[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Iran's Tough Talk Pays off
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:21 pm    Post subject: Iran's Tough Talk Pays off Reply with quote

I hate to say it, but all the tough talk, the threats, the Oil weapon, and the lucrative bribe$ and trade deal$ are paying off. Once again, the Mullah$ are getting away with bloody murder and threats of even more as they have for the last 26 years!

You gotta give it to them, they push back hard when pushed every time, and it works!


___ Evil or Very Mad

-------------------------------------------------------

Iran Gets Reprieve in Nuclear Standoff

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 28 minutes ago

VIENNA, Austria -
Iran gained a reprieve in the standoff over its nuclear program Wednesday, with diplomats saying the
European Union had decided to postpone its push to refer Iran to the
U.N. Security Council.
ADVERTISEMENT

The decision to delay a vote until a later board meeting of the
International Atomic Energy Agency instead of demanding one this week appeared driven by concerns about strong opposition. More than a dozen of the 35 IAEA board member nations meeting in Vienna including Security Council members Russia and China are against the idea.

Although a new EU draft motion does not mention Security Council sanctions, it still calls for reporting Iran to the council if it continues defying board demands, which include freezing activities related to uranium enrichment, said senior diplomats accredited to the IAEA.

The text is expected to be introduced at this week's IAEA meeting, but any vote on referral would come only at a future session at the earliest when the board meets again in November, said the diplomats, who demanded anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss EU strategy at the meeting.

Just hours before the new draft was drawn up, the chief U.S. representative to the IAEA lobbied board members for action this week on the motion. The motion is formally a European Union initiative but is being orchestrated in close consultation with Washington and backed by Australia, Japan, Canada and others at the meeting.

"We agree with the European Union and a growing majority of the board that the time has come to report Iran's (nuclear) noncompliance to the Security Council," U.S. delegation head Gregory Schulte told the meeting. "It is now time for the board to do our duty."

Still, a diplomat familiar with U.S. thinking said the decision to postpone referral suited Washington, which was not interested in losing a Security Council battle against veto-carrying members Russia and China.

The U.S. diplomatic mission dealing with the IAEA in Vienna declined comment when asked about the developments. A European official who also demanded anonymity as a condition for discussing EU strategy said China appeared rigid in its opposition but "the key is to gain Russia, and we think we can gain Russia at a later date."

In Moscow, the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the U.S. and European initiative to refer Tehran to the Security Council as counterproductive, saying it "will not contribute to the search for a solution to the Iranian problem through political and diplomatic means."

Although it avoids any mention of U.N. sanctions, the new EU text proposes the Security Council consider "making clear to Iran" that the crisis can "best be resolved" by cooperating with IAEA investigators.

Washington insists Iran has breached the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, as did
North Korea, which unilaterally quit the pact two years ago but announced Monday that it would give up its nuclear weapons program.

But Iran insists its nuclear activities have not violated the treaty. Iranian Vice President Gholmanreza Aghazadeh, the head of his country's nuclear program, told reporters in Vienna that "leaving the NPT is not on the agenda of Iran."

He spoke after meeting representatives from Russia, China and the Nonaligned Movement, which also overwhelmingly oppose the U.S.-European motion.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator met Wednesday with ambassadors of the three European countries trying to curb Tehran's nuclear program, urging them to engage in "forward-looking cooperation" with the Persian state, state-run radio reported.

Ali Larijani also told the envoys of Britain, France and Germany to reiterate to their leaders that Iran would not budge on its plans to pursue a nuclear program in line with the treaty.

Tehran says its nuclear program is solely for energy production, despite U.S. and EU concerns that it can be used for nuclear weapons.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday that
President Bush believes Iran needs to return to the negotiating table with the Europeans.

"We've expressed our concerns about Iran's behavior," McClellan said. "They have a long history of deceiving the international community, of not abiding by their international obligations, and that's why we remain concerned about their true intentions."

Tehran has warned that if referred to the Security Council, it could start uranium enrichment a possible step toward making nuclear arms. On Tuesday, it said it could stop allowing unfettered IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities and programs if the agency's board involves the Security Council.

Aghazadeh repeated those warnings during Wednesday's closed meeting with the Russians, Chinese and nonaligned delegates, a diplomat familiar with the discussions said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is confidential.

