"Defeated in Baghdad, 'Old Europe' got its diplomatic revenge in Tehran."

The Europeans have achieved quite a feat, instead of the "Axis of evil" , they have taken the "Axis of peace" stance, they have accomplished without forcing any militaristic power over Iran to halt it's production of uranium enrichment and to allow inspectors into Iran, without having to go to the UN and get a sanction. In comparison to the US' tact with Iran, if you don't do what we say; your goners. That attitude has been proven to be a dangerous one, because instead of those states stopping production they increase it so they can build a deterrence even faster. How far has American policy gone? Frankly with US policy you get reactions like these:

Now it might seem as childish rhetoric’s, but never the less we are talking about a failed US policy that instead of making these nations more able to move around, rather constricts them in a corner like a rabid dog, and they will do anything to live. I think Europe has increased credibility then ever before, and she seems truly on the cusp to being a real international force, independent of the US.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Shouldn't you wait to see how such Euro intervention actually plays out before claiming Total Victory?

Ideology and Idiocy probably share the same root.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I regard it rather as a Victory for Teheran diplomacy than a European success. The Iranians managed to divide Europe and America AGAIN, by :

1. Promises that IAEA inspections can be held soon again (but we actually have to see how long it takes before inspectors actually set foot on iranian soil and the iranians by now might have some very hidden shit that the inspectors can't see)

2. The above promise was made only if Europe in turn promised to further help Iran with building its "peacefull" nuclear program DUH! Why would ANY oil country a nuclear program for energy ??? Dirt cheap oil is leaking from the ground, surely nucleair energy could never hope to compete with that on economical grounds alone. It looks like the iranians just ask Europe assistence to further help them build the bomb

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All in all I think the iranians are masters in buying time, time they need to make their final preparerations for their nuclear arsenal, so that they no longer can be bothered by American millitary supremacy???

it looks a bit like a replay of the WMD chessgame we had with Saddam, only this time there actually MIGHT BE WMD to be found

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am sorry Mr. Wolvowitz, you should have atacked Teheran first instead of Bagdad, now it looks like you not gonna get the billions and the political support to drag america in another fight...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Shouldn't you wait to see how such Euro intervention actually plays out before claimi

The victory Mr.G was the fact that the Europeans were able to convince the Iranians to allow intrusive IAEA inspections on their territory and not having to threaten it with a invasion. That is the victory being touted here, I don't know what you are talking about.

Vortexx

Victory for Teheran diplomacy than a European success

Yes you could very well see it in that light, but regardless here we have a nation that has hasn't given into the US demands for pretty much the same thing. Why? Because it was not dealing with a bellicose nation that has overtly put it on the chopping block. It is rather ignorant for the US to believe that threatening a nation to give up a deterrent is going to work.

Why would ANY oil country a nuclear program for energy ???

Ask the Shah of Iran... he was the one who started the nuclear energy program. Iran population has more then doubled and with increased electrical consumption, and distribution of energy to most of the country what else could Iran do? Now I think Iran could instead use her massive natural gas reserves, but remember Iran makes money selling oil, not consuming it. If I were a major oil producer I would try to make my economy try to be a green one, so I could sell more oil and make more money.

 

So what is different now than from the last 50 years. NK has always been willing to undertake war against the US.

I wonder if Tehran would have felt so inclined without the looming threat of an invasion behind it.

 

So what is different now than from the last 50 years. NK has always been willing to u

But this bellicose attitude hasn't been in the cards since the late 90's, actually NK was slowly opening up to the west, but the Axis of Evil has changed all that, what has changed is the fact that NK is actually being more belligerant then ever. So obviously the American policy to tame them has failed, do we disagree?

wonder if Tehran would have felt so inclined without the looming threat of an invasion behind it

There is a invasion plan? Do tell...

 

You mean you didn't know? Go figure. It's been the talk of Sciforums for weeks.

 

You mean you didn't know?

No I did not know, please show me quotes from administration officials and other sources to verify your claim of:

looming threat of an invasion

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're not alone in your self-imposed isolation from relativistically equivalent world-views.

 

Who said anything about administration? As far as other sources though:

Here's some of your sciforums chatter about a looming threat of an invasion.

 

Wow first time my posts been referenced, i feel so special ^_^.

