The Story



Questions for Debate:

1.) Will a nonaggression pact contribute further to global peace?

2.) Should America take such an approach with Iran?

3.) How do you foresee the outcome of these talks?

1.) Will a nonaggression pact contribute further to global peace?
I see this as a positive development. By guaranteeing their safety, we rid the Iranians of their best reason for building nukes. After all, we invaded Iraq, which didn't have nuclear weapons, and negotiated with North Korea, which does. The message is pretty clear: if you have no nuclear weapons and you're on America's "axis of evil" shortlist, then you'd better get a Bomb -- fast.

2.) Should America take such an approach with Iran?
Yes, of course, but the Americans have been loth to do so. I hope that this development will push the Americans into going along with the plan.

3.) How do you foresee the outcome of these talks?
The big problem will be Iranian insistence that America be included in the guarantees. After all, it doesn't do them much good if everybody but America promises not to invade; America is the only country that would invade in the first place.

1.) Will a nonaggression pact contribute further to global peace?

This news story is hysterical. Europe promises not to invade a country? Of course the only way this would work is if Iran was convinced that the European nations would invade in the first place, which is highly unlikely.

I see this doing absolutely nothing to contribute to further global peace. Iran is going to do what it wants because it knows nobody is going to challenge them. The United States doesn't have the manpower to force their hand and if history is any indiciation, the Europeans won't rock the boat. I mean is it included in the proposal that if Iran doesn't comply that GB, France and Germany are prepared for more aggressive actions towards Iran?

2.) Should America take such an approach with Iran?

Getting Iran to stop its nuclear program is extremely important. If the Europeans can magically convince Iran they won't attack then the US should follow suit. But they should also have harsh words that if Iran ever goes off from the plan that there will be severe consequences.

3.) How do you foresee the outcome of these talks?

I don't see them working. Like i said before, the Europeans are all bark and no bite and Iran surely knows this.

It is always interesting to see how we read and perceive things so totally different from one another.

I read this story and I just a completely opposite impression from it. For example VDemosthenes if I was the one posted this topic's title I would have said...Europe DELAYS Nonaggression Pact. Iran lashes back with threats.

VDemosthenes I don't really understand why you would portray the current news on this issue as you have. It seems to me that the current state of negotiations are souring or had already soured long ago and as Iran has no intention to agree to such a pact and with their new president they will probably finally openly admit this so they will use the failed negotiations as a smokescreen.

After the Iranian election I am sure the EU realized that their hopes and dreams for a new modern Iran through political and democratic means was not going to happen so they asked to postpone all agreements and negotiations they made mos ago until the new president was sworn in.
Iran is demanding that Europe immediately implement this pact or else. They gave EU only hours to make a decision and Europe's response is no..we will not be rushed and never say never.

A quote from another article on this...



1.) Will a nonaggression pact contribute further to global peace? The non-aggression pact is very unlikely to be implemented..as this news story is about it's failure not it's success. Also as seen in the quote above...nothing is a 100% guarantee.

2.) Should America take such an approach with Iran?
Absolutely NOT. Looks what happens you get manipulated and messed with on the international stage. Can't imagine it is much fun. Iran's new president holds the view that it is his nation's right..and even says it is his people's basic human right to have nuclear power. I don't think any agreement is going to change this attitude.

3.) How do you foresee the outcome of these talks?
I foresee that they will be held next at IAEA .

News of a related nature:












The Story





That may be true, Bucket. But I am not you.

VDemosthenes
Do you wish to engage me in a political debate or are you just acting as some kind of updated headline news service? I am really finding this style of debate counterproductive to encouraging debate. Am I supposed to argue you are not me..I already know this. Why not reply or focus on the comments I made and better explain how you view these reports as a continuation or success of the EU's plans for offering a nonaggression pact and not the start of these negotiation's failure.

Why not explain your views..I already explained mine.

1.) I think it is more likely than unlikely to become a reality at some point or another during the course of the coming months. Quite right you are, nothing is one hundred percent certain. Yet I'd take a small percentage over zero any day.

2.) Iran has no reason not to think nuclear technology is not their right. America has been policing the planet for nuclear arms. Yet we are oddly hypocritical in this matter, "no one may have nuclear weapons except those who already have them," if I did not live in America I would certainly move here. Nuclear weapons are highly dangerous but boost the image of a country, in that they do not think other nations will perceive them as weak or incapable. It is a vanity issue, it is the right of all nations to support and defend themselves. If America does not want to be told how to run itself (i.e., the United Nations), it should not tell other nations that they may or may not do something, including development of nuclear technology.




You are quite right, I apologize.

From the link:

Like Bucket, this article looks to me like failed negotiations at this point. Iran is threatening and insisting that Europe offer them carrots and incentives, when in fact they have been in violation of their NPT agreement. I don't see anything in this article to indicate that a nonaggression pact is forthcoming. From the sound of things Iran has no desire to halt the enrichment program.


