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.
You are right, this is a multilateral agreement. At the present moment, Europe is sitting on the fence about the current deal with Iran, due to new developments of Iranian missiles.
Your link does not show that "Europe is sitting on the fence." It shows that Netanyahu hopes they will waiver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
I have nothing else to add if you cannot understand that the IAEA is not satisfied with the violations of Iran's nuclear program.
IAEA says "there remain issues to resolve." If you can't understand the difference between that statement and "Iran is violating the NPT," then you don't understand the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Evidence this evidence that... UNSC says all ballistic missiles, otherwise.
Iran has the vectors for BM's that can launch nuclear warheads. It is said that they are producing the Shahab-3 and the Sajil-2, which could also launch a nuclear warhead. My previous link shows the Iranian unveiling of a missile that can reach Southern Europe.
The UN does not say all ballistic missiles. Read the link you posted before. It says ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The Shahab-3 and the Sajil-2 are old missiles, developed before the 2010 UNSC resolution on Iran.
That a missile can reach southern Europe does not mean that it can carry a nuclear weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
A radical regime is not trying to be hegemonic? News to me. Pray tell then, why does Iran engage in proxy wars through out the Levant? Israel does not try to spread hegemony through out the region, unlike Iran who is trying to establish a Shia Caliphate.
In more than 35 years Iran has not become a hegemon. Nations work in their interest. Iran engages in proxy wars, like Saudi Arabia, the United States, and everyone else in the region. Israel tries to use the US directly, and various Arab states indirectly, to spread its regional influence. Iran is not trying to establish a Shi'a caliphate. Shi'a Muslims believe that a legitimate caliph can only be a descendant of Muhammad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Whether they have or have not on March 11th is not the concern. They continue to construct a nuclear weapons program and ICBM's, BM's, in violation of the UNSC and NPT, which will ultimately lead them to spread their influence further.
Their words not mine, Iran’s presidential advisor: ‘all of the Middle East is Iranian’ :
You should not believe Iranian propaganda when you are developing foreign policy. The negotiations are to deal with the Iranian nuclear program (not nuclear weapons).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Oh I see, so whitewashing Iranian responsibility of a technicality. Whether one pulls the trigger or gives money, arms and the green light to pull the trigger, is the same filth in my book.
Iran continues to collect allies to spread its Shia Crescent and weaken the Sunni bloc. There is nothing you can add to dismiss this.
We do the same. As does Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, and others. Of course Iran tries to maximize its influence. That's what countries do in foreign policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
The Gulf States and Turkey are just as responsible, but you continue and continue to whitewash Iranian sponsorship of terrorism. Iranian sponsored shia groups are responsible for many of the deaths of American soldiers.
Gulf states also sponsor terrorism. The Bush White House is responsible for all of the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
You continue to back peddle and produce fallacies to apologize for Iranians illegal activities.
Until you admit that:
A) Iran has openly on several occasions expressed nuclear genocide on the state of Israel.
B) Continue its sponsorship of terrorism through out the world
C) Repeated violations of UNSC and NPT as well as Human Rights Violations.
An Israeli lawmaker who became a foreign minister advocated using a nuclear weapon in Gaza. Foreign policy is made to further national interests, not to feel warm and fuzzy. That's why the United States overlooks Saudi Arabia's sponsorship of terrorism, Israel's nuclear program, and the abuse of human rights in many allied countries.
I think Iran is a better long term partner than Saudi Arabia. A nuclear deal can lead to more normalized relations, and eventually maybe even positive relations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Escaping Iranian responsibility for their actions because the "Arabs does it too" is apologetic to the Iranian cause. Sure, the Iranian people do okay as long as they are not gay or "Zionist spy's". But for the Nth time, you continue to apologize for Iran's actions by finding good things about them.
While you rant about the actions of the Iranian regime, you are silent on the actions of US allies in the region. The reason I raise the conduct of those allies is because it shows how hollow those condemnations are.
Saudis who are gay don't do okay. Nor do Saudis who are non-Muslim, or women, or foreigners, etc. But we don't make foreign policy on those bases. The alliance with Saudi Arabia has been up and down, but in the long run the costs of that alliance will increasingly outweigh the benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Whether chaotic like ISIS or orderly like Iran, their theology is from the same poisonous tree. Your knowledge of the Sunni-Shia rift is poor.
