LibriumArcana.Games

Posted: **Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:32 pm**

The UK has taken a hard line on an Iranian offer to continue discussing its nuclear programme, indicating major powers disagree on how to proceed.
Russia says a compromise offer is still on the table, and China has urged all parties to continue negotiations.

But the UK, France, Germany and the US want the UN Security Council to consider punishing Iran.

Iran broke seals on three nuclear facilities last week, but says it does not aim to build nuclear weapons.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says a compromise offer is still on the table which could see Iran sending uranium to Russia for enrichment - which would be an obstacle to Iran developing nuclear weapons of its own.

Iran has also offered to return to talks with the EU-3 of France, Germany and the UK.

'Stalling'

But on Tuesday the UK Foreign Office appeared to reject both that offer and the Russian compromise.

Unnamed Foreign Office officials were quoted by news agencies as saying the Iranians were stalling.

The question of sanctions against Iran puts the cart before the horse

Sergey Lavrov
Russian foreign minister

Iran crisis: Your views
Press weighs Iran stand-off

The UK, France and Germany are calling for an urgent meeting of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), next month.

At a meeting in London on Monday that included Russian, Chinese and US officials, world powers failed to reach full agreement on how to proceed.

After the talks, the UK, Germany and France said they would ask the IAEA to meet on 2-3 February.

The IAEA could refer the issue to the UN Security Council, which could in turn decide to impose sanctions, but Russia and China appear wary of imposing an embargo.

The BBC's Steven Rosenberg in Moscow says Russia is concerned that sanctions would damage trade with Iran.

'Peaceful diplomacy'

And China said it would do everything to achieve a diplomatic solution.

"The Chinese side believes resolving the issue through peaceful diplomatic means is the best choice, benefiting all parties," foreign ministry spokesman Kong Quan said.

Mr Lavrov said: "The question of sanctions against Iran puts the cart before the horse. Sanctions are in no way the best, or the only, way to solve the problem."

He said he supported a resumption of Tehran's talks with the UK, Germany and France, but that this could only happen if it returned to its moratorium on uranium enrichment.

IRAN'S NUCLEAR STANDOFF
Sept 2002: Work begins on Iran's first reactor at Bushehr
Dec 2002: Satellites reveal Arak and Natanz sites, triggering IAEA inspections
Nov 2003: Iran suspends uranium enrichment and allows tougher inspections
June 2004: IAEA rebukes Iran for not fully co-operating
Nov 2004: Iran suspends enrichment under deal with EU
Aug 2005: Iran rejects EU plan and re-opens Isfahan plant
Jan 2006: Iran re-opens Natanz facility

In depth: Nuclear fuel cycle
Iran's key nuclear sites

Iran should help the IAEA collect the maximum amount of information, he added.

"Certain progress has been achieved in clarifying dark spots, but more is required of Iran," said Mr Lavrov.

Iran's ambassador to Moscow, Gholamreza Ansari, said on Monday that Tehran was still considering the offer to move Iran's uranium enrichment programme to Russia.

Mr Lavrov said the two countries would further discuss that possibility in talks on 16 February.

Israel's acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said his country could not allow a hostile nation to have weapons of mass destruction.

"I believe that there is a way to prevent non-conventional weapons coming into the hands of those who pose a danger to the entire world," he said, speaking as an Israeli delegation headed for Moscow for talks.

Israel is believed to be the only Middle Eastern country that has a nuclear arsenal.

Will someone stop talking and do something already!?!

Posted: **Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:24 pm**

frigidmagi wrote:Will someone stop talking and do something already!?!

Any ideas what should be done?

I'm worried the situation has gone too far for the world to realistically do anything.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:49 am**

At this point I figure: Do onto others before they do onto you.

Iran has made it perfectly clear that they have no intention what so ever of forgoing their nuclear weapons program. Europe has shown that they are constitutionally incapable of acting when some one might get upset. That, suprise, suprise, leaves the US. So I say do whatever needs to be done to derail that project. If that means the Shep Solution, so be it.

If I weren't sickeningly certain we'd be the first target, I'd say let Europe get nuked. Fuckers deserve it for trying to have their cake and eat it to. Sad thing is because of our own interests we have to take care of this. It's a damn shame because Europe deserves it's comuppance for forcing the US to defend Europe while they struggle to lift a finger. Maybe that's my bitter, cynical side talking.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:57 am**

I say give Israel a blank check and a very specific and PUBLIC permission to "act in whatever capacity they feel they need" and we will give our "full support, with whatever we have available"

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:19 am**

Lord Stormbringer wrote:At this point I figure: Do onto others before they do onto you.

