Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, but at the time Iran ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty, its leader was a despotic Western puppet who seized power amid a MI6/CIA-orchestrated coup against a democratically-elected government. So if Iran wants to take a mulligan, who are we to object? Moreover, what's Israel's stance on restricting nuclear weaponry only to the sanctioned states (the five permanent members of the Security Council)?
Actually, Iran violated the NPT by conducting illegal military research. Whitewashing Iran's violations and its sponsorship of terrorism or threat of genocide is really gullible. The issue at present is not to apologize for Iran's nuclear program or trying to prove that its justified. The issue is their non compliance with the JPOA/IAEA, as the IAEA is not satisfied with the ambiguous program.
Article 61 and 63 question its past nuclear program and awaits confirmation from its questions from Tehran. As a signatory member of the NPT, it must comply to all demands from the IAEA, which they are not.
Quote:
The last claim is certainly true, but I take issue with the first and second: respectively, (i.) the IDF is closer to technological parity with the US military than many foreign armies, but quantity/logistics are often of greater importance {h/t Stalin/Patton}, and the IDF doesn't have the resources to repel firepower of that {US, UK, Russia, Japan, China, etc.} magnitude {h/t ADM Ackbar}; (ii.) technological exchange between Israel and the US {both voluntary and coerced} inevitably benefits the former far more than the latter {one is the world's preeminent scientific/economic/military power, the other is a country with 2.6% of its population and 1.7% of its GDP}.
I believe the IDF is well equipped to take on any threat and its exporting of weapons has increasingly became popular. India's defense deal in recent months is an example.
Quote:
A lot of people have more blood on their hands than ISIS -- just about every nation-state that has ever fought in a major war, for one. That includes Israel, and I won't even bother trying to tally the US body-count. As for Iran, I'm having trouble identifying a single conflagration over the past century in which it was the aggressor. Typically, trouble seems to arise when colonial powers have designs on its land/resources. Or, in the case of the Iran-Iraq War (again, defensive), a regional rival with Western benefactors. So the blood/hands metric, even when proxy violence is included (e.g., Hezbollah), doesn't look good for Israel or the US. Likewise, I don't have high hopes for an assessment of 'hegemonic ambition in the Levant' based on territorial conquest ...
Are we really comparing Israel to ISIS...Iran...to Israel? An understanding of a Preventive and Preemptive wars should be researched..
While Western Powers had their share of creating a mess in the region, they created the mess for everyone equally. Being an apologizing patsy for Iran is supporting its terrorism it funds and administers world wide. Even the Iran-Iraq war led to the Gulf War states support of Saddam Hussein because of Iran's zeal to export its revolution through out the region. It hegemonic and cultural pressure in the region has always made them a threat to everyone.
If you do not see Iran's hegemonic ambitions of control in the Levant and elsewhere then you should not be pretending to be informed. Not everything can be blamed on the West, as the Shia-Sunni rift has been around longer the Western Imperialism.
Quote:
i.) Netanyahu doesn't have a great deal of credibility with respect to abiding by prior agreements.
Nice opinion, nothing different than the extreme left that flirts with radicalism, unless you have proof? Considering Netanyahu has held agreements with Egypt and Jordan, no?
Quote:
ii.) It's not unusual for an arms control treaty to have an expiration date (SALT, START). Optimistically, it's reinforced/revised in subsequent agreements.
....
Quote:
iii.) Yeah, what a great boon those Sunni allies have been -- let's see: Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, the Blind Sheikh, bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram, ISIS, Pan Am 103, WTC bombing, African embassy bombings, USS Cole, 9/11, Fort Hood shooting, Benghazi!, etc., etc., etc. Is a pattern emerging?
Never said they were wonderful allies. In fact, The Sunni Nations and Iran are equally as clean as a turd.
