Why didn't they respond to the US, since it's only the US?

2008-07-06 06:13:42

#26

Pierre: I hunt criminals down for a living; +68|7097|Belgium

FEOS wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25542732

Any theories?

As to your question in the title, it's not only the US that is seeking an end to the enrichment program of Iran, but also the EU, China and Russia are. So it's normal that an answer was given to Solana, who spoke on behalf of six nations. It's not because the current US administration has been behaving like the world's bully for the last seven years, that the rest of the world automatically has a different opinion. the opinion remains the same, only the solution differs and the way to reach it.

But this is hope-giving, as it shows that not all high ranking US officials are mindless Rambo's: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25515357/

Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen urges diplomacy, not use of force

Upon his return from a visit to Israel and Europe, the nation’s highest ranking military officer warned Wednesday that a military strike on Iran would be a very bad idea.

“This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable,” said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen.

2008-07-06 06:14:35

#27

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6977

Because the US refuses to talk to them so they have to do everything by proxy through the EU?

2008-07-06 07:46:32

#28

usmarine2: Banned; +233|6212|Dublin, Ohio

CameronPoe wrote:
Because the US refuses to talk to them so they have to do everything by proxy through the EU?

nope. not the reason.

2008-07-06 07:50:27

#29

Naturn: Deeds, not words.; +311|7027|Greenwood, IN

Because they just don't like the US maybe?

2008-07-06 07:55:53

#30

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6765|tropical regions of london

CameronPoe wrote:
Because the US refuses to talk to them so they have to do everything by proxy through the EU?

We've talked to them several times within the last few years. Not only that, we still have channels open with the Iranian foreign ministry through the Swiss.

2008-07-06 08:04:32

#31

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6977

God Save the Queen wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Because the US refuses to talk to them so they have to do everything by proxy through the EU?
We've talked to them several times within the last few years. Not only that, we still have channels open with the Iranian foreign ministry through the Swiss.

You wouldn't describe Iran and the US has having proper formal diplomatic relations. The Swiss link is by proxy too.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-06 08:04:57)

2008-07-06 08:37:09

#32

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6765|tropical regions of london

they arent formal or recognized, but there is a dialogue.

Not too long ago, US and Iraqi officials met with an envoy from Iran in Baghdad.

Remember what happened last time we had an embassy there.

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-06 08:37:38)

2008-07-06 08:39:49

#33

usmarine2: Banned; +233|6212|Dublin, Ohio

not good enough for our ginger overlord. nothing is good enough. he will always bitch about it.

2008-07-06 08:42:27

#34

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6977

usmarine2 wrote:
not good enough for our ginger overlord. nothing is good enough. he will always bitch about it.

Would you like to start a thread about me? You seem a little obsessed.

2008-07-06 08:43:00

#35

usmarine2: Banned; +233|6212|Dublin, Ohio

CameronPoe wrote:
usmarine2 wrote:
not good enough for our ginger overlord. nothing is good enough. he will always bitch about it.
Would you like to start a thread about me? You seem a little obsessed.

no. would you like not to bitch about the US all the time?

2008-07-06 08:52:34

#36

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6977

usmarine2 wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
usmarine2 wrote:
not good enough for our ginger overlord. nothing is good enough. he will always bitch about it.
Would you like to start a thread about me? You seem a little obsessed.
no. would you like not to bitch about the US all the time?

In Debate & Serious Talk we discuss current affairs usmarine. Sometimes they involve the US. When a thread gets created on a particular topic people express their opinions. Deal with it. If you don't like then go get some taco bell.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-06 08:52:57)

2008-07-06 08:54:03

#37

usmarine2: Banned; +233|6212|Dublin, Ohio

But it is always the same with you. No matter what happens, there is always the "ya but" with you.

2008-07-06 08:56:06

#38

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6977

usmarine2 wrote:
But it is always the same with you. No matter what happens, there is always the "ya but" with you.

And?

2008-07-06 08:58:18

#39

usmarine2: Banned; +233|6212|Dublin, Ohio

CameronPoe wrote:
usmarine2 wrote:
But it is always the same with you. No matter what happens, there is always the "ya but" with you.
And?

Its lame.

News Feed: "US saves 100000 puppies from burning to death"

Cam response: "Yes but they tried to overthrow Castro in the 60's"

2008-07-06 09:00:09

#40

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6977

usmarine2 wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
usmarine2 wrote:
But it is always the same with you. No matter what happens, there is always the "ya but" with you.
And?
Its lame.

News Feed: "US saves 100000 puppies from burning to death"

Cam response: "Yes but they tried to overthrow Castro in the 60's"

Did they really save 100000 puppies from burning to death?

