http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i52UDHqLL3ljh41jdBtObiWfV9wQD9BGTAMG0

<quotes>
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's push to curtail Iran's nuclear program 
was set back Friday when Iranian leaders failed to accept a proposal to ship 
most of their uranium abroad for enrichment.

The U.S., along with Russia and France, officially endorsed the plan Friday. 
But Iranian state television reported that Tehran wants to buy the nuclear 
fuel it needs for a reactor, rather than comply with the proposal to ship 
uranium to Russia to be enriched for fuel.

</quotes>

Iran of course doesn't have to accept any deal, nor budge an inch, but will 
have to face the consequences in doing what others dont want to see happen.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:_9lEm.821$5w5.198@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i52UDHqLL3ljh41jdBtObiWfV9wQD9BGTAMG0
>
> <quotes>
> WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's push to curtail Iran's nuclear 
> program was set back Friday when Iranian leaders failed to accept a 
> proposal to ship most of their uranium abroad for enrichment.
>
> The U.S., along with Russia and France, officially endorsed the plan 
> Friday. But Iranian state television reported that Tehran wants to buy the 
> nuclear fuel it needs for a reactor, rather than comply with the proposal 
> to ship uranium to Russia to be enriched for fuel.
>
> </quotes>
>
> Iran of course doesn't have to accept any deal, nor budge an inch, but 
> will have to face the consequences in doing what others dont want to see 
> happen.
>
>


So no possibility of any smuggling, hidden deals with Russia or anything 
like that?  If monitors do discover smuggling one day do we have conflict 
with Russia?

Hate to be Mr Suspicious, but I wouldn't trust Russia to be trusted third 
party in any of this.

Plus if I were running things in Iran I'd have already got fuel to happily 
process once everyone thought they'd haggled me out of it! :-)  I could then 
develop my bomb with less fevered scrutiny.  If they came to check, they'd 
just find the Russian stuff.   I think Iran has the advantage in this chess 
game.  They may lose some pieces on the way, but I think they'll end up with 
a bomb.  I'm not sure any of our haggling is even changing the timeline very 
much.


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:_9lEm.821$5w5.198@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i52UDHqLL3ljh41jdBtObiWfV9wQD9BGTAMG0
>>
>> <quotes>
>> WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's push to curtail Iran's nuclear 
>> program was set back Friday when Iranian leaders failed to accept a 
>> proposal to ship most of their uranium abroad for enrichment.
>>
>> The U.S., along with Russia and France, officially endorsed the plan 
>> Friday. But Iranian state television reported that Tehran wants to buy 
>> the nuclear fuel it needs for a reactor, rather than comply with the 
>> proposal to ship uranium to Russia to be enriched for fuel.
>>
>> </quotes>
>>
>> Iran of course doesn't have to accept any deal, nor budge an inch, but 
>> will have to face the consequences in doing what others dont want to see 
>> happen.
>>
>>
>
>
> So no possibility of any smuggling, hidden deals with Russia or anything 
> like that?  If monitors do discover smuggling one day do we have conflict 
> with Russia?
>
> Hate to be Mr Suspicious, but I wouldn't trust Russia to be trusted third 
> party in any of this.

I'm sure everyone would be open to hearing proposals which will satisfy all 
parties. I doubt there are any.


> Plus if I were running things in Iran I'd have already got fuel to happily 
> process once everyone thought they'd haggled me out of it! :-)  I could 
> then develop my bomb with less fevered scrutiny.  If they came to check, 
> they'd just find the Russian stuff.   I think Iran has the advantage in 
> this chess game.  They may lose some pieces on the way, but I think 
> they'll end up with a bomb.  I'm not sure any of our haggling is even 
> changing the timeline very much.

Iran has the upper hand because there's nothing untoward proven. They are 
being asked to satisfy demands they have no obligation to meet.

