Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Iranian (does not) suspend 20% nuclear enrichmentFollow

QuoteReply
#1 Nov 03 2012 at 11:15 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1680481127345
View User Forum
Sage
******
21,262 posts
How's that hopey changey stuff workin' out for ya now?

Alarabiya.net wrote:
Iran has suspended 20-percent uranium enrichment in order to have Western-imposed sanctions lifted, a parliament member told Al Arabiya on Saturday.

Earlier, Foreign Policy and National Security Commission of Parliament Mohammad Hossein Asfari told ISNA news agency that Tehran’s move was a “good will” gesture, hoping that Western countries will lift their sanctions on Tehran.

Fereydoun Abbasi, head of Iran’s atomic energy organization, told ISNA on Oct.31 that Tehran was completing the installation of centrifuges at Fordow uranium enrichment plant.

Twenty percent uranium enrichment is thought to be only a short step toward nuclear-grade enrichment.


Maybe Obama will have earned his Nobel Peace Prize by the end of his second term after all. Smiley: laugh

Or not.

Edited, Nov 4th 2012 9:15am by catwho
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#2 Nov 04 2012 at 12:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Kaolian
View User Forum
Leet Haxör
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
In a related level of likelyhood of actually occuring in a meaningful long term fashion, who wants an invite to my upcoming marriage to that billionaire supermodel that also likes airplanes and is totally into computer nerds?

____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#3 Nov 04 2012 at 12:55 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
In a related level of likelyhood of actually occuring in a meaningful long term fashion, who wants an invite to my upcoming marriage to that billionaire supermodel that also likes airplanes and is totally into computer nerds?


I dunno, the sanctions really area crippling Iran's eco. Maybe they finally feel they have no choice but to cooperate. The deeper question is whether they seek to resume in the absence of a watchful eye, and how close they'll allow inspectors to verify their claims.

ETA: Iran knows they have a better shot at dealing with Obama diplomatically than Romney. It's very likely this is Iran doing Obama an election favor in hopes that he won't bring the hammer down on them for another 4 years.


Edited, Nov 4th 2012 1:59am by BrownDuck
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#4 Nov 04 2012 at 4:07 AM Rating: Default
Palpitus1
Avatar
**
326 posts
Only an Al Arabiya link to this news? Color me slightly skeptical. Plus color me confused, since the IAEA apparently never confirmed that Iran was even close to 20%. And various US agencies declared that Iran was not close to nuclear enrichment, nor has a nuclear program.

Plus color me laughing out loud at your giggles over a momentous Obama victory. Iranian citizens are starving to death due to sanctions. If this news is true, great for Israel and the US. But even if true, do you seriously think sanctions will be lifted? They will not be lifted. How naive are you?

And a final obvious link. Half a million Iraqi children died to US sanctions in the '90s. Madeline Albright said this was "worth it". What a bunch of ******* amoral murderous imperialist beasts you are.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#5 Nov 04 2012 at 4:18 AM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
Half a million Iraqi children died to US sanctions in the '90s. Madeline Albright said this was "worth it". What a bunch of @#%^ing amoral murderous imperialist beasts you are.


Obviously we should have invaded them a long time ago. Death by military might is far more humane than sanction-related poverty and starvation.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#6 Nov 04 2012 at 4:28 AM Rating: Default
Palpitus1
Avatar
**
326 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
Half a million Iraqi children died to US sanctions in the '90s. Madeline Albright said this was "worth it". What a bunch of @#%^ing amoral murderous imperialist beasts you are.


Obviously we should have invaded them a long time ago. Death by military might is far more humane than sanction-related poverty and starvation.


Of course, we instead armed them for an '80s war with Iran instead. Iran, whose democratic leader we *********** in order to reinstall friendly dictator Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

So...yeah, we basically invaded them a long time ago, destroying their democratic ambitions in favor of a despot, whom the citizens and Islamists overthrew in order to bring about a new despotism. Great job!
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#7 Nov 04 2012 at 6:54 AM Rating: Decent
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
What a bunch of @#%^ing amoral murderous imperialist beasts you are.

...and what a self-righteous ignoramus you are.

Iraq /= Iran. Sanctions don't kill people- starvation, war, hunger, violence disease kill people. If you don't like the middle-eastern news source read about it in one of your friendlier white-man publications.

Your' broad sweeping accusations and old news bear no relevancy to the op.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#8 Nov 04 2012 at 7:14 AM Rating: Default
Palpitus1
Avatar
**
326 posts
Elinda wrote:
Iraq /= Iran. Sanctions don't kill people- starvation, war, hunger, violence disease kill people.


LOL. Are you seriously entirely ignorant of the effects of economic sanctions on indigenous populuations? Or the comparison of sanctions leading to deaths on the two countries? WTF

"Guns don't kill people. Tutsis and Hutus kill people." So, as thus, let's just not pay attention to African genocide. Because, like, just GUNS are guilty!

Quote:
If you don't like the middle-eastern news source read about it in one of your friendlier white-man publications.


Just saying this was rather bizarre news and not at all factual. So yeah, skepticism. Update a properly cited Western article too, please.

Btw.... http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=290384

Quote:
Iran is not suspending 20 percent uranium enrichment in its nuclear program, the Fars news agency reported on Sunday.

The semi-official news agency cited an "informed source" as saying "20 percent uranium enrichment activities continue as before and no change has happened."


Quote:
Your' broad sweeping accusations and old news bear no relevancy to the op.


