More Bad News for Russia

[fathertime]

Alright, I've provided you with even further information. Will you now answer my questions with no further deflection?


Brass

much better.

I will re-review the materials you have now provided...and get back to you later today as time permits....btw..never deflected to begin with. 


Fathertime! 

[Brasscasing]

much better.

I will re-review the materials you have now provided...and get back to you later today as time permits....btw..never deflected to begin with. 

Riiight.  ... Take your time. 

Brass

[JayH]

NATO allies are working hard to deter Russian aggression against the Baltics.

Pushing against Putin in Europe




WIESBADEN, Germany — Often criticized for being naïve and complacent about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ambitions, the Obama administration and its European allies are intensifying their planning and training for a potential conflict on NATO’s eastern flank, hoping to send the strongest possible message about Russian aggression.

Deterring Putin was a central theme at a conference here hosted by the U.S. Army, attended by generals from 38 European countries. Officials described escalating NATO activity — including a massive training exercise now underway and talk of U.S. troop increases — in terms reminiscent of the 1980s, when the alliance stared down Soviet-made Warsaw Pact tanks in central Europe. Tan and brown desert camouflage is out; forest greens are in.

The NATO exercise, named Trident Juncture, is the largest in more than a decade; it began in mid-October and wraps up late next week. It involves 36,000 troops responding to the invasion of a fictitious region called Ceresia by a hostile neighbor employing so-called hybrid guerrilla warfare tactics like those Putin has adopted in Ukraine. Operating in Spain, Portugal, Italy and surrounding Atlantic waters, the counter-force includes submarines, fighter jets and U.S. Marines storming beaches with landing craft.

The training is partly designed to increase military readiness — a sign of concern that Putin might launch another rapid military operation like his March 2014 seizure of Crimea, which caught the U.S. and Europe flat-footed.

But perhaps just as important, military leaders said, it helps Moscow understand that the U.S. and its allies are ready and willing to throw a counter-punch should he try something similar again.

“In order to deter an adversary, he has got to realize your capabilities. He’s got to be able to see it and smell it — from the news, from the exercises, from things like this conference,” the U.S. Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told POLITICO. Milley was a co-host of the annual Conference of European Armies, a two-day affair in which generals from places as disparate as Lithuania and Italy discussed strategy, readiness and coordination.



http://www.politico.eu/article/us-against-putin-in-europe-nato-trident-exercise-military-forces/

[fathertime]

All your quote says is you can't answer or substantiate your assertions. 

The 'supported' statements and link have been provided to you several times. You even stated you'd reviewed the link...

..."The UN Security Council passed a number of resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran, following the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors regarding Iran's non-compliance with its safeguards agreement and the Board's finding that Iran's nuclear activities raised questions within the competency of the Security Council."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran

..."The EU supports the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into force on 5 March 1970. Iran ratified this treaty assuring the international community that it will use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

In 2003, it was discovered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran is conducting secret activities with nuclear materials. Iran’s refusal to cooperate proactively with the IAEA and its resistance to report to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) led to a diplomatic effort by the European council and its three members France, Germany and the United Kingdom to resolve this issue through negotiations."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#Sanctions

Alright, I've provided you with even further information. Will you now answer my questions with no further deflection?


Brass

I've seen these links before.  They show that Iran has been sanctioned, especially by the US, and by Europe.  Of course Iran wasn't cooperating prior to sanctions, nor after them.  They didn't agree that their nuclear program should be under a special sanction, when other country's have been able to move forward with their own programs. 
The nuclear nations have never disarmed very much since 1970, as promised, so obviously they didn't hold up their end of the bargain either.  In addition, facts change over decades, like new nations becoming nuclear.   

Your original question was why would Iran comply now, when they didn't comply earlier.  My response earlier still stands, they have signed on specifically with this recent agreement with the "world powers".  So assuming nothing changes and we hold up our end of the bargain, I believe they will comply. 





and as if on cue Today's news.


Iran nuclear deal: Centrifuge decommissioning 'begins
Iran has begun to decommission uranium enrichment centrifuges in order to fulfil the nuclear deal struck with six world powers in July, its nuclear chief has announced during a visit to Japan.....
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34703490


Fathertime! 