Aghazadeh, in Moscow on Monday, said Iran would welcome other nations in its ongoing talks with European negotiators, and the new Iranian government wants to increase its cooperation with Russia, whose role in helping build a nuclear reactor in Iran has added to U.S. concerns.


Last edited by Spenta on Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toofaan



Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

this proves one more time that Iranians have no one but themselves to rely on! this is not the first time that we see the threats and commitment of violence and murder by bloody mullahs and their kind of people works when it comes to dealing with EU! French released the terrorists who murdered late Dr. Bakhtiyaar, Germans did the same for other terrorists, Italians rallied on the request by al-qaeda to release a prisoner and Spain troops abandoned their own ally in Iraq half way in the battle against terrorism after bombing in Madrid! it has worked all the time, why not this time?! if Korea can do it why not mullahs who have plenty of oil too and plenty of weapons to make enough mess in the region to hurt champions of human right in Europe who forget evrything when it comes to their own interests! Iranians should rise and don't wait for the those who are in trade with devil to come and save them! otherwise, unbelievable death and destruction will be inevitable in that region!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maybe the best thing that could happen is for Iranians to see the whole world ki$$ing Mullah a$$, then they won't cut the perennial "halla bebeeneem chee meesheh excuse". The only thing that can overthrow the Mullah$ is the people of Iran.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is how much power the Mullah$ are packing now
Evil or Very Mad


Iran Wins Bid to Delist Argentina Bomb Suspects

September 21, 2005
Reuters
DeepikaGlobal.com



BERLIN -- Iran succeeded today in getting Interpol to cancel international wanted notices for 12 of its nationals sought by Argentina in connection with the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community centre, police sources said. World police body Interpol held a ballot of delegates at its annual conference in Berlin to decide whether to rescind the dozen ''red notices'' arising from the attack in which 85 people were killed.

''In favour of Iran -- all the red notices have been cancelled,'' an Iranian delegate at the meeting told Reuters.

Two other sources independently confirmed the outcome, which Interpol was not due to announce until Thursday. No Argentina official was immediately available for comment.

Red notices are alerts issued by Interpol at the request of member states to seek the arrest of a wanted person with a view to extradition.

Interpol had originally issued the 12 notices sought by Argentina but later suspended them after Iran complained about technical irregularities over the issuing of arrest warrants, citing corruption allegations against the judge involved.

Argentina had wanted the notices reinstated.

The investigation of Argentina's worst bombing -- the most deadly attack against Jews outside Israel since World War Two -- has been dogged by scandal and suffered repeated setbacks. No one has been convicted.

One year ago, an Argentine court acquitted four former policemen and a used car salesman, finding them not guilty of providing the van that exploded outside the 7-floor community centre.

There has so far been no trial for the unknown masterminds of the attack, which Argentina and Israel blame on Hizbollah guerrillas backed by Iran. Tehran has repeatedly denied involvement.

The investigation into the Iran link has been plagued with missing evidence and judicial bungling.

In the biggest blow to the probe, Federal Judge Juan Jose Galeano, who had spent nine years investigating the bombing, was removed from the case in 2003 after revelations that key testimony against police had been obtained by bribes.

An Asian delegate at the Interpol meeting said delegates overwhelmingly decided that Argentina had not supplied valid documents to back the issuing of the 12 red notices.

''A red notice is to be supported by a legal warrant of arrest.

That is not there,'' he said, adding however that Interpol had pledged to support Argentina if it reapplied with valid warrants.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Spenta,

I wouldn't plan on going to a funeral just yet....(chuckle)...and you know how it is with opera right? It ain't over till the fat lady sings......this ain't over yet....dig it...the more reasonable the EU seems, the crazier the IRI looks to everyone....this little mousetrap has only one exit...back the way the IRI came in.

There's something about the world oil market you should understand...there's a glut of crude right now...the problem is in refinery capacity...product to market shortfall. Iran exports crude..

Katrina hit refinery capacity, not just domestic crude production in the US...Rita is set to hit Houston area....the biggest refinery output in the US is at risk....this would put a huge shortfall in world supply, not just in the US....refining capacity was stretched thin verses demand even before Katrina hit New Orleans.

My point is that with OPEC upping production ceiling on crude, Iran has very little punch in using it's "oil weapon" especially since the refining capacity is in a state that it can only handle so much crude at one time.

So even if there is a shortage of refined petroleum product, there's more than enough crude oil in relation to that refinery capacity...so if IRI thinks it can destabilize economies by cutting of its oil exports....the joke is on them. And it will surely backfire in their faces.




Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
September 22, 2005

(excerpt)

QUESTION: On Iran and the IAEA, what are we to make of the fact that the EU
circulated a second draft resolution? Should that be interpreted as an instance
of what the President likes to call negotiating with ourselves?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. I think that there are a lot of diplomatic discussions going
on at the International Atomic Energy Agency -- the IAEA right now concerning
Iran and its noncompliance with its international obligations. Our views are
clear. We certainly are in support of the EU-3 in its decision that it's time
to report Iran to the UN Security Council for its long history of noncompliance
with its international obligations -- the latest of which was breaking its
accord with the EU-3, the Paris agreement. So there's a lot of diplomatic
activity that's going on right now. We have said previously that if you had a
vote today, there is a majority to report Iran to the Security Council and we
think that reporting Iran to the Security Council is long overdue.

That said, we are working with other members of the IAEA Board of Governors
right now on the timing of such a move, as well as the language of a resolution
that could be voted on in the Board of Governors. As Secretary Rice has said,
if Iran -- we have no doubt that if Iran continues on the path that it has
chosen to follow for these past years, pursuing nuclear weapons under the cover
of a civilian nuclear program that they would be reported and should be
reported to the Security Council.

As for the timing of such a referral, that is going to be a matter for
diplomacy and that's what is working now. So I think what you're seeing is that
the diplomatic, the -- any changes in language in terms of draft resolutions
are tracking with the discussions that are ongoing now in the IAEA.

QUESTION: So was the change in language offered in consultation with the U.S.?
You said that we have been working on language with them. Was this something
that we worked on, this change in language?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Well, I'm not going to get into any specific language at
this point. I don't know of any drafts that may be circulating around the IAEA,
but we are working very closely with the EU-3, as well as other members of the
IAEA Board of Governors on this matter.

QUESTION: I guess what I want to ask is you don't disapprove of the fact that a
new resolution has been offered?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think that we're -- again, we are working -- all working on
draft language at the Board of Governors. We're working very closely with our
colleagues of the EU-3. We have for, you know, the past months and past time
been working very closely with the EU-3 in their negotiations with Iran and we
are continuing to do so in Vienna right now.

QUESTION: I was wondering if you can you follow up on that? Russia today made a
statement against going to the Security Council. I was wondering if you could
react to that, please?

MCCORMACK: Well, again, Russia is part of this discussion in Vienna. Secretary
Rice has had discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov, other Foreign Ministers,
including those from the EU-3, Foreign Minister Douste-Blazy, Foreign Secretary
Straw, I know, have had conversations with Foreign Minster Lavrov and those
conversations are also happening at different levels of the government.

Russia shares the same concerns that all of us do. I think that they have
stated previously they don't want to see Iran obtain nuclear weapons. They
don't want Iran to have access to sensitive nuclear fuel cycle technologies and
know-how, like enrichment and reprocessing. That's why that's part of the fuel
take-back provisions of the Bushehr deal, to get to that very matter. There's a
reason why those are there. They don't think Iran should have access to the
enrichment technologies. And as for the matter of timing of referral to the
Security Council and the specific language that would be included in the IAEA
Board of Governors resolution, that's something that we're working on them
with.

So I think that in terms of the tactical, you know, there's a lot of diplomacy
that's going on now, including with the Russians. But in terms of the strategic
objectives I think everybody is on the same page and everybody shares the same
strategic objectives.

QUESTION: But do you seriously think you can go to the Security Council without
Russia and China on board?

MCCORMACK: Again, in terms of the timing and of referral to the Security
Council, we think it's over due. We also think that the timing of any such
referral is a matter for diplomacy, which is what you're seeing right now
ongoing in Vienna.

Sue.

QUESTION: Are you disappointed though that so far Russia doesn't seem to be
going to your side in terms of pushing for a referral? Does this mean your
diplomacy is sort of failing with Russia in terms of the pressure that you've
been putting on them? While overall they agree with the principles, they're not
supporting you in what you want.

MCCORMACK: Well, I think that -- just to back up a little bit -- in terms of
the Board of Governors, you are seeing a broadening majority. As I said before,
if there were a vote, if there were a vote today for referral to the Security
Council, we believe that there is a majority for such a vote. But what we want
to do -- working with the EU-3 and other countries -- is to build the broadest
possible majority, so that's part of our discussion with the Russians as well
as others. And this falls into the realm of diplomatic tactics. I think there
are a lot of discussions that are ongoing. But I'd go back to the important
point that I think that everybody shares the same strategic objective and that
is that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. We all agree
that that would be a destabilizing event for the region and for the world.

