Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player

The Jehoshua Novels


A Path To Peace With Iran

[Note - updated "below the fold"]

When American politicians talk about Iran’s nuclear program, one of the common features is a lack of realistic detail about what exactly it would take for that program not to be a problem any more. It’s all “Iran must stop enrichment” and “give up its nuclear ambitions”. But there’s no acknowledgement that the NPT allows Iran an enrichment program and the right to nuclear power. There’s no plan for getting from where we are to there other than to say “stop” louder and ratchet up both sanctions and talk of war. No wonder the Iranians think the real agenda is regime change – it probably is.

However, for those of us who’d rather see the problem solved peaceably, Hossein Mousavian today sets out a realistic path for normalization of the Iran nuclear file:

From 2003 to 2009, Iran exchanged many proposals with the EU3, and later the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany). Again unfortunately, none were realistic, largely because they did not provide face-saving mechanisms for either party. Going forward, any viable solution needs to meet the bottom lines of both sides. For Iran, this means the ability to produce reliable civilian nuclear energy, as it is entitled to do under the non-proliferation treaty. For the U.S. and Europe, it means never having Iran develop nuclear weapons or a short-notice breakout capability.

Specifically, the West should recognize the legitimate right of Iran to produce nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment; remove sanctions; and normalize Iran’s nuclear file at the UN Security Council and the IAEA. To meet the P5+1 conditions, Iran should accept the maximum level of transparency by implementing the IAEA’s Subsidiary Arrangement Code 3.1 and the non-proliferation treaty’s Additional Protocol, which broadly enable intrusive monitoring and inspections of nuclear facilities.

To eliminate Western concerns about a possible nuclear weapons breakout using low-enriched uranium, any deal should place a limit on Iran’s enrichment activities to less than 5 percent. Low-enriched uranium covers enrichment by as much as 20 percent, a level that is more conducive for further enrichment to weapons grade. A deal should also cap the amount of low- enriched uranium hexafluoride that Iran can stockpile; limit its enrichment sites during a period of confidence building; establish an international consortium on enrichment in Iran; and commit not to reprocess low-enriched uranium during the confidence-building period.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s offer to stop 20 percent enrichment in exchange for a P5+1 commitment to provide fuel rods for the Tehran Research Reactor — a proposal he made in comments to reporters last September after a speech to the UN General Assembly — and Russia’s ”œStep-by-Step Plan” represent the most conducive path to reaching such a deal. The Russian plan includes full supervision by the IAEA; implementation of the non-proliferation treaty’s Additional Protocol and Subsidiary Arrangement; readiness to stop production of low- enriched uranium and limiting enrichment to 5 percent; halting the production and installation of new centrifuges; limiting enrichment sites to one; addressing the IAEA’s ”œpossible military dimension” concerns and other technical ambiguities; and temporary suspension of enrichment.

In return, Iran would expect the P5+1 to remove sanctions and normalize Iran’s nuclear file in the IAEA and Security Council. Iran has already welcomed both initiatives. The U.S. and Europeans have declined. Instead, they have chosen to try coercion. The result was evidenced in recent days, as Iranian officials announced the insertion of their first domestically produced 20 percent fuel rod, and an increase in the number of enrichment centrifuges to 9,000 from 6,000.

Mousavian was formerly Iran’s nuclear negotiator and ambassador to Germany. He’s worth listening to. I wonder if anyone in the D.C. halls of power will do so?

Update Maybe they will.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States and European Union expressed cautious optimism on Friday over prospects that Iran may be willing to engage major powers in new talks, but underscored any resumed negotiations must be sustained and focus on the nuclear issue.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton told reporters that Iran’s recent letter to Ashton might mark a step forward.

“We think this is an important step and we welcome the letter,” Clinton said in a joint meeting with Ashton. She stressed that the major powers were still reviewing their formal response to Tehran’s offer.

