or Nay

For discussion of life's issues: current events, social trends and personal opinions.

Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250

Are you for a war with Iran

Yes, they're already fighting us in Iraq
7
23%
No, we learned our lesson about Bush leading us to war
23
77%
 
Total votes: 30
User avatar
catch22
DBB LAN Nut
DBB LAN Nut
Posts: 1068
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 1999 3:01 am
Location: PA

Post by catch22 »

The cause of what? you left that very open
The cause of attacks (whether past, present, or future) against the western powers from groups in the Middle East; more specifically, Iran.

The point of the post was playing devils advocate to the issue of mixing religion and politics. Personally, I'm in agreement the the two shouldn't be mixed but probably not for the same reasons you are. So I'm getting a feel for the waters.
Islam isn't spreading their view by force?????
Its outside meddling in Islamic affairs that is fueling the hatred?????
Calm Down. I think your taking things way out of context.

By no means am I going to argue that Islam isn't spreading views by force. A few denominations have made it clear, \"Convert or die\". But they can't speak for everyone. There are enough peaceful Islamic denominations to give it's practice some credit. They also happen to draw converts to Islam from all sorts of other religions, including females. If Islam in it's entirety was as evil as you've pointed out, I don't know what woman in their right mind would even consider it. Luckly, it's not.

Much of what I know about Islam came from a symposium I attended at Millersville University that was lead by an educated american female that converted to Islam (she was a Christian prior). She authored a book if your interested. I'll see if I can dig up her name.
Catch-22

<FONT> Frankly, I think the whole society is nuts...The question is: What does a sane person do in an insane society? -Joseph Heller</FONT>
User avatar
Bet51987
DBB Alumni
DBB Alumni
Posts: 2791
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re:

Post by Bet51987 »

Grendel wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:Islam isn't spreading their view by force?????
Its outside meddling in Islamic affairs that is fueling the hatred?????
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp508.htm
Bet51987 wrote:Girls... Convert to Islam or die.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.htm ... page_id=34
http://www.christianaggression.org/tactics_medical.php

That better ?

I'm too tired to dig up more examples along your line in "favor" of western religious nutcases. There are many, many to be found, draw your own conclusions.
Bet51987 wrote:What kind of meddling do you think caused the most brutal oppression of girls in Afghanistan the modern world has ever seen? You people make me throw up.
So, what are you saying ? We are wrong and they all have to be killed ? Our opinion makes you sick ? We are uncivilized ? We are morally wrong opposing war ?

What is your point ?
dissent wrote:
Grendel wrote:The islam religion is not that different from christian religion if you compare the papers they base on and go back a bit in history.
Don't agree with this, Gren. Aside from a professed monotheism and ethic for peace, I think there are great differences between Islam and Christianity. The Qu'ran and the Bible are quite different texts in terms of their meanings for ideas and their worldviews.
I'll take your word for it until I find the time to read this.
Where did I say I was in favor of religous nutcases. Read all my posts and you will see I've been against nutcases from all religions so your points just reinforce my claims and the big claims I make today are against fanatical Islam. You can ignore my posts and look the other way on the atrocites toward women that warped Islam represents but I will never. Your still not getting the picture.

Bettina
User avatar
Grendel
3d Pro Master
3d Pro Master
Posts: 4390
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 3:01 am
Location: Corvallis OR, USA

Re:

Post by Grendel »

Bet51987 wrote:Where did I say I was in favor of religous nutcases. Read all my posts and you will see I've been against nutcases from all religions so your points just reinforce my claims and the big claims I make today are against fanatical Islam. You can ignore my posts and look the other way on the atrocites toward women that warped Islam represents but I will never. Your still not getting the picture.

Bettina
Like the Islam is the root cause for atrocites towards women. Men are. All over the world. Look at Africa, India, even westen countries. You will find very despicable things. Things that are a lot worse than what you quoted. But here you are, making it the main reason for your opinion to go to war w/ Iran, totally ignoring the fact it'll not change a thing for the women involved. Wait, actually it will change things -- it will create some serious grief for a lot women there because their husbands and sons will be mutilated or killed, their houses destroyed, the basic things like water & electricity cut off. Will it end islamic fanatism ? Hell no. It will actually fuel it, driving more people into the fight against the "infidels", making the situation worse for women.