Quote:
iv.) I think you're unclear on a relevant political/territorial distinction: Israel is not part of the US, it isn't among our closest allies (Five/Nine/Fourteen Eyes, NATO, Japan, S. Korea, etc.), and we've made no formal commitment to its defense. So I'd like to suggest the novel approach of doing what's best for the US vis-Ã -vis Iran, and relegating Israel's interests to the tertiary status of a foreign client. This infatuation with Israel is starting to cross a line, and additional attempts to undermine American foreign policy via Congressional collaboration with a foreign power should be regarded increasingly treacherous ...
U.S commitment to its Defense: //www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=122277
Considering every U.S Administration has gave formal commitment to Israel's defense, I believe you are mistaken. Considering I have said ad nausea for months that U.S and Israeli interest are combined on the Iranian nuclear matter, this is not the issue at hand.
That being said, to clarify your understanding on this situation, President Obama is not the Supreme Leader of the U.S. What ever President Obama and his administration believes, they have not provided adequate answers to the concerns that have been raised by Netanyahu and the U.S Congress. Obama's deal has been masked from the public, so you have no clue if its good for U.S interests or not.
2. Obama is most likely a Muslim- Netanyahu is not
3. Iran has pledged the destruction of both Israel and the US
4. Other Muslim nations (Egypt, Jordan, UAE, and Saudi Arabia) recognize and understand the threat of an Iranian nuke.
5. Israel is a nuclear power, capable of destroying Iran on their own now- they have not done so
6. Iran has pledged that when they secure a nuke, they will first use it on Israel
7. A nuclear attack on Israel will result in an Israeli nuclear retaliation that will wipe out Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, and parts of Syria on the short list.
8. American Jews have blindly supported liberal US politicians who have worked to undermine Israel- perhaps those times have changed.
Obama is clearly working with Iran to undermine the strategic interest of the US, Israel, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey.
Either Obama is a direct agent of Muslim extremists or the biggest imbecile to ever occupy the White House.
Uh, no. Bibi's actions have been anything but statesmanlike. Inserting himself into US domestic politics with the idea to boost himself in an electoral stunt is crass, disrespectful and encroaches on American sovereignty.
In fact, his act may do more to harm the traditional bipartisan support for Israel with his tilt towards the Republicans, and connivance with Boehner to stick it to the President. His actions have not be universally applauded back in Israel, and in fact, it has been a bit negative.
It is also very possible that this may lead to US policy makers to see where US policy aims may diverge from that of Israel. Bibi has pretty much advocated for the US to get involved in Iraq and was wrong about that.
Your screeds about Obama being Muslim are simply laughable. Just because one negotiates with Iran doesn't mean one is going to give away the store nor be friendly. Sometimes ya gotta talk with people you don't like.
Actually, Iran violated the NPT by conducting illegal military research. Whitewashing Iran's violations and its sponsorship of terrorism or threat of genocide is really gullible. The issue at present is not to apologize for Iran's nuclear program or trying to prove that its justified. The issue is their non compliance with the JPOA/IAEA, as the IAEA is not satisfied with the ambiguous program. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2015-15.pdf
You'll note that report indicates that there are "Possible Military Dimensions" (paragraphs 58 - 63) in Iran's program that need to be resolved. That is not "conducting illegal military research."
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Article 61 and 63 question its past nuclear program and awaits confirmation from its questions from Tehran. As a signatory member of the NPT, it must comply to all demands from the IAEA, which they are not.
Those are not articles of the NPT, but paragraphs of an IAEA report on inspections and safeguards of the Iranian program. Note also that the paragraphs do not indicate noncompliance. They indicate that there are issues to resolve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
I believe the IDF is well equipped to take on any threat and its exporting of weapons has increasingly became popular. India's defense deal in recent months is an example.
If there is a US-Iran (really an Iran-P5+1) deal, then there will be no military conflict over the Iranian nuclear program. All the military technology in the world is no good when your key ally has chosen the path of diplomacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Are we really comparing Israel to ISIS...Iran...to Israel? An understanding of a Preventive and Preemptive wars should be researched.
Those are very different concepts.
