Nuclear deal reached with Iran!

[Borachio]

Non-signatories to the NPT: India, Israel, Pakistan, and South Sudan.

 

[Mouthwash]

I did not use the word Israel.
I note that you do not disagree with my statement.

I don't. It's fairly irrelevant that Israel hasn't signed the NPT.

One Million Iranians died or were wounded when Iraq attacked Iran.

And this of course justifies a new Iranian empire in the Middle East?

 

[Silurian]

South Sudan does not have nuclear weapons.

 

[Borachio]

So that narrows down who you meant to three.

Can we exclude countries beginning with "P"?

 

[asbestos]

It wants to control ... the Persian Gulf.

So does almost every major player in the Middle East.

 

[Tahuti]

Rowhani is not the leader of Iran.

Who is actually the leader of Iran is quite vague. Officially, the supreme leader of Iran is indeed the Ayatollah, and not Rowhani, who is the president, who is formally inferior in position. However, there have been some power struggles between the president and the ayatollah during the Ahmadinejad presidency.

However, this doesn't distract from my point as both the current Ayatollah Khamenei as well as past presidents have made highly hostile remarks towards Israel.

They have done nothing of the sort! Their issue is with the government not the people, just as it is with the US. But it isn't surprising in the least that you continue to perpetuate that nonsense, while ignoring that the present Israeli government and quite possibly even the current US government also want to overthrow the Iranian government.

The problem is that Iran even refuses to have diplomatic relations with Israel. Israel and the US do not wish to destroy Iran as country. However, as I have argued in past thread, I do not think the current Iranian-Israeli hostilities can be in the interests of either nations forever. If the nuclear deal holds, it is not unlikely that Iran and Israel will seek mutual reapproachment, especially if it is coupled with the USA becoming less dependent on Saudi oil and Iran loses its Syrian ally.

It is quite clear who the aggressors actually are here. Advocating harsh economic sanctions against Iran while ignoring Israel's own nuclear arsenal and abysmal human rights record is just more of the usual blatant hypocrisy.

For the record, I support the easing of sanctions against Iran. The sanctions against Iran are clearly counterproductive and thus the region would benefit if these were eased.

South Sudan does not have nuclear weapons.

Bull****, they cannot haven't signed NPT for a reason! We must boycott them! A nuclear South Sudan cannot be tolerated!

 

[Mouthwash]

So does every major player in the Middle East.

Iran interests run counter to the United States. And they cause massive chaos.

 

[Silurian]

I don't. It's fairly irrelevant that Israel hasn't signed the NPT.

So its nothing to do with the NPT?

And this of course justifies a new Iranian empire in the Middle East?

What Iranian empire.
Iran has increased influence in Iraq because of the US but it is hardly an empire.
Syria is an ally of Iran in a similar way France is an ally of the US.

What would the US do to a country that killed or wounded a million citizens.

 

[Tahuti]

Iran interests run counter to the United States.

Except that the United States has chosen to become hostile to Iran by allying with the Arab Gulf states and Saudi Arabia (and in the past, Saddam Hussein). In fact, if Jimmy Carter hadn't screwed up his Middle-East policy as he did, things might been a lot better.

 

[Silurian]

Except that the United States has chosen to become hostile to Iran by allying with the Arab Gulf states and Saudi Arabia (and in the past, Saddam Hussein). In fact, if Jimmy Carter hadn't screwed up his Middle-East policy as he did, things might been a lot better.

The trouble is it was during the cold war. If the US had let the Iranians do what they wanted then the Russians could have taken Iran.

 

[Crezth]

Do you think it will be viewed by future generations as our version of Sudetenland?

At least no one has said "peace in our time"

KmDubya: History Mega-genius

 

[asbestos]

Iran interests run counter to the United States. And they cause massive chaos.

As opposed to the US policy of invading Iraq and causing a mobilization of the Jihadi movement.

I suspect that interdicting chaos is a euphemism for something more akin to self-interest.