I know more about Sunni and Shi'a Islam than you appear to recognize. I'm not sure why you would compare ISIS's theology to Iran's, seeing that ISIS is Sunni. Saudi Arabia, in fact, would be a better comparison (though still not apt).
Your link does not show that "Europe is sitting on the fence." It shows that Netanyahu hopes they will waiver.
The European Countries are behind Obama with his proposal but also want it to secure a deal with any future BM's. The point is that Europe will be in Iran's radius and a poor deal will inevitably draw them to conflict.
Quote:
IAEA says "there remain issues to resolve." If you can't understand the difference between that statement and "Iran is violating the NPT," then you don't understand the process.
You said nothing innovated here. The issues that remain to be resolved are the IAEA inspectors 11 questions regarding its past nuclear program. Since Iran is not complying to resolve this matter, they are violating the NPT.
You cannot sign an agreement, bare fruit from the agreement, then reject the agreement when you feel like it.
Quote:
The UN does not say all ballistic missiles. Read the link you posted before. It says ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The Shahab-3 and the Sajil-2 are old missiles, developed before the 2010 UNSC resolution on Iran.
That a missile can reach southern Europe does not mean that it can carry a nuclear weapon.
UNSC 1929 forbids any launches of BM's.
9. " Decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities;"
In more than 35 years Iran has not become a hegemon. Nations work in their interest. Iran engages in proxy wars, like Saudi Arabia, the United States, and everyone else in the region. Israel tries to use the US directly, and various Arab states indirectly, to spread its regional influence. Iran is not trying to establish a Shi'a caliphate. Shi'a Muslims believe that a legitimate caliph can only be a descendant of Muhammad.
You should not believe Iranian propaganda when you are developing foreign policy. The negotiations are to deal with the Iranian nuclear program (not nuclear weapons).
Your right, I made an error. Iran is not trying to establish a caliphate, but export its revolution and extend its influence in the region. It is a regional power and seeks hegemonic influence. Some in Iran have advocated for an Iranian Empire.
We do the same. As does Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, and others. Of course Iran tries to maximize its influence. That's what countries do in foreign policy.
Gulf states also sponsor terrorism. The Bush White House is responsible for all of the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq.
Was not aware that Israel sponsors terrorism and spreads its hegemonic influence...
Either way, The Sunni's and Iran come from the same poisonous tree, just different interpretations of Islam.
Quote:
An Israeli lawmaker who became a foreign minister advocated using a nuclear weapon in Gaza. Foreign policy is made to further national interests, not to feel warm and fuzzy. That's why the United States overlooks Saudi Arabia's sponsorship of terrorism, Israel's nuclear program, and the abuse of human rights in many allied countries.
You are going to have to prove this false claim, considering Israel does not confirm or deny its nuclear program.
Quote:
I think Iran is a better long term partner than Saudi Arabia. A nuclear deal can lead to more normalized relations, and eventually maybe even positive relations.
Iran cannot be trusted and has its hands in every conflict in the region. They are even responsible or terrorist acts around the world.
Quote:
While you rant about the actions of the Iranian regime, you are silent on the actions of US allies in the region. The reason I raise the conduct of those allies is because it shows how hollow those condemnations are.
Saudis who are gay don't do okay. Nor do Saudis who are non-Muslim, or women, or foreigners, etc. But we don't make foreign policy on those bases. The alliance with Saudi Arabia has been up and down, but in the long run the costs of that alliance will increasingly outweigh the benefits.
Silent no.. on topic.. Yes.
Iran is pursing nuclear weapons, so their actions will be construed and magnified in discussion. Whitewashing their actions because others committee atrocities is a fallacy. Iran and Saudi Arabia are human rights violators, there is no debate about this.
Quote:
I know more about Sunni and Shi'a Islam than you appear to recognize. I'm not sure why you would compare ISIS's theology to Iran's, seeing that ISIS is Sunni. Saudi Arabia, in fact, would be a better comparison (though still not apt).
The theological component to their religion is not the primary focus, but the actions of atrocities are alike. They are both responsible for thousands of human lives, one is just orderly and the other chaotic.