Anyway, this is obviousely leading nowhere since you seem to ignore any questions and comment only minor parts of posts, interpreting things into them that noone said or ment. Here's a last quote for you that may give you a clue:
The Art of War Part III by Sun Tzu wrote:So it is said that if you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
User avatar
Sirius
DBB Master
DBB Master
Posts: 5616
Joined: Fri May 28, 1999 2:01 am
Location: Bellevue, WA
Contact:

Re:

Post by Sirius »

Immortal Lobster wrote:All I know is that more people have died in the name of a god, then have died in the name of a country or themselves.
Communism and Nazism tried damned hard to catch religion at the genocide stakes. I'm not sure whether or not they ever surpassed it, though.
User avatar
Bet51987
DBB Alumni
DBB Alumni
Posts: 2791
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re:

Post by Bet51987 »

Grendel wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:Where did I say I was in favor of religous nutcases. Read all my posts and you will see I've been against nutcases from all religions so your points just reinforce my claims and the big claims I make today are against fanatical Islam. You can ignore my posts and look the other way on the atrocites toward women that warped Islam represents but I will never. Your still not getting the picture.

Bettina
Like the Islam is the root cause for atrocites towards women. Men are. All over the world. Look at Africa, India, even westen countries. You will find very despicable things. Things that are a lot worse than what you quoted. But here you are, making it the main reason for your opinion to go to war w/ Iran, totally ignoring the fact it'll not change a thing for the women involved. Wait, actually it will change things -- it will create some serious grief for a lot women there because their husbands and sons will be mutilated or killed, their houses destroyed, the basic things like water & electricity cut off. Will it end islamic fanatism ? Hell no. It will actually fuel it, driving more people into the fight against the "infidels", making the situation worse for women.

Anyway, this is obviousely leading nowhere since you seem to ignore any questions and comment only minor parts of posts, interpreting things into them that noone said or ment. Here's a last quote for you that may give you a clue:
The Art of War Part III by Sun Tzu wrote:So it is said that if you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
I didn't interpret anything. I knew what you meant like the last thread. So, I ask you, after reading my links and knowing what Islam is and what the Taliban are trying to do to women in Afghanistan, what would YOUR solution be......or do you just want to turn your head the other way.

But, keep in mind, Iran with a nuke will be able to protect that sort of ideology and we won't be able to help them anymore..... so what would you do?

Bee
User avatar
TIGERassault
DBB Admiral
DBB Admiral
Posts: 1600
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:33 pm

Re:

Post by TIGERassault »

Bet51987 wrote:But, keep in mind, Iran with a nuke will be able to protect that sort of ideology and we won't be able to help them anymore..... so what would you do?
Well, here's a quick question, even though you're sure to ignore it:
How would Iran be able to protect their ideology with a weapon that can only destroy approx. 1 city at a time, and has no defensive purpose whatsoever? I mean, they'd get, at most, 10 nukes out, before the rest of the world instantly retaliates! And America has enough nukes themselves to detroy the entire country 10 times over!
User avatar
Duper
DBB Master
DBB Master
Posts: 9214
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2001 3:01 am
Location: Beaverton, Oregon USA

Post by Duper »

I say do it NOw and save everyone a lot of headaches and bandwidth.

;)
User avatar
Will Robinson
DBB Grand Master
DBB Grand Master
Posts: 10124
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am

Re:

Post by Will Robinson »

TIGERassault wrote:Well, here's a quick question, even though you're sure to ignore it:
How would Iran be able to protect their ideology with a weapon that can only destroy approx. 1 city at a time, and has no defensive purpose whatsoever? I mean, they'd get, at most, 10 nukes out, before the rest of the world instantly retaliates! And America has enough nukes themselves to detroy the entire country 10 times over!
Pretty dumb question really but I've developed a taste for them so I'll jump on it.

Suppose they want to support a Taliban type of regime in Iraq after America pulls out so they can spread their fundamentalist whacko brand of Islam.

Now, they can say "Stay out or else... a) we'll fight you tank for tank plane for plane, man for man...
Or
b) we'll launch a dozen nuclear warheads into Israel and Europe...

Now in either instance the western powers have a like wise response to counter them but do you really think the western powers, when faced with such a choice would look at the two scenarios with the same degree of apprehension and fear?!?

"Let's see, we can wage conventional war with a country that we can surely beat, casualties among our troops projected to be X...."

