Iran: P5+1 Overcomes American Enemies, Achieves Nuclear Pact

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Jul 14, 2015.

Page 6 of 13
  1. GeoffP

    GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    On the subject of the Iranian deal and nuclear power and inspections...

    Iran says will ban US experts from UN nuclear inspections

    TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran will not allow American or Canadian inspectors working for the U.N. nuclear watchdog to visit its nuclear facilities, an official said in remarks broadcast by state TV on Thursday.

    Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran will only allow inspectors from countries that have diplomatic relations with it. The previously undisclosed remarks were made during a Sunday meeting with parliamentarians.

    "American and Canadian inspectors cannot be sent to Iran," said Araghchi. "It is mentioned in the deal that inspectors should be from countries that have diplomatic relations with Islamic republic of Iran."

    ...

    http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-ban-us-experts-un-nuclear-inspections-162604987.html
    ​
    Is that true? If so, I suppose the deal is the deal - although banning the nation of the hero of the deal from sending inspectors is a curious juxtaposition with that historic triumph. More sabre-rattling, perhaps. One does enjoy a good rattle.
     
    GeoffP, Jul 30, 2015
    #101

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor

    sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,475
    Does the USA not have diplomatic relations with Iran?
     
    sculptor, Jul 30, 2015
    #102

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole

    joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Nope, not since 1979 when Iranians stormed the US embassy and took embassy workers hostage.
     
    joepistole, Jul 30, 2015
    #103

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole

    joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I think there needs to be some clarification here. Prices before, during, and after the Mosaddegh government were essentially unchanged. At the time 85% of global oil production was controlled by seven oil companies (i.e. The Seven Sisters). No one country had the ability to change production levels or effect oil pricing. Oil companies controlled all oil production globally. And no one nation could affect global production, supply or price. That began to change with the founding of OPEC in 1960. With the creation of OPEC the ability to control supply, production, and price moved from the oil companies (The Seven Sisters) to OPEC. The Shah (i.e. Iran) was a founding OPEC member and subsequently participated in the OPEC induced oil supply shocks of the 70's which drove oil prices through the roof.

    So the Shah wasn't an oil company stooge as he has so often been profiled in pop culture.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2015
    joepistole, Jul 30, 2015
    #104
  8. iceaura

    iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Shove your troll stick.
    It was an observation, not an argument. Your subsequent equivocation and now outright denial of your support of Joe's efforts, the nature of Joe's efforts, etc, is of something I'm just going to keep pointing out, not arguing. It's all right there in the little text windows.
    The observation was that you were supporting Joe's agitprop.
    That wasn't my issue here, and my issue was not confused. "The confusion" is an attempted creation of the agitprop you supported and support. . I'm objecting to the creation of "the confusion" by the US interests who want a military assault of Iran.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2015
    iceaura, Jul 31, 2015
    #105
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  9. joepistole

    joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    And what agitprop would that be exactly?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Let's talk about your agitprop and how you cannot support it with anything resembling a fact as you have been repeatedly challenged to do.
     
    joepistole, Jul 31, 2015
    #106
  10. joepistole

    joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Oh, sharing intelligence is common. It isn’t immoral, nor does it change the fact that Saddam’s territorial dispute with Iran and his decision to invade Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the US. The US didn’t give Saddam intelligence on “neighborhoods”. Why would that even be needed and how would American intelligence be better than Saddam’s intelligence? The only thing the US had that Saddam didn’t have were satellites and neighborhoods don’t move. The only thing American intelligence would have been able to tell Saddam was Iranian troop movement and there is nothing immoral in that. Doing things another country doesn't like isn't "abuse".

    The US installed Saddam? And where is the evidence to support that agitprop? You just keep digging the hole you are in deeper, but you do it zealously. I have to give you that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And you think that makes a difference…seriously? I suggest you get out your dictionary and read what has been written. You have been repeatedly challenged to back up your assertion and to date, you have not done so.
    Except, Bells has been rebutted and even if everything Bells stated were true and unmitigated and was actual abuse by the US, ignoring the fact that Iran was the aggressor in most of the incidents Bells cited and the US was acting in self-defense, that only accounts for 8 years out of the 62 year span your assertion covered. And if you actually read and understood what has been posted here, you should know that. Two, you really should stop with the personal attacks. It doesn’t impress anyone, nor is it intimidating any one, nor will it intimidate anyone.
    Actually, it’s quite apparent you don’t know what the words “continual” and means, along with some other words.