[Brasscasing]

I've seen these links before.  They show that Iran has been sanctioned, especially by the US, and by Europe.  Of course Iran wasn't cooperating prior to sanctions, nor after them.  They didn't agree that their nuclear program should be under a special sanction, when other country's have been able to move forward with their own programs. 
The nuclear nations have never disarmed very much since 1970, as promised, so obviously they didn't hold up their end of the bargain either.  In addition, facts change over decades, like new nations becoming nuclear.   

Yet they were a party to, negotiated and signed those very same agreements as stakeholders before breaking them just as they are party to, negotiated and signed this last agreement.

You allude to if others are breaking their agreements/contracts then Iran should break their agreements/contracts. What you fail to acknowledge is it was Iran who signed the agreements(s) then proceeded to willfully not comply.

That's why they were sanctioned.

Your original question was why would Iran comply now, when they didn't comply earlier.  My response earlier still stands, they have signed on specifically with this recent agreement with the "world powers".  So assuming nothing changes and we hold up our end of the bargain, I believe they will comply. 

If Iran also signed on to the other agreements and broke their word. Why should this time be any different?

and as if on cue Today's news.


Iran nuclear deal: Centrifuge decommissioning 'begins
Iran has begun to decommission uranium enrichment centrifuges in order to fulfil the nuclear deal struck with six world powers in July, its nuclear chief has announced during a visit to Japan.....
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34703490

Well, not quite...

Iran says it's complying, but "Death to America" stands

"We have already started to take our measures vis-a-vis the removal of the centrifuge machines -- the extra centrifuge machines," Ali Akbar Salehi told Japan's public broadcaster NHK, according to the Reuters news agency.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-uranium-centrifuges-nuclear-deal-death-to-america-stands/

This is how they'll play their game. Start turning "extra" non-essential stuff off and demand the sanctions be lifted.

Brass

[fathertime]

Yet they were a party to, negotiated and signed those very same agreements as stakeholders before breaking them just as they are party to, negotiated and signed this last agreement.

You allude to if others are breaking their agreements/contracts then Iran should break their agreements/contracts. What you fail to acknowledge is it was Iran who signed the agreements(s) then proceeded to willfully not comply.
 

I'm not sure I get what you are saying here, but the fact is the other parties did not hold up their end of the agreements, so of course Iran would not hold up their end either.  Makes sense to me. 

If Iran also signed on to the other agreements and broke their word. Why should this time be any different?

If we don't hold up our end, i'm sure Iran won't hold up their end.  No difference. 

Well, not quite...

Iran says it's complying, but "Death to America" stands

"We have already started to take our measures vis-a-vis the removal of the centrifuge machines -- the extra centrifuge machines," Ali Akbar Salehi told Japan's public broadcaster NHK, according to the Reuters news agency.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-uranium-centrifuges-nuclear-deal-death-to-america-stands/

This is how they'll play their game. Start turning "extra" non-essential stuff off and demand the sanctions be lifted.

Brass

Of course they will turn off the less important stuff first, why would it be different.  That is the best strategy.    The deal is working out fine at this very early juncture. 


Death to America, signifying death to arrogant American policies, isn't going away, nor should it.  Given the history, regarding us admittedly overthrowing their government in the past, it could be understood why.  No problem,the deal still stands
Fathertime!   

[JayH]

Yawn.

[sleepycat]

Funny but also tragic article on how midget putin goes hiding for 2 days after the plane crash in Egypt as he doesn't like to have his precious name being associated with bad news...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/03/putin-was-missing-in-action-after-plane-crash.html

[jone]

Everything's political.  A tragedy like this should be mourned by the whole country.  Instead, we see a bunch of political weather balloons and misdirection.  I am pretty sure, possessing both black boxes, that a preliminary determination of what went wrong has already been completed.

For those wondering, it was a Ukrainian terrorist who slipped a BUK missile launcher into Egypt and, with the help of the Syrian terrorists, pulled the trigger.

[Muzh]

Yawn.

Now do you understand how I feel every time you copy and paste whole articles?


Can't you discuss the damn subject and post a link or is it too much to ask?

[Brasscasing]

I'm not sure I get what you are saying here, but the fact is the other parties did not hold up their end of the agreements, so of course Iran would not hold up their end either.  Makes sense to me. 