 

While everyone debates whther this is a European diplomatic success or not I have a question.

Why can't Iran have a nuke if it wants one? India has one, Russia, does, Pakistan has got it and so does Israel. Why not Iran? Why don't we send the inspectors into Islamabad and Delhi?

They signed an agreement not to develop one, but as the Bush government has so conclusively shown, if you don't like an international treaty then just tear it up. Problem solved!

 

Apparently the IAEA is fearful that a lot of countries may act on that impulse.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/031030/1/3fg7u.html

 

Just out of curiosity how many of those 30/40 are on the Axis of Evil list?

Just asking beacause i'm sure most people will agree that if you found yourself on that list and were capable of creating a nuke within a month or so wouldn't you do just that and THEN go for diplomacy?

There would be a hell of a back lash with tounge lashing and finger poking but i'm sure the US would get some flak from the EU and world public over it as well as many will blame their policy for making WMD an attractive detterent to these nations.

As for the country now with them you would feel a bit safer as there wouldnt be any strike on you short of one aimed at taking out your ability to use this Nuke in one go before you can retaliate with it and the currently overstretched US probably couldn't manage it and the EU Coallition probably wouldn't pull it off so you could carry on giving out assurances (Not that anyone will care tbh) that its purely a defence and sit back churning out more whilst pushing for more....even sided resolutions and measures?

I don't hope for this to happen!! i'm for getting rid of all of the damned things (that won't happen in my life time i doubt).

But i just can't help feeling that most of the countries out there given the option to go for diplomacy or diplomacy backed by MAD would go for the latter.

 

Spyke

That still doesn't mean shit, it's a sci thread... you said looming threat of invasion can you substantiate that by independent sources, and those within the US administration, if you can't your point is moot.

Psycho-Cannon

Your right, very rarely if ever really has strong armed diplomacy ever worked. To any logical person a nation that is on the verge of having a deterrent would pursue it so those strong armed tactics can't be used again. The war in Iraq has shown how disastrous American policy is, the Isolation that Mr.G was talking about is very much a well put description of American policy.

 

There is no real looming threat of an invasion. Only the one that has been speculated on by many, including members of Sciforums, because Iran is on the Axis of Evil list. And the fact that they are on the same list that Iraq was on has likely registered in Tehran. Nobody that I'm aware of in the US administration has said any such thing. What's funny though is that with all your insistance for a source, it is you who basically implied as much yourself early in this thread when you said:

"Yes you could very well see it in that light, but regardless here we have a nation that has hasn't given into the US demands for pretty much the same thing. Why? Because it was not dealing with a bellicose nation that has overtly put it on the chopping block. It is rather ignorant for the US to believe that threatening a nation to give up a deterrent is going to work.

Threatening a nation with what, if not an invasion? Duh.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No because I said threat you said looming meaning two different things. You insinuated that it will happen, I said it may. There is the difference.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You can attempt to split that hair as finely as you can get it, but it doesn't change your implication that the US was threatening Iran with invasion, whether you attack 'looming' to it or not. My comment was merely that with all the wild speculation by anti-Americans, including those here such as yourself, Iran might feel that the possibility of an invasion was a real possibility. But go a head and continue to try and distance yourself from the meaning of what you implied if it makes you feel better.

 

I am not anti-American whom are you to decide what I am? Secondly it's really quite simple you said what u said, you meant invasion was going to happen, and now that you can't sustain that claim you are reverting to ad homing me. Splitting hairs...eh? Well what is there to split when it is overtly in my face telling me that invasion is going to happen. Either you’re in a state of reality suppression and not willing to accept what you meant, or you’re going to ad nauseam this thing so it makes sense to you. Don’t make up semantics, it rather pathetic even more then sciforums as a independent source.

 

I stand corrected. I should have said you're anti-Bush. FTR, so am I, but that's beside the point.

That's your own problem with comprehension, or interpretation, whichever the case. Speaking of the threat of an invasion as possibly influencing the Iranians to comply with the Europeans is not "overtly in [your] face" saying that "an invasion is going to happen." Now you're actually trying to say I said there would be an invasion if the Iranians didn't comply. Nice try, but no. All I ever implied was that the threat was there. You asked where I got such info and I noted that you could get it right here on Sciforums, which I linked, including your own comments, which is what makes it so damn funny.