    Below for your edification is the Webster’s definition of the word “continual”:

    Proceedingwithoutinterruption or cesstaion; continuous; unceasing; lasting; abiding.
    He that is of a merryhearthath a continual feast. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/continual

    Maybe the bold and larger print will help with your reading compression. Additionally, when you make crazy ambiguous posts, you shouldn’t be surprised if they are not understood.
    LOL…and you get all that from my simple opinion that 62 years is a long time to hold a grudge? Crazy, unstable, incomprehensible, Kochworld, war monger, WOW, it doesn’t take much to send you off the deep end does it?
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2015
    joepistole, Jul 31, 2015
    #107
  11. iceaura

    iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    If one assumes that the interests of OPEC and the interests of Big Oil are opposed, there is a lot of mystery in the international politics of oil.

    Here's one, for example: OPEC was founded as, and largely consists of, an organization of client States of Western powers, primarily Britain and the US but in any case the same countries in which the Big Oil corporations were and are based. Major oil exporting countries that have not joined, such as Norway and Russia, tend to be likewise politically independent of the countries most influenced by Big Oil. Is it too cynical to notice, in this context, that OPEC's role in keeping oil prices high and preventing price wars or dealing with market gluts, cartel actions which Big Oil cannot perform without serious political repercussions and well-motivated legal attention for breaking the law, has been quite valuable to Big Oil ?

    Here's another: when Carlos the Jackal and his crew took the OPEC ministers hostage in 1975, the two ministers that he intended to simply kill rather than ransom were the Iranian and Saudi ones.

    If you don't know the basics of US relations with Iran and Iraq, Google is your friend.

    Followed by rambling about "intelligence" at some length. In response to post in which the word "intelligence", or any synonym, did not appear. (I have never been able to tell whether you actually think you are reading the stuff in my posts you claim is there).

    But the actual response would be "So?". Lots of things the US did to harm Iran are common including the various and significant ways in which the US supplied, guided, instigated, informed, Saddam's military assaults on Iran. There's a 62 year record of harmful US behaviors toward Iran, almost all of them common in this world.

    The online Webster's, world's least useful English dictionary, is full of such fatheaded attempts to define descriptively rather than prescriptively, but even there that is not "the definition" but rather one definition and not the principal one. For your edification (and I chose a gentle one, in which pejoratives do not appear), here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/continual

    The point is that my use of the word is intentional, and your continual alterations of my vocabulary are not accurate paraphrase.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2015
    iceaura, Jul 31, 2015
    #108
  12. GeoffP

    GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Something about that suggests to me you're hooked on some kind of sexual imagery about this, you dirty devil.

    Not if it isn't there, in the little text windows. You figure there's maybe a difference between supporting someone and admitting they might have a point about something? Am I supporting you now since I agree that Iran has a point? Point at whatever you want, I guess. If you point long and hard enough, you just might find that unicorn.

    I'm not convinced you know what any of that means.

    So you think, despite everything I've written, that I am backing agitprop for the purposes of the invasion of Iran, rather than expressing an opinion about the point that Iran might be partially pissed off at the original subjugation of their petroleum interests to the Americans. That's an impressive chip on your shoulder, there.
     
    GeoffP, Jul 31, 2015
    #109
  13. iceaura

    iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I said you supported Joe's agitprop, not Joe.
    I'm convinced you know the difference between supporting somebody's posted agitprop and either supporting them or "admitting they might have a point" - which means that sentence I quoted first was in bad faith, along with the bulk of your responses here.
    I think the role of the "crazy Iran" meme is to derail diplomacy and force at minimum a permanent military standoff, possibly a military assault or showdown of some kind. What your purpose is in supporting it is irrelevant to my response.
     
    iceaura, Jul 31, 2015
    #110
  14. joepistole

    joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    What's Joe's agitprop? Joe wants to know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    joepistole, Jul 31, 2015
    #111
  15. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Already did. It would help if you read the links provided instead of trolling by demanding more and more proof..

    It is interesting that you seem incapable of answering that question.

    That singular event destroyed a country politically and because of that event and its repercussions, it also destroyed it economically and turned it into a pariah state under constant threat of attack.

    Putting it all down to a single secular event is dismissing the realities of what happened, the thousands of lives lost and the forever altered political and economic landscape.

    Which was given and which you obviously have not read, cannot read because had you bothered to read the links provided, you would have seen that what he was saying is the truth. What do you do instead? Keep demanding more proof, keep rewriting history to suit and match your narrative and keep making personal insults and comments like asking me if I am his mother.

    Dismissing and ignoring the realities of why Iran is how it is today and calling it a straw man is why you are being accused of trolling.

    Taken us on? How so?

    By demanding proof, ignoring said proof and rattling off your personal version of history despite all evidence that you are wrong?
     
    Bells, Jul 31, 2015
    #112
  16. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    And this is you continuing to avoid the ridiculous argument you have made in this thread and trying to deny history and rewrite it.