Iran has made it perfectly clear that they have no intention what so ever of forgoing their nuclear weapons program. Europe has shown that they are constitutionally incapable of acting when some one might get upset. That, suprise, suprise, leaves the US. So I say do whatever needs to be done to derail that project. If that means the Shep Solution, so be it.

You'd seriously support a preemptive nuclear strike at this point? I just don't see how the US could do that and survive the bad publicity.

Talk about a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

If I weren't sickeningly certain we'd be the first target, I'd say let Europe get nuked. Fuckers deserve it for trying to have their cake and eat it to. Sad thing is because of our own interests we have to take care of this. It's a damn shame because Europe deserves it's comuppance for forcing the US to defend Europe while they struggle to lift a finger. Maybe that's my bitter, cynical side talking.

I never could understand people's inability to comprehend that being militarily powerful does not equate "bad". Apparently small chickenshits kicking the big guy in the balls when he's not looking is ok, but when the big guy gets pissed off and starts looking for guilty parties, he's the bad one.

One has to admit it's rather sad the US has to extent it's reach so far to deal with such problems, but the nearby neighbors won't or can't do anything.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:40 am**

Robert Walper wrote:You'd seriously support a preemptive nuclear strike at this point? I just don't see how the US could do that and survive the bad publicity.

Talk about a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

I was refering to his more rational belief that we may have to simply mount a crushing strategic bombing campaign to effectively wipe up the Iranian industrial base upon which the nuclear program rests. Not just the sites directly but essentially the technology base. I probably should have made that clear but I've had more discussions on the subject at DS before I left and forget that not everyone was present.

As for the whole preemptive action question: the question is really whether or not our will be preemptive or retaliatory. Iran is run by people that are pathlogically insane. Given that moderate Muslims, posting on SD.net no less, have said that Allah can protect them from American ICBMs, I believe that we have to take seriously the extremist's rhetoric Certainly when dealing with people as religiously addled as the Mullahs, take no chances. The detterance factor is at best seriously reduced and quite possibly eliminated entirely. That makes Iran far more dangerous than even some of the weirdo nations like the Norks. The Iranians just might believe they can get away with it.

As for preemptive nuking, if it comes down to an us versus them, I have no problem with saying we should strike first. It damn well better be right but I can live with the idea of a US strike first policy. If we had an ABM system in place, that might change. But I'd rather live with the hate than see a US city vanish in a nuclear fireball.

Robert Walper wrote:I never could understand people's inability to comprehend that being militarily powerful does not equate "bad". Apparently small chickenshits kicking the big guy in the balls when he's not looking is ok, but when the big guy gets pissed off and starts looking for guilty parties, he's the bad one.

Welcome to Liberal Guilt, it's the religion the 21st Century.

Robert Walper wrote:One has to admit it's rather sad the US has to extent it's reach so far to deal with such problems, but the nearby neighbors won't or can't do anything.

Like I said, if I knew it was Europe and only Europe that would get nuked, I'd be the first to say let them pay by the millions of dead for their own folly. They clubbed us behind the knees during the Cold War, they're doing it now the in the War on Terror, and I'm sure they'll keep on doing it. For once I'd like to see them have to deal with their own problems instead of cynically letting us shoulder the burden then turning around and condemning us.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:56 am**

Like I said, if I knew it was Europe and only Europe that would get nuked, I'd be the first to say let them pay by the millions of dead for their own folly.

That's... just...

Sickening.

So, tell me, would you truly kill millions of people because they don't swear allegiance to the USA's method of thought?

I'd continue further but this entire topic of conversation leaves a rather foul taste in my mouth.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:59 am**

Wee, Europe doesn't do everything the big bad US wants, so they deserve to die! Sure, they disagree about the Iran problem, and it's quite troubling, but they surely don't deserve death over it.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:01 am**

Lord Stormbringer wrote:
Robert Walper wrote:You'd seriously support a preemptive nuclear strike at this point? I just don't see how the US could do that and survive the bad publicity.

Talk about a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
I was refering to his more rational belief that we may have to simply mount a crushing strategic bombing campaign to effectively wipe up the Iranian industrial base upon which the nuclear program rests. Not just the sites directly but essentially the technology base. I probably should have made that clear but I've had more discussions on the subject at DS before I left and forget that not everyone was present.

Well, I read shep solution" and the first thing that came to mind was "carpet nuking".

