Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Iranian official says Iran really just wants to be friends with the US and this whole nuke program thing is just a silly misunderstanding   (cnn.com) divider line
49
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

304 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Feb 2007 at 4:05 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



49 Comments     (+0 »)
 
Headso
2007-02-22 4:15:15 PM  
cool, maybe they can help us get Iraq under control. I'm sure the Iraqis wouldn't mind them helping us quell Baghdad...
 
apeiron242
2007-02-22 4:23:08 PM  
Twould be an awesome thing for Iran to chill on the nuke program and join the civilized world. We should establish diplomatic relations with everyone, even if they are run by crazy guys.
 
Blues_Fan
2007-02-22 4:29:06 PM  
like us?
 
idsfa
2007-02-22 4:35:09 PM  
[image from farm1.static.flickr.com too old to be available]
 
Running a-puck
2007-02-22 4:35:15 PM  
The general citizens of Iran are about the most pro-western folks you are going to find in the ME. If we can just manage to leave them alone for a generation or two we actually will have them as friends.
 
Comrade438
2007-02-22 4:36:54 PM  
elchip: Actually, until Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, that's exactly where things were going...

Hezbollah RRY?
 
miked1883
2007-02-22 4:38:58 PM  
elchip

Yeah I forgot the Iranian government was completely peaceful and was one of our strongest allies before that speech.

... give me a break.
 
thegoodthebadthedumb
2007-02-22 4:39:37 PM  
Iran is free to develop civilian nuclear energy technology. And according to an article in the Wall Street Journal this week, which detailed their problems in oil production vs. domestic consumption, it seems that they really do need to develop new energy sources.
 
Resin33
2007-02-22 4:40:25 PM  
Apparently this is opinion is shared by the religious leaders.

Religion of peace?
 
Robokev
2007-02-22 4:40:29 PM  
Dear America,
Do you "like" like us?
Check one:
Yes [] No []

-Iran
 
Persepolis
2007-02-22 4:41:14 PM  
Comrade438: Hezbollah RRY?

miked1883: Yeah I forgot the Iranian government was completely peaceful and was one of our strongest allies before that speech.

... give me a break.

I think he was referring to the citizenry.

And he didn't say thats where theres were, but were going.
 
Headso
2007-02-22 4:44:37 PM  
Comrade438: Hezbollah RRY?

I think they are after the Israelis, we are "allies" with both Pakistan and India and they also support militants that attack each other...
 
miked1883
2007-02-22 4:46:52 PM  
persepolis

Fair enough, but if Bush had said "Iranian government" instead of "Iran" in that speech I wonder if he'd still find some way to blame Bush.

My guess is yes.
 
Persepolis
2007-02-22 4:53:37 PM  
miked1883: Fair enough, but if Bush had said "Iranian government" instead of "Iran" in that speech I wonder if he'd still find some way to blame Bush.

My guess is yes.

True enough. But if someone came and said fark the US government (What? people say that?) It wouldn't be taken kindly by the citizens.

Even still in these times, the citizens of Iran are (for the most part) pro west. In my mind, only offensive action against them can change that.

and change it quick and drastically.
 
whyarefartslumpy
2007-02-22 4:55:34 PM  
but if Bush had said "Iranian government....

But what if he said Iran Government instead of Iranian government, and the Iranians took that as some kind of a slur?
 
Korovyov
2007-02-22 4:56:50 PM  
Pretty words. Unfortunately, they've been said before by many, many people with less than pretty intentions.


Co-operation against al-Qaeda is an interesting possibility, but backing a Lebanese militia that destabilizes the Lebanese government and has a history of antagonizing a nuclear-weapons state is not necessarily appreciated, any more than they appreciate that the US talks to MEK.
 
emocomputerjock
2007-02-22 4:58:13 PM  
Persepolis

True enough. But if someone came and said fark the US government (What? people say that?) It wouldn't be taken kindly by the citizens.

70% of America would outright agree with that statement.
 
Persepolis
2007-02-22 4:58:23 PM  
Korovyov: any more than they appreciate that the US talks to MEK.

Or supports the terror group, Jundullah. (Assumed, not fact)
 
Persepolis
2007-02-22 5:00:01 PM  
emocomputerjock: 70% of America would outright agree with that statement.

Even so, remember when Chavez came here and said he smelled sulfur and the devil just left (referring to bush?)

That got a lot of people upset. Even though Bush's approval ratings were then at an all time low.
 
Running a-puck
2007-02-22 5:02:55 PM  
miked1883Fair enough, but if Bush had said "Iranian government" instead of "Iran" in that speech I wonder if he'd still find some way to blame Bush.

The speech itself was a pretty stupid thing to do on a couple of different levels. You should never call another nationstate 'evil' unless you are actively at war with them or for some other reason do not care to negotiate with them about _anything_. It's just counter productive from a real-politik standpoint. I am not one of those who attribute every bad that exists in the universe to the Bush II admin, but they have shown a remarkable lack of ability to manage international relations.
 
emocomputerjock
2007-02-22 5:04:07 PM  
That got the usual suspects aroused, I'd say the flamewar was split 50-50, allowing for trolls.
 