And best of all, because Obama is a coward, controls will be in place for five years, gradually lifting over the next five, conveniently sticking the next two presidents with his poor decisions.
Perhaps not. That was the purpose of the letter sent by Senators (47), which was not "treason," by the way (they were not in violation of the Logan Act), warning Iran that any agreement without Senate approval is only good so long as Obama is President. In my opinion, it needs Senate approval regardless; but, as an "agreement," and not a Treaty, it is not binding past this Presidency.
The deal does not have to be ratified by congress at least not now although they are attempting to pass legislation to that effect. Congress is doing their best to defeat what are very sensitive negotiations to begin with, they do not need the GOP making this more difficult. It would be enlightening if they presented some facts or details rather than just threats.
This and any other treaty should be subject to ratification. Obama should not be able to do an "end run" around Congress just because the mass media solons are rooting for a "deal" at any price. This "deal" will allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. There are fig leaf provisions but nothing that keeps Iran out of the nuclear camp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
The Kyoto agreement was unenforceable, with this we will have inspectors inside the country and if Iran does not comply then sanctions regarding nuclear facilities will be put back in place. There are already other sanctions in place that are not part of this negotiation.
Inspectors sound great. But remember Saddam Hussein locked some of them up for a while and then prohibited one of their inspections. And I think that happened more than once. What is the West going to do when that happens, whine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Tom Cotton who was the author of the letter called for a regime change in Iran and indicated this was a constitutional primer, embarrassing.
This will be agreed to by 5 other countries and the president in 2017 will revoke this agreement, good luck.
If the election turns into a referendum on the treaty, sure. The average American feels that Obama is out of touch with them. He is floating in an alternate reality composed of mass media and Ivy League universities.
The European Countries are behind Obama with his proposal but also want it to secure a deal with any future BM's. The point is that Europe will be in Iran's radius and a poor deal will inevitably draw them to conflict.
The participation of Germany, France, and the UK in the negotiations is a signal that the EU believes that this process is the best way to resolve security concerns. I don't see how the negotiations could be characterized as a poor deal--that has simply been a talking point of the punditry and the politicians. There is not an inevitable conflict posed by Iranian missiles. Indian missiles have range to reach Europe, but do not create inevitable conflict. Germany, especially, is an important trade partner for Iran. By getting a deal done, a great deal of unnecessary friction between Iran and European states will be removed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
You said nothing innovated here. The issues that remain to be resolved are the IAEA inspectors 11 questions regarding its past nuclear program. Since Iran is not complying to resolve this matter, they are violating the NPT.
Out of 11, there are 2 questions on which IAEA indicates that there are issues that remain to be resolved. That does not equate to a violation of the NPT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
You cannot sign an agreement, bare fruit from the agreement, then reject the agreement when you feel like it.
And that is not what is happening. Discussions, reports, inspections, and negotiations are ongoing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
UNSC 1929 forbids any launches of BM's.
9. " Decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities;"
You are right, I skipped over that language. Still, no party is interested in taking Iran to task for launches using ballistic missile technology that is not capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Partly because that would be overbroad, and partly because it is entirely unnecessary if the nuclear program can be dealt with through negotiation. No one cares about ballistic missiles if there are no nuclear warheads on top of them.
The Barani is widely considered incapable of delivering a nuclear payload.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Your right, I made an error. Iran is not trying to establish a caliphate, but export its revolution and extend its influence in the region. It is a regional power and seeks hegemonic influence. Some in Iran have advocated for an Iranian Empire.
While Iran has long claimed a desire to "export the revolution," that goal is clearly limited in potential reach. Sunni nations are not going to import the Iranian revolution. This limits the destinations for this export to Lebanon, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Yemen, and the state that has succeeded to Saddam's Iraq--namely the non-ISIS, non-Kurd Iraqi south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Was not aware that Israel sponsors terrorism and spreads its hegemonic influence...
Either way, The Sunni's and Iran come from the same poisonous tree, just different interpretations of Islam.v
I was not referring, strictly speaking, to terrorism sponsorship, but to spreading influence through arms, training, and other support, which Israel does, both directly and indirectly.
If you want to speak only of terrorism:
Irgun, of course, was tied up with the formation of Israel.