Preventive war is not generally acknowledged as a valid casus belli--or a lawful reason for war. It means, in layman's terms, going to war to prevent a potential enemy from eventually becoming able to attack you. It's very limited uses have been deeply questioned: Pearl Harbor and the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Preemptive war is, rather, striking first when your opponent is already imminently poised to strike you.
For an analogy, preemptive war is basically punching first to gain an advantage when you know the other person is about to punch you. Preventive war is beating someone into submission before they even think about hitting you. While preemptive war has its critics, it is usually considered casus belli.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
While Western Powers had their share of creating a mess in the region, they created the mess for everyone equally. Being an apologizing patsy for Iran is supporting its terrorism it funds and administers world wide. Even the Iran-Iraq war led to the Gulf War states support of Saddam Hussein because of Iran's zeal to export its revolution through out the region. It hegemonic and cultural pressure in the region has always made them a threat to everyone.
Iran has long been a regional rival to Saudi Arabia and Iraq. It is not a hegemon. It's reach is limited (and would be more limited if not for the U.S. invasion of Iraq).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
If you do not see Iran's hegemonic ambitions of control in the Levant and elsewhere then you should not be pretending to be informed. Not everything can be blamed on the West, as the Shia-Sunni rift has been around longer the Western Imperialism.
Iran is not about to control the Gulf states. It is not about to control Israel. It is not about to control Turkey or Egypt or Oman. It is not about to control the Sunni regions of the territory formerly known as Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
U.S commitment to its Defense: //www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=122277
Considering every U.S Administration has gave formal commitment to Israel's defense, I believe you are mistaken. Considering I have said ad nausea for months that U.S and Israeli interest are combined on the Iranian nuclear matter, this is not the issue at hand.
That being said, to clarify your understanding on this situation, President Obama is not the Supreme Leader of the U.S. What ever President Obama and his administration believes, they have not provided adequate answers to the concerns that have been raised by Netanyahu and the U.S Congress. Obama's deal has been masked from the public, so you have no clue if its good for U.S interests or not.
The United States is committed to Israel's defense, but it's true that Israel is not part of the most inner circle of US allies. Netanyahu's government is pushing further away from those inner circles.
On the Iranian nuclear issue, the US and Israel have different goals. The US has repeatedly stated "no nuclear weapon." Israel has repeatedly stated "no nuclear weapons capability." Those two statements are incompatible. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons. Japan and Germany have nuclear weapons capability.
The US Congress, as a whole, has no say in the matter. If the nuclear deal results in a treaty, then the Senate must ratify it. The President is responsible for the nation's foreign policy, broadly speaking. Unless the Congress can override a veto, it can't muck up the negotiations on its own. Netanyahu is hoping that it can override a veto. That is dangerous, because it asks for a rift in the Democratic Party (assuming a deal is reached). I don't think it is an exaggeration to state that Netanyahu is operating without a net here, both in the short and long term. In the short term, it will be hard to get the Congress to scuttle a deal. In the long term, it will become harder for Israel to find support in the White House and the Democratic Party. If there is a deal, then I think Netanyahu will need to use his (assumed) new coalition to get behind it. If he has gone too far with his election campaign to do so, then he risks a real, and dangerous, rift with the US that will not be repaired soon.
While the negotiations (obviously) involve a level of secrecy, there have been some public statements about the outlines of a deal. They include: 1) robust inspections regime, 2) limited number of centrifuges activated, 3) 10 year freeze on some subset of Iran's nuclear work, 4) nuclear material shipped out to Russia and returned as necessary, 5) lifting of sanctions as verifiable steps are taken, 6) recognition of a right to civilian nuclear power.
As does every other rational adult, operating away from a paid agenda.
Only the bought and paid for, or completely stupid, would argue that a terror state like iran, murdering thousands of people every month all over the world, could even be remotely trusted to adhere to an agreement such as this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
2 thoughts for this poster: 1) typing in bold guarantees you and your posts are non-credible garbage 2) turning a thread about iran into yet another infantile anti-Israel rant exposes you as a total fraud.