I can’t help but hope each time that this time will be the one where both sides decide solving the problem is more important than being seen to win the argument.

Update 2 Then again, maybe not.

Update 3 AIPAC-sponsored Senator’s are trying to constrain the options all the way down to “only war”.

A new bipartisan resolution introduced Thursday on Capitol Hill is part of a growing effort to shift the longstanding U.S. red line from Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon to having the capability to build one. Such a shift would bring U.S. policy in line with Israel’s approach.

The resolution — a nonbinding Senate statement backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ”“ calls on the United States to prevent Iran from acquiring even the capability to build nuclear weapons.

It was introduced by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Robert Casey (D-Pa.) and has 32 co-sponsors, roughly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. In order to garner Democratic support, the resolution’s authors had toned down its original language.

…As it now stands, the resolution ”œaffirms that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.”

The language that was removed would have affirmed ”œthat it is within the power and capabilities of the United States Government to prevent the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.”

Noting the ”œpower and capabilities” of the United States seemed too close to saber rattling for some Democrats, insiders said. A number of senators asked Graham to include an explicit denial that the resolution authorized military action; he flatly refused.

Capitol Hill insiders say that if Graham had not changed the language at all he likely would have failed to garner more than nominal Democratic support.

Robert Naiman points out, though, that even the amended wording is a recipe for war.

The phrase “vital national interest” is a “term of art.” It means something that the U.S. should be willing to go to war for. Recall the debate over whether the U.S. military intervention in Libya was a “vital national interest” of the United States (which Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it wasn’t.) It was a debate over whether the bar was met to justify the United States going to war.

The resolution seeks to establish it as U.S. policy that a nuclear weapons capability — not acquisition of a nuclear weapon, but the technical capacity to create one — is a “red line” for the United States. If the U.S. were to announce to Iran that achieving “nuclear weapons capability” is a red line for the U.S., the U.S. would be saying that it is ready to attack Iran with military force in order to try to prevent Iran from crossing this “line” to achieve “nuclear weapons capability.”

…That’s not a legal “authorization of force,” but it is a political one.

The “Japan Option” is not illegal under international law – but these Senators want the U.S. to launch pre-meditated aggressive war if Iran pursues it.

29 comments to A Path To Peace With Iran

  • justadood

    Forgiveness aside (shouldn’t be necessary at this point…it *has* been a generation at least since then), the old men in DC really need to get over the poke in the eye the US government took during the Carter administration when the people of Iran threw out our puppet and prevented a (US) military retaking of power.

    But then, All I need to do is look south from my parents’ Florida home to see… The US is like a husband who can’t get past a divorce, who keeps sending threatening mail and driving by the ex’s house, occasionally throwing a rock through the window…..

    “It’s no longer IOKIYAR….It’s OK If You’re A Republican, but IOKBYAR–It’s OK BECAUSE You’re a Republican.” — Me

  • ScentOfViolets

    Like it or not, nuclear power is the only feasible option for large base load capacity. So what happens when the oil/coal/natural gas runs out?

    Do the Big Powers then get to use the NPT as a club to choke off any industrial development in foreign countries that they deem antithetical to their “national interest”?

    -“He deserves death.”
    -“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

  • JustPlainDave

    …law if the country pursuing it is not doing so in a declared fashion and is doing so with a clean bill of health in terms of their counterproliferation obligations. When either of those two pieces is missing, one gets into an area where international law is contested and likely to be determined by UNSC/GA resolution.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • JustPlainDave

    via the ACA:

    Diplomatic Strategies for Preventing a Nuclear-Armed Iran

    Thursday, February 9, 2012
    9:30am to 11:00am

    The Henry L. Stimson Center Conference Room
    1111 19th St, NW, 12th Floor
    Washington, D.C

    Amid rising tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, the key parties engaged in the issue have all said they are interested in a diplomatic solution to the current impasse. In a letter on behalf of the P5+1 last October, European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton called on Iran to return to serious talks on the nuclear file. Iranian officials have said they are ready for talks and are preparing a formal response.