It's like if you ran a dairy farm and made cheese but the west didn't like 
your cheese, demanded you stopped making it, suggested you shipped all your 
milk elsewhere and had it returned as cheese. You would have to be convinced 
to give up your inalienable right to 'make your own cheese'. There's no 
incentive on the table to do so, only a threat that you'll get a good 
kicking if you don't.

( Blessed are the cheese makers )

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:YxoEm.917$5w5.222@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
>> news:_9lEm.821$5w5.198@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i52UDHqLL3ljh41jdBtObiWfV9wQD9BGTAMG0
>>>
>>> <quotes>
>>> WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's push to curtail Iran's nuclear 
>>> program was set back Friday when Iranian leaders failed to accept a 
>>> proposal to ship most of their uranium abroad for enrichment.
>>>
>>> The U.S., along with Russia and France, officially endorsed the plan 
>>> Friday. But Iranian state television reported that Tehran wants to buy 
>>> the nuclear fuel it needs for a reactor, rather than comply with the 
>>> proposal to ship uranium to Russia to be enriched for fuel.
>>>
>>> </quotes>
>>>
>>> Iran of course doesn't have to accept any deal, nor budge an inch, but 
>>> will have to face the consequences in doing what others dont want to see 
>>> happen.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> So no possibility of any smuggling, hidden deals with Russia or anything 
>> like that?  If monitors do discover smuggling one day do we have conflict 
>> with Russia?
>>
>> Hate to be Mr Suspicious, but I wouldn't trust Russia to be trusted third 
>> party in any of this.
>
> I'm sure everyone would be open to hearing proposals which will satisfy 
> all parties. I doubt there are any.
>
>
>> Plus if I were running things in Iran I'd have already got fuel to 
>> happily process once everyone thought they'd haggled me out of it! :-)  I 
>> could then develop my bomb with less fevered scrutiny.  If they came to 
>> check, they'd just find the Russian stuff.   I think Iran has the 
>> advantage in this chess game.  They may lose some pieces on the way, but 
>> I think they'll end up with a bomb.  I'm not sure any of our haggling is 
>> even changing the timeline very much.
>
> Iran has the upper hand because there's nothing untoward proven. They are 
> being asked to satisfy demands they have no obligation to meet.

It's not just because nothing is proven, the advantage they have is the home 
advantage - they're a very big country, have locations that could be 
defended against probably all kinds of conventional attack, can smuggle in 
what they need if necessary, and they can achieve the results they desire 
even if it takes years as Presidents and PMs pass them by.

Really, after all this haggling, if they're not actually working on a bomb 
after all I think they aught to start working on one right now, just so we 
don't all look like fools!



>
> It's like if you ran a dairy farm and made cheese but the west didn't like 
> your cheese, demanded you stopped making it, suggested you shipped all 
> your milk elsewhere and had it returned as cheese. You would have to be 
> convinced to give up your inalienable right to 'make your own cheese'. 
> There's no incentive on the table to do so, only a threat that you'll get 
> a good kicking if you don't.
>
> ( Blessed are the cheese makers )

(The Greek shall inherit the Earth)


TWP

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>news:_9lEm.821$5w5.198@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i52UDHqLL3ljh41jdBt
>>ObiWfV9wQD9BGTAMG0
>>
>> <quotes>
>> WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's push to curtail Iran's nuclear
>> program was set back Friday when Iranian leaders failed to accept a
>> proposal to ship most of their uranium abroad for enrichment.
>>
>> The U.S., along with Russia and France, officially endorsed the plan
>> Friday. But Iranian state television reported that Tehran wants to buy the
>> nuclear fuel it needs for a reactor, rather than comply with the proposal
>> to ship uranium to Russia to be enriched for fuel.
>>
>> </quotes>
>>
>> Iran of course doesn't have to accept any deal, nor budge an inch, but
>> will have to face the consequences in doing what others dont want to see
>> happen.
>>
>>
>
>
>So no possibility of any smuggling, hidden deals with Russia or anything
>like that?  If monitors do discover smuggling one day do we have conflict
>with Russia?
>
>Hate to be Mr Suspicious, but I wouldn't trust Russia to be trusted third
>party in any of this.