Additionally, Israeli law creates tacit support for settler violence by treating it under the aegis of ordinary penal law (if investigated, prosecuted, and penalized at all), whereas Palestinian violence is treated under the aegis of military law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
You are going to have to prove this false claim, considering Israel does not confirm or deny its nuclear program.
Everyone knowledgeable is aware that Israel has not only a nuclear program but nuclear weapons. A policy of not confirming or denying that does not change the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons.
"In January 2009, during Israel's war on Gaza, Lieberman argued that Israel "must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in the second world war. Then, too, the occupation of the country was unnecessary."
Not that he is alone in Israeli politics. Ariel Sharon's son made the same comparison: Israel must "flatten Gaza" like the US flattened Japan, says Sharon's son. There is also a rather choice quote (on a different angle) from Eli Yishai, deputy PM: "The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years."
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Iran cannot be trusted and has its hands in every conflict in the region. They are even responsible or terrorist acts around the world.
It will be a lot easier to trust an Iran that agrees to a deal with the P5+1. You are welcome to cry terrorism and point to Iran's support of Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas, but statecraft demands clear-eyed analysis and action. Iran's support of those groups is not, ultimately, an insurmountable obstacle. There is tremendous opportunity for the United States in a nuclear deal and normalized relations with Iran.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Silent no.. on topic.. Yes.
Iran is pursing nuclear weapons, so their actions will be construed and magnified in discussion. Whitewashing their actions because others committee atrocities is a fallacy. Iran and Saudi Arabia are human rights violators, there is no debate about this.
Please provide evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran has a nuclear program. There is a difference between a nuclear program and a nuclear weapons program.
To put Iran and Saudi Arabia on the same level, in terms of human rights violations, is a gross insult to Iran.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
The theological component to their religion is not the primary focus, but the actions of atrocities are alike. They are both responsible for thousands of human lives, one is just orderly and the other chaotic.
You said "their theology is from the same poisonous tree" and you made an apparently extraneous reference to the Sunni-Shia split. If their theology "is not the primary focus," then why bring it up? Many countries "are . . . responsible for thousands of human lives," including the United States. The focus of the negotiations is not theology, but technology, namely nuclear technology. Theology does not prevent foreign relations.
Trying to undermine international negotiations is beyond the pale. I am in no way a fan of this administration, but it is the duty of the executive branch to handle international relations, not Congress. These senators should be ashamed of themselves. They act as if their president is Benjamin Netanyahu. Enough is enough. At the very least, they should all be censured for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514
I'm glad to know that the GOP's blatant attempts to derail a possible agreement are being shot down. This is a reprehensible ploy on the part of the Republicans.
I think they were very careful not to undermine the negotiations. And the Republicans, who may well win in 2016 were within their rights to say that they won't be bound by anything less than a treaty.
I do think it's rare that a successor leader in a democracy does not honor prior governmental promises to foreign states. Thus it can and must be made clear when the successor administration has no intention of honoring a deal crafted so as to avoid constitutionally suggested or mandated oversight.
Would you think it's wrong if a President-elect, after an election, states that it may disavow actions by the retiring or defeated President?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
A treaty is an agreement between two or more nations. If not a treaty then what is it?
Under the U.S. Constitution the U.S. can't make a binding agreement with another nation without 2/3 Senate ratification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrClose
And that 'error' would be?
Because idiots still believe that the usurper cares one twit about what Congress or the American people want .. I have made an error?
The mullah in the White House will do exactly what he wishes to do!
He will lie and make deals behind closed doors .. all to the detriment of the American people .. just as he did with NoBamaCare!
Good thing Irans warheads are closer to the west coast!
(I added reputation for the quoted post) I cannot figure out why he is so desparate to make a "deal." he deal he proposes is a bad one and will sully his reputation. Think how the need to evacuate Americans with helicopters, and the boat people, hurt the reputation of the "Vietnam Peace Treaty."
Would you think it's wrong if a President-elect, after an election, states that it may disavow actions by the retiring or defeated President? Under the U.S. Constitution the U.S. can't make a binding agreement with another nation without 2/3 Senate ratification.
Of course Barack Obama ran on a platform of disavowing large parts of George Bush's agenda, with one of his first actions being to cancel our commitment to build a land-based anti-missile defense system in Poland. So, we need to look back no further than the current occupant of the white house to identify precedents for this.
