Obama's Iran talks

[Zoraptor]

I don't see the importance of this particular difference.

There isn't one in this context- Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, Assad in Syria, much of Iraq's population and the protesters in Bahrain are all (broadly speaking) pro Iranian yet are also arab. Ethnicity is a factor in the regional rivalries, but it's far less so than the sectarian divide because arabs are far more likely to be persecuted by their own ethnicity following a different sect than by Persians. Conversely, there are some Sunni 'Persians' (well, Baluchi, but they're about as similar to Persians as a Morrocan Maghreb arab is to a Syriac arab is to a Bedouin arab) who are supported by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

[Rostere]

Bruce, I honestly do not think Obama cares is Iran gets nuclear weapons or not. He just wants to be seen doing "something" about it. It makes no difference to him if the deal he agrees to is weak, non-binding, or if Iran is duplicitous. He just does not want history to say he did nothing. Obama is a perfect example of the modern bureaucratic dysfunction of the process being more important than the outcome.

 

Then what do you propose?

 

There are a lot of people talking, most of which do not seem to have any knowledge about the process of acquiring nuclear weapons. First off, both the CIA and Mossad agree on the point that Iran does not appear to have a nuclear weapons program going on. If you think you have a more accurate source of intelligence on the matter, please share it with me. Otherwise, you should stop talking about "Iran getting nuclear weapons". These negotiations are about civilian nuclear power, and the logistics behind them, for all we know.

 

Yes, that includes parts which would shorten the time for Iran to build a nuclear bomb, should they choose to do so. But these are things many other countries also have - Romania, Germany, South Korea, formerly Sweden and also Slovakia, the list goes on. Only suddenly did it become important that Iran should not have those facilities. This is a red line which is drawn completely arbitrarily. You could as well talk about how a professorship in subatomic physics can shorten the breakout time for building nukes, and hype that we should "prevent Iran's university program" because that would be also be realistic and viable in Republican la la land.

 

It's ridiculous at this point - not only is the proverbial emperor naked, but he is also rubbing his **** in your face. I vaguely remember Ahmadinejad raging about US politicians still talking about "preventing Iran's nuclear program" when they in 2010 were already at such a point that they could enrich as much uranium as needed for several bombs a year.

 

The best you can do is to accept all civilian installations in good faith and then institute maximum surveillance of these sites under a treaty. It's either war, a treaty, or nothing. If you choose "treaty" over "nothing" the only potential downside is lost prestige for Obama if the treaty fizzles. Thus mindlessly choosing "nothing" over "treaty" is, quote: a perfect example of the modern bureaucratic dysfunction of prestige loss being more important than the expected outcome.

[Raithe]

To counter-balance this with just a touch of humour..   <whistles innocently>
 
 

TEHRAN (The Borowitz Report)—Stating that “their continuing hostilities are a threat to world peace,” Iran has offered to mediate talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama.
 
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, made the offer one day after Iran received what he called a “worrisome letter” from Republican leaders, which suggested to him that “the relationship between Republicans and Obama has deteriorated dangerously.”

“Tensions between these two historic enemies have been high in recent years, but we believe they are now at a boiling point,” Khamenei said. “As a result, Iran feels it must offer itself as a peacemaker.”
 
He said that his nation was the “logical choice” to jumpstart negotiations between Obama and the Republicans because “it has become clear that both sides currently talk more to Iran than to each other.”
 
He invited Obama and the Republicans to meet in Tehran to hash out their differences and called on world powers to force the two bitter foes to the bargaining table, adding, “It is time to stop the madness.”
 
Hours after Iran made its offer, President Obama said that he was willing to meet with his congressional adversaries under the auspices of Tehran, but questioned whether “any deal reached with Republicans is worth the paper it’s written on.”
 
For their part, the Republicans said they would only agree to talks if there were no preconditions, such as recognizing President Obama’s existence.

(and yes, I know, it's a satire news report but it is damn amusing)

Edited March 11, 2015 by Raithe

[Malcador]

Ah, trolling in international affairs

[Guard Dog]

To counter-balance this with just a touch of humour..   <whistles innocently>

 

 

TEHRAN (The Borowitz Report)—Stating that “their continuing hostilities are a threat to world peace,” Iran has offered to mediate talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama.