So again, we're working in Vienna. We have very clearly stated our views. We
are working in support of the EU-3 and their efforts. We're working to bring as
many on board to our point of view. That has been an evolving process and I
expect that we're going to continue to have discussions on that in the coming
days and weeks.

QUESTION: But without Russia you don't really have the same -- it wouldn't have
the same impact without Russia, would it?

MCCORMACK: Well, again, let's see what resolution we have coming out of the
Board of Governors in the coming days. But whatever that resolution is,
whatever language does come out, whatever actions result from the discussions
that are ongoing now, you have to be very clear that everybody does share the
same goal. And what we're all talking about now is what is the pathway to get
to that goal.

Barry.

QUESTION: You made some reference to Russia putting curbs on use of materials
in reactors.

MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: Is there a view here whether Iran has, and what it has already, the
capability to turn out nuclear weapons?

MCCORMACK: Well, there are -- these are assessments for our intelligence
community, Barry, and there are public statements on that. The CIA does an
annual report of what they think the state of the various nuclear programs of
those countries who might be pursuing nuclear weapons in a covert manner are,
so that's publicly available and I don't have it here in front of me, so I'd
refer you to that.

And one thing certainly is it is difficult to know and the type of -- with the
type of regime there is in Iran, to know exactly where they might be in terms
of their state of development of nuclear weapons. But what we have seen is
their programs of hiding their activities at Isfahan and Natanz, as well as
other locations, from IAEA and the rest of the world are certainly cause of
concern. The IAEA itself has said that there are unanswered questions about
Iran's dealings with the AQ Khan network. The AQ Khan network was involved in
selling nuclear technology to different regimes for the purpose of developing
nuclear weapons. And there's a long list of unanswered questions, so this is
real cause for concern. We believe and our assessment is that they are pursuing
nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program.

Yes.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary have a conversation with Prime Minister Lavrov
after their bilateral meetings in New York?

MCCORMACK: There was, to my knowledge, the last time that they talked was
around the Quartet meeting which I think was on Tuesday and the focus of that
discussion was on issues related to the Middle East and Israeli-Palestinian
efforts to resolve any differences they may have. I don't believe they, at that
point, talked about Iran but they had multiple discussions during the entire
time we were up in New York on this issue as well as others.

QUESTION: And since then she has called him?

MCCORMACK: Not that I'm aware of.

Yeah, Peter.

QUESTION: Sean, just -- there was a lot of focus on the Iranian President's on
the speech -- just on the fiery and negative and the nuclear (inaudible), but
there was at least one proposal there that had some substance in it, which is
it offered to do partnerships with foreign countries and foreign firms for
their fuel cycle work there. Is this seen at all as a positive or as a step
forward?

MCCORMACK: Well, I think that, you know, people did focus on the rhetoric and
the body language and the tone in his speech. But in terms of the substance
there was one thing that was very, very different from what the Iranians had
been talking about with the EU-3, and that was they were talking about not
doing any enrichment on Iranian soil and that was a cause for discussion. And
that was factored into the deal that the EU-3 had on the table with the
Iranians.

One of the -- I think, one of the more shocking and disturbing elements of the
Iranian President's speech was his insistence in, I think, two or three
separate places throughout the speech on doing enrichment in Iran. And that, I
think, was a cause of concern for all the world, as we've just been talking
about the Russians and their deal and the way they structured the Bushehr
reactor deal. It doesn't have that provision. As a matter of fact, that was
negotiated in specifically because the Russians had concerns that Iran not have
access to reprocessing and technology and know-how in Iran. So Russia would
provide the fuel, it would be used in the reactor, then it would be returned to
Russia after it was done.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know, but the reason that I mention it is because you have
used the Bushehr model as something that is acceptable and may be just a way
forward on this. And that one proposal, I know that they said they have an
inalienable right to fuel enrichment and that was disturbing.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, right.