    With the possibility that the seven countries will meet once again in Istanbul, the site of their last unproductive meeting one year ago, what are the prospects for progress? What are the two sides likely to propose and how would such proposals address concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

    Please join the Arms Control Association and guests for a discussion of these and other critical questions related to diplomatic efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.

    Speakers:

    Ambassador James Dobbins is the director of the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center. Dobbins has held State Department and White House posts including Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Special Assistant to the President, and Special Adviser to the President and Secretary of State for the Balkans. He represented the United States at the Bonn Conference in 2001, which involved negotiating with Iranian officials on establishing a new Afghan government.

    Peter Crail is a Nonproliferation Analyst with ACA focusing on nuclear and missile proliferation. He has been following arms control and nonproliferation-related issues since 2004, working at the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs and the Center for Nonproliferation Studies before joining ACA in 2007. His recent essay, “Charting a Diplomatic Path on the Iran Nuclear Challenge,” is available online here.

    Dr. Jim Walsh is an expert in international security and a Research Associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program (SSP). Dr. Walsh’s work on international security focuses primarily on nuclear weapons and terrorism, and he is one of a handful of Americans who has traveled to both Iran and North Korea for talks with officials about nuclear issues.

    Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of ACA.

    [event transcript follows - haven't read it all, but as the hed says - germane]

    Dobbins was primary author on a recent RAND monograph on the topic, which can be found here.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • ScentOfViolets

    A solution in search of a problem? Where’s your evidence that Iran is actually has an active program for acquiring nuclear weapons?

    A frank, nonweasel-worded answer would be appreciated; if you’ve got no evidence, just say so.

    -“He deserves death.”
    -“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

  • JustPlainDave

    …is little to no unambiguous evidence that Iran currently has an active program for weaponization. The current state of play can be summed up in a few key points:

    1) There is potentially decent evidence that Iran previously had an active weaponization program – a central issue is whether that evidence is genuine. I tend to think that it is, but it is possible that it is not.

    2) There is clear and unambiguous evidence of ongoing activity related to the production of nuclear fuel and ballistic missiles that could potentially deliver a warhead. The central issues are whether this activity is purely motivated by the desire to produce civil fuels and what Iranian strategic thought is around ballistic missiles.

    3) There is some evidence that may indicate ongoing activity that would be useful in weaponization. How that evidence should be interpreted is a matter for debate. I tend to think that they are not so stupid as to realize that this is an area of proliferation concern, but they have stayed away from other areas where things would be less ambiguous.

    4) There is also clear and compelling evidence that Iran has consistently not entirely complied with the IAEA to take measures that could result in a clean bill of health from a proliferation perspective. The central issue here would be what is motivating them not to fully cooperate.

    Hopefully that’s “weasel word” free enough. This is a business where people who tell you that they are certain should probably not be trusted.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • ScentOfViolets

    Iow, you don’t have any evidence . . . and you are being a weasel in refusing to say so. Because if you actually had evidence, I’m quite sure you wouldn’t be shy about linking to it or quoting it. Instead of merely robotically repeating that you had such evidence without actually, you know, showing it to us.[1]

    There’s a reason why burden of proof standards are formulated the way they are. It’s to prevent your brand of bull from gaining any traction.

    [1]I don’t think I’m alone in finding this sort of treatment insulting, obnoxious, and abusive.

    -“He deserves death.”
    -“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

  • JustPlainDave

    …and then shit on them when they don’t tell you what you want to hear. You want insulting, obnoxious and abusive, go look in the mirror.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • JustPlainDave

    …you [expletive deleted] – the bottom line of my assessment was that there isn’t any good evidence that Iran currently has an active weaponization program.

    Score one for reading comprehension.” ~ not-Karl Marlantes

  • ScentOfViolets

    Bub, you didn’t present any evidence. But you want people to pretend that you did and treat you accordingly. That’s insulting and abusive.

