EU and Iran reach tentative nuclear deal

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the tentative nuclear deal between the EU and Iran, exploring the implications of diplomatic efforts, the reactions of various stakeholders, and the broader geopolitical context. Participants express a range of opinions on the effectiveness of diplomacy, the motivations behind Iran's actions, and the reactions of different nations and groups involved.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express optimism about the EU's diplomatic efforts with Iran, suggesting that it may lead to a more stable situation.
  • Others argue that despite diplomatic gestures, underlying tensions remain, particularly given the rhetoric from Iranian lawmakers.
  • A few participants highlight the complexity of international relations, noting that countries like China have significant interests in Iran, which may influence the dynamics of the deal.
  • There are contrasting views on the appropriateness of celebrating diplomatic progress, with some participants criticizing what they perceive as a childish or vengeful attitude towards Iran.
  • Some contributions reflect on the nature of humor and reactions to geopolitical events, suggesting that differing cultural perspectives can lead to misunderstandings.
  • Participants discuss the broader implications of terrorism and military actions, with some advocating for direct action against specific individuals while others critique the overall approach of the U.S. and its allies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion reveals multiple competing views regarding the effectiveness and sincerity of the nuclear deal, the motivations of Iran, and the appropriate responses to terrorism. No consensus is reached, and participants express a range of opinions on these complex issues.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various geopolitical dynamics, including the influence of China and the historical context of U.S.-Iran relations. The discussion reflects a mix of emotional responses and analytical perspectives, with some arguments relying on assumptions about the motivations of different actors.

wasteofo2
Messages
477
Reaction score
2
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6417121/

TEHRAN, Iran - Hoping to avoid a U.N. showdown, Iran and the European Union’s three big powers reached a preliminary agreement over Tehran’s nuclear program, Iran’s chief negotiator said Sunday.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Iran’s conservative-dominated parliament pushed for a bill banning the production of nuclear weapons in a gesture of building more international trust.

In proposals to Iran last month, Britain, Germany and France offered a trade deal and peaceful nuclear technology — including a light-water research reactor — if Iran pledged to indefinitely suspend uranium enrichment and related activities such as reprocessing uranium and building centrifuges used to enrich it.

Mohammadi [an Iranian Legislator[, a former Foreign Ministry spokesman, said the bill [banning the production of nuclear weapons] could be presented to the parliament next week, adding that the draft was prompted by a religious verdict by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, has said that production, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons was un-Islamic and against human interests.

“Ayatollah Khamenei’s verdict is clear,” Mohammadi said. “So why not make the production of nuclear weapons illegal under Iranian law?”


Horray for European diplomacy!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At least someone is trying it
 
Smurf said:
At least someone is trying it
Yeah, but when meetings of lawmakers still chant "death to America" when making decisions, its clear Iran has a long way to go before it gets off the list of rogue nations.
 
wasteofo2 said:
Horray for European diplomacy!

It's amazing how well diplomacy works after President Bush's re-election.
 
Nothin' says diplomacy like a warm, yellow liquid running down the leg of a terrorist. :smile:
 
russ_watters said:
Nothin' says diplomacy like a warm, yellow liquid running down the leg of a terrorist. :smile:

Especially suicide bombers :-p
 
Wishful thinking. China needs Iran like the US needs Saudi and Iraq. I'm sure you know that last week the Chinese concluded a huge deal with Iran. Now they don't need their own nuclear arms.
 
and in the meantime you have El Braying saying we should all just cross our fingers and hope for the best...
 
Kat:Who or what is El Braying?
The others: I see the same kind of revealing reaction on many boards: hurrah! the terrorists p*** in their pants. This group of Americans feel kicked in the b*lls. They don't want solutions for a problem, they want revenge. They want some people to p*** in their pants, at any cost, even in a country that had nothing to do with the kick. I can comprehend this primitive reaction, as a small boy I was also not able to control my reaction. So, since apparently many Americans never outgrew that stage, the reaction is comprehensible. But please spare us the hypocrisy in the future, all the blabla about democracy in the ME and protection the world and sofort. You are litlle boys kicked in the b*lls and now you kick back. If you ever grow up, you will be ashamed about this episode.
 
  • #10
Ashamed about being happy that a government chanting "death to America" is agreeing to give up nuclear weapons?

BULLS****

'Nuff said.
 
  • #11
You don't read my post. It's not about being happy. For some people there has to be "p*** in the pants", otherwise they wil probably not get their erection back. A POSITIVE, ADULT reaction would be to be glad that things can be sorted out. A CHILDISH reaction is what these guys do. If we have a fight and I am about to hit you, and a friend comes up, separates us and appeases the situation and then you continue to shout: ahah! he p***es in his pants now, I will beat you anyway. Just trying to get a the right level of comprehension here.
 
  • #12
Mercator said:
You don't read my post. It's not about being happy. For some people there has to be "p*** in the pants", otherwise they wil probably not get their erection back. A POSITIVE, ADULT reaction would be to be glad that things can be sorted out. A CHILDISH reaction is what these guys do. If we have a fight and I am about to hit you, and a friend comes up, separates us and appeases the situation and then you continue to shout: ahah! he p***es in his pants now, I will beat you anyway. Just trying to get a the right level of comprehension here.


Actually i think that post was a joke.