QUESTION: But on the other hand, they also said that they're willing to do
partnerships with foreign companies and foreign firms to do this sort of work
there, which seem to be at least along the lines of maybe the Bushehr model. So
I was wondering if that was seen at all as a positive element.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think that first, what the Iranians have to do is get
back to negotiations with the EU-3 -- something that we have been encouraging
all along for them to do. The world wants to see a resolution to this issue.
That has been the focus of what we've been trying to do at the IAEA. And so
before any consideration of any other ideas that are out there, what Iran has
to do is get back to the negotiating table with the EU-3, which they walked
away from unilaterally. I think Foreign Ministers Straw, Douste-Blazy and
Fischer had a very interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal today in
which they did talk. They talked very openly about what their offer was on the
table and their willingness once again to talk to the Iranians. So the first
step is to get back to the negotiating table, which the Iranians walked away
from.

Yes.

QUESTION: When you say that the enrichment in Iraq, the fact that the Europeans
didn't want that, was factored in the proposal, does it mean the former
government, the reformer government was agreed on that? It was something which
was agreed?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, they didn't. Well, obviously, they didn't accept the
proposal. I can't speak to what the various negotiating positions were for the
former Iranian Government, as well as this Iranian Government. Although with
this Iranian Government, I think the President of Iran, we have to take his
words at face value when he gets up in front of the UN and outlines very
clearly where he wanted to take Iran. I'll leave it to the Iranians and the
EU-3 to describe their negotiations and what their understandings were.

QUESTION: If they didn't accept the proposal, what is the difference between
this government who says no and the other one who said no?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'm not saying that they said no to that proposal. They
were in ongoing negotiations. This government walked away from those
negotiations.

Yes.

QUESTION: Are you trying to get a vote in the IAEA before this new group of
countries joins the Board of Governors and are you concerned that might delay
the process if you don't get a vote before then?

MCCORMACK: What we're doing right now, again, let's wait to see what the
diplomacy brings over the next couple of days. Again, we're sort of into the
diplomatic tactics of what the resolution says and what action the Board of
Governors will do vis--vis the Security Council. In terms of the timing of
that, questions related to the Security Council, we'll see what the coming days
bring.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EU urges UN Iran nuclear debate

Iran resumed uranium conversion work in August
The European Union has tabled a motion that sets up Iran for referral to the UN Security Council by the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.
The move could open the way for diplomatic sanctions but is opposed by key IAEA members like Russia and China.

The motion mentions Tehran's non-compliance with international nuclear safeguards, however it does not call for an immediate referral.

The US accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies.

Tehran says its programme is purely for peaceful purposes.

The motion - a draft resolution - reveals the deep rift in the international community over Tehran's controversial nuclear programme, the BBC's Bethany Bell at the International Atomic Energy Agency's headquarters in Vienna reports.

Key vote

The EU draft resolution submitted by Britain, France and Germany calls on the 35-member IAEA board to consider reporting Iran - at an unspecified date - to the UN Security Council.

The three countries are expected to force a vote on the issue on Saturday following unprecedented scenes of anger in the board room of the IAEA, our correspondent says.

The resolution must be accepted by the board to become valid.

A majority of IAEA members meeting in Vienna - notably the US - want to see Iran immediately reported to the Security Council.

But Russia, China and several other nations are expected to reject it.

Iran says its nuclear activities have not violated the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

It has warned that if referred to the Security Council, it could start uranium enrichment - a possible step toward making nuclear arms - and stop allowing unfettered IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities and programmes.


------------------

Comment: I guess it's one of those "we'll see what tommorrow brings" times again....since all the speculation will be over after the vote Saturday....then there will be more speculation of course....

But what's got me curious is who had the tempertantrum...(chuckle)....MMMmm let me speculate....an IRI rep perhaps???? LOOL!

I tend to think the EU wouldn't be forcing a vote unless they were darn certain Russia and China would at least abstain...

Since it is simply a majority vote, niether Russia or China would want to be on the wrong side of the results, so abstention is a logical path for them to take. India too, in all likelyhood....but we'll see.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Toofan,

Heard something today about the EU possibly applying sanctions on their own, if it didn't come about in UN resolution. A question was put...and not ruled out...but deferred due to results of IAEA decision upcoming Saturday.

I think it's too soon to pass judgement, since this isn't over yet...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I certainly hope you're right, and the fat lady sings soon.

I did not know about the crude oil glut, interesting point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Spenta,

Update,

Seems Hurricane Rita is a level 3 storm and has moved more toward Port Arthur(which has a few big refineries as well) but even as dangerous as this storm is it isn't a castastrophic level 5, which is a good thing.