Persepolis
2007-02-22 5:06:45 PM  
emocomputerjock: That got the usual suspects aroused, I'd say the flamewar was split 50-50, allowing for trolls.

I listen to a lot of talk radio, so maybe my perception of the reaction was a little one sided.
 
Korovyov
2007-02-22 5:07:28 PM  
Running a-puck --
Or if there's a tacit understanding that it doesn't mean squat. Look at US-China relations, for instance; the US periodically criticizes the PRC for human-rights violations, the Chinese retalliate with reports of violations in the US, and the US continues to trade with them on an absolutely massive scale while negotiating on whatever floats their boat. Both sides are generally pragmatists unless domestic politics requires whipping up a little nationalism or bigotry.
 
Running a-puck
2007-02-22 5:08:52 PM  
emocomputerjock: That got the usual suspects aroused, I'd say the flamewar was split 50-50, allowing for trolls.

Huh, I was just thinking that the thread was remarkably non-flamy
 
emocomputerjock
2007-02-22 5:09:59 PM  
Persepolis

Oh man, no wonder, that's like fark with all of the posts being made by a farker-who-isn't-here-yet, but should be soon.
 
Persepolis
2007-02-22 5:10:41 PM  
Korovyov: Look at US-China relations,

US-Iran relations are similar to, but really A WORLD away from US-China relations.

They had ping pong diplomacy with china. I think wrestling/soccer/basketball diplomacy could work well here.

/Not professional, but olympic. Iranians love that/
//And basketball too, in case you didn't know, thats huge in Iran.
 
Something_else
2007-02-22 5:11:20 PM  
thegoodthebadthedumb
Iran is free to develop civilian nuclear energy technology. And according to an article in the Wall Street Journal this week, which detailed their problems in oil production vs. domestic consumption, it seems that they really do need to develop new energy sources.

True--Iran is an importer of energy (and will need still more as time goes on). However, if Iran was interested in only a civilian nuclear program, there would be no need for enriching uranium beyond 5% or so. Iran can claim that it's a peaceful program all they want--but they're not backing it up with actions.
 
Persepolis
2007-02-22 5:11:36 PM  
emocomputerjock: that's like fark

Kinda, but way more one sided. And the flamewars are all one sided and have no rebuttal.
 
emocomputerjock
2007-02-22 5:12:47 PM  
Running a-puck

The Chavez thread? It had its moments, after all it's always a flamewar in politics threads. The opinion was evently split between "Chavez is an idiot", "Chavez is a correct idiot", and "ZOFGMGMG BUSSSH UNNNNN".
 
Persepolis
2007-02-22 5:13:16 PM  
Something_else: there would be no need for enriching uranium beyond 5% or so.

Have they gotten to that point yet? Last I heard they're barely over 3% (could be wrong, I really do know)

Iran can claim that it's a peaceful program all they want--but they're not backing it up with actions.

Personally, I think it's in the best interest of the leadership in Iran to have the US hostile. They are trying they're hardest to make the bond between the west and their own citizens as weak as possible.

Thats why they're being such douches about it all.
 
Something_else
2007-02-22 5:35:47 PM  
Persepolis

The 5% was a rough estimate. But they are trying to arrange a centrifuge cascade, which is unnecessary for civilian programs. Low-enriched-uranium is commercially available--like a normal commodity. There's no need to manufacuture it themselves.

As for your second comment, I agree entirely. Right now, there is a signficant amount of the population that is pro-US. If the US were to strike Iran, we would instantly lose that support.
 
Running a-puck
2007-02-22 5:36:26 PM  
emocomputerjock: The Chavez thread? It had its moments, after all it's always a flamewar in politics threads. The opinion was evently split between "Chavez is an idiot", "Chavez is a correct idiot", and "ZOFGMGMG BUSSSH UNNNNN".

Oh... Sorry, I missed the context, I thought you were talking about this thread.
 
Running a-puck
2007-02-22 5:39:35 PM  
Korovyov: Or if there's a tacit understanding that it doesn't mean squat. Look at US-China relations, for instance; the US periodically criticizes the PRC for human-rights violations, the Chinese retalliate with reports of violations in the US, and the US continues to trade with them on an absolutely massive scale while negotiating on whatever floats their boat. Both sides are generally pragmatists unless domestic politics requires whipping up a little nationalism or bigotry.

I think there is a huge difference between how superpowers talk to each other, and how they do things when talking to non-superpowers... but at this point I'm kind of left to pulling things out of my ass and have nothing to back up my assertions, so I'll concide the point.

I still think it's stupid to call out another nation when you are trying to negotiate something.
 
LargeCanine
2007-02-22 5:40:13 PM  
Un-named sources mouthing platitudes to a western reporter. Christiane Amanpour is being played.
 
Korovyov
2007-02-22 5:43:28 PM  
Something_else --
There may be no need, for now, but -- they have their own uranium mines available, and it's certainly that they don't want to be dependent on somebody else when they clearly don't have to.


After all, such critical dependencies mean leverage... and the suppliers might later on drastically raise prices or threaten to turn off the lights.
 