As to the rest, I agree fully.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:03 am**

Ra wrote:Wee, Europe doesn't do everything the big bad US wants, so they deserve to die!

I don't believe that's what he's implying. Merely that Europe seems to take it's security for granted, and doesn't seem to do much from what I can tell.

As I see it, the US gets bitched out for dealing with threats in the region. But I have no doubt they'd get bitched out if they didn't do anything either.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:16 am**

Folks, I guess we're talking under the assumption that Iran would be nuking its neighbor very soon, but the question is; how likely Iran is actually going to do such thing? Frankly, I haven't been updated about the progress in Iran, but is the country has been progressing towards more moderate stance? You know, anti-Mullah demonstration (where they burned the French flag) and such.

Mind you, India and Pakistan are also developing nuclear, and they're practically arch-enemies to each other. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess some local nuclear war would be more likely to happen on that region instead of Iran nuking Europe.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:19 am**

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:Folks, I guess we're talking under the assumption that Iran would be nuking its neighbor very soon, but the question is; how likely Iran is actually going to do such thing? Frankly, I haven't been updated about the progress in Iran, but is the country has been progressing towards more moderate stance? You know, anti-Mullah demonstration (where they burned the French flag) and such.

Mind you, India and Pakistan are also developing nuclear, and they're practically arch-enemies to each other. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess some local nuclear war would be more likely to happen on that region instead of Iran nuking Europe.

Countries who want a dozen or more nuclear weapons on hand doesn't worry me all that much.

It's individuals who only want one that terrify me.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:38 am**

Dakarne wrote:That's... just...

Sickening.

If millions of dead sicken you, good. Perhaps you'll start thinking about what your own country can do to avoid it.

Dakarne wrote:So, tell me, would you truly kill millions of people because they don't swear allegiance to the USA's method of thought?

I'd continue further but this entire topic of conversation leaves a rather foul taste in my mouth.

It has nothing to do with the US's method of thought; they can be pacifist hippies and socilist nutballs for all I care. What it has to do is the fundamental European renunaciation of it's obligation to defend itself. For over six decades now Europe has increasingly relied on the US to protect it from the nasties of the world. At the same time reducing their own ability to defend themselves, making us shoulder an even greater burden. If you don't believe me, compare the military of almost any European nation with what it has presently. Almost all have gone through serious decline, despite the Cold War threat of the Soviets.

And let's not forget the constant criticism the US gets for Imperialism, often from taking action that benefitted the NATO side in the Cold War. Yet they hold themselves above such matters with lofty disdain, prefering to let the US dirty itself. Frankly, that's been the pattern for much of the Cold War and it's looking like it'll be the same for the War on Terror.

I think it Europe won't defend itself, we shouldn't do it for them. If they pay for that, and they will, then it's on their heads.

Ra wrote:Wee, Europe doesn't do everything the big bad US wants, so they deserve to die! Sure, they disagree about the Iran problem, and it's quite troubling, but they surely don't deserve death over it.

If Europe refuses to defend itself, then they can pay the price. If that means they die, it's their own fault. The defense of one's citizens is a fundamental obligation of a nation-state; Europe has attempted to impose that burden on the US. Sadly, we've fallen for it.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:46 am**

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:Folks, I guess we're talking under the assumption that Iran would be nuking its neighbor very soon, but the question is; how likely Iran is actually going to do such thing? Frankly, I haven't been updated about the progress in Iran, but is the country has been progressing towards more moderate stance? You know, anti-Mullah demonstration (where they burned the French flag) and such.

The reform myth is mostly bullshit.

1) The mullahs, the same cabal of crazies, is running the country that has since the days of the Iranian Revolution. No improvement there.

2) They just elected an major player in the Iranian Hostage Crisis to the Presidency. This guy is an extreme hard-line, hard-core Islamo-nationalist. So much for the youth voting in reformers.

3) Said wack-job President has declared that Israel and the US must be wiped off the map. He's a Holocaust denying, Jew hating, wack-a-loon who genuinely appears to buy into this shit.

4) Have we forgot that Iran is the largest supporter of Islamic state terror out there?

Combine with the length Muslim fanaticism can go (remember Shadow Cat's Allah would stop ICBMs shtick? He's a moderate) and I think the answer is "all too likely." Iran is a genuine theocracy; it's run by fanatics with serious delusions of being God's Chosen and Protected. The situation is such that allowing them nukes is simply unacceptably likely to see them used.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:48 am**

Lord Stormbringer wrote:If Europe refuses to defend itself, then they can pay the price. If that means they die, it's their own fault. The defense of one's citizens is a fundamental obligation of a nation-state; Europe has attempted to impose that burden on the US. Sadly, we've fallen for it.