Leevees broke again in New Orleans...storm surge topped them in places, broke at two previous points that failed in Katrina...flooding.

As for oil...it like any product...supply and demand...how much raw material can be made into usable product in a given span of time determines the supply end of things...not just the raw material availability.

Methinks the oil industry has for many years deliberately neglected refining capacity for reasons of profit, plus the fact that investing in the infrastructure is expensive to shareholders. Lot's going to change on that score if my gut serves me well.....you'll see a push for investment in refining capacity as a result of these storms, as a matter of national security, and economic stability.

Something struck me as deja vu' regarding EU push for UN referal....not that it's exactly similar to US push in UN with Iraq at all...nor will the outcome be similar....but the IRI rhetoric sure seems a lot like Saddam's...."So-damn Insane" as it was.

Deny, lie, deny, accuse, deny, threaten, deny, deceive....threaten...

Here the IRI has not been transparent...denied access, one asks why?

Saddam was not transparent...denied access, I still wonder why he continued to allow folks to think he had WMD if he didn't....

"So damn Insane" seems pretty definitive.....but Antar's broken new ground as far as that's concerned....add "monkey see, monkey do." to the mix....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kaaveh Ahangar



Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I used to support the revolution myself but not any more! Religion can not be mixed in the politics, because "politics" is a dirty game full of lies and tricks if you mix it up with religion which is something holly, believe me the religion would be sacrificed, Mullahs used trademark "Islam" for their actions during 27 years of their illegitimate rule; they are bunch of thugs who commit all sorts of crimes and stupidities against individuals, society and the world at large...all in the name of religion.

There's very little talk in defense of the Islamic Republic among Iranians; almost everyone hates them in some form or another.
_________________
Long Live the Memory of Shahanshah Aryamehr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Kaaveh,

Your post is what may be called a "given"....self-evident truth.

Let me ask you if I may...and assuming the IRI is tossed into the dustbin of history sometime in the near future....what role do you see average Muslims playing in the rebirth of a free Iran that honors the precepts of the separation between Mosque and State?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Dear Kaaveh,

Your post is what may be called a "given"....self-evident truth.

Let me ask you if I may...and assuming the IRI is tossed into the dustbin of history sometime in the near future....what role do you see average Muslims playing in the rebirth of a free Iran that honors the precepts of the separation between Mosque and State?



talk about separation of religion and state when more of it is emerging, is wishful thinking.

those who want the oil for cheap depend on ayatollahs power. otherwise, most of the region was secular not long ago!

ask the brits what will they do if the region becomes secular again.

plan another Green Belt perhaps?

lol

western politic's fu...ked up. big time.
_________________
Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eh, you wanted a revolution...look what it brought you...now you need another one to fix the mess you got yourselves into.

No liberty....it was Iranian politics that screwed up big time...quit playing victim....it's like a broken record stuck in the groove of a song no one but you and Antar would listen to...

Get over it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:


No liberty....it was Iranian politics that screwed up big time...quit playing victim....it's like a broken record stuck in the groove of a song no one but you and Antar would listen to...

Get over it...



people, do the honorable thing and remind this guy of the Green Belt Plot to being Islamo-Fascists into power.

the british support for khomeini. having him on their payroll in Najaf. The French Grooming him in Paris. etc.

and the whole mess of a Carter Mad Policy. not to mention backstabbing a valuable ally in Middle East. Backstabbing a pro-American nation in Middle East just to support buch of fascist ayatollahs!

doesn't matter if no one listens, it is the truth, nevertheless. and you can not hide it for ever.
_________________
Paayande Iran


Last edited by Liberty Now ! on Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !



Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

by the way, people of Iran know about it, I'm just letting you know their feelings and thoughts. take a note, it may come in handy.

I'm also starting to believe that they will not lift a finger to clean up this mess. afterall, they also think those who created it better clean it up themselves.

until you learn to appreciate friendly nations and governments and not backstab them, we will stand by and watch you learn the valuable lesson.

Iranians have always persionalized the invadors, and this will be no exception. by now the people know how to get these thugs to listen, and do what we want, step by step.

I believe they've made their decision already. the price is too high to change this regime. those who supported khomeini and backstabbed the Shah of Iran, can pay it. we have no such intention.



(see! this is what happens when you try to be a good gov. employee and whitewash over your historic mistakes. it's just counterproductive.

so get over it )
_________________
Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group