Or

"Let's see, we can start to invade the Iranian held parts of Iraq but then they will launch nukes into our allies country killing civilians projected deaths to be X times 10,000 and that's if we are lucky! Then of course we have to deal with the fallout contamination etc. etc.
And then there is that whole thing of being the country that goaded the whacko's into starting off WWIII...
"

The difference is something like deciding between having to fight someone who is going to give you a punch in the nose or someone who is going to shoot you in the gut with a .45!
You know just because once he shoots you with the .45 you get to pull yours out and shoot back just doesn't seem to make choosing that opponent any less of a really bad choice!

How will they protect themselves with nukes?!?! Did you really just ask that?!?!
User avatar
Bet51987
DBB Alumni
DBB Alumni
Posts: 2791
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re:

Post by Bet51987 »

TIGERassault wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:Well, here's a quick question, even though you're sure to ignore it:
How would Iran be able to protect their ideology with a weapon that can only destroy approx. 1 city at a time, and has no defensive purpose whatsoever? I mean, they'd get, at most, 10 nukes out, before the rest of the world instantly retaliates! And America has enough nukes themselves to detroy the entire country 10 times over!
Your right. I was going to ignore it because you and Grendal will never get it and I'm just wasting my time. See Wills post.

But just remember, The Taliban and many other mideast Islamic cults treat girls like third class citizens where beatings are a daily occurance just because they were born female and I hate them for it so its a personal thing with me. I don't know what the solution is but to do nothing and/or let them have a nuke is not one of them.

Bettina
User avatar
Grendel
3d Pro Master
3d Pro Master
Posts: 4390
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 3:01 am
Location: Corvallis OR, USA

Re:

Post by Grendel »

Bet51987 wrote:But, keep in mind, Iran with a nuke will be able to protect that sort of ideology and we won't be able to help them anymore..... so what would you do?
Iran claims to want to build a reactor for power generation. Since they only can do that right now by creating their own know-how everybody screams "nuke", clearly a no-win situation. Give them a power plant. Hell, give one to anyone who wants it and can pay for it. Have them contract the US building a power plant, just don't give them the know-how. Set it up in a way it can't be run w/o US personel or have booby traps in key components etc. Easy to do. That way you will not only make money, but you also will keep control over it, make living conditions better for the population, and look good in their eyes. You also now have a communication line into the country you can use to further induce changes. Instead of spending billions in a war, spend millions on the population. Set up shops for selected western goods. Set up hospitals to provide cheap medical services and western ideas. You should be able to get the picture.

Will this happen ? No. Why ? Your turn.

Let me tell you a few more things tho. Consider that: 1. the worlds color is not black & white, it's grey. 2. you can't force change on anyone/a group, never works. Change has to come from w/in and takes at least a generation to happen. 3. nationalism is becomming complicated in a time the planet gets pretty crowded.

I'm still marveling about exactly what the "it" is I "will never get", maybe you could clarify that.
User avatar
woodchip
DBB Benefactor
DBB Benefactor
Posts: 17865
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 2:01 am

Post by woodchip »

Ummm...Grendel, what do you think was being offered to Iran by the UN so Iran would not produce their own nuclear fuel? Be a good lad and look it it up.
User avatar
Grendel
3d Pro Master
3d Pro Master
Posts: 4390
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 3:01 am
Location: Corvallis OR, USA

Post by Grendel »

As far I can tell the offer was/is to talk if they cease their enrichment program. I'm not suprised they refuse.

(see here and here.)
User avatar
ccb056
DBB Fleet Admiral
DBB Fleet Admiral
Posts: 2540
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 2:01 am
Contact:

Post by ccb056 »

It's not really a matter of if we will goto war with Iran, but when.

Iran's going to make a major F-up within the next 20 years if they continue on their path, and the US will be the major force cleaning up the mess.

The difference is the US can stop Iran before they drop the bomb on Israel, China, Russia, South Korea, Canada, England, Australia, the US, and any other non-muslim country.
I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on disk somewhere.
User avatar
Bet51987
DBB Alumni
DBB Alumni
Posts: 2791
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re:

Post by Bet51987 »

Grendel wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:But, keep in mind, Iran with a nuke will be able to protect that sort of ideology and we won't be able to help them anymore..... so what would you do?
Iran claims to want to build a reactor for power generation. Since they only can do that right now by creating their own know-how everybody screams "nuke", clearly a no-win situation. Give them a power plant. Hell, give one to anyone who wants it and can pay for it. Have them contract the US building a power plant, just don't give them the know-how. Set it up in a way it can't be run w/o US personel or have booby traps in key components etc. Easy to do. That way you will not only make money, but you also will keep control over it, make living conditions better for the population, and look good in their eyes. You also now have a communication line into the country you can use to further induce changes. Instead of spending billions in a war, spend millions on the population. Set up shops for selected western goods. Set up hospitals to provide cheap medical services and western ideas. You should be able to get the picture.