Obama letting Iran have nukes...maybe Rudy was right
Maybe?
You know it, I know it, and the hysterical reaction of the left tells me they know he's working hard to undermine and collapse America so it can be rebuilt in his image -- a FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION
Methinks that you hit that bong entirely tooooo hard......Just breathe just a little.
You and the other Faux fiends totally ignored the fact that the treasonous 47 totally undermine the nuke talks, but I guess that does not matter now does it?
If the Dems would have sent Gorby a letter to undermine good old Ronny R, there would have been hell to pay.
If it was not so ironically stupid, I would serious think that you suffer from IHATEOBAMAITIS. The sad thing about it is that many of you still claim that it is not racially motivated to the point that some of you are willing to support actual treason. All that I can do is nod my head in disbelief.
Of course Barack Obama ran on a platform of disavowing large parts of George Bush's agenda, with one of his first actions being to cancel our commitment to build a land-based anti-missile defense system in Poland. So, we need to look back no further than the current occupant of the white house to identify precedents for this.
A half-century of estrangement is over, President Obama declared late last year, in a surprise announcement that he was transforming U.S. policy towards Cuba. Having broken the ice, the administration hopes that normalizing diplomatic relations and lifting the economic embargo will, as the recently released National Security Strategy explains, "enhance our engagement in our own hemisphere, where there are enormous opportunities to consolidate gains in pursuit of peace, prosperity, democracy, and energy security." Actually, it's a geopolitically insignificant decision—except for the pattern it continues, one we would do well to recall as the deadline for a deal with Iran looms.
Obama's approach to the world can be summed up with the title of a single book: How Enemies Become Friends: The Sources of Stable Peace. Influential Georgetown professor Charles Kupchan published it in 2010 and now serves the president as senior director for European affairs on the National Security Council (on which he also served during the Clinton administration).
**********************
As with the president's other olive branches, the attempt to transform Iran from an enemy to a friend will likely fail. We've seen no evidence of forthcoming reciprocal restraint from the mullahs. Continued Iranian support for murderous actors such as Assad and Hezbollah or persistent violations of nuclear commitments could well force this administration, or the next one, to reverse course. When that happens, however, we will not be able to return to the status quo ante. Allies, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, will have made their own choices in the interim about how to secure their interests, which now stand in opposition to the budding U.S.-Iranian concert. Netanyahu's speech made this clear. One can easily imagine a situation in which Israel and Sunni states decide to take on Hezbollah and Assad directly, only to be opposed jointly by Washington and Tehran. Not only will the United States have failed in turning enemies into friends, but it will have lost friends in the process.
The participation of Germany, France, and the UK in the negotiations is a signal that the EU believes that this process is the best way to resolve security concerns. I don't see how the negotiations could be characterized as a poor deal--that has simply been a talking point of the punditry and the politicians. There is not an inevitable conflict posed by Iranian missiles. Indian missiles have range to reach Europe, but do not create inevitable conflict. Germany, especially, is an important trade partner for Iran. By getting a deal done, a great deal of unnecessary friction between Iran and European states will be removed.
Stop comparing Iran to other countries, this has nothing to do with India. India does not threat nuclear annihilation nor does it fund terrorist to kill people. Your opinion about European participation is noted, however, the Gulf Region is and will prepare for its nuclear arsenal while Iran has "Good" ties with Europe.
[quote]Out of 11, there are 2 questions on which IAEA indicates that there are issues that remain to be resolved. That does not equate to a violation of the NPT.
Dude, just stop. I explained to you over three times how this violates the NPT. They are not cooperating with the IAEA. If they had nothing to hide and aloud their inspectors in their suspected sites, this issue would of been dropped years ago.
Quote:
And that is not what is happening. Discussions, reports, inspections, and negotiations are ongoing.
You make no sense. It already happened. Iran received equipment and technology to construct its nuclear program for civilian purposes. As an NPT signatory, Iran is forbidden to engage in a nuclear weapons program. Under suspicion of a nuclear weapons program, Iran violates the NPT by not being transparent about its secret sites. Lets not make this any more complicated than it really is.