Actually, I wouldn't say America's obligation to defend others puts America in a bad light.

But you're certainly right. Nations should make every effort to defend themselves, or at least contribute the best they can to their defense.

Linking arms and singing together for world peace may be a great idea for the world. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world, and quite likely never will.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:57 am**

Robert Walper wrote:Actually, I wouldn't say America's obligation to defend others puts America in a bad light.

Given the attitudes of pricks like Keevan Colton or Weemadando or Elfdart, I'd say it certainly has.

Robert Walper wrote:But you're certainly right. Nations should make every effort to defend themselves, or at least contribute the best they can to their defense.

I agree.

And Europe has not nearly lived up to the do the best they can part. Out of pure cynical manuvering they have forces the US to shoulder that load.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:37 pm**

Ahhh, the unmistakably noise of 'Wank wank wank, bomb them!' in the morning.

Let's look at the sheer stupidity of this in terms of consequences, shall we? Oh, I realize the pea-brained advocates will prattle on with mind-numbingly bad analogies and declarations that I somehow support the Mullahs, but we'll tackle their fallacious bullshti when they post it.

1) Strategic Bombing Campaign: Nuclear Infrastructure.

Result: Growth of anti-American and anti-West feelings. Solidifies Iranian society against what reform groups remain. They just start building new facilities.

2) Nuclear strikes: Nuclear infrastructure.

Result: Same as above, worldwide diplomatic backlash against US.

3) Strategic Bombing: Total War.

Result: Iranian military heads across Iraqi border to strike at stretched and already occupied American military forces. Same as above SBC, plus diplomatic backlash. Worldwide economic crash as major oil producer is bombed to crap.

4) Nuclear Strikes: Total War.

Result: All of the above. Potential for retaliation strike. Worldwide economy? Assfucked.

The only way to actually stop them short of murdering everyone involved is to make reform happen. Of course, instead of learning jack nor shit about this, advocates of total war would prefer to declare it a myth because it doesn't fit their 'IRANIANS EVIL' views.

There was a reform movement. It got smacked down hard when America began acting really fucking belligerent; I wonder why? Would it be the same reason Dubya the Wonder Chimp hit 70% approval after 9/11?

Nah, that conclusion requires admitting the other guy is human. We must demonize them, or Shep and Stormy won't get their hardons from the death of millions!

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:45 pm**

Robert Walper wrote:Linking arms and singing together for world peace may be a great idea for the world. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world, and quite likely never will.

Over here in the real world, diplomacy has gotten a compromise on the table that keeps enrichment facilities out of Iran, yet allows them nuclear power.

Of course, it's better for someone's macho, internet tough-guy image to declare it's all singing 'Kum-Ba-Ya'.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:04 pm**

[quote"Stormy"]Given that moderate Muslims, posting on SD.net no less, have said that Allah can protect them from American ICBMs,[/quote]

Can I get a link on that? Ypu may PM it to me or post it either way.

Nitram wrote:There was a reform movement. It got smacked down hard when America began acting really fucking belligerent; I wonder why? Would it be the same reason Dubya the Wonder Chimp hit 70% approval after 9/11?

Nitram, the current holocuast denying ass got elected on an anti-corruption reform platform. After the bloody mullah's banned mass amounts of moderates from even running. This election may not have been fixed but the odds sure has hell were stacked. While American action may have figured into it (Not that I intend to apolgize to fucking Iran for any of mine or anyone else's actions post 911 mind you) there are plenty of other factors.

Moving on, Gents it won't be Europe that gets the bomb. What would be the point of bombing Europe? You'll only get the US angry and bombs will fall. They won't bomb Iraq, to close and they're still hoping to win the old fashioned way there, by Iranian elements on the ground. They can't reach far enough to hit the US proper. Their most likey target, their only real target is Isreal.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:07 pm**

frigidmagi wrote:
Nitram wrote:There was a reform movement. It got smacked down hard when America began acting really fucking belligerent; I wonder why? Would it be the same reason Dubya the Wonder Chimp hit 70% approval after 9/11?
Nitram, the current holocuast denying ass got elected on an anti-corruption reform platform. After the bloody mullah's banned mass amounts of moderates from even running. This election may not have been fixed but the odds sure has hell were stacked. While American action may have figured into it (Not that I intend to apolgize to fucking Iran for any of mine or anyone else's actions post 911 mind you) there are plenty of other factors.