Will this happen ? No. Why ? Your turn.
My turn?... Ok.

The European three – Britain, France, and Germany – with the backing of the United States, China, and Russia, are preparing a package of incentives to offer Iran in return for it to suspend its uranium enrichment activities. As part of the package, the EU will pledge to assist Iran in building a light-water reactor inside Iran.

That idea was immediately rejected by Ahmadinejad... Here are a few links.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/a ... oryid=7233
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/mid ... 05-17.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 719458.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4574226.stm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 641256.htm
Grendel wrote: Let me tell you a few more things tho. Consider that:
1. the worlds color is not black & white, it's grey.
The worlds color may be grey, but to Islam its very black and white... To convert this world to an Islamic one...by force if neccessary. No country should be allowed to imprison and beat its young girls and women because of their gender. Every person born should have basic inalienable rights.
Grendel wrote:2. you can't force change on anyone/a group, never works. Change has to come from w/in and takes at least a generation to happen.
The generation change will not work because the present generations mindset teaches the future generations, like the Taliban was doing.
Grendel wrote:3. nationalism is becomming complicated in a time the planet gets pretty crowded.
Nationalism? Ask the women.
Grendel wrote:I'm still marveling about exactly what the "it" is I "will never get", maybe you could clarify that.
I really can't because you have a pro Iran stance.
Grendel wrote:As far I can tell the offer was/is to talk if they cease their enrichment program. I'm not suprised they refuse.

(see here and here.)
Your wrong again. The offer came from Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China and was backed by the U.S. ONLY if they halted enrichment. This quote is from your very own links above.

Let us also be clear: Tehran has made it unmistakable that enrichment is their right and that enrichment has never been nor will it become a negotiable point.

No wonder the U.S. refused....... Your turn again.

Bettina
User avatar
Grendel
3d Pro Master
3d Pro Master
Posts: 4390
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 3:01 am
Location: Corvallis OR, USA

Post by Grendel »

Bet51987 wrote:The European three – Britain, France, and Germany – with the backing of the United States, China, and Russia, are preparing a package of incentives to offer Iran in return for it to suspend its uranium enrichment activities. As part of the package, the EU will pledge to assist Iran in building a light-water reactor inside Iran.

That idea was immediately rejected by Ahmadinejad... Here are a few links.
Details of Iran's 23-page written response have not been released, but they crucially are expected to confirm that Iran is not prepared to suspend uranium-enrichment activities without comprehensive security guarantees, especially from the US, in return.

The US has never been prepared to give such guarantees, and thus ends what appeared on the surface to be a genuine multilateral initiative for negotiations with Iran on the terms under which it would give up its nuclear program.

[..]

Britain, France and Germany (European Union Three - EU-3), which had begun negotiations with Tehran on the nuclear issue in October 2003, had concluded very early that Iran's security concerns would have to be central to any agreement. It has been generally forgotten that the November 14, 2004, Paris Agreement between the EU and Iran included an assurance by the EU-3 that the "long-term agreement" they pledged to reach would "provide ... firm commitments on security issues".

The EU-3 had tried in vain to get the Bush administration to support their diplomatic efforts with Tehran by authorizing the inclusion of security guarantees in a proposal they were working on last summer. In a joint press conference with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in July 2005, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy referred to the need to "make sure ... that we discuss with [the Iranians] the security of their country. And for this, we shall need the United States ..."
Also, AFAIK Ahmadinejad's opinion doesn't weight a lot. He's facing opposition in his own country for his stupidity. Nobody negotiates w/ him.
Bet51987 wrote:The worlds color may be grey, but to Islam its very black and white... To convert this world to an Islamic one...by force if neccessary. No country should be allowed to imprison and beat its young girls and women because of their gender. Every person born should have basic inalienable rights.
Quite aggreable, but not the full picture. Nobody should be allowed to apply force to anyone for reasons of subjective moral or ethics.
Bet51987 wrote:
Grendel wrote:2. you can't force change on anyone/a group, never works. Change has to come from w/in and takes at least a generation to happen.
The generation change will not work because the present generations mindset teaches the future generations, like the Taliban was doing.
All I said is that any change will take at least one generation to happen, regardless of how it is induced.