Or the USA which is a lot less trustworthy that Russia.


>Plus if I were running things in Iran I'd have already got fuel to happily
>process once everyone thought they'd haggled me out of it! :-)  I could then
>develop my bomb with less fevered scrutiny.

Why this paranoia about a bomb... this is for power. Unless you think
the Iranians are pissed of with continually being threatened by two
nuclear armed countries... is the USA and Israel.

> If they came to check, they'd
>just find the Russian stuff.

And if they checked Israel they would find US stuff...

>  I think Iran has the advantage in this chess
>game.

I agree
BTW advantage over whom?  Not "the rest of the world" as many support
them.  Not "the west" as many support them

>They may lose some pieces on the way, but I think they'll end up with
>a bomb.  I'm not sure any of our haggling is even changing the timeline very
>much.

I agree.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:nPH$lkEovs4KFAGT@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message , TWP
>  writes
>>
>>"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>>news:_9lEm.821$5w5.198@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i52UDHqLL3ljh41jdBt
>>>ObiWfV9wQD9BGTAMG0
>>>
>>> <quotes>
>>> WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's push to curtail Iran's nuclear
>>> program was set back Friday when Iranian leaders failed to accept a
>>> proposal to ship most of their uranium abroad for enrichment.
>>>
>>> The U.S., along with Russia and France, officially endorsed the plan
>>> Friday. But Iranian state television reported that Tehran wants to buy 
>>> the
>>> nuclear fuel it needs for a reactor, rather than comply with the 
>>> proposal
>>> to ship uranium to Russia to be enriched for fuel.
>>>
>>> </quotes>
>>>
>>> Iran of course doesn't have to accept any deal, nor budge an inch, but
>>> will have to face the consequences in doing what others dont want to see
>>> happen.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>So no possibility of any smuggling, hidden deals with Russia or anything
>>like that?  If monitors do discover smuggling one day do we have conflict
>>with Russia?
>>
>>Hate to be Mr Suspicious, but I wouldn't trust Russia to be trusted third
>>party in any of this.
>
> Or the USA which is a lot less trustworthy that Russia.

No, the USA has Israel at stake.  I think they'd be less likely to screw 
around.  Note I said "less likely".



>
>
>>Plus if I were running things in Iran I'd have already got fuel to happily
>>process once everyone thought they'd haggled me out of it! :-)  I could 
>>then
>>develop my bomb with less fevered scrutiny.
>
> Why this paranoia about a bomb... this is for power. Unless you think
> the Iranians are pissed of with continually being threatened by two
> nuclear armed countries... is the USA and Israel.
>

Because as I've said before, I think Iran getting a bomb lights the fuse on 
a disaster in the region.  The main part of the reasoning for that is as you 
have already said, it would take very little bomb power to wipe out Israel 
for all practical purposes and force an evacuation of survivors.  That is 
going to make Israel dangerously jumpy.

Israel has never even threatened anyone with nuclear weapons to my 
knowledge.  I don't like the idea of anyone having them in the ME, but 
Israel hasn't gone "Dr Evil" with theirs.



>> If they came to check, they'd
>>just find the Russian stuff.
>
> And if they checked Israel they would find US stuff...

True.  Israel alone having nuclear weapons hasn't been a threat so far. 
Israel plus another is when it starts getting interesting.  We're also 
forgetting the risk of the Iranians selling bombs to the variously 
nefarious.



>
>>  I think Iran has the advantage in this chess
>>game.
>
> I agree
> BTW advantage over whom?  Not "the rest of the world" as many support
> them.  Not "the west" as many support them
>

The advantage in the battle between them getting what they want and not 
getting what they want.


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> Israel has never even threatened anyone with nuclear weapons to my 
> knowledge.

Well it all depends on how you view what Israel says and how you read 
between the lines. You can equally say Iran has never threatened anyone with 
nukes.

Reality is that, when saying the same, the west tends to see what Israel 
says in a positive light and what Iran says in a negative light.