    We can keep doing this Krugmanesque dance btw: you can keep being an idealogue and I can continue to keep being as rude and uncivil as Krugman is said to be by pointing out that you keep refusing to be data-oriented.

    I ask again on the question of Iran actively pursuing nuclear weaponary:

    Where’s. Your. Evidence?

    As long as you keep refusing to do so, it’s not at all hard to see who’s gaslighting who.

    -“He deserves death.”
    -“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

  • ScentOfViolets

    That’s not my takeaway of what you said, but since you’ve graciously admitted that there’s no evidence of any such nuclear proliferation “problem”, what was the point in posting your “germane” article?

    And since it’s quite obvious that I think that you haven’t posted any evidence, and since you seem to actually agree that pushing any solution in the absence of a problem isn’t cricket, and since you further agree that pretending you’ve posted evidence when you actually haven’t is being a weasel . . . why the abuse on your part?

    Time to fish or cut bait.

    -“He deserves death.”
    -“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

  • Steve Hynd

    Play nice, folks. One and only warning.

    “the bottom line of my assessment was that there isn’t any good evidence that Iran currently has an active weaponization program.”

    I agree, that’s what JPD said in his earlier comment.

    Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, any more than trumped up evidence is evidence at all. However Iran has been very clear that what it wants is a nuclear breakout capability without ever having to go as far as actually constructing a bomb. Larijani told the Japanese that Iran was pursuing the Japan Option [Mehr News Agency, 02/25/10] and I see no reason to believe he was lying so that’s my offer as the best operating assumption. I’d say JPD agrees with that, as far as I read his comments on several threads about this. He and I have been discussing this, on and off, in comments on various posts for several years now – and over the years we’ve both moved closer to that agreement, iirc.

    Regards, Steve ENE

  • Anonymous

    1) There is potentially decent evidence that Iran previously had an active weaponization program – a central issue is whether that evidence is genuine. I tend to think that it is, but it is possible that it is not.

    If all the documents provided to us were authentic, I said, choosing my words carefully, then there was a high probability that Iran had engaged in nuclear weaponization studies. ‘But I have to underline this if three times,” I stressed, “and that is why we are stuck.” ~ Mohammed al-Baradei

    2) There is clear and unambiguous evidence of ongoing activity related to the production of nuclear fuel and ballistic missiles that could potentially deliver a warhead. The central issues are whether this activity is purely motivated by the desire to produce civil fuels and what Iranian strategic thought is around ballistic missiles.

    -GOV/2011/65 reports that enrichment is continuing, both at the FEP and PFEP. This enrichment is both at the 5% and 20% levels (both figures nominal). The report can be found here. Section C deals with enrichment activities.

    -Ted Postol’s work highlighting Iranian ballistic missile development can be found here – particularly look to the table on throw weights.

    3) There is some evidence that may indicate ongoing activity that would be useful in weaponization. How that evidence should be interpreted is a matter for debate. I tend to think that they are not so stupid as to realize that this is an area of proliferation concern, but they have stayed away from other areas where things would be less ambiguous.

    -Look to the aforementioned GOV/2011/65, specifically the annex, section C.6 and possibly C.7 (note that this is different from Section C in the main body of the report).

    4) There is also clear and compelling evidence that Iran has consistently not entirely complied with the IAEA to take measures that could result in a clean bill of health from a proliferation perspective. The central issue here would be what is motivating them not to fully cooperate.

    -Again, from GOV/2011/65:

    39. The Board of Governors has called on Iran on a number of occasions to engage with the Agency on the resolution of all outstanding issues in order to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. In resolution 1929 (2010), the Security Council reaffirmed Iran’s obligations to take the steps required by the Board of Governors in its resolutions GOV/2006/14 and GOV/2009/82, and to cooperate fully with the Agency on all outstanding issues, particularly those which give rise to concerns about the possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, including by providing access without delay to all sites, equipment, persons and documents requested by the Agency. Since August 2008, Iran has not engaged with the Agency in any substantive way on this matter.