Running a-puck
2007-02-22 5:44:46 PM  
Something_else: The 5% was a rough estimate. But they are trying to arrange a centrifuge cascade, which is unnecessary for civilian programs. Low-enriched-uranium is commercially available--like a normal commodity. There's no need to manufacuture it themselves.

If I recall correctly you use the exact same cascading centrifuges to make low enriched uranium as you do with high enriched, and Iran has fairly substantial uranium deposits. So just having the centrifuges does not necessarily point to developing nuclear arms, since if the point is to not be an energy importer it doesn't make much sense to, well, import your source of power.

Thats part of the problem here, you use the exact same equipment, and the exact same process, to make low and high enriched uranium. We won't know for certain for like 18 months if they are stopping at low enriched or continuing for high enriched uranium.
 
Korovyov
2007-02-22 5:47:32 PM  
Certainly reasonable, I mean. Ha-compl ed, da i.
 
TheSpaceAdmiral
2007-02-22 5:55:00 PM  
Silly misunderstanding? Delicious pastry treats!
 
Comrade438
2007-02-22 6:08:05 PM  
Headso: I think they are after the Israelis, we are "allies" with both Pakistan and India and they also support militants that attack each other...

Beirut RRY?

The short rise of supposed "moderates" aside (still nothing more than the Supreme Council's play toys), Iran has not been a "pro-Western" state.
 
Persepolis
2007-02-22 6:24:10 PM  
Comrade438: The short rise of supposed "moderates" aside

Not really something to gloss over.

Why did you put moderates in quotes? and why did you say supposed?
 
Persepolis
2007-02-22 6:27:51 PM  
Comrade438: The short rise

And why short? We're seeing it right now, it's happening right now.

Unless you have some sort of crystal ball and know for a fact this movement has no sway at all in the future, in which case, lets stop talking about politics, and lets start talking about the stock market.
 
lolmao666
2007-02-22 6:28:46 PM  
Persepolis that what Bush want to do, turn everybody on earth against the USA so you can go anywhere in the world, blaming how they are terrorists...

And the neo-con love chaos and hate, after all it's their slogan: From chaos comes order... but an order that suit them... create chaos, divide and conquer. Actually, they want to divide Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and others... look at the map they want and you'll see what's the plan, and what country to invade/control.
 
azazyel
2007-02-22 6:37:48 PM  
Yeah, why would they want clean energy for?


[image from eia.doe.gov too old to be available]

[image from eia.doe.gov too old to be available]


"The city is hemmed in by the Alborz Mountains to the north, causing the increasing volume of pollutants to become trapped, hovering over Tehran when the wind is not strong enough to blow the pollution away. Tehran's high altitude, ranging between 3,300 and 5,000 feet, also makes fuel combustion inefficient, adding to the pollution problem."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iranenv.html
 
Cracker_monkey_in_a_cage
2007-02-22 7:39:06 PM  
Its remarkable just how much pacifist are willing to delude themselves.
 
Running a-puck
2007-02-22 9:19:25 PM  
Cracker_monkey_in_a_cage:Its remarkable just how much pacifist are willing to delude themselves.

Perhaps I misunderstand this comment, but I can not see a single person in this thread saying anything even similar to "...so of course they aren't trying to get nukes".

I see a bit of discussion about how the current actions of Iran could be for peaceful use and a bit about why they would want to have nuklear capabilities. I don't, frankly, see what you are talking about.
 
Persepolis
2007-02-22 9:29:48 PM  
Running a-puck: I don't, frankly, see what you are talking about.

Or perhaps, you DELUDED yourself into not understanding.

Dun dun daaaaa.
 
Bored Horde
2007-02-22 10:09:48 PM  
The solutions to Iran refining uranium set other countries businesses up to make handsome amounts of cash farking Iranian power companies.

Oops. I WONDER WHY THERE MIGHT BE SOME RESISTANCE TO THIS IDEA. PERHAPS IT IS A FINANCIAL ISSUE RATHER THEN A JIHAD ISSUE?
 
General Zang
2007-02-22 10:34:01 PM  
Cracker_monkey_in_a_cage said:

Its remarkable just how much pacifist are willing to delude themselves.

You know, I just might be one of them deluded folks. Perhaps you can answer a few questions for me, to help set me straight, and clear up any delusions that I may have.

A pacifist.... isn't that someone who opposes violence and who is generally opposed to wars?

Is that right?

So... um... what's the word for someone who is the opposite of that?

Someone who likes violence, and who eagerly seeks out opportunities to engage in wars, no matter the distance from their own lands.... what's the word for that?

So um.... these Iranians who are busy living in Iran, have they been attacking other countries over the past 25 years, or have they been sort of mostly minding their own bussiness.... sort of like, Pacifists?

Now... who is it that is traveling from the other side of the globe, to start trouble with these Iranians? Are these other folks Pacifists.... or are they that other opposite thing?

;)
 
consdubya
2007-02-22 10:35:39 PM  
Why "unlikely" smitty?

Iran has been trying for ages to normalise relations with the US, but the US dosent want to know about it.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Total access
Total knowledge
Total Fark

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.