If that's the case, Iran should not have signed the NPT. Then they could do as they like. Since they did sign it and agreed to abide by the terms in exchange for lucrative cooperation benefits, it is our business if they pursue weapons in direct violation to that agreement. Something to consider further, their violation of the NPT will likely destroy confidence in future nonproliferation enforcement for other countries. This will have a destabilizing effect. Not only are violaters pardoned, they are offered further incentives to continue to do what they already agreed to do to begin with. Why shouldn't other NPT nations follow this policy? Violate the NPT while receiving benefits, get caught and receive even more benefits.

Well I have not read anything that would support this view. It is more than likely it will end up at the UN for sanctions. In fact these negotiations have been renamed now as a possible "major international crisis".
Iran calls move to restart nuclear work irreversible
Again I am really at a loss as to where you have gained such a perspective....perhaps you are just extremely optimistic.


As Mrs P pointed out the NPT was signed and agreed upon by Iran. Also the NPT is not enforced by America..this idea for non nuclear proliferation is not just America's. It was the the French foreign minister who has said..this is perhaps the start of an international crisis.

Also why do you even begin to believe Iran has any interest in this issue for defending it's nation or using it's nuclear program for military defense? Iran claims it is for peaceful purposes...as in energy, not military. Do you then believe America that Iran's purpose for their nuclear program is not what they say it is for? Are you supporting America's belief that Iran is lying?

And there are a lot of things wrong in Iran...many many things..too many things that we don't tell them not to do..just have a quick look to the more recent stories coming out of that country...
Iranian authorities arrest prominent human-rights lawyer
'Playing with death' in Iran
Iranian Gay Youths Hanged

The situation with Iran's nuclear program is not something we can only view as a domestic issue..it is an international one and we all agreed long ago to do so and to have a means of action for our concerns.

1. No. It will give Iran more time to perfect the Islamic bomb.

2. No. We should keep all options, including invasion and nuclear attack, on the table as potential threats.

3. A waste of time. The EU pulls no serious weight when it comes to military "threats" anyway. Kosovo was in "their" backyard, but the US did all the heavy lifting there. The same is true with Iraq two times over. The European continent is filled with countries that have not provided for their own security for a generation. They're spoiled in that respect. They took US investment and security for granted and built their social infrastructures to (and in some cases beyond), the breaking point and at the same time arrogantly looked down at the hard work the Americans were stuck doing as the "world's policeman".

But, if the EU wants to pursue a pact and give it a name, I have a suggestion. It should be named the "Neville Chamberlain Act". That would be fitting. Some people never learn.

Although the negotiations may have failed, the questions still remain important for the future.

1.)Will a nonaggression pact contribute further to global peace?
In my opinion, the E.U. tried to take a new approach to stabalize the region of the Middle East. It is clear from the Iraq war that military intervention is not always the best way to ensure stability and peace. Although changes in Iran are really slow, there are in fact (cultural and social) changes. Threats will not be constructive for the slow changing process, diplomacy is the only way. As long as two parties are talking to eachother there is always the chance for a compromise.
So, I will answer this question with a Yes.

2.)Should America take such an approach with Iran?
If one looks at the problems the U.S. is facing in Iraq, I can only conclude that diplomacy with Iran is probably the best way to secure some stability and peace in the region. There is no other way. In general agression leads to more agression. If the U.S. would adopt a more moderate, although strict, policy towards Iran and would be a part of negotiations, there is a chance that the whole situation won't escalade into a new struggle. Apart from that, a more moderate stance on this issues, would give the U.S. some credibilty back, that she partly has lost during the Bush administration.

3.)How do you foresee the outcome of these talks?

As is stated above, up to now the talks haven't lead anywhere. But, one cannot see into the future, and doesn't know what the secret agenda of the Iranians are. I can only hope that in the future these talks will have a positive impact.

I happen to be under the belief that any agreement offered to the Iranians that demands them to stop all enrichment activity totally and forever will fail. If we demand for the Iranians to have to keep to the original agreement of the NPT why shouldn't the EU be expected to do the same? See what it is that the EU demands or wants is a revised agreement to the NPT..they wish to delete that peaceful uranium enrichment clause and have Iran agree to further restrictions of use.
Do you feel that the Iranians have no right to peaceful nuclear power?


New? I hardly find this approach new for this region or the situation and as we have seen time and time again it is likely to be totally ineffective. And military intervention isn't being suggested by either party...you have any evidence to assume the US has offered military intervention in dealing with Iran? As I said we have long ago agreed on how to collectively handle these types of situations and we have created means in which to do so...so let's use them.

Iran is now officially and publicly bad talking the EU and their role in not only Iran's nuclear future but the world's entirely.

Seems they wish to use their usually tactic of divide and conquer. It has been obvious to most that the US and the EU's international relationship has definitely been improving...which is not good for Iran.

This isn't directly related to Iranian nukes, but it should complicate matters somewhat.

