BBC NEWS: Brazil rebuffs US pressure for Iran sanctions

[SealLion]

I couldn't help but resist the temptation to say that another country that has friendly relations with the US, is not only thinking on thier feet, but also is not siding with this idea that Iran has nuclear weapons.
And that's said in consideration that the US itself has asserted that, that country's government has stated that they don't have any direct evidence, only that they are going on assumptions;

.....Asked what evidence the US has to suggest that Iran has begun pursuing nuclear weapons, PJ Crowley, the US state department spokesman, told Al Jazeera that Washington can only "assume" so based on Iran's actions.....

That above qoute was taken from this AJE article:

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - US warns Iran on nuclear pursuit

And I did discuss this article here on the forums at this link if your interested in reviewing it. IT is a lengthy review, but does reveal some interesting info that I dug up

http://www.sb-innovation.de/f50/al-j...ar-arms-18845/

...cool, eh??

Anyways,....let's begin this article from the BBC, shall we...

Brazil will not bow to pressure from the US to support further sanctions against Iran over its nuclear work, the country's foreign minister has said.

Like I briefly mentioned above, someone is thinking on thier feet and is not going with the tide that the US has developed. Seems like Brazil has decided to think independantly......unlike some other countries that could be thought of.
Well good for Brazil, that's for sure.

.......Mr Amorim ( that country's foreign minister) said: "We will not simply bow down to an evolving consensus if we do not agree.

"We have to think by ourselves and with our values and principles," he said.

firstly, the article does mention that sanctions against Iran were in discussion; however, it also makes mention of this:

......Washington wants Brazil, which enjoys good ties with Iran to support its push for a fourth round of UN sanctions against Tehran over its refusal to stop enriching uranium,

That most likely would refer to economic trade issues and ties, I would imagine. And most likely, Brazil want's to maintain those economic ties.


Here's an idea of what I mean:

Iran ranks second in the world in natural gas reserves and also second in oil reserves. It is OPEC's 2nd largest oil exporter. It has the potential to become an energy superpower

Wikipedia Link

you can also imagine how important Brazil is to Iran:

here's what I mean:'

....The most formidable hurdle facing Iran's economy remains its continuing isolation from the international community. This isolation has hampered the short- and long-term growth of its markets, restricted the country's access to high technology, and impeded foreign investment

impeding foreign investment also hurts the people in a country...economically that is. It tends to decrease employment rates for one thing:

.....The rates of both literacy and life expectancy in Iran are high for the region, but so, too, is the unemployment rate, and inflation is regularly in the range of 20 percent annually. Iran remains highly dependent on its one major industry, the extraction of petroleum and natural gas for export,

SOURCE:

"Iran." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010.

yOU know..I don't agree at all that the US states emphatically that Iran is desring to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons programs.
Most especially when the UN itself has stated that Iran only has about less then 5 % of enriched Uranium. And one needs more than 5% of enriched Uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons.

You know what this is about.....??

I've mentioned this before and I'll voice my opinion again...it's about a special club that desires to remain exclusive and in additon to everything that happens in Israel. Where Israel is, who it's allied partners are, why it gets the massive funding from abroad, and so on and so on.....

according to the BBC article, Iran states this:

....Tehran says the uranium is being enriched to provide fuel for nuclear power reactors it envisages building.

IMO, for power development, not necessarily for weapons building. Most especially when you need far, far more percentage of enriched uranium to build nuclear weapons.
That's according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

one other thing....

The US state department has said if Brazil uses its relationship with Iran to press the country to fulfil its international obligations then that would be an important step, but if it did not do that, Washington would be "disappointed".

Did you read that...??
Dissapointed.
In what way, I imagine??
Well, considering the large footprint that the US has and the strength of it's influence, one can only imagine, yes??
I have a funny idea that the reason that statement was made was to pressure Brazil to do the US's bidding. Would you agree?

I mean, in consideration of what I just mentioned re: the US's strong influence in virtually all regions of the globe and making political-speak that it want's Brazil to co-operate on this issue and see it from the US's perspective, I would tend to see that as a statement that Brazil needs go get on the 'right' bandwagon....from the perspective of the US, that is.

and if it doesn't agree to what the US want's...then I am going to guess that would mean economic distances could envelope, trade issues and disputes would begin, trade would decrees for Brazil with the US and so on and so on...The US has a way to always want what it wants, yes??
Kind of like a little baby crying 'mama, I want this. I want that'


I don't agree with that at all.
Countries, like people, have the inherent right and privilege to be independent. Don't you agree??