    They (the IAEA) have said substantially the same thing for an extended period.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • JustPlainDave

    …is emphatically not the same thing as saying there is no nuclear proliferation problem here. There’s a massively huge proliferation problem here. As might be indicated by folks not normally considered to be “bomb Iran” warmongers (that would be the Arms Control Association) having this type of event and expressing these types of concerns.

    As to why the abuse – give me a break. You’ve essentially asserted that I am lying when I try to accurately and succinctly break down two decades worth of events into a four point state of play. I don’t take kindly to that. I work pretty hard to stay current on this file and it’s not one that lends itself to the “are they or aren’t they” treatment you want someone to provide for you. Work through the body of material and come to your own conclusions. ISIS has all of the compliance reports and I think most of the INFOCIRCs – if you need a reading list beyond that to make them sensible (I did), I can provide one.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • ScentOfViolets

    As I said, that’s why burden of proof requirements (in the sciences at least) are formulated the way the way they are.[1] Yes, it’s true that absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence.

    But before you go forward with any costly fixes to a “problem”, you damn well better be sure that the problem exists in the first place.

    You haven’t done that. This is particularly damning in the light that beating the drums for some sort of fix to this problem has been going on for over thirty years!

    [1]I trust we can all agree that people gaslighting us on whether they’ve presented evidence for their assertions is extremely insulting and in bad faith. I’m with Krugman on this one – when this occurs, the people being abusive need to be called on their asshattery. Hard and often. If you disagree with what seems to be a basic bit of net policing, we aren’t inhabiting the same universe of discourse. Needless to say, whether or not such an abuse has occurred is a quite different question from the one of what to do when it has.

    -“He deserves death.”
    -“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

  • JustPlainDave

    …power structure that wants this, but that there are others that want more and some who would settle for less. The challenge with Iranian dynamics is that they have a tendency to try for as much as they think they can get at any given moment and they are very prone to out-bidding; combine that with the slowness of decision-making and their opacity to their counterparts and that causes huge problems.

    Bottom line for me – I don’t think anyone even in the system definitely knows the desired end state because the decision hasn’t been formally taken yet (though I would take Larijani’s remarks as an indicator that a sizeable faction wants that end state). If nuclear latency was their desired end state from the beginning they have played very, very badly. They’re rational actors and they play a long game, but they don’t think very far ahead.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • ScentOfViolets

    That’s. Not. Evidence.

    You could just as well say that I’m “actively pursuing” the construction of a bomb for domestic terrorism because of the chemicals in my garage and my “active intent” to purchase fertilizer in the near future.

    As I noted above, this looks like nothing more than an attempt to use the NPT as some sort of club to keep certain nations in line by clamping down on their industrial development.

    Seriously. What happens when the oil is all gone and coal is a preciously guarded “national resource”? There isn’t any viable alternative to nuclear for large base line loads. And if you happen to disagree, well, it’s not your call to make on behalf of nations like Iran.

    -“He deserves death.”
    -“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

  • JustPlainDave

    …particularly easy for you to produce evidence that both meets your stringent standards and falsifies it. Be my guest.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • ScentOfViolets

    I’m calling you on your BS – you either have evidence or you don’t.[1]

    And Steve, it looks like my reading of what JPD was right after all – he doesn’t have any evidence but he wants us to act as if he does.

    Since I think we all agree that weaseling on something of this importance is not to be tolerated, would you please tell him to cease and desist with this sort of abuse?

    When actual evidence is presented that Iran is “actively pursuing” a nuclear arms capability in defiance of the NPT, I’ll be ready to entertain discussion about what needs to be done. Not before.