Most sophisticated of roadside bombs reportedly coming from Iran

I am becoming even more pessimistic about negotiated non-aggression pacts with Iran. The European approach is all carrot, no stick, and I can't see it working. I mean, really - "OK, we'll delay our breaking of the UN seals so you can watch" is not exactly non-proliferation. For Iran, who is literally sitting on mountains of natural energy sources, to express a need for nuclear energy is laughable.

Iran warns EU against 'harsh' actions in dispute



But wait a minute. These nuclear projects are supposed to be purely for energy right? Then why would they say that they would be aggressively pursuing other nuclear energy projects? It doesn't look like the EU's negotiations are going anywhere and that the Nonaggression Pact was successful. I can only wonder what the Europeans will propose now.

I just wanted to highlight an occurence or political alignment regarding Iran that the US media isn't really discussing much.

Assad king or Syria had a little visit with Iran this past week. It was meant as a welcoming gesture to the new leader of Iran....which Assad must be more than thrilled to celebrate.
Timing could not have been better with the whole escalation of the NPT Iranian hustle. Was it a purposeful display of this new relationship these two nations like to swagger about the ME...an alliance of defiance?

I think the more we push the more these two find how much they have in common. It is not a happy union....least not for the rest of us....especially all those in Iraq.



Well France..who happens to have quite a bit of respect and pull in the ME herself is not going to be all too happy seeing these two cavorting together. France's relationship with Syria has gotten extremely tense and so I would imagine actions like the one I described above are major irritants. I happen to believe how Iran is handling herself right now on the international stage is going to only push France further in the direction of America's stance on Iran and the NPT.

Re question 1:

Not any more or less than the German-Soviet Union non-aggresion pact furthered global peace.

Re question 2:

We should pursue such a pact only if we are guaranteed unannounced site inspection[s].

Re question 3:

The talks will go nowhere.


The problem here is that Iran was recently governed by the late Ayatollah Khomeini, who said, in 1984, on the occasion of Mohammed's birthday:

"War is a blessing for the world and for all nations. It is God who incites men to fight and to kill. The Koran says, "Fight until all corruption and all rebellion have ceased." The wars the Prophet led against the infidels were a blessing for all humanity. Imagine that we soon will win the war. That will not be enough, for corruption and resistance to Islam will still exist. The Koran says, "War, war until victory! . . ." The mullahs with corrupt hearts who say that all this is contrary to the teachings of the Koran are unworthy of Islam. Thanks to God, our young people are now, to the limits of their means, putting God's commandments into action. They know that to kill the unbelievers is one of man's greatest missions."

If it weren't for that, then maybe some of us would be of a different mind. More specifically, I do not doubt for a moment their desire to produce energy via the nuclear route. I mean, with all of this talk of peak oil, and given the near absence of anything remotely resembling what we call "industry" in Iran, the Iranian mullahs know that oil is their money machine both now and for the forseeable future. So if they can use nuclear energy instead of oil to generate electricity, then there will be just that much more oil to sell to you and to me, and it will be just that much longer before the oil runs out and the dollars, euros, and yen stop flowing as well.

I would simply suggest that we send a rather clear message, to wit, any nuclear attack on us or on one of our friends will result in Iran's prompt and utter destruction. We can otherwise allude further to times past in that regard.

Lastly, although somewhat off topic, please no one think for a moment that we are afraid to invade North Korea because the NKs have nucs. From the desk of Roger Helmer, MEP [at http://www.rogerhelmer.com/seoul.asp]:

"I'm writing on the 21st floor of the Lotte Hotel in Seoul, South Korea, conscious that around 14,000 North Korean artillery pieces are trained on the city, and that I am just six minutes flying time away from North Korean airspace.

Military planners believe that if a war were to break out, North Korea could rain hundreds of thousands of shells an hour on the 12 million residents of Seoul. Many of these could contain chemical or biological weapons. Perhaps in a week, US and South Korean forces could silence the guns. But in those terrible intervening days, the minimum estimate of civilian casualties in Seoul is a million, and the toll could rise to two or three million.
***
More sophisticated Koreans think that the conventional NK threat from artillery, Scud missiles and planes is so vast that a nuclear attack could be little worse."

So it isn't any nucs that we're afraid of, but we are afraid for the 12 million residents of Seoul, and never mind my little angel Kim Ji-Soo [family name first, given name last], who resides with her mother in Uijongbu [with Uijongu lying in the Uijongbu corridor between Seoul and the DMZ, and with that corridor being the prime invasion route used by just about every invader down through the ages (and so it was when North Korea invaded the South on Sunday, 25 June 1950)].

Oh, sorry, to continue with Mr. Helmer, in further response to question no. 1:

"Later that afternoon, US Ambassador Thomas Hubbard remarked, quite rightly, that most past non-aggression treaties have been precursors to war."

And lastly, one last quick off-topic matter, for any and all here who fought that war, thank you. And not just from me, but from many of these people and their children as well:

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/refug.htm
http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/hung6.jpg