Quote:
You are right, I skipped over that language. Still, no party is interested in taking Iran to task for launches using ballistic missile technology that is not capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Partly because that would be overbroad, and partly because it is entirely unnecessary if the nuclear program can be dealt with through negotiation. No one cares about ballistic missiles if there are no nuclear warheads on top of them.
The Barani is widely considered incapable of delivering a nuclear payload.
Iran has been circumspect about launch testing's because they are forbidden to do so and fear harsher sanctions. I cannot imagine European leaders not dreading over any type of ballistic missile in Iranian position that could potentially hit their cities. They biggest concern is the mobile launchers that Iran is creating. These mobile launchers are hard to find in a country the size of Iran and can be camouflaged. Saddam used them during the Gulf War against Israel and not one of them was found to be destroyed. Just another worry to add to the Iranian list.
Quote:
While Iran has long claimed a desire to "export the revolution," that goal is clearly limited in potential reach. Sunni nations are not going to import the Iranian revolution. This limits the destinations for this export to Lebanon, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Yemen, and the state that has succeeded to Saddam's Iraq--namely the non-ISIS, non-Kurd Iraqi south.
A nuclear Iran will create a hegemonic Iran and who knows what Iran will conquer and command.
An Iranian backed Iraq, Lebanon, Syria would draw in more conflict.
An Iranian backed Yemen is unacceptable to KSA.
A nuclear Iran has already ignited a security dilemma because the NPT is no longer enforceable.
Quote:
I was not referring, strictly speaking, to terrorism sponsorship, but to spreading influence through arms, training, and other support, which Israel does, both directly and indirectly.
If you want to speak only of terrorism:
Irgun, of course, was tied up with the formation of Israel.
Additionally, Israeli law creates tacit support for settler violence by treating it under the aegis of ordinary penal law (if investigated, prosecuted, and penalized at all), whereas Palestinian violence is treated under the aegis of military law.
Who is Israel's proxy's? What is Israel's hegemonic agenda? Enlighten me.
Irgun terrorist? Maybe the Stern Gang, but you haven't a clue about the conditions and struggle of Pre-Israel Jewery. Palestinians are not Israeli citizens, and any attack against an Israeli settler is a terrorist attack.
Quote:
Everyone knowledgeable is aware that Israel has not only a nuclear program but nuclear weapons. A policy of not confirming or denying that does not change the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons.
"In January 2009, during Israel's war on Gaza, Lieberman argued that Israel "must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in the second world war. Then, too, the occupation of the country was unnecessary."
Not that he is alone in Israeli politics. Ariel Sharon's son made the same comparison: Israel must "flatten Gaza" like the US flattened Japan, says Sharon's son. There is also a rather choice quote (on a different angle) from Eli Yishai, deputy PM: "The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years."
For one, Ariel Sharon son's blatant opinion is not Israeli law. Second, Lieberman is known for his strong language, but I fail to see where you have proven of an open Israeli government comment of nuclear genocide of the Palestinian people. You may "interoperate" this unconfirmed quote as such, but Israel cannot threat a country of nuclear annihilation if it does not admit it has them.
Quote:
It will be a lot easier to trust an Iran that agrees to a deal with the P5+1. You are welcome to cry terrorism and point to Iran's support of Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas, but statecraft demands clear-eyed analysis and action. Iran's support of those groups is not, ultimately, an insurmountable obstacle. There is tremendous opportunity for the United States in a nuclear deal and normalized relations with Iran.
I will continue to cry terrorism and support of Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas. You are delusional in your hopefulness.
Quote:
Please provide evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran has a nuclear program. There is a difference between a nuclear program and a nuclear weapons program.
To put Iran and Saudi Arabia on the same level, in terms of human rights violations, is a gross insult to Iran.
Right, because blowing up Jews at the AMIA building in Argentina is more humane. Give me a break with your Iranian apologies.
You said "their theology is from the same poisonous tree" and you made an apparently extraneous reference to the Sunni-Shia split. If their theology "is not the primary focus," then why bring it up? Many countries "are . . . responsible for thousands of human lives," including the United States. The focus of the negotiations is not theology, but technology, namely nuclear technology. Theology does not prevent foreign relations.
The focus on negotiations at the moment is trying to curtail a future nuclear bomb and at the moment, we are failing to prevent this. If we do not prevent this, we will see what theology does to the Middle East.
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.