    [1]And no, we’ve had more than two decades of “evidence” that turned out to be baseless claims presented by the usual suspects, your characterization notwithstanding.

    -“He deserves death.”
    -“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

  • JustPlainDave

    …”calling people out” on a combination of things we basically agree on or that frankly aren’t nearly as contentious as you think they are. I don’t think that Iran is “actively pursuing” a nuclear arms capability (if by that you mean weaponization). I do think they’re pursuing activities that could potentially have relevance to such a capability and that that pursuit is in violation of the spirit and the letter of the NPT. However, were they to pursue those same activities after having gotten a clean bill of health from the IAEA, they wouldn’t be in violation. Having read Dr. el-Baradei’s biography and followed the positions of the IAEA and the reams of coverage around it, I think the IAEA would agree.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • ScentOfViolets

    Btw, I’m on record as opposing the Bush II invasion of Iraq. My reason? Because there was no physical evidence that he actually had or was actively pursuing any nuclear weapons capability. I was derided at the time as thinking of myself as being more of an expert than the “experts” that were all assuring us that this was the case. My reply was that when Kennedy was asked in the U.N. how he could be sure that the Russkies were setting up missiles in Cuba, he promptly pulled out a stack of photographs and proceeded to point out all the salient features. Independent experts could verify that the photos had not been doctored. No such physical evidence was ever presented in the run up to the Iraq invasion, despite the administration having every evidence to make such evidence public.

    So when JPD or anyone else has the sort of evidence that Kennedy had on the Soviets, I’ll give what they have to say some attention. Until then, all they’ve got is the usual stove-piping by the usual “experts”.

    -“He deserves death.”
    -“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

  • ScentOfViolets

    If that’s what you really believe, then you should be able to say that there is no evidence that anything has to be done wrt to Iran, anymore than you think something needs to be done about me on the basis of my suspicious intent to purchase fertilizer this spring.

    Now, you may think you have said that, but that’s definitely not what I’ve heard. So please, just come out and say this straight up. Then you can impugn my poor reading comprehension all you want :-)

    -“He deserves death.”
    -“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

  • Anonymous

    am asking you both to agree to disagree before this discussion deteriorates any further. I also ask that in the future that personal insult be left out any discussions. Thank You

  • ScentOfViolets

    Note btw – per the original post – that there is no violation to the NPT implied by pursuing a nuclear enrichment program.

    And no, talking about violating the “spirit” of the treaty is not in any way shape or form evidence. It’s just another way of saying “I don’t have any evidence, but I suspect them of nefarious activities anyway.”

    -“He deserves death.”
    -“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

  • JustPlainDave

    There are aspects of the Iranian historical program that remain unresolved. At a minimum, until they are resolved, something “has to be done”. Are some folks riding on the coattails of the NPT in this for other ends? Probably. But all that demonstrates to me is exactly why the Iranians should seek to get a clean bill of health – it will greatly enhance their strategic room for maneuver. That they have not is the most puzzling aspect of their behaviour for me.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • ScentOfViolets

    Wtf!?!?!?!

    Uh, Dave? I don’t know how to explain this to you yet again, but the burden of proof isn’t on me. I’m not making any claims.

    No, the burden of proof is on you for your claims, not on me to refute them.

    But if you’re taking this tack, I’m outta here.

    Needless to say, you’ve not been convincing.

    -“He deserves death.”
    -“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

  • ScentOfViolets

    That’s it. I’m outta here.

    -“He deserves death.”
    -“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

  • JustPlainDave

    …should be asked to tolerate being called a liar without response.

    * I mean that in the sense of “dear editor, I really am sorry to make more work for you” as opposed to the common sarcastic rhetorical device. Which I indulge in ceaselessly. Ahem.

    In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven’t looked deeply enough.” ~ Karl Marlantes

  • Tina

    that calling people liars crosses the line of the posting guidelines. I am just trying to not send anyone to the time out chair or have to close the thread completely.

Leave a Reply