Wars in the more distant past worked better -- the winner killed (at least) everybody in key positions erradicating most of the mindset, then filling the void w/ own people, kids & ideas. We don't do that anymore, wars like in Afganistan or Iraq leave the mindset intact creating what we call extremists & terrorists.
Bet51987 wrote:Nationalism? Ask the women.
I was refering to western POV nationalism. It was ment as a point to think about, so I'll not go deeper since it's another can of worms.
Bet51987 wrote:
Grendel wrote:I'm still marveling about exactly what the "it" is I "will never get", maybe you could clarify that.
I really can't because you have a pro Iran stance.
Why do you think that ? For the record, I'm strictly against any form of fanatism. If you can find a way to remove all fanatic elements in control in Iran (or any other region) w/o laying the area to waste and harming normal people I most likely would be in favor of it. My opinion is that another war in the ME will not improve conditions for anyone, it will fuel terrorism, destabilize the area further, create a new high of anti-americanism (or anti-west even), and make the living conditions for the "regular" guys in the ME hell. I don't feel that the US has exhausted diplomatic means yet so I'm against a war. How does that make me pro-Iran ?
Bet51987 wrote:Your wrong again. The offer came from Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China and was backed by the U.S. ONLY if they halted enrichment. This quote is from your very own links above.

Let us also be clear: Tehran has made it unmistakable that enrichment is their right and that enrichment has never been nor will it become a negotiable point.

No wonder the U.S. refused....... Your turn again.
Let me extend aboves quote:
The EU-3 and the Bush administration agreed that the permanent-five-plus-one proposal would demand that Iran make three concessions to avoid UN Security Council sanctions and to begin negotiations on an agreement with positive incentives: the indefinite suspension of its enrichment program, agreement to resolve all the outstanding concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and resumption of full implementation of the Additional Protocol under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which calls for very tight monitoring of all suspected nuclear sites by the IAEA.

That meant that Tehran would have had to give up its major bargaining chips before the negotiations even began. The Europeans wanted security guarantees from Washington to be part of the deal. Douste-Blazy said on May 8 that if Iran cooperated, it could be rewarded with what he called an "ambitious package" in several economic domains as well as in "the security domain".

The EU-3 draft proposal, which was leaked to ABC (American Broadcasting Co) News and posted on its website, included a formula that fell short of an explicit guarantee. However, it did offer "support for an inter-governmental forum, including countries of the region and other interested countries, to promote dialogue and cooperation on security issues in the Persian Gulf, with the aim of establishing regional security arrangements and a cooperative relationship on regional security arrangements including guarantees for territorial integrity and political sovereignty".

That convoluted language suggested there was a way for Iran's security to be guaranteed by the United States. But the problem was that it was still subject to a US veto. In any case, as Steven R Weisman of the New York Times reported on May 19, the Bush administration rejected any reference to a regional security framework in which Iran could participate.

Rice denied on Fox News on May 21 that the US was being "asked about security guarantees", but that was deliberately misleading. As a European diplomat explained to Reuters on May 20, the only reason the Europeans had not used the term "security guarantees" in their draft was that "Washington is against giving Iran assurances that it will not be attacked".
User avatar
Will Robinson
DBB Grand Master
DBB Grand Master
Posts: 10124
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am

Re:

Post by Will Robinson »

Grendel wrote:Also, AFAIK Ahmadinejad's opinion doesn't weight a lot. He's facing opposition in his own country for his stupidity.
"As far as you know" isn't necessarily very far at all! Bush faces opposition for his stupid moves and it sure hasn't stopped him one bit from pressing on!
What actual setbacks has Ahmadinejad suffered?
User avatar
Grendel
3d Pro Master
3d Pro Master
Posts: 4390
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 3:01 am
Location: Corvallis OR, USA

Post by Grendel »

wikipedia wrote:However, the office of the Iranian President is not responsible for nuclear policy. It is instead set by the Supreme National Security Council. The council includes representatives appointed by the Supreme Leader, military officials and members of the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government (see eg. Ali Larijani), and reports directly to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons in 2005.
See also Domestic Critizism on the same page.
User avatar
Bet51987
DBB Alumni
DBB Alumni
Posts: 2791
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re:

Post by Bet51987 »

Grendel wrote:Also, AFAIK Ahmadinejad's opinion doesn't weight a lot. He's facing opposition in his own country for his stupidity. Nobody negotiates w/ him.
He is a puppet. The strings are pulled by the mullahs, you know, the ones that want the bomb.
Grendel wrote:Quite aggreable, but not the full picture. Nobody should be allowed to apply force to anyone for reasons of subjective moral or ethics.
In my opinion, your opinion is wrong. Its the duty of free nations to free women held hostage anywhere in the world. Again, ask the women in Afghanistan forced to wear the burkas.
Grendel wrote:All I said is that any change will take at least one generation to happen, regardless of how it is induced.
And I explained why that won't work.
Grendel wrote:Wars in the more distant past worked better -- the winner killed (at least) everybody in key positions erradicating most of the mindset, then filling the void w/ own people, kids & ideas. We don't do that anymore, wars like in Afganistan or Iraq leave the mindset intact creating what we call extremists & terrorists.
I agree, but in Afghanistan and Iraq, girls are going to school where they were not allowed to before and some women are removing their burkas. It would be fixed a lot sooner if coward countries like france and germany would join in the fight against the extremists instead of leaving it to the U.S.
Grendel wrote: I was refering to western POV nationalism. It was ment as a point to think about, so I'll not go deeper since it's another can of worms.
Fair enough.
Grendel wrote:Why do you think that ? For the record, I'm strictly against any form of fanatism. If you can find a way to remove all fanatic elements in control in Iran (or any other region) w/o laying the area to waste and harming normal people I most likely would be in favor of it. My opinion is that another war in the ME will not improve conditions for anyone, it will fuel terrorism, destabilize the area further, create a new high of anti-americanism (or anti-west even), and make the living conditions for the "regular" guys in the ME hell. I don't feel that the US has exhausted diplomatic means yet so I'm against a war. How does that make me pro-Iran ?

I don't know for sure, its just how you make me feel. Nothing personal.
Grendel wrote:
The EU-3 and the Bush administration agreed that the permanent-five-plus-one proposal would demand that Iran make three concessions to avoid UN Security Council sanctions and to begin negotiations on an agreement with positive incentives: the indefinite suspension of its enrichment program, agreement to resolve all the outstanding concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and resumption of full implementation of the Additional Protocol under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which calls for very tight monitoring of all suspected nuclear sites by the IAEA.

That meant that Tehran would have had to give up its major bargaining chips before the negotiations even began. The Europeans wanted security guarantees from Washington to be part of the deal. Douste-Blazy said on May 8 that if Iran cooperated, it could be rewarded with what he called an "ambitious package" in several economic domains as well as in "the security domain".

The EU-3 draft proposal, which was leaked to ABC (American Broadcasting Co) News and posted on its website, included a formula that fell short of an explicit guarantee. However, it did offer "support for an inter-governmental forum, including countries of the region and other interested countries, to promote dialogue and cooperation on security issues in the Persian Gulf, with the aim of establishing regional security arrangements and a cooperative relationship on regional security arrangements including guarantees for territorial integrity and political sovereignty".

That convoluted language suggested there was a way for Iran's security to be guaranteed by the United States. But the problem was that it was still subject to a US veto. In any case, as Steven R Weisman of the New York Times reported on May 19, the Bush administration rejected any reference to a regional security framework in which Iran could participate.

Rice denied on Fox News on May 21 that the US was being "asked about security guarantees", but that was deliberately misleading. As a European diplomat explained to Reuters on May 20, the only reason the Europeans had not used the term "security guarantees" in their draft was that "Washington is against giving Iran assurances that it will not be attacked".
I'm not sure if thats correct or not but the bottom line is that Iran will not give up enrichment for ANY reason.
Grendel wrote:
wikipedia wrote:However, the office of the Iranian President is not responsible for nuclear policy. It is instead set by the Supreme National Security Council. The council includes representatives appointed by the Supreme Leader, military officials and members of the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government (see eg. Ali Larijani), and reports directly to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons in 2005.
See also Domestic Critizism on the same page.
Everyone knows the mullahs are in control and Ahmadinejad is a puppet.... but do you mean this fatwa? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html
or the one you believe?

Bettina
Post Reply