Here's the link to the BBC:

BBC News - Brazil rebuffs US pressure for Iran sanctions

[GotIt]

And that's said in consideration that the US itself has asserted that, that country's government has stated that they don't have any direct evidence, only that they are going on assumptions

They do that alot it seems... Kind of like when they invaded Iraq.

Seems like Brazil has decided to think independantly......unlike some other countries that could be thought of.
Well good for Brazil, that's for sure.

+1

yOU know..I don't agree at all that the US states emphatically that Iran is desring to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons programs.
Most especially when the UN itself has stated that Iran only has about less then 5 % of enriched Uranium. And one needs more than 5% of enriched Uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons.

The United States are always interfering with other countries; I personally think that Iran is not a threat by far, with 5% enriched Uranium, and that the US is only seeing the money side of things, as usual.

Countries, like people, have the inherent right and privilege to be independent. Don't you agree??

Definetly ! I'm really tired of hearing on the news all the time of the US 'bullying' other countries.

[slikrapid]

I couldn't help but resist the temptation to say that another country that has friendly relations with the US, is not only thinking on thier feet, but also is not siding with this idea that Iran has nuclear weapons.

yet, i couldn't help to get the impression of this situation as the good cop (bra), bad cop (usa) treatment, since imo this question has already been officially answered on the part of iran:

"I want for Iran the same thing as I wish for Brazil: To use the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. If Iran is in agreement with that, Iran will have Brazil's support."

And that's said in consideration that the US itself has asserted that...they don't have any direct evidence, only that they are going on assumptions;

the so called preemptive action, aka based on a convenient hunch that has an undisputed accuracy considering the subsequent success rate of alignment with usa interests, lucrative arrangements, favorable outcomes and whatnot

Most especially when the UN itself has stated that Iran only has about less then 5 % of enriched Uranium. And one needs more than 5% of enriched Uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons.

afaik iran has currently uranium enriched up to 20% (officially announced as for medical research purposes), whereas it would have to be increased up to 90% in order to be usable (which still wouldn't be evidence of actual weapon construction, just a highly suspicious development/activity) for weapons, then there are further procedures, fitting, testing and so on, after which one can talk about actual nukes

Countries, like people, have the inherent right and privilege to be independent. Don't you agree??

it all sounds nice in theory, yet practical usage (especially in borderline and non conformist areas) shows it only works if one 'of lower power' bends over to the one 'of higher power', sometimes this is not so obvious, but essentially it comes down to just that...the truth hurts

They do that alot it seems... Kind of like when they invaded Iraq.

you may have noticed how suddenly a debate about the iraq war started in the uk with a false sense of caring for some kind of truth to come out of it - with pointless topics like was there enough financial support for the uk troops in iraq and whether it would have saved lives, maybe searching for a scapegoat to relieve some public sense of guilt or to demonstrate a hypocritical sense of justice that finally prevails, mimicking hollywood movie cliche happy-endings, ones the masses are accustomed to (and eagerly sought after in reality), with a possible usable outcome, where the uk afterward has proof of atonement, however misleadingly presented as honest or thorough it may be

I personally think that Iran is not a threat by far, with 5% enriched Uranium

generally speaking, that country doesn't seem to pose any kind of threat in the middle east (regardless of the uranium percentage), sure, it has tough/brutal laws, but hasn't really shown imperial/colonial/invasive tendencies that would justify usa (global) threat claims

on the other hand, how reliable are countries from the actual 'nuclear club'? take usa, uk or france or n. korea for example, the first one already used nuclear weapons twice against japan (and did not answer for those war crimes) and the last three openly threatened with using it, take pakistan who has got a nuclear arsenal only to counterbalance india's, last but definitely not least, take israel for example, surely the most trigger happy of 'em all

I'm really tired of hearing on the news all the time of the US 'bullying' other countries.

imo this is by design (with multiple possible results), an intentional goal to build up a world superpower with the ability to ignite the next world war if necessary, as the number of enemies usa acquired throughout the years is beyond any military/strategic or common sense (meaning no country would be that stupid unless it knew the game was rigged from the start), it shows clear disregard of other countries & their sovereignty, unless they act in compliance or alliance, while achieving international (UN) support through political manipulations that most likely wouldn't stand a chance in the case decent democratic societies existed worldwide (as our current ones are really a deceptive farce, something that many dissidents in various areas of operation/existence have felt on their own skin, not to mention numerous suffering population groups and lately an ever-growing number of ordinary citizens too)

[SealLion]

after reading this here:

the so called preemptive action, aka based on a convenient hunch that has an undisputed accuracy considering the subsequent success rate of alignment with usa interests, lucrative arrangements, favorable outcomes and whatnot

I could not but help to think how accurate that is.

that in fact is quite accurate. This is how the US and some of it's allies, in particular the UK and even Canada play out as favorites or wanna-be favorites.
This is true for Canada even.
A wanna-be favorite.