    For example:

    Are you seriously defending US action in Iran 62 years ago?

    Really?

    The US and its allies destroyed Iran's chance of a democracy. Not just destroyed it, but obliterated it.

    This is openly acknowledged fact. And you are trying to defend it by resorting to the 'they were trying to stop the commies' style of argument?

    It had everything to do with oil and the Shah, being the US and British patsy that he was, signed away a large portion of the oil to the US.

    Middle East historian Ervand Abrahamian identified the coup d'état as "a classic case of nationalism clashing with imperialism in the Third World". He states that Secretary of State Dean Acheson admitted the "'Communist threat' was a smokescreen" in responding to President Eisenhower's claim that the Tudeh party was about to assume power.[97]

    Throughout the crisis, the "communist danger" was more of a rhetorical device than a real issue—i.e. it was part of the cold-war discourse ...The Tudeh was no match for the armed tribes and the 129,000-man military. What is more, the British and Americans had enough inside information to be confident that the party had no plans to initiate armed insurrection. At the beginning of the crisis, when the Truman administration was under the impression a compromise was possible, Acheson had stressed the communist danger, and warned if Mosaddegh was not helped, the Tudeh would take over. The (British) Foreign Office had retorted that the Tudeh was no real threat. But, in August 1953, when the Foreign Office echoed the Eisenhower administration's claim that the Tudeh was about to take over, Acheson now retorted that there was no such communist danger. Acheson was honest enough to admit that the issue of the Tudeh was a smokescreen.[97]​

    Abrahamian states that Iran's oil was the central focus of the coup, for both the British and the Americans, though "much of the discourse at the time linked it to the Cold War".[98] Abrahamian wrote, "If Mosaddegh had succeeded in nationalizing the British oil industry in Iran, that would have set an example and was seen at that time by the Americans as a threat to U.S. oil interests throughout the world, because other countries would do the same."[98] Mosaddegh did not want any compromise solution that allowed a degree of foreign control. Abrahamian said that Mosaddegh "wanted real nationalization, both in theory and practice".[98]    ​

    And the CIA documents supports this view:

    The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in his overthrow.

    On the 60th anniversary of an event often invoked by Iranians as evidence of western meddling, the US national security archive at George Washington University published a series of declassified CIA documents.

    "The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government," reads a previously excised section of an internal CIA history titled The Battle for Iran.

    The documents, published on the archive's website under freedom of information laws, describe in detail how the US – with British help – engineered the coup, codenamed TPAJAX by the CIA and Operation Boot by Britain's MI6.

    Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.

    British documents show how senior officials in the 1970s tried to stop Washington from releasing documents that would be "very embarrassing" to the UK.

    Official papers in the UK remain secret, even though accounts of Britain's role in the coup are widespread. In 2009 the former foreign secretary Jack Straw publicly referred to many British "interferences" in 20th-century Iranian affairs. On Monday the Foreign Office said it could neither confirm nor deny Britain's involvement in the coup.

    The previously classified US documents include telegrams from Kermit Roosevelt, the senior CIA officer on the ground in Iran during the coup. Others, including a draft in-house CIA history by Scott Kock titled Zendebad, Shah! (Viva, Shah!), say that according to Monty Woodhouse, MI6's station chief in Tehran at the time, Britain needed US support for a coup. Eden agreed. "Woodhouse took his words as tantamount to permission to pursue the idea" with the US, Kock wrote.

    Mosaddeq's overthrow, still given as a reason for the Iranian mistrust of British and American politicians, consolidated the Shah's rule for the next 26 years until the 1979 Islamic revolution. It was aimed at making sure the Iranian monarchy would safeguard the west's oil interests in the country.

    The archived CIA documents include a draft internal history of the coup titled"Campaign to install a pro-western government in Iran", which defines the objective of the campaign as "through legal, or quasi-legal, methods to effect the fall of the Mosaddeq government; and to replace it with a pro-western government under the Shah's leadership with Zahedi as its prime minister".

    One document describes Mosaddeq as one of the "most mercurial, maddening, adroit and provocative leaders with whom they [the US and Britain] had ever dealt". The document says Mosaddeq "found the British evil, not incomprehensible" and "he and millions of Iranians believed that for centuries Britain had manipulated their country for British ends". Another document refers to conducting a "war of nerves" against Mossadeq.

    The Iranian-Armenian historian Ervand Abrahamian, author of The Coup: 1953, the CIA and the Roots of Modern US-Iranian Relations, said in a recent interview that the coup was designed "to get rid of a nationalist figure who insisted that oil should be nationalised".

    Unlike other nationalist leaders, including Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, Mosaddeq epitomised a unique "anti-colonial" figure who was also committed to democratic values and human rights, Abrahamian argued.