You're right, there are. But encouraging folks to side with an extremist whose anti-West is not going to contribute to helping the problem.

Moving on, Gents it won't be Europe that gets the bomb. What would be the point of bombing Europe? You'll only get the US angry and bombs will fall. They won't bomb Iraq, to close and they're still hoping to win the old fashioned way there, by Iranian elements on the ground. They can't reach far enough to hit the US proper. Their most likey target, their only real target is Isreal.

I still doubt it. The Mullahs know if anything goes bang close to Israel they face the evil Zionists own nuclear arsenal. Which means no more Mullahs in power. Yes, people love to wank off to the idea of fundamentalists in power. The cult leader never drinks the kool aid.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:20 pm**

I trust the Mullah's grasp on reality about has much has I trust a terrorist on a plane.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:30 pm**

frigidmagi wrote:I trust the Mullah's grasp on reality about has much has I trust a terrorist on a plane.

Fun for rhetoric, but these guys are coherent, cognizant, and crafty enough to have manipulated themselves into very safe positions of power. Frankly, that takes intelligence and sanity. People love to talk about the irrationality of these people, especially with the anti-Israeli rhetoric they spew, but it's whipping their base into action, the same way the GOP talked about banning gay marriage to get votes, here in the States.

Hell, given that a variety of laws of physics and engineering realities means an optimally equipped plan would take three or more years to produce the needed weapons material, it could all be a plan to solidify their position by ensuring lots of threats to Iran, thus anti-west sentiment.

Of course, this theory is conjured mostly by looking at what data has come out about their enrichment techniques and UF4->UF6 conversion processes. In short, they blow.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:24 pm**

SirNitram wrote:Fun for rhetoric, but these guys are coherent, cognizant, and crafty enough to have manipulated themselves into very safe positions of power. Frankly, that takes intelligence and sanity.

I would point out that Osama bin Laden had a position of power and relative safety in Afghanistan. But he convinced himself, and this is on record, that the godless, divided, and weak Americans wouldn't mount a real counter attack. Or that the Japanese thought that we wouldn't stomach a real war after Pearl Harbor. May I also remind you of Hitler's belief he could take on the entire world?

Safe in positions of power or not, when you wed irrational dogma to king sized egos and immesnse power things go badly. There is a long track record of leaders seeing the world how they want it to be and not how they are. I prefer not to trust the rationality of a bunch of fundamentalist dirt bags.

SirNitram wrote:Hell, given that a variety of laws of physics and engineering realities means an optimally equipped plan would take three or more years to produce the needed weapons material, it could all be a plan to solidify their position by ensuring lots of threats to Iran, thus anti-west sentiment.

And the US screwed around with North Korea long enough they now have nuclear weapons. Iran's certainly doing to the same dance. Why give them the time?

As for anti-west sentiment, they're nothing new. And they've shown a willingness to turn it into terrorist acts before. Why trust them with nukes, again?

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:26 pm**

frigidmagi wrote:Moving on, Gents it won't be Europe that gets the bomb. What would be the point of bombing Europe? You'll only get the US angry and bombs will fall. They won't bomb Iraq, to close and they're still hoping to win the old fashioned way there, by Iranian elements on the ground. They can't reach far enough to hit the US proper. Their most likey target, their only real target is Isreal.

That doesn't mean that things can't change. North Korean can now hit the West Coast and parts significantly inland. Iran is likely to work on matching nuclear weapons to truly intercontinental missles; North Korea certain has done so.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:30 pm**

SirNitram wrote:
Robert Walper wrote:Linking arms and singing together for world peace may be a great idea for the world. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world, and quite likely never will.
Over here in the real world, diplomacy has gotten a compromise on the table that keeps enrichment facilities out of Iran, yet allows them nuclear power.

Of course, it's better for someone's macho, internet tough-guy image to declare it's all singing 'Kum-Ba-Ya'.

Did they accept it? Will they honor it? We've done the same song and dance with North Korea. And low and behold the Nork's got nukes. Negotiation is only worthwhile in so far as the parties involved can be trusted. Iran is certainly not to be trusted as they've already proven themself liars. They want nuclears weapons and they have shown no indication of honoring any deal that prevents that.

LibriumArcana.Games

Powers disagree over Iran crisis

#1 Powers disagree over Iran crisis

#2 Re: Powers disagree over Iran crisis

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18

#19

#20

#21

#22

#23

#24

#25