I recall some speech that George Bush made a number of years ago when he stated something along the lines of 'Either you are with us or you are with the enemy'. This he made soon after the supposed terrorist attacks in New York city.

Once a band of nations got on the band-wagon, it was pretty obvious who got all the construction awards for the rebuilding of Iraq??.......

Since the US was the dominant military force and acting invader of that country, it naturally assumed a take-over of operations and subsequent contracts that were obviously lucrative to a great many companies: Security, oil and construction, and so forth.

This in addition to the more important role that the US maintains for it's empire-building scheme that strongly ensures that it's institutionalized policies are acted upon by it's neighbors as well as both offshore and regional allies.
The strong influences that it carries with respect to trade issues and pacts with other countries that desire strong economic ties and relationships with the US ensures that it's mode of seeing things and it's political wills are acted upon as per the US's government's determinations.

When a country is seen as acting upon it's own 2 feet and behaving 'non-conformist' with respect to the designs that the US has instead, that other country, and in this case since it's Brazil that is being used as an example, fall out of favor and soon before you know it, Brazil begins to have unfavorable trade issues with the US. Not only trade issues, but perhaps even Visa issues, immigration issues, corporate alliance issues, and so on and so on....the list could go on.

This in addition to the strong influence that the US might further exacerbate via diplomatic channels with Brazil's neighbors to potentially escalate matters even worse for Brazil.


In addition to the following:

........how reliable are countries from the actual 'nuclear club'? take usa, uk or france or n. korea for example, the first one already used nuclear weapons twice against japan (and did not answer for those war crimes) and the last three openly threatened with using it, ........, take israel for example, surely the most trigger happy of 'em all

This is quite true.
The US did not answer for the people that were killed in Japan at that time. Most likely because the US was seen as the dominant allied power and since pretty much the whole world was against the ideology of Nazism, it was naturally assumed and taken for granted that an act of nuclear annihilation would not be answered for from the US's side.
Quite true.

As for Israel being trigger happy.
It sure is.
It of course ensures that it retains it 's unquestioned nuclear capability with the strong allied partnership that it has with the US, UK, and a host of other countries that continually evade the notion on how immorally incorrect it is to support a government in Israel that continuously supports the deliberate destruction of Palestinian property and discrimination of those people.

Of course, Israel does this through varied modes of operations.
We all recently heard on the news on how Mossad entered an Arab state using fake passports and assassinated another person that they had orders from their political leaders in Israel.

Here is a YT clip that makes mention of Israel ensuring that it's dominance remains intact using it's favored method of assassinating people in foreign lands.

Now the date of this YT clip is from January 13, 2010 as stated near the clip's info heading.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCMWD_BvmsE"]YouTube- Iran blames Israel, US for nuke scientist murder[/ame]

But there is one thing that I dont' understand here, slik and that is when you mention in the above quote: 'how reliable are countries...'

I dont' think I quite follow what you mean by that.

ARe you talking about how reliable the truth spoken is from countries such as France, the UK, the US et al with respect to their non-transparent goals??

Judging from the content of the discussion, I am thinking that maybe you are. Though you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.

[slikrapid]

I recall some speech that George Bush made a number of years ago when he stated something along the lines of 'Either you are with us or you are with the enemy'.

the rhetoric which exploits the false dilemma/choice situation:

False choice

The presentation of a false choice often reflects a deliberate attempt to eliminate the middle ground on an issue. Eldridge Cleaver used such a quotation during his 1968 presidential campaign: "You're either part of the solution or part of the problem." [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma#False_choice

he also used a variation: you are either with us or against us

ARe you talking about how reliable the truth spoken is from countries such as France, the UK, the US et al with respect to their non-transparent goals??

yes, its all a double-standards game of hypocrisy, also how reliable are their statements about being against the military usage of nuclear weapons, yet they use it to threaten others, they build more to compete with their opponents, yet preach non-proliferation to the rest of the world

here an unusual example :

The Cat and the Mice is a fable attributed to Aesop. It tells the story of a house full of mice, and the cat who hunts them. After the cat catches several of them, the remaining mice retreat into their holes. The cat tries to fool them by playing dead, but the mice don't fall for it. The moral of the story is that the wise are not tricked by the innocence of those previously found to be dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop%27s_Fables