    Some analysts argue that Mosaddeq failed to compromise with the west and the coup took place against the backdrop of communism fears in Iran. "My study of the documents proves to me that there was never really a fair compromise offered to Mosaddeq, what they wanted Mosaddeq to do is to give up oil nationalisation and if he'd given that of course then the national movement would have been meaningless," he told the Iranian online publication, Tableau magazine.    ​

    It was never about a communist threat and always about the US and the UK wanting to have control of the oil.
     
    Bells, Jul 31, 2015
    #113
  17. GeoffP

    GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    If I supported it, I'd have expressed complete support for his point, not a tentative middle ground.

    Grand Inquisitor, I think you're done here. See above. Calm down. Chill out. I get that some people want to bomb Iran. I'm not one of them. Instead of flailing about, maybe give the devil his due. All right?

    Again, in reference to the above, what exactly is crazy about suggesting that Iranian national outrage against the US is based in significant part on the Shah years? What would be crazy about such a sentiment itself, moreover?
     
    GeoffP, Jul 31, 2015
    #114
  18. iceaura

    iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Everything you've posted here starting with "if" has been bullshit.

    You did in fact support the agitprop meme I found objectionable. I called you on that. The rest has been noise.

    Nothing. Why don't you try and talk Joe into that, instead of wasting your time trying to walk back what I called - your backing of the "crazy Iran" agitprop meme currently (and for several years now) being used to derail diplomacy and stoke military confrontation?
     
    iceaura, Jul 31, 2015
    #115
  19. joepistole

    joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You have been asked, what is Joe's agitprop that you have been complaining about. So what is it exactly and where is it?
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2015
    joepistole, Jul 31, 2015
    #116
  20. GeoffP

    GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    There we go. Now we're getting somewhere. You figure Iran's a straight player, then. Of course. Nothing fishy in their local dealings. There isn't even a place called Baluchistan. No reason to watch them closely. This is Obama's legacy moment, and it certainly will lose a lot of its lustre if the Iranians play a little loose with the deal, or if we notice that they do, or even suspect that they might. This is Obama's legacy moment! Let's not fart in his party.

    You know, the mindless cheerleading on this really amazes me. You're not stupid, but you're very firm about backing total blindness. My critique of this comes down to "The Iranians are probably, given their history, going to try to cheat on this. Let's hold off declaring victory and, since I have been asked, there really are better deals possible." And, for you, that translates to "Hey, let's bomb the shit out of them." Nothing could be falser as a false dilemma: why, it's just the falsiest!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yay!

    Ice, make up your mind here: is it noise, or objectionable support of a call to war? Now, if you're complaining about skepticism: gee. Get used to it, I guess. I hardly know what to tell you here. The Iranians are already pushing back. (Why, it's as if they're trying to support the Republican agitprop!) If you'd rather not have any doubts, set up that lobotomy appointment. The world will probably look a lot rosier that way.

    Yes, yes: my personal skepticism will certainly ruin this deal. After all, having the ear of the President of the US as I surely do, I really have to be careful about my opinions. And it really does come down to this choice: be a booster, or send us to war. No middle ground. No room for discussion, and certainly none for suspicion of the fascist Iranian theocracy. Oops! I said it. Gee, that's just not helpful, I guess.

    Joe's right about this: it really does seem to have pushed your response on the issue right over the edge. Oops! I suppose that's just another call for the war I don't support. Buck up your ideas, please.
     
    GeoffP, Jul 31, 2015
    #117
    joepistole likes this.
  21. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    If you three have finished dismembering each other, perhaps we can get back to the thread's topic...

    A very interesting article on the GOP and their opposition to the deal itself shows that as always, follow the money..
     
    Bells, Jul 31, 2015
    #118
  22. sculptor

    sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,475
    war·mon·ger
    ˈwôrˌməNGɡər/
    noun
    noun: war-monger
    1. a sovereign or political leader or activist who encourages or advocates aggression or warfare toward other nations or groups.
    Militarism and military spending are everywhere and on the rise, as the new Cold War propaganda seems to be paying off. The new “threats” that are being hyped bring big profits to military contractors and the network of think tanks they pay to produce pro-war propaganda.

    Why is hate and distrust of the other such an easy sell?
    Or
    Have we been programmed to make it an easy sell?

    .................................
    This is NOT a scientific survey:

    I seem to have noticed that just before we engage in military aggression, the percentage of "war hero" movies on the television increases.
     
    sculptor, Jul 31, 2015
    #119
  23. p-brane

    p-brane Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    289
    Meh! (unless anti-semitism was involved, in which case meh!!!)

    .
     
    p-brane, Jul 31, 2015
    #120
    joepistole likes this.
Page 6 of 13

Share This Page