If we don't hold up our end, i'm sure Iran won't hold up their end.  No difference. 

There was no end for us to hold up. They were regulatory agreements signed by Iran then promptly were non compliant with.

Of course they will turn off the less important stuff first, why would it be different.  That is the best strategy.    The deal is working out fine at this very early juncture. 

I disagree. Turning off the centrifuge facilities that are actually producing the enriched uranium would mean the deal is working out fine.

Death to America, signifying death to arrogant American policies, isn't going away, nor should it.  Given the history, regarding us admittedly overthrowing their government in the past, it could be understood why.  No problem,the deal still stands

That's just the latest Iranian version of diplomacy in action. Up to Obama's nuc deal "Death to America" meant exactly that...Death to America. The same as  the Iranian call for 'death to Israel ' means exactly that...death to the state of Israel.

The current administration(s), both Iran and US are 'modifying' and downplaying the meaning and history of these 'Qud' (Holy) chants but along with the phraseology 'Big Satan'(US) and 'Little Satan' (Israel), these chants have a much more sinister meaning as it relates to the Koran.

Brass

[JayH]

Now do you understand how I feel every time you copy and paste whole articles?


Can't you discuss the damn subject and post a link or is it too much to ask?

Personally-- I  with get little from sniping comments that some seem to persist with as their only contribution to the forums. Feel free to bypass my posts-the number of views shows that others do not do that!

[Muzh]

Oh PUH leeze.

[Larry1]

I don't think this has been posted previously:

US official says ISIS bomb is 'most likely' reason behind Russian jet crash as Britain orders ALL flights from Egypt to be grounded

'Definite feeling it was an explosive device planted in luggage or somewhere on the plane,' US official said

Security services saw 'additional activity' by terrorists in Sinai before crash

Intelligence agencies have preliminary evidence suggesting bomb brought down the plane, killing all 244 people on board Metrojet flight

Pentagon spokesman: 'We need to advise US workers not to go to Sinai'

Britain and Ireland ground all flights from Egypt, stranding 20,000 tourists

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3304237/US-official-says-ISIS-bomb-likely-reason-Russian-jet-crash-Britain-orders-flights-Egypt-grounded.html

You can read about one of the passengers, aspiring model Yelena Domashnyaya, here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3302404/Russian-restaurant-mourns-2-died-Egypt-air-crash.html

[fathertime]

There was no end for us to hold up. They were regulatory agreements signed by Iran then promptly were non compliant with.

 

No end for us to hold up?  What deal are you referring to?  I'm pretty sure Iran (or any other country) isn't going to willfully get involved in bargains where there isn't some give and take. 

I disagree. Turning off the centrifuge facilities that are actually producing the enriched uranium would mean the deal is working out fine.

Moving in the right direction.

That's just the latest Iranian version of diplomacy in action. Up to Obama's nuc deal "Death to America" meant exactly that...Death to America. The same as  the Iranian call for 'death to Israel ' means exactly that...death to the state of Israel.

The current administration(s), both Iran and US are 'modifying' and downplaying the meaning and history of these 'Qud' (Holy) chants but along with the phraseology 'Big Satan'(US) and 'Little Satan' (Israel), these chants have a much more sinister meaning as it relates to the Koran.

Brass

If we took everything literal that some of our politicians say, we would live in a different world than we do now.  I have always felt that the 'death to America' chant was not as literal as you take it to be.  They are pissed about some of our policies though as it pertains to them, and they are not entirely wrong to be. 


Fathertime!   

[fathertime]

btw-- Muzh joined in a chorus of forum fools in calling me a liar when I first came to the forums-- despite many opportunities to recant-or even apologise-- this so called will educated members persists in not being capable of admitting he made an error-- like I said-no class !

I really don't think YOU are able to credibly call someone classless considering your own often crude/inane comments. 

[/size][size=78%]Fathertime!   [/size]

[JayH]

I really don't think YOU are able to credibly call someone classless considering your own often crude/inane comments. 

[/size][size=78%]Fathertime!   [/size]

Is there no end to this inane flogs trolling?  Once again--he posts with zero( minus zero) idea what comments are about== but again--that does not stop his trolling.
The never ending stream of  his nonsense nothing posts continues.

[fathertime]

Is there no end to this inane flogs trolling?  Once again--he posts with zero( minus zero) idea what comments are about== but again--that does not stop his trolling.
The never ending stream of  his nonsense nothing posts continues.

It seems to me that you are whining about 'trolling', when YOU are the one hysterically calling people names when they have their own opinion.  Given your attitude, it isn't surprising that no lady has taken very much interest in you, despite the financial advantages you might bring to the table. 


 How about following the forum rules, and allowing others to voice their own opinions without your silly hysterical outbursts? 


Fathertime!   

[tfcrew]

For those wondering, it was a Ukrainian terrorist who slipped a BUK missile launcher into Egypt and, with the help of the Syrian terrorists, pulled the trigger.

And then Jack Ruby shot him dead.

Russia and Egypt brush off British suggestion that bomb caused plane to crash

If there was bomb.... that would mean that Egyptian airline scrutiny is incompetent losing face everywhere...Vlad would have to declare total war against ISIS

LINK


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-and-egypt-brush-off-british-suggestion-that-bomb-caused-plane-to-crash/2015/11/05/948df81c-834a-11e5-8bd2-680fff868306_story.html

[Muzh]

And then Jack Ruby shot him dead.
If there was bomb.... that would mean that Egyptian airline scrutiny is incompetent losing face everywhere...Vlad would have to declare total war against ISIS

LINK


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-and-egypt-brush-off-british-suggestion-that-bomb-caused-plane-to-crash/2015/11/05/948df81c-834a-11e5-8bd2-680fff868306_story.html

Heh, give Slumba some time to get to the right conspiracy sites. 

[jone]

The following article speculates on the reply Russia will give if it turns out that a bomb (likely scenario) brought down its airliner:

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-putins-dilemma-bomb-caused-syria-crash/27347371.html

Here are likely scenarios of Russian response:

1.  Denial

2.  Blame Egypt

3.  Blame the West

4.  Embrace and Employ

All four strategies have some peril for V.V. Putin.  It will be interesting to see which tact Russia takes.

[Anotherkiwi]

All four strategies have some peril for V.V. Putin.  It will be interesting to see which tact Russia takes.

Whatever Russia does, "tact" will not be involved.  If, on the other hand, you're waiting to see which "tack" Putin favours, that will surely be only after he guesses which theory is most likely to prevail - so that he can blame someone else with his usual imPutiny. 

[ML]

Who among you will bet against the assertion that Putin and his boys put the bomb on the plane?

Wouldn't be the first time he killed his own people to justify some future course of action.

[mendeleyev]

Russia will hint at Western blame as it gives them a "take that" moment after withering under incriminated evidence regarding MH-17. In fact, it started yesterday when the (Russian) Transport Safety Agency banned all domestic airlines from using Boeing 737 aircraft.

When ready, they'll announce guilt and then go after somebody.

[Brasscasing]

No end for us to hold up?  What deal are you referring to?  I'm pretty sure Iran (or any other country) isn't going to willfully get involved in bargains where there isn't some give and take. 

Same agreements I posted up thread...

..."Iran is a party to the NPT but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[23] After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,[74] the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.[24] This was reported to the UN Security Council in 2006,[75] after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.[76] Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program."...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

Moving in the right direction.

Turning off the centrifuges actually converting uranium is moving in the right direction.

If we took everything literal that some of our politicians say, we would live in a different world than we do now.  I have always felt that the 'death to America' chant was not as literal as you take it to be.  They are pissed about some of our policies though as it pertains to them, and they are not entirely wrong to be. 

Oh, it's not just their politicians chanting "Death To America". It's enshrined in their religious revolutionary constitution, it's a national holiday (4 Nov, Death to America Day) celebrated on the same day the Iranians stormed the US Embassy in Tehran), is regularly chanted at daily prayers and the slogans can be seen on giant murals in every major city in Iran.

You (Obama, Kerry and whatever the latest terrorist's name is running the country) can whitewash it all you want but they've been chanting this slogan for a lot of years with the meaning being exactly what it states...



As well as their leader's calls to action...



It simply boils down to this...



Brass