My reponse was towards the effects of sanctions, which the OP and perhaps you perversely delights in, on actual humans, of which half a million human children died in Iraq, and which half a million may die in Iran. If you don't give a **** about them, just say so. If you're an amoral nationalist, just say so.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#9 Nov 04 2012 at 7:36 AM Rating: Default
Palpitus1
Avatar
**
326 posts
Seriously. Is this:

Quote:
Maybe Obama will have earned his Nobel Peace Prize by the end of his second term after all. (happy laughing face)


Irony? Meta-irony? That Obama will earn the Peace Prize by sanctioning to death thousands of Iranians and banking on false news reports of Iran capitulating? And this is occassion for a laughing smiley face emoticon? The ****?

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#10 Nov 04 2012 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1680481127345
View User Forum
Sage
******
21,262 posts
Obama's peace prize was awarded towards his efforts for a nuclear-free world.

If he had been awarded it for anti-poverty efforts, I wouldn't have included the smiley face.

Guardian UK says Iran is denying it now, anyway:

Guardian UK wrote:
Iran's state media has denied reports that Tehran had suspended the enrichment of uranium at 20% in a goodwill gesture ahead of talks with the world's major powers.

"Twenty percent uranium enrichment activities continue as before and no change has happened," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted an unnamed source as saying on Sunday.

On Saturday night, Iranian MP Mohammad Hassan Asafari was misquoted by opposition websites and the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya as saying that Tehran had already stopped 20% enrichment. Asafari had only signalled in his comments to Iran's Isna news agency that Iran would be ready to temporarily stop enrichment to 20% if sanctions were lifted.


Edited, Nov 4th 2012 10:29am by catwho
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#11 Nov 04 2012 at 8:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Palpitus1 wrote:
"Guns don't kill people. Tutsis and Hutus kill people."

...with machetes!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#12 Nov 04 2012 at 9:12 AM Rating: Decent
Debalic
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
Half a million Iraqi children died to US sanctions in the '90s. Madeline Albright said this was "worth it". What a bunch of @#%^ing amoral murderous imperialist beasts you are.


Obviously we should have invaded them a long time ago. Death by military might is far more humane than sanction-related poverty and starvation.

But being gassed by your own government really is the pinnacle.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#13 Nov 04 2012 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1630282721753
View User Forum
Sage
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
Iraq /= Iran. Sanctions don't kill people- starvation, war, hunger, violence disease kill people. If you don't like the middle-eastern news source read about it in one of your friendlier white-man publications.


If you're trying to say that sanctions don't necessarily kill people then you chose the worst possible way to say it, partly because of some horrendous phrasing and partly because you compare them with several other things that don't necessarily kill either. That's the most charitable reading of this I can make.

Quote:
If you don't like the middle-eastern news source read about it in one of your friendlier white-man publications.


In retrospect, given that it's not true, this makes you look foolish and petulant.

Quote:
Your' broad sweeping accusations and old news bear no relevancy to the op.


It's not really a 'sweeping accusation' to suggest the Iraq sanctions killed enormous amounts of people. There's mountains of evidence. Several prominent figures at the UN resigned over it at the time.

As for relevancy, I think it's wholly relevant to point out that sanctions are not necessarily a 'soft' option relative to invasion or military strike.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#14 Nov 05 2012 at 7:22 PM Rating: Default
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Did anyone really think differently?

Guardian UK wrote:
Iran's state media has denied reports that Tehran had suspended the enrichment of uranium at 20% in a goodwill gesture ahead of talks with the world's major powers.

"Twenty percent uranium enrichment activities continue as before and no change has happened," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted an unnamed source as saying on Sunday.

On Saturday night, Iranian MP Mohammad Hassan Asafari was misquoted by opposition websites and the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya as saying that Tehran had already stopped 20% enrichment. Asafari had only signalled in his comments to Iran's Isna news agency that Iran would be ready to temporarily stop enrichment to 20% if sanctions were lifted.



As in "You stop sanctions first, then we'll stop enrichment". Of course, we all know that once sanctions are lifted, they'll find some reason to continue enriching, and it'll take 5 more years to get sanctions applied again. Which is why they're making the offer in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
#15Palpitus1, Posted: Nov 06 2012 at 2:09 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Well, the sanctions are rather overkill (literally) on a failure to meet NPT standards. But yes, you're correct. Perhaps like Pakistan they'll keep dancing until they acquire a nuke, then after they do perhaps the US will give them billions of dollars as they have Pakistan in order to stage there to invade Syria or Ossetia or North Sudan or some other non-nuke weak state that we laughably think we can roll over, instead of invading Iran. And also of course, those sanctions that killed a million Iraqis sure won over random Iraqis to Western democracy (not), so it should work just as well in Iran.
QuoteReply
#16 Nov 06 2012 at 9:02 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1690762604546
Sage
*****
16,160 posts
Lol, Catho, please tell me you didn't just fall off the turnip truck and actually think that Iran was about to mend their wicked, wicked ways? Oh my, aren't you just delightfully precious what with your pathologically liberal persistent optimism about our enemies!
/chuckles condescendingly

Totem
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#17 Nov 06 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1680481127345
View User Forum
Sage
******
21,262 posts
Totem wrote:
Lol, Catho, please tell me you didn't just fall off the turnip truck and actually think that Iran was about to mend their wicked, wicked ways? Oh my, aren't you just delightfully precious what with your pathologically liberal persistent optimism about our enemies!
/chuckles condescendingly

Totem


Of course I'm an optimist. That's why I'm a generally happy person.
▲ Page top
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 386 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (386)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC