dagblog - Comments for "Iran's nukes: it's not just the centrifuges that are spinning"

To make informed decisions,

acanuck — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:08:48 +0000

To make informed decisions, people first have to cut through the cynical noise machine set up to demonize Iran as a prelude to war. So yes, Nebton, given the amount of deliberately concocted misinformation out there, I often end up "defending" Iran. Dirty job, but ...

A key point to realize is that Iran has been trying to mend fences with the U.S. for at least eight years. In the wake of 9/11, the chant "Death to America" was banned and the government offered the U.S. its full co-operation (short of armed forces) in ousting the Taliban and crushing Al-Qa'ida. For example, escape routes were set up for any downed American pilots. At an international conference, Iran helped get the U.S. candidate, Hamid Karzai, accepted as Afghan president.

Imagine the Iranians' surprise when, just a few months later, Bush branded them members of the Axis of Evil. Did that deter Iran from seeking a rapprochement? No.

Reuters: "Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by (Condoleezza) Rice, said a proposal vetted by Tehran's most senior leaders was sent to the United States in May 2003 and was akin to the 1972 U.S. opening to China. Speaking at a conference on Capitol Hill, Leverett said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but 'the administration rejected the overture.' " (Rice lied to Congress that she never saw the diplomatic note.)

The Iranian letter offered to put all outstanding issues on the table -- including Mideast peace, terrorism and recognition of Israel. Rather than respond, the U.S. berated the Swiss for even passing on Iran's proposal. Ironically, any deal the U.S. gets now will be less than what Iran put on the table six years ago.

So my point is that -- for an implacable foe -- Iran sure has shown willingness to negotiate. It's just a little bit wary of U.S. intentions after being burned a couple of times.

I think acanuk is more

Nebton — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:11:56 +0000

In reply to The reason you hear crickets

I think acanuk is more interested in us making informed decisions than he is in defending Iran.

Speaking of nearly 30 years ago, do you remember how our "great" President Reagan chose to deal with Iran? That's an excellent lesson in how to make a bad situation worse. (Unless, of course, you think Saddam was one of the good guys…)

The reason you hear crickets

KenK — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:23:07 +0000

In reply to Two things: 1. Exactly how is

The reason you hear crickets from the Iranian regime is that their ears are still ringing from the last 30 years of chanting in the government halls "DEATH TO ISRAEL! DEATH TO AMERICA!". If the translation of "wipe that blot off the map" is unsure, just open your ears to the daily chants (even in government venues) of "DEATH TO ______". No need to micro-parse just ONE particular statement of Ahmadinejad. Why of all the people who need defending in the world would you choose to decide to go to bat for these people who (IMO) history will show to be intentionally deceiving the international community re: weaponization. If they chanted "DEATH TO..." even slightly less frequently, maybe the world would be less alarmed. Till then, you might want to think about over emphasizing that one translation of A.D. when clearly the weight of their intentions should override any doubts... Just my opinion of course.

I read somewhere that all

acanuck — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:57:23 +0000

In reply to As a Canadian, surely you're

I read somewhere that all those extra letters are there because they once represented how the word was really pronounced. So the word "eaux" (waters), which today is basically pronounced "oh," once sounded something like "eh-ah-ux." Boy, I'm glad the French language has evolved!

As for dropping wo

Two things: 1. Exactly how is

acanuck — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:44:29 +0000

In reply to Interesting catch. For what

Two things:

1. Exactly how is it news that Sarkozy supposedly said his spies think Iran is working toward a bomb? We've been told for years now that that's the consensus of western intelligence agencies. Isn't that the whole basis of the "crisis" over Iran's nuclear activities?

Answer: it's not news; it's just a manufactured "hook" on which to hang commentary designed to distract from the fact that Iran and the U.S. have agreed to talk face to face in a little over a week. It's time for a full-court press to ensure those talks fail.

2. How fucking incompetent is the PR department of Iranian Foreign Affairs? They routinely get played by every half-assed disinformation campaign; it's like nobody there can read English. Juan Cole, who understands Farsi, did an excellent job debunking the canard that Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." (He never said that, even though it's a mantra repeated to this day.) What did we hear from the Iranian government? Crickets.

And a third thing: It wasn't JPost that inserted the word "weapons." That appears to have occurred in the English version of the AFP story. If anyone with better search skills than I have can find the original French version (and link to it), I'd much appreciate it.

WMDs! WMDs! Acanuck, shut up

Orlando — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:12:07 +0000

In reply to Iran's nukes: it's not just the centrifuges that are spinning

WMDs! WMDs! Acanuck, shut up and wave your flag.

As a Canadian, surely you're

Nebton — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:27:22 +0000

In reply to Iran's nukes: it's not just the centrifuges that are spinning

As a Canadian, surely you're aware that the French regularly drop the last half of their words. (Of all of those words they have ending in -eaux, have you ever heard an x sound?) Well, it turns out that sometimes they drop words out of their sentences, as well. You'll just have to trust me on that.

Interesting catch. For what

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:02:50 +0000

In reply to Iran's nukes: it's not just the centrifuges that are spinning

Interesting catch. For what it's worth, the Iranians also seem to have interpreted Sarkozy's comment as a reference to nuclear weapons, though unlike the Jerusalem Post, the Tehran Times did not insert the word "weapons."