2008-07-06 09:03:49

#41

deeznutz1245: Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.; +483|6914|Connecticut

CameronPoe wrote:
usmarine2 wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:

And?
Its lame.

News Feed: "US saves 100000 puppies from burning to death"

Cam response: "Yes but they tried to overthrow Castro in the 60's"
Did they really save 100000 puppies from burning to death?

No but we did do that Castro thing.

Malloy must go

2008-07-06 09:05:12

#42

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6977

deeznutz1245 wrote:
No but we did do that Castro thing.

The Castro thing shouldn't have been any of the US' business. I'd give a pat on the back if you saved the puppies though, even though I'm not a big fan of dogs.

2008-07-06 09:08:54

#43

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6827|North Carolina

Iran is going to pursue nukes no matter what America does, and if we invade Iran, we are truly fools.

2008-07-06 09:14:30

#44

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6832|'Murka

Pierre wrote:
FEOS wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25542732

Any theories?
As to your question in the title, it's not only the US that is seeking an end to the enrichment program of Iran, but also the EU, China and Russia are. So it's normal that an answer was given to Solana, who spoke on behalf of six nations. It's not because the current US administration has been behaving like the world's bully for the last seven years, that the rest of the world automatically has a different opinion. the opinion remains the same, only the solution differs and the way to reach it.

But this is hope-giving, as it shows that not all high ranking US officials are mindless Rambo's: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25515357/

Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen urges diplomacy, not use of force

Upon his return from a visit to Israel and Europe, the nation’s highest ranking military officer warned Wednesday that a military strike on Iran would be a very bad idea.

“This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable,” said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen.

Pierre, the point I'm trying to make is that many on this forum talk about the US warmongering toward Iran, making threats, calling their mothers names, etc...yet conveniently overlook the fact that the EU has been telling the US repeatedly that we aren't taking a strong enough stance WRT Iran's nuclear ambitions. How exactly could that be if we're constantly "warmongering"? The answer is, of course, that the US isn't warmongering or threatening Iran. The US isn't working alone in trying to get Iran to stop their nuclear program (as it currently stands).

The solution doesn't differ one bit. The US's position with Iran has been to pursue diplomacy from day one, with other options available if diplomacy doesn't work. And the EU has said that's too soft of an approach.

Damn warmongering euros.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-07-06 11:49:35

#45

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6915|N. Ireland

FEOS wrote:
The solution doesn't differ one bit. The US's position with Iran has been to pursue diplomacy from day one, with other options available if diplomacy doesn't work.

I'm going to call the 'Iraq card' here. Trying to restore order in there hasn't exactly worked magically so you can see why Iran would be hesitant at best if the US had even hinted about going in there?

2008-07-06 12:05:47

#46

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7022|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:
Because the US refuses to talk to them so they have to do everything by proxy through the EU?

That's very nice of the EU. It's nice to know we control their votes as well.

Turquise wrote:
Iran is going to pursue nukes no matter what America does, and if we invade Iran, we are truly fools.

Or what the rest of the world does for that matter. Russians and Chinese included. We've even offered to build nuclear power plants for them using technology that would make it tougher to switch from energy to weapons.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-07-06 12:34:57

#47

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6832|'Murka

kylef wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The solution doesn't differ one bit. The US's position with Iran has been to pursue diplomacy from day one, with other options available if diplomacy doesn't work.
I'm going to call the 'Iraq card' here. Trying to restore order in there hasn't exactly worked magically so you can see why Iran would be hesitant at best if the US had even hinted about going in there?

The US hasn't "even hinted about going in there".

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-07-07 04:58:08

#48

Pierre: I hunt criminals down for a living; +68|7097|Belgium

FEOS wrote:
Pierre, the point I'm trying to make is that many on this forum talk about the US warmongering toward Iran, making threats, calling their mothers names, etc...yet conveniently overlook the fact that the EU has been telling the US repeatedly that we aren't taking a strong enough stance WRT Iran's nuclear ambitions. How exactly could that be if we're constantly "warmongering"? The answer is, of course, that the US isn't warmongering or threatening Iran. The US isn't working alone in trying to get Iran to stop their nuclear program (as it currently stands).

Are you sure about that? Is that the official position of the EU? Links?

I know Sarkozy likes to take a 'hard' stance on Iran since he got elected, same as Merkel sometimes, but as we all know it's just hard-talk. The EU simply lacks the military capability to pose a real threat to any country in the world, and even if we would have the capability, we would still lack the political will to decide it. 27 countries with each of them a different mindset are not that easy to be able to speak with one voice (remember the Lisbon treaty). You could compare it with having to ask all 50 states of the US individually to agree on invading Iraq and supplying troops to do so.