You earlier posted a linkto a report about Israel moving nuclear armed 
warships into range of Iran. Should that be seen as "threatening" ? It 
certainly would be if Iran moved nuclear armed warships into range of 
Israel, or if a perceived enemy of the America did that off the US coast.

Many people are excusing for Israel what they condemn when by Iran. It's 
moral relativism, not an objective stance.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:4GCEm.1157$5w5.241@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> Israel has never even threatened anyone with nuclear weapons to my 
>> knowledge.
>
> Well it all depends on how you view what Israel says and how you read 
> between the lines. You can equally say Iran has never threatened anyone 
> with nukes.
>
> Reality is that, when saying the same, the west tends to see what Israel 
> says in a positive light and what Iran says in a negative light.
>
> You earlier posted a linkto a report about Israel moving nuclear armed 
> warships into range of Iran. Should that be seen as "threatening" ? It 
> certainly would be if Iran moved nuclear armed warships into range of 
> Israel, or if a perceived enemy of the America did that off the US coast.
>

I think Iran will see it as the stick in the negotiations.  Its all to make 
Israel look more powerful.  In that sense it's menacing, but it's a new 
development in response to the tensions Iran's nuclear plans have caused.  I 
don't think they realistically expect a nuclear first strike against them. 
Israel has had a long time to attack any of it's neighbours with nuclear 
weapons if it was going to.  Iran is yet to prove what it would to with a 
nuclear weapons capability.



> Many people are excusing for Israel what they condemn when by Iran. It's 
> moral relativism, not an objective stance.

It's not relativism, it's reputation.



TWP

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "TWP"  wrote ...
> 
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
>> news:_9lEm.821$5w5.198@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i52UDHqLL3ljh41jdBtObiWfV9wQD9BGTAMG0
>>>
>>> <quotes>
>>> WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's push to curtail Iran's nuclear 
>>> program was set back Friday when Iranian leaders failed to accept a 
>>> proposal to ship most of their uranium abroad for enrichment.
>>>
>>> The U.S., along with Russia and France, officially endorsed the plan 
>>> Friday. But Iranian state television reported that Tehran wants to buy 
>>> the nuclear fuel it needs for a reactor, rather than comply with the 
>>> proposal to ship uranium to Russia to be enriched for fuel.
>>>
>>> </quotes>
>>>
>>> Iran of course doesn't have to accept any deal, nor budge an inch, but 
>>> will have to face the consequences in doing what others dont want to see 
>>> happen.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So no possibility of any smuggling, hidden deals with Russia or anything 
>> like that?  If monitors do discover smuggling one day do we have conflict 
>> with Russia?
>>
>> Hate to be Mr Suspicious, but I wouldn't trust Russia to be trusted third 
>> party in any of this.
> 
> I'm sure everyone would be open to hearing proposals which will satisfy all 
> parties. I doubt there are any.
> 
> 
>> Plus if I were running things in Iran I'd have already got fuel to happily 
>> process once everyone thought they'd haggled me out of it! :-)  I could 
>> then develop my bomb with less fevered scrutiny.  If they came to check, 
>> they'd just find the Russian stuff.   I think Iran has the advantage in 
>> this chess game.  They may lose some pieces on the way, but I think 
>> they'll end up with a bomb.  I'm not sure any of our haggling is even 
>> changing the timeline very much.
> 
> Iran has the upper hand because there's nothing untoward proven. They are 
> being asked to satisfy demands they have no obligation to meet.
> 
> It's like if you ran a dairy farm and made cheese but the west didn't like 
> your cheese, demanded you stopped making it, suggested you shipped all your 
> milk elsewhere and had it returned as cheese. You would have to be convinced 
> to give up your inalienable right to 'make your own cheese'. There's no 
> incentive on the table to do so, only a threat that you'll get a good 
> kicking if you don't.
> 
> ( Blessed are the cheese makers ) 
> 
> 
Something rather apt, you comparing nuclear weapons & cheese.