It would be better if you simply stopped posting on the topic altogether, rather than lying to the forum with the idiocy you posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Are you paid by the post, or the hour?
I cannot even be bothered to address this crap posts, its like reading dailykos/dailybeast raving nonsense repeated over and over...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Stop being lazy and search my posts. I've stated it clearly many times.
Pot calling the kettle black? Look at some of your responses. mwruckman's post was legit and you could only respond with "are you paid by the post or the hour?" That's not only a canned response, it's a weak response. The latest buzz word. Thinking is not your strong suit. He made a valid point. If another country tried to tell us what to do, there'd be hell to pay. But it's ok for us to bully and play world police. Our government throws our military around the world like some kind of steroid freak in a bar assaulting and intimidating every person there, demanding they obey and bow down or suffer the consequences. It's only a matter of time before someone hits him over the head with a bottle. I think a lot of people in this forum have little to no power in their daily lives. It's the only explanation for their desire to want to bomb and invade virtually every country on the planet. Our English speaking allies being the only exception. Embarrassing.
People just love to whine about Obama, don't they?
The US president isn't the president of the world. Iran doesn't have to 'agree' with us about anything! That's why they're called Iran, and not the United States of America.
It sucks that Iran is probably going to build bombs. But seriously, since when does the US get to control everyone else? Did the USSR have to ask permission to build it's massive arsenal? If so, I want to know who said yes to that because the cold war is entirely their fault.
Get over it. Obama has limited to his power, unless a conservative needs to frame him as a tyrant. He's either too weak or a king; no in between. It's very hard to take seriously.
Obviously this is beyond your comprehension, but I'm going to give it a try. There is GOOD and EVIL in this world. We...The United States of America are the good guys we have the ability and the responsibility to make sure the Bad guys don't get nukes or otherwise cause to big of problems in this world.
Now as I said , I understand that folks like you, your man Obama and the rest of your ilk don't like or want America to be the good guys, but we are! Always have been and always should be. Get over it.
God Bless America!
Exactly like Dubya and the Pubs allowed N Korea to develop, test, and deploy their nukes.
Maybe you could explain how the USA has prevented any nuclear power from becoming a nuclear power. Once you've done that, you owe it to your country (and the world) to contact the State Dept with details on how they should proceed.
Carry on.
The truth is their is very little we can do aside from sanctions and reasonable negotiations, any other alternative is unrealistic. The US could not have prevented North Korea, Pakistan or China from having nuclear capability but people keep living in the past as if the US has that type of power. The situation with Iran is complicated as are the countries involved in negotiations like Russia and China, this is just not about the US.
Obviously this is beyond your comprehension, but I'm going to give it a try. There is GOOD and EVIL in this world. We...The United States of America are the good guys we have the ability and the responsibility to make sure the Bad guys don't get nukes or otherwise cause to big of problems in this world.
Now as I said , I understand that folks like you, your man Obama and the rest of your ilk don't like or want America to be the good guys, but we are! Always have been and always should be. Get over it.
God Bless America!
Well evidently the bad guys won in North Korea.
Fighting bad people should be the responsibility of the entire world not just the US, we haven't done a very good job going it alone. Yes Obama thinks that the ME and other countries should take some responsibility, what a novel idea.
Fighting bad people should be the responsibility of the entire world not just the US, we haven't done a very good job going it alone. Yes Obama thinks that the ME and other countries should take some responsibility, what a novel idea.
Well that can be addressed in another thread titled " Rules of Engagement; Let our Military men do what they are trained to do." Its called Leading!! Obama is NOT qualified to be Commander in Chief, and therefore is not respected as such by the rest of the world.
Well that can be addressed in another thread titled " Rules of Engagement; Let our Military men do what they are trained to do." Its called Leading!! Obama is NOT qualified to be Commander in Chief, and therefore is not respected as such by the rest of the world.
You're off topic but maybe Obama could just bribe the Iranians with arms as was the case with a prior great Commander in Chief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