The US isn't warmongering or threatening Iran? I've must have miss-interpreted the words of Bush, Cheney and others then for the last 5+ years (I don't take into account the messages on this forum about turning Iran into a big glass crater, it's after all just a video game forum). My mistake. I'm sure Adm. Mullen, who I quoted earlier, must have had the wrong sources too.

FEOS wrote:
The US's position with Iran has been to pursue diplomacy from day one, with other options available if diplomacy doesn't work. And the EU has said that's too soft of an approach.

Any links on that EU position? I agree that the US and EU have been using diplomacy from day one, supplemented with war rhetoric ('all options available', 'bomb Iran' dixit pres. candidate McCain) from the US.

But lets face it: possibly the only reason Iran hasn't been invaded yet is the fact that the US lacks the military capability to put enough boots on the ground to neutralize any threat. You simply can not wage war on a third front, no matter how hard some people yell, it's like the school bully asking for your money while laying down on the ground, knocked out, in his underwear: just hilarious, and you don't respond to it.

2008-07-07 18:05:05

#49

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6832|'Murka

Pierre wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Pierre, the point I'm trying to make is that many on this forum talk about the US warmongering toward Iran, making threats, calling their mothers names, etc...yet conveniently overlook the fact that the EU has been telling the US repeatedly that we aren't taking a strong enough stance WRT Iran's nuclear ambitions. How exactly could that be if we're constantly "warmongering"? The answer is, of course, that the US isn't warmongering or threatening Iran. The US isn't working alone in trying to get Iran to stop their nuclear program (as it currently stands).
Are you sure about that? Is that the official position of the EU? Links?

I have seen it elsewhere, but can't find the link for it. I do know (and you can easily Google) that the EU disagrees with the NIE on Iran.

Pierre wrote:
The US isn't warmongering or threatening Iran? I've must have miss-interpreted the words of Bush, Cheney and others then for the last 5+ years (I don't take into account the messages on this forum about turning Iran into a big glass crater, it's after all just a video game forum). My mistake. I'm sure Adm. Mullen, who I quoted earlier, must have had the wrong sources too.

ADM Mullen is stating the position of the government.

Do you have sources that show Bush (Cheney is irrelevant) "and others" have threatened Iran for the last 5+ years? We've been down this road in other threads. Bottomline: No, the US government has not threatened Iran with anything. Saying you won't take military options off the table is not threatening...it's negotiating without preconditions--something many on this forum seem to think needs to happen. So long as it's only Iran that has no preconditions, anyway.

Pierre wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The US's position with Iran has been to pursue diplomacy from day one, with other options available if diplomacy doesn't work. And the EU has said that's too soft of an approach.
Any links on that EU position? I agree that the US and EU have been using diplomacy from day one, supplemented with war rhetoric ('all options available', 'bomb Iran' dixit pres. candidate McCain) from the US.

Ref "war rhetoric": See above.

Can't find links on the EU position. I know I saw it (tied to the EU's dismissal of the Iran NIE), just can't find a link to it. Regardless, France has certainly been unambiguous about their position (military options on the table).

McCain's "bomb Iran" joke was just that...a joke. Jokes in front of an informal group at the VFW does not official US policy make.

Pierre wrote:
But lets face it: possibly the only reason Iran hasn't been invaded yet is the fact that the US lacks the military capability to put enough boots on the ground to neutralize any threat. You simply can not wage war on a third front, no matter how hard some people yell, it's like the school bully asking for your money while laying down on the ground, knocked out, in his underwear: just hilarious, and you don't respond to it.

The only reason Iran hasn't been struck yet (not invaded...we'll get to that in a minute) is that the position of the US and EU (and Russia and China) is diplomacy first and foremost, with military action only as a last resort.

The president also said he had a comprehensive diplomatic strategy regarding Iran and "the military is the last resort to solve problems."

"All major problems should be solved diplomatically," Bush said. "In other words, the military is the last resort to solve problems. And I believe we still have the capacity to solve this issue diplomatically, because a lot of the world now understands the dangers of Iran having a nuclear weapon. And so we're working toward that end, and we're pressuring the regime through diplomatic channels."

And another source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080620/pl … itaryenvoy

Arab leaders concerned about Iran's nuclear program: http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/ … ar-program

Now, as to your (and others') assertion that Iran will be "invaded"...

Military action does not equate to "invasion" (ie, troops on the ground a la Iraq). In the case of Iran, any military action at this point would be limited to air strikes to take out the nuclear facilities in question. That's hardly an "invasion".

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-07-08 00:18:34

#50

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|6283

America doesn't own the earth thats why, this "war on terror" is a war against opposition against U.S domination.

Source: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fM1zULp-26E

BF2S Forums Why didn't they respond to the US, since it's only the US?

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Pierre wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquise wrote:

kylef wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pierre wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pierre wrote:

Pierre wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pierre wrote:

Board footer