Were I an Iranian negotiator, I would insist on a no first use declaration by Israel as a precondition of any deal, and a timetabled commitment by all parties to negotiate a nuclear free Middle East.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)
3 Mar, 2013 – 3:36 pm
Mary
“Is the purpose of your post to hint that the Iranians are being positive and flexible and seeking a successful conclusion to the diplomatic process while the Americans are dragging their feet with the aim of ensuring that the talks do not succeed?”
“If that is the case, and given that you were not at the talks, how can you possibly know?”
Habbabkuk,
I’m not here to defend Mary – she is quite capable of that herself – I’m here to help you understand some of the complexities involved in foreign relations around the world and provide you with some historical context.
You do of course know that Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency unlike Israel, India, Pakistan and (now) North Korea.
Taking North Korea as an example:
North Korea did sign the NPT in 1985 and allowed IAEA inspections but in 1993 threatened to withdraw after suspicions that the US was using the inspections as a cover to spy on North Korea’s military status.
How silly, as if the US would do such a thing.
At that time (1993) the US then agreed to bilateral negotiations which lead to N. Korea retracting its intention to withdraw from the NPT. That was under Bill Clinton.
Then along came Bush. The Bush administration refused all requests for negotiations on the (verifiable) production of peaceful nuclear energy and named N. Korea, Iran and Iraq as the “axis of evil.”
John Bolton, who will be known to posters here, described Cuba, Libya and Syria as “Beyond the axis of evil.”
I would not be surprised if Iran is maneuvering itself into a position where it could produce nuclear weapons at short notice. I may be corrected here but I think that such a capability is not contrary to the NPT as long as they stop short of actual production of such weapons.
Given the United States history of state terrorism; assassinations; military coups; torture; wars; drones; over 700 military bases in over 130 countries (and expanding) and, of course, Guantanamo Bay etc. etc. I am surprised we don’t have more nuclear weapon states than we do now.
You need to consider that the USA has already indicated its desire for regime change in Iran. Look at its actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
So, if it is regime change the US is after, then it is logical that the US would be “dragging its feet.”
@ Doug Scourgie (17h18)
“Habbabkuk
I’m not here to defend Mary – she’s quite capable of that herself-”
Really? Then why doesn’t she?
@ Doug Scourgie (20h27)
“You seem to be getting annoyed”
Not however to the point of calling those you disagree with masturbators or using four letter words (cf your last post)
@ Doug Scourgie (17h39) :
“Yes, I have done the research.”
In that case : sources, facts and figures, please.
“By the way, you missed out the USA aboriginal tribes”
Non sequitur?
@ Doug Scourgie (17h18)
Thank you for the various historical elements. Can you please clarify a couple of things you mention in the para started “Then along came Bush…”?
1/. from whom did these requests for negotiation emanate? Were they made by the North Koreans, or if not, by whom?
2/. when did the Bush administration come in and when were Iran, Iraq and N. Korea named as the axis of evil?
And another clarification if you’ll bear with me. You say that in 1993 N.Korea threatened to withdreaw from negotiations but then changed its mind (in the same year). Do you know the reasons for N. Korea changing its mind?
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)
5 Mar, 2013 – 5:41 pm
“By the way, you missed out the USA aboriginal tribes”
Non sequitur?
You obviously don’t know what non-sequitur means.
Don’t worry, Dougie, I can spot a non-sequitur when I see one.
Would you now care to supply the additional information I (politely) asked you for? To refresh your memory, the questions are in my posts of 5 March at 17h51. As you have obviously researched the topic in some depth, it should not be difficult to do so, surely.
Thank you
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)
6 Mar, 2013 – 7:50 am
“Don’t worry, Dougie, I can spot a non-sequitur when I see one.”
Can you really?
I said:
“By the way, you missed out the USA aboriginal tribes”
You replied:
Non sequitur?
Please note:
aborigine
n.
a. A member of the indigenous or earliest known population of a region; a native.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Aborigine
So Habbabkuk, please explain your use of “non-sequitur?”
@ Dougie Scourge :
I have the feeling you are trying to avoid answering the quustions on matters of fact that I’ve asked you in relation to North Korea and the history of its negotiations with the USA.
Is it because revaling those facts might damage your original narrative?
@ Dougie Scourge:
I think you also owe me the sources, facts and figures relating to your research into the discriminated-against miunorites, don’t you?
Come on, chop chop, don’t hang around so!
I would love to re post this entry on my own website will that be okay