 

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, made the offer one day after Iran received what he called a “worrisome letter” from Republican leaders, which suggested to him that “the relationship between Republicans and Obama has deteriorated dangerously.”

 

“Tensions between these two historic enemies have been high in recent years, but we believe they are now at a boiling point,” Khamenei said. “As a result, Iran feels it must offer itself as a peacemaker.”

 

He said that his nation was the “logical choice” to jumpstart negotiations between Obama and the Republicans because “it has become clear that both sides currently talk more to Iran than to each other.”

 

He invited Obama and the Republicans to meet in Tehran to hash out their differences and called on world powers to force the two bitter foes to the bargaining table, adding, “It is time to stop the madness.”

 

Hours after Iran made its offer, President Obama said that he was willing to meet with his congressional adversaries under the auspices of Tehran, but questioned whether “any deal reached with Republicans is worth the paper it’s written on.”

 

For their part, the Republicans said they would only agree to talks if there were no preconditions, such as recognizing President Obama’s existence.

(and yes, I know, it's a satire news report but it is damn amusing)

 

If Khamenei ever reads this he'll probably wish he'd thought of it!

 

 

Bruce, I honestly do not think Obama cares is Iran gets nuclear weapons or not. He just wants to be seen doing "something" about it. It makes no difference to him if the deal he agrees to is weak, non-binding, or if Iran is duplicitous. He just does not want history to say he did nothing. Obama is a perfect example of the modern bureaucratic dysfunction of the process being more important than the outcome.

 

Then what do you propose?

 

There are a lot of people talking, most of which do not seem to have any knowledge about the process of acquiring nuclear weapons. First off, both the CIA and Mossad agree on the point that Iran does not appear to have a nuclear weapons program going on. If you think you have a more accurate source of intelligence on the matter, please share it with me. Otherwise, you should stop talking about "Iran getting nuclear weapons". These negotiations are about civilian nuclear power, and the logistics behind them, for all we know.

 

Yes, that includes parts which would shorten the time for Iran to build a nuclear bomb, should they choose to do so. But these are things many other countries also have - Romania, Germany, South Korea, formerly Sweden and also Slovakia, the list goes on. Only suddenly did it become important that Iran should not have those facilities. This is a red line which is drawn completely arbitrarily. You could as well talk about how a professorship in subatomic physics can shorten the breakout time for building nukes, and hype that we should "prevent Iran's university program" because that would be also be realistic and viable in Republican la la land.

 

It's ridiculous at this point - not only is the proverbial emperor naked, but he is also rubbing his **** in your face. I vaguely remember Ahmadinejad raging about US politicians still talking about "preventing Iran's nuclear program" when they in 2010 were already at such a point that they could enrich as much uranium as needed for several bombs a year.

 

The best you can do is to accept all civilian installations in good faith and then institute maximum surveillance of these sites under a treaty. It's either war, a treaty, or nothing. If you choose "treaty" over "nothing" the only potential downside is lost prestige for Obama if the treaty fizzles. Thus mindlessly choosing "nothing" over "treaty" is, quote: a perfect example of the modern bureaucratic dysfunction of prestige loss being more important than the expected outcome.

 

Personally I think the notion that Iran is NOT trying to build nuclear weapons is a little naïve.  But as for what should be done about it I'm probably the last one on this board to ask because if it were up to me the US would involve itself in nothing east of Puerto Rico and west of Attu Island. If we did get dragged into a conflict outside those line it would end once the target country was utterly destroyed. None of this nation building madness. And US foreign aid would stop cold at both of those lines. If Israel was willing to take out Iranian facilities I would get out of their way and let them. I sure as hell would not threaten to shoot down allied aircraft the way the Idiot-on-the-Potomac did. But he never met an ally he loved or an enemy he hated.

 

If a treaty is useless, and most folks agree it is, why bother? If they di develop weapons and use them, and most agree if they had them they'll use them, then they will be wiped out. That at least would solve that problem.

 

Neville Chamberlain demonstrated for the whole world the value of a deal with the devil yet the same mistakes get made again and again.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Guard Dog

[Wrath of Dagon]

No you guys are horribly misinformed if you really consider Iran the same as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, there are many differences that include

lol, we're horribly misinformed?

 

Firstly Iranians aren't even Arabs, they are Persians

I didn't say anything about their race, I was talking about ideology. Also Iran comprises many ethnic groups, not just Persians, including Arabs.

Iran is a sovereign  and internationally recognized country, it has its own boarders and political aspirations. ISIS and AQ have none of these

IS has plenty of aspirations, and Iran's hegemonic aspirations is exactly what make them so dangerous. Iran is only internationally recognized because it was a state before the current terrorist regime came to power. US has no diplomatic relations.

Iran like every country has moderates and hardliners in its government. There are people in Iran that want peaceful  Uranium enrichment and an end to sanctions

You're smoking too much of your favorite substance. Certainly a lot of the population does want peace, but that doesn't matter to their rulers.

ISIS and AQ have no reasonable political objectives that any government will agree to

Neither does Iran, even if the Clown in the White House can't figure that out.

I'm not saying that Iran is is peaceful and benign country, there history and current activities have clearly demonstrated this is not the case

 

 But they really should  not be considered a country of irreconcilable Islamic extremists  because that view would be unhelpful to important peace negotiations 

 

The reality is you can negotiate with Iran and find compromise, you cannot negotiate with the likes of ISIS or AQ

Burying your head in the sand because you can't handle reality isn't a solution. You can certainly negotiate with Iran, they'll just string you along and do what they want in the meantime. We even have the recent example of N Korea to look at, as I already mentioned.

 

Edit: Btw, as far as them not really wanting nuclear weapons. They can buy low enriched uranium for any peaceful purposes far cheaper than the billions they're spending on their nuclear program. The only reason to have an enrichment program like theirs is to make weapons-grade Uranium.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Valsuelm]

So much irrational dislike for a nation that hasn't invaded anyone since before anyone currently living was born.

[Rostere]

Edit: Btw, as far as them not really wanting nuclear weapons. They can buy low enriched uranium for any peaceful purposes far cheaper than the billions they're spending on their nuclear program. The only reason to have an enrichment program like theirs is to make weapons-grade Uranium.

 

This is part false and part true.

 

They DO need enrichment plants to enrich uranium for their needs, considering they mine their uranium themselves.

 

HOWEVER, buying low-enriched uranium from elsewhere would probably make more economic sense. Brazil suggested a deal like this some years ago, but was shot down by the US, who at that time advocated a complete shutdown of the Iranian nuclear program.

 

At this point there is really no meaning in discussing this any more. They have had the enrichment plants up and running since 2010 and if they had wanted to, they would have HEU for dozens of bombs today. So if you are really saying that they should shut off their enrichment facilities and you are under the impression that Iran wants to make a nuclear bomb, it is already too late. They could be hiding any amount of HEU anywhere. So dismantling the enrichment facilities means nothing, which it appears the Obama administration has finally realized.

 

Personally I think the notion that Iran is NOT trying to build nuclear weapons is a little naïve.

 

Personally, I think you appear more than a little naïve. Why would you think they are building nuclear weapons? When you have no proofs, who are you listening to?

 

Mossad has said they do not have one. CIA has said they do not have one. Oh look, Guard Dog thinking he knows better than the Israeli and American intelligence services. Great job.

 

Can you get it into your head that the same guys who are saying "Iran will have nukes in the next few years" have been saying so since the early nineties? And that these were the same who fabricated "evidence" about Iraq (for which they should be hanged, drawn and quartered for treason)? The exact same people are now hawking about Iran's "nuclear weapons" with zero evidence for everything. Geez, I guess Netanyahu wasn't fooling about when he said in 2001 that the US is easily influenced. The exact same people are trying the exact same trick on you for the second time. I'd like to (not) paraphrase GWB and say that if they can fool you once, then same on them. If they fool you twice, then you're just plain ****ing retarded.

Anyways, this is rapidly approaching idiot level when you make statements such as that without proof. Next you will be saying that you are sure that god exists.

 

If a treaty is useless, and most folks agree it is, why bother?

 

Wrong. If the treaty lets international inspectors inspect Iranian sites at will, then we can be sure that no military nuclear program is initiated in the future.

 

As I have already said, if you believe Iran has pursued a military nuclear program from the beginning, then they could already have all the materials they need for all the nukes they will ever need. So in that case, even a complete dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program (which the Republicans have been calling a "good deal") will not be enough to be sure.

 

So as you see, a treaty like the current one is the best option because it is the only way we can learn to trust each other.

 

Neville Chamberlain demonstrated for the whole world the value of a deal with the devil yet the same mistakes get made again and again.

 

Yeah, because this is totally the same thing. The "good guys" postponing a war against the "bad guys". Nuanced American foreign policy insight at it's best :D.

 

The mere fact that you make this comparison, implicitly saying that Iran is "the devil" which cannot be dealt with peacefully demonstrates that you have more in common with the Iranian crackpot nationalists who are saying the same thing, than with moderates on either side.

 

Do you realize that "Neville Chamberlain demonstrated for the whole world the value of a deal with the devil yet the same mistakes get made again and again." is exactly the same argument that is made in Iran against this treaty?

[Guard Dog]

Wow Ros, I find your impassioned defense of Iran a little hard to understand. Maybe you're right and they are just harmless little fuzzy kittens and that whole state sponsorship of terrorism is nothing to worry about. But, whatever. Personally I could give a f--k what Iran thinks or does. I'd say the only two ways to deal with them is to wipe them out or leave them alone. Preferably the latter. IMO the US has no business involving itself in, as I stated, anything east of Puerto Rico or west of Attu. Treaty or no they'll either build weapons or they won't. If they do and use them that will probably be the end of them.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Personally I think the notion that Iran is NOT trying to build nuclear weapons is a little naïve.

 

Personally, I think you appear more than a little naïve. Why would you think they are building nuclear weapons? When you have no proofs, who are you listening to?

 

Mossad has said they do not have one. CIA has said they do not have one. Oh look, Guard Dog thinking he knows better than the Israeli and American intelligence services. Great job.

 

Can you get it into your head that the same guys who are saying "Iran will have nukes in the next few years" have been saying so since the early nineties?

 

They said "they don't have one now". That's not the same thing at all as saying they're not working on one. That's the same faulty logic you use throughout. They have vastly more centrifuges now then they did in early 90's. Their economy is all but collapsing. Why would they acquire so many centrifuges if they weren't trying to make a bomb? The same people were also saying N. Korea would get a nuke, and guess what, they were right. Edited March 13, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Personally I think the notion that Iran is NOT trying to build nuclear weapons is a little naïve.

 

Personally, I think you appear more than a little naïve. Why would you think they are building nuclear weapons? When you have no proofs, who are you listening to?

 

Mossad has said they do not have one. CIA has said they do not have one. Oh look, Guard Dog thinking he knows better than the Israeli and American intelligence services. Great job.

 

Can you get it into your head that the same guys who are saying "Iran will have nukes in the next few years" have been saying so since the early nineties?

 

They said "they don't have one now". That's not the same thing at all as saying they're not working on one. That's the same faulty logic you use throughout. They have vastly more centrifuges now then they did in early 90's. Their economy is all but collapsing. Why would they acquire so many centrifuges if they weren't trying to make a bomb? The same people were also saying N. Korea would get a nuke, and guess what, they were right.

 

 

We're talking about ~70 year old technology at this point. If a nation wants nukes, they'll get their hands on some.

 

North Korea's got nukes. Can't say I'm happy about it (I'd prefer no one had nukes), but it is what it is. The world hasn't ended.

 

Worrying about Iran getting nukes is retarded and counter productive if one wants to not see them fly. The very fact that there's so much hostility in the west towards Iran (in particular from the US, UK, and Israel) with all of the rhetoric by various politicians calling for military action against Iran pretty much creates a situation where Iran would be wise to get their hands on nukes for self defense.

 

Obviously just an opinion, but if I had to rank the nations in the world most likely to be the first fire off some nukes, here's the order I'd rank them (from most to least likely).

 

1. Israel

2. The U.S.

3. North Korea

4. One of the ex Soviet states ***

5. Iran, and pretty much everyone else

 

And that's just a list based on nations who admit they have nuclear weapons or it's generally accepted by most that they have them. I've little doubt that there are other nations out there that have nuclear weapons already and just haven't advertised it (for most nations there is little benefit of advertising it).

[Wrath of Dagon]

You know that Iran said they're going to wipe Israel off the map, right? Israel made no such statement about Iran.

 

Here's an article that goes over the math of uranium enrichment, among other things : http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414741/how-obama-giving-iran-nuclear-arsenal-robert-zubrin?target=author&tid=22670

[Valsuelm]

You know that Iran said they're going to wipe Israel off the map, right? Israel made no such statement about Iran.

 

Here's an article that goes over the math of uranium enrichment, among other things : http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414741/how-obama-giving-iran-nuclear-arsenal-robert-zubrin?target=author&tid=22670

 

Please find and link here some of the the supposed plethora of times that the Iranian leaders said they were going to 'wipe Israel off the map'. Primary sources only, not some western hack journalist or politician making accusations. Good luck.

 

And various politicians in the U.S. and Israel have been openly discussing attacking Iran for decades now. Bibi, being probably the most prominent and vocal one.

 

Iran hasn't invaded anyone in generations (unless we actually want to count The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a legitimate nation). It's been invaded multiple times in the last few generations, a few of those times by US allies or with US support, as well as had a US/UK sponsored coup overthrow it's government in 1953 to install their puppet Shah.

 

Iran has a far more legitimate reason to be concerned about other nations invading it, than other nations have legitimate reason to be concerned that Iran will invade them.

 

Also, it's high time that it's said in this thread that it's not 'Obama's treaty' as the article you link says. It's a treaty being drafted by the 'P5+1' along with Iran. It's no more 'Obama's treaty' than it is 'Putin's treaty' or 'Merkel's treaty'. A lot of people are involved in drafting it, and there's almost nothing but fictional BS being spouted in the mainstream media about it (such as blaming it on Obama). I suggest looking it up.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Volourn]

"Iran hasn't invaded anyone in generations"

 

L0L

[Rostere]

Here's an article that goes over the math of uranium enrichment, among other things : http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414741/how-obama-giving-iran-nuclear-arsenal-robert-zubrin?target=author&tid=22670

 

The article is mostly correct, but a few mendacities has snucked in.

 

Iran has significant uranium deposits and several large uranium mines. So when the article states that "[iran] could buy the 100,000 kilograms of natural uranium for $10 million, and have France or Russia enrich it for them at a cost of another $8 million, for a total price that is insignificant compared with the cost that current international sanctions are imposing on the country." this is technically true, but disregards the option and the history of them having the whole chain internally. Since earlier US efforts demanded a complete halt of nuclear activities, Iran has been forced to construct this entire chain of enrichment themselves. Now at this point, when they already have the entire infrastructure, it would be economic madness to import enriched uranium from France - considering (from a US perspective) that at this point Iran could already have enough HEU for as many bombs as they want, a dismantlement of the centrifuges is meaningless with regards to nuclear proliferation.

 

 

Personally, I think you appear more than a little naïve. Why would you think they are building nuclear weapons? When you have no proofs, who are you listening to?

 

Mossad has said they do not have one. CIA has said they do not have one. Oh look, Guard Dog thinking he knows better than the Israeli and American intelligence services. Great job.

 

Can you get it into your head that the same guys who are saying "Iran will have nukes in the next few years" have been saying so since the early nineties?

They said "they don't have one now". That's not the same thing at all as saying they're not working on one. That's the same faulty logic you use throughout. They have vastly more centrifuges now then they did in early 90's. Their economy is all but collapsing. Why would they acquire so many centrifuges if they weren't trying to make a bomb? The same people were also saying N. Korea would get a nuke, and guess what, they were right.

 

Pay attention! They are not saying that Iran does not have a nuke. They are saying that for all they know, Iran does not have a military nuclear program. The possibility exists that they will initiate a military nuclear program in the future, though, although I think it is unlikely barring some catastrophic event, considering the Islamists have already dismantled an existing military nuclear program in the 80s (inherited from the Shah) and forbidden it by Islamic law.

 

It's not an argument that because they have more centrifuges now than in the early nineties, they must be building a bomb.

 

Furthermore, I defer my judgment as to whether they are currently building a bomb or not to Mossad and CIA. If they are wrong, then so am I.

 

Has anyone been saying North Korea wouldn't get nukes if they could? I wasn't aware of that.

 

Wow Ros, I find your impassioned defense of Iran a little hard to understand.

 

It's not a defense of Iran, it's a defense of science and common sense in NPR matters.

 

Maybe you're right and they are just harmless little fuzzy kittens and that whole state sponsorship of terrorism is nothing to worry about.

 

I just made the argument that you fail to see anything else than "bad guys" and "good guys" and then you write this? By this rate, I won't need any actual arguments of my own, I only need to wait and watch you show your naïve view of foreign politics yourself.

 

The fact that they are (most likely) not currently having a military nuclear program does not make them "fuzzy kittens". I have not said so and you know it. I understand that you have a GI Joe view of the world where there only are "evil villains" and "fuzzy kittens" (evidently), and while this is sufficient for kindergarten-level discussion of foreign politics it is utterly inadequate for any adult subject of a modern democratic nation. Make an effort to educate yourself if you truly want to understand what is going on in the world.

 

The state sponsorship of terrorism is also hugely overblown issue. I once saw a complete list (with a map I think?) of Iranian state-sponsorship of terrorism. Not very impressive. Most of it are things which took place over ten years ago, and the vast majority not related to Iran itself but Iran-aligned groups such as Hezbollah - who by the way has had p.cool bromance with the Lebanese Christians the last ten years, seeing how they have been successful coalition partners in Lebanon's democratically elected government. IMO the worst Iran supports is Assad, who is a crazy bloodthirsty dictator.

 

It goes without saying that the US has sponsored far more terrorism during the Cold War than Iran has ever done. Israel is also a state sponsor of terrorism, considering their support of MeK, which is considered a terrorist group by the US. Obviously, being a sponsor of terrorism does not immediately make you a "great Satan" or something. I concede the point that you can condemn both US, Iranian and Israeli state sponsorship of terrorism. But then you will end up condemning a lot of people, and you won't get a lot done in foreign relations.

 

Treaty or no they'll either build weapons or they won't. If they do and use them that will probably be the end of them.

 

At least this we can agree on. Only that I claim that with a treaty we can be more sure they are not getting nukes, if such a program is initiated in the future. If they have been planning for nukes all along - which the CIA and Mossad claims they haven't - then obviously a treaty won't make any difference as by now they could be hiding any amount of the necessary isotopes anywhere.

[Rostere]

Okay. Now that Netanyahu's speech to Congress has sunk in, he's lost a lot of ground in Israeli opinion polls.

 

His response? Blame "Scandinavians". No. I am seriously not joking.

[Zoraptor]

Well, it ain't every day your own intelligence/ security service basically calls you a liar, and I suspect that has done bibi a whole lot of damage. It'd be like MI6 or the CIA telling people that Iraq had no WMD in early 2003. Not sure Lieberman's comments about chopping arab israeli's heads off have helped either given ISIS is a thing, even given that he isn't actually Likud.

[BruceVC]

Okay. Now that Netanyahu's speech to Congress has sunk in, he's lost a lot of ground in Israeli opinion polls.

 

His response? Blame "Scandinavians". No. I am seriously not joking.

 

 

Well, it ain't every day your own intelligence/ security service basically calls you a liar, and I suspect that has done bibi a whole lot of damage. It'd be like MI6 or the CIA telling people that Iraq had no WMD in early 2003. Not sure Lieberman's comments about chopping arab israeli's heads off have helped either given ISIS is a thing, even given that he isn't actually Likud.

 

Yeah the misplaced and thoughtless trip to the USA was just him embellishing  his own support and dismissing the possible fallout. He could lose his PM role and be replaced by a center left party

 

Also  of course he is wrong to blame the Scandinavians but you guys do have a reputation for interfering in other countries affairs. During the time of Apartheid I remember it was the Scandinavian countries that were one of the first to fund and recognize the ANC. Many white South Africans disliked your endeavors as arrogance and interference

 

But of course they had to say that, your countries were doing the right thing and some people needed to find anyway to undermine your strategy 

[Rostere]

Also  of course he is wrong to blame the Scandinavians but you guys do have a reputation for interfering in other countries affairs. During the time of Apartheid I remember it was the Scandinavian countries that were one of the first to fund and recognize the ANC. Many white South Africans disliked your endeavors as arrogance and interference

 

But of course they had to say that, your countries were doing the right thing and some people needed to find anyway to undermine your strategy 

 

He is probably wrong to blame "Scandinavians", but what you say is true. IIRC Sweden provided something like 60% of ANCs entire income during the 80s, and an even larger percentage of Mugabe's ZANU before independence, and smaller amounts also to SWAPO in Namibia, all during the Social Democratic periods of power. At that time Sweden had an incredibly aggressive and interventionist foreign policy. Providing some context to this, southern Africa was the most common destination for Swedish missionaries during the mid-20th century, and the Swedish church is, and was, very tightly tied to the Social Democratic party. Missionaries would then come home and tell of experiences of racism and inequality. This really shaped Swedish views of the world, and there was a high degree of awareness especially about conditions in southern African colonies. However, there was also support for lots of other liberation movements such as PLO and POLISARIO.

 

These policies can be tied in part personally to Olof Palme (sadly assassinated), who certainly left a very interesting legacy, foreign-policy wise. He consistently denounced and actively worked against imperialism, both Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe and Western imperialism in Africa. However, he also had no qualms about friendship with very authoritarian leftist regimes as long as they were independent (i.e., not direct puppets of SU). Palme's worldview was shared in part by the Swedish FN secretary-general Dag Hammarskjöld (sadly assassinated), who in spite of being staunchly conservative in domestic politics thought that self-rule always trumps the interests of the superpowers.

 

The aggressive financial support was ended with the right-wing government of the early nineties. With the return of the Social Democrats to power, much of the rhetoric remained though. The most outspoken politician was Anna Lindh, sadly assassinated before she could assume leadership of the Social Democratic party. And now after another period of right-wing government, we have another outspoken female foreign minister (Margot Wallström) who seems hell-bent to shake things up. Sweden has already been the first Western EU country to recognize Palestine. Following this, Mahmoud Abbas traveled to Stockholm only to be given lengthy lectures about feminism, and being pressured to make commitments about the role of women in government and civic society . Afterwards, Wallström was invited as an honorary guest to the Arab League's next meeting, and was set to hold a speech about feminism and human rights. This was predictably shot down by Saudi Arabia, after which Sweden immediately cancelled military exports to Saudi Arabia on human rights grounds, providing a model for other countries to do so as well. Current Swedish foreign politics suddenly got their popcornworthiness turned up to 11.

 

So it might not be THAT crazy that Netanyahu accuses Sweden of meddling. History supports it, hell, Swedes like Count Folke Bernadotte (sadly assassinated) did that even before the foundation of the state of Israel.

[Wrath of Dagon]

According to the reports, Mossad said they're not building a bomb right now. Netanyahu only said they are close to having enough enriched uranium to build a bomb. It may be true they're not actually building a bomb at this point, but in any case I don't consider Al Jazeera and the Guardian as reliable sources. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/23/middleeast/netanyahu-iran-nuclear-reports/ If they don't want a bomb, why are they enriching Uranium to 20%?

[Zoraptor]

According to the IAEA Iran has converted its 20% stockpile and haven't made more. So they aren't enriching to 20%.

 

So either Bibi or the IAEA (/CIA / Mossad) are spouting crap, most people's money will be on Bibi for that honour rather than the people who have been on the ground and who are experts in the matter.

 

Not taking Al Jazeera as a reliable source in this case is pretty odd too, they have a very strong editorial dislike of Iran (due to being run and financed by the Qatari royal family; see their coverage of Syria, Yemen where they are stridently anti anyone friendly to Iran and- especially if you read/ watch their arabic output- pro some of the more dingbat sunni alternatives; though not quite as much dingbat fringe as Saudi), they aren't going to be saying anything positive about Iran just because.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Getting rid of the 20% was a condition for sanction relief while the current negotiations are going on. But why did they do it in the first place?

Al Jazeera is a propaganda outfit for terrorist-sponsoring Qatar, saying they're biased the opposite way doesn't make them any more credible, obviously they hate Israel more than anyone. Btw, both Mossad and CIA have been wrong before, CIA didn't even know India was developing nuclear weapons! I'm not saying that Iran has necessarily given the final go ahead for the bomb, but they're certainly in position now to do it, and that's a terrible chance to take given their track record.

[Hurlshort]

If we are going by track record, there is only one country that has actually gone through with nuclear attacks.  

[Namutree]

If we are going by track record, there is only one country that has actually gone through with nuclear attacks.  

Even if Iran never uses the nukes it could develop; Iran simply having them would pose a huge problem.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Namutree

[BruceVC]

 

Also  of course he is wrong to blame the Scandinavians but you guys do have a reputation for interfering in other countries affairs. During the time of Apartheid I remember it was the Scandinavian countries that were one of the first to fund and recognize the ANC. Many white South Africans disliked your endeavors as arrogance and interference

 

But of course they had to say that, your countries were doing the right thing and some people needed to find anyway to undermine your strategy 

 

He is probably wrong to blame "Scandinavians", but what you say is true. IIRC Sweden provided something like 60% of ANCs entire income during the 80s, and an even larger percentage of Mugabe's ZANU before independence, and smaller amounts also to SWAPO in Namibia, all during the Social Democratic periods of power. At that time Sweden had an incredibly aggressive and interventionist foreign policy. Providing some context to this, southern Africa was the most common destination for Swedish missionaries during the mid-20th century, and the Swedish church is, and was, very tightly tied to the Social Democratic party. Missionaries would then come home and tell of experiences of racism and inequality. This really shaped Swedish views of the world, and there was a high degree of awareness especially about conditions in southern African colonies. However, there was also support for lots of other liberation movements such as PLO and POLISARIO.

 

These policies can be tied in part personally to Olof Palme (sadly assassinated), who certainly left a very interesting legacy, foreign-policy wise. He consistently denounced and actively worked against imperialism, both Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe and Western imperialism in Africa. However, he also had no qualms about friendship with very authoritarian leftist regimes as long as they were independent (i.e., not direct puppets of SU). Palme's worldview was shared in part by the Swedish FN secretary-general Dag Hammarskjöld (sadly assassinated), who in spite of being staunchly conservative in domestic politics thought that self-rule always trumps the interests of the superpowers.

 

The aggressive financial support was ended with the right-wing government of the early nineties. With the return of the Social Democrats to power, much of the rhetoric remained though. The most outspoken politician was Anna Lindh, sadly assassinated before she could assume leadership of the Social Democratic party. And now after another period of right-wing government, we have another outspoken female foreign minister (Margot Wallström) who seems hell-bent to shake things up. Sweden has already been the first Western EU country to recognize Palestine. Following this, Mahmoud Abbas traveled to Stockholm only to be given lengthy lectures about feminism, and being pressured to make commitments about the role of women in government and civic society . Afterwards, Wallström was invited as an honorary guest to the Arab League's next meeting, and was set to hold a speech about feminism and human rights. This was predictably shot down by Saudi Arabia, after which Sweden immediately cancelled military exports to Saudi Arabia on human rights grounds, providing a model for other countries to do so as well. Current Swedish foreign politics suddenly got their popcornworthiness turned up to 11.

 

So it might not be THAT crazy that Netanyahu accuses Sweden of meddling. History supports it, hell, Swedes like Count Folke Bernadotte (sadly assassinated) did that even before the foundation of the state of Israel.

 

 

This has been  a very enlightening post, nice one    

 

Its been like a quick but detailed history lesson that you can reference at your own time with the links, you don't overdo the actual content 

 

That's why I reject this notion from some  that on forums like this  "you can't learn anything new  as everyone just wants to tell you what you should be thinking "

 

This informative post is a good example of why that isn't so