Humour[/URL]

That should get you started.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Yeah, a person's sense of humor tells a lot about him.
 
  • #14
I never get American humor, whenever i try watching the david letterman show or some such i just don't get any of it.
 
  • #15
Mercator said:
Yeah, a person's sense of humor tells a lot about him.


Yes we have learned much about you. Aslo note he specifically said terrorists, not middle easterners. And yeah, all terrorists need a swift kick in the balls. Preferably with steel toed boots. With a sharp point on the end. And explosive tips.
 
  • #16
The more I study the situation in the mid east the more I begin to see the terrorists as the defenders, no I don't support 9-11, no I don't think they should be doing it but I disagree with [almost] everything the US is doing as well.
 
  • #17
franznietzsche said:
Yes we have learned much about you. Aslo note he specifically said terrorists, not middle easterners. And yeah, all terrorists need a swift kick in the balls. Preferably with steel toed boots. With a sharp point on the end. And explosive tips.

You must be joking. Give me Monty Python's hells grannies any day.
But serious now, note that I was referring to "a revealing reaction on many boards" , not specifically about the above. I agree that terrorists need a kick in the balls. But if YOU terrorize me, I'm not particularly happy if another guy somewhere p*** in his pants because I look mean, have a bigger gun and so on and am busy bullying yet another guy who has nothing to do with you anyway.
In short, get Bin Laden and kick him a thousand times in the balss. Get the Saudis who organized and sponsored 9/11. If it makes you happy, kick them in anybody part you think is appropriate and to complete your below-the-belt fixation, let them stand in a row to p*** in their pants. Why, for my part Musharraf, Kadhafi and a few others of your new allies can stand in line. But it would of course be too direct to deal with the people who are REALLY responsible no? Hey, why don't you blame it on the French for a change? With some luck Chirac can also be made to p*** in his pants. Now THAT would appeal to your childish side doesn't it?
 
  • #18
The ones who are really responsible are the americans.
 
  • #19
Mercator said:
You must be joking. Give me Monty Python's hells grannies any day.
But serious now, note that I was referring to "a revealing reaction on many boards" , not specifically about the above. I agree that terrorists need a kick in the balls. But if YOU terrorize me, I'm not particularly happy if another guy somewhere p*** in his pants because I look mean, have a bigger gun and so on and am busy bullying yet another guy who has nothing to do with you anyway.
In short, get Bin Laden and kick him a thousand times in the balss. Get the Saudis who organized and sponsored 9/11. If it makes you happy, kick them in anybody part you think is appropriate and to complete your below-the-belt fixation, let them stand in a row to p*** in their pants. Why, for my part Musharraf, Kadhafi and a few others of your new allies can stand in line. But it would of course be too direct to deal with the people who are REALLY responsible no? Hey, why don't you blame it on the French for a change? With some luck Chirac can also be made to p*** in his pants. Now THAT would appeal to your childish side doesn't it?


I said terrorists didn't i? not idiots. Those who kill civilians for the purpose of scaring them into compliance. But i guess that's a childish definition.
 
  • #20
franznietzsche said:
I said terrorists didn't i? not idiots. Those who kill civilians for the purpose of scaring them into compliance. But i guess that's a childish definition.
Why so serious suddenly? Yes, terrorists like Bin Laden and his supporters in Saudi and Pakistan. See? We agree.
 
  • #21
Well in that case I'm obliged to point out that A "senior Bush Administration official" told the times, in response to the killing of civilians in an attack on a top zarqawi leutenant, it would push the citizens of falluja to deny sanctuary and assisstance to the insurgents, and "thats a good thing"

Also, a "Pentagon official" told them that "If there are civilians dying in connection with these attacks, and with the destruction, the locals at some point have to make a decision. Do they want to harbor the insurgents and suffer the consequences that come with that?"

So in other words they're terrorizing the public into denying sanctuary to Zarqawi.
Not only is this against the Geneva Convention, but its also quite stupid because the public already sees the US as the invaders, if you kill civilians then what incentive do they have to support you, as opposed to their brethren freedom fighters?
 
  • #22
Smurf said:
Well in that case I'm obliged to point out that A "senior Bush Administration official" told the times, in response to the killing of civilians in an attack on a top zarqawi leutenant, it would push the citizens of falluja to deny sanctuary and assisstance to the insurgents, and "thats a good thing"

Also, a "Pentagon official" told them that "If there are civilians dying in connection with these attacks, and with the destruction, the locals at some point have to make a decision. Do they want to harbor the insurgents and suffer the consequences that come with that?"

So in other words they're terrorizing the public into denying sanctuary to Zarqawi.
Not only is this against the Geneva Convention, but its also quite stupid because the public already sees the US as the invaders, if you kill civilians then what incentive do they have to support you, as opposed to their brethren freedom fighters?

When the media quotes someone as vaguely as saying "a senior official" its usually more like the guy who fetches the coffee. Or takes out the trash. He may here what others say, but his rarely of importance.
 
  • #23
True, but reasons aside the USA is still breaking the geneva convention by not minimizing civilian casualties.
 
  • #24
Smurf said:
True, but reasons aside the USA is still breaking the geneva convention by not minimizing civilian casualties.

Do you have anything other than that to suggest that?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 490 ·
17
Replies
490
Views
42K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
8K