 

[Mouthwash]

As opposed to the US policy of invading Iraq and causing a mobilization of the Jihadi movement.

I suspect that interdicting chaos is a euphemism for something more akin to self-interest.

Yeppers.

 

[Antilogic]

Just checking, we talked to Iran and the sky still hasn't fallen?

Fancy that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The problem is that Iran even refuses to have diplomatic relations with Israel. Israel and the US do not wish to destroy Iran as country. However, as I have argued in past thread, I do not think the current Iranian-Israeli hostilities can be in the interests of either nations forever. If the nuclear deal holds, it is not unlikely that Iran and Israel will seek mutual reapproachment, especially if it is coupled with the USA becoming less dependent on Saudi oil and Iran loses its Syrian ally.

Many countries refuse to have diplomatic relations with Israel and many other countries as well. That is hardly any issue at all. Besides, what diplomatic efforts has Israel made in this regard?

And, again, the Israeli government wishes to overthrow the Iranian government, just as the Iranians do with Israel.

Why do you continue to use such blatant double standards when referring to Iran.

For the record, I support the easing of sanctions against Iran. The sanctions against Iran are clearly counterproductive and thus the region would benefit if these were eased.

At least you have a reasonable attitude in regard to that matter, unlike many of the conservatives in the US and the Israeli government who continue to press for invasion and occupation of yet another sovereign country.

Just checking, we talked to Iran and the sky still hasn't fallen?

Fancy that.

Who would have possibly guessed that actual diplomacy has a place in the region after all, despite the saber rattling ever since Iran took back control of their own government from the US?

Baby steps.

 

[asbestos]

Yeppers.

In any case, it's not as if the US is in shape to do that. The sanctions have helped China make inroads into Iranian markets and driven the two countries closer together.

 

[Tahuti]

Many countries refuse to have diplomatic relations with Israel and many other countries as well. That is hardly any issue at all. Besides, what diplomatic efforts has Israel made in this regard?

And, again, the Israeli government wishes to overthrow the Iranian government, just as the Iranians do with Israel.

Why do you continue to use such blatant double standards when referring to Iran.

Why isn't that an issue? To not recognise the legitimacy of the country itself - regardless of the government in power - is to desire war with that country. Hell, during the Iraq-Iran war, Israel even tried to be friendly towards Iran, to no avail.

Iran does not have a quarrel with the Israeli government, because historically, since the 1979 revolution, it did not matter what kind of government Israel had, whether it was Socialist, Pro-Peace, Secular Nationalist or whatever. It was about the existence of Israel itself. Iran's disposition towards Israel is like the USA or Israel saying that Iran's regime shouldn't be changed but Iran as a political entity should be dissolved and partioned among Azerbaijan, Iraq and Pakistan.

I do not really think I am having double standard here, but I'm open to being proven wrong.

The trouble is it was during the cold war. If the US had let the Iranians do what they wanted then the Russians could have taken Iran.

Hardly, the USSR was far more friendly to Saddam Hussein, who was also a major US ally. Hell, Iran was hardly a Cold War battleground at all: Both sides looked away.

KmDubya: History Mega-genius

"Peace in our time!"

 

[Kaitzilla]

They have done nothing of the sort! Their issue is with the government not the people, just as it is with the US. But it isn't surprising in the least that you continue to perpetuate that nonsense, while ignoring that the present Israeli government and quite possibly even the current US government, like the previous one, also want to overthrow the Iranian government.

It is quite clear who the aggressors actually are here. Advocating harsh economic sanctions against Iran while ignoring Israel's own nuclear arsenal and abysmal human rights record is just more of the usual blatant hypocrisy.

Iranian leaders have absolutely vowed to destroy Israel.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/14/top-iran-cleric-says-israel-must-be-destroyed-warns-u-s/

The recognition of Israel as illegitimate is one of the principles of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, and even today the Islamic Republic believes Israel must be destroyed, a senior Iranian cleric close to the supreme leader said Saturday night.

Ayatollah Sayyid Ahmad Khatami, a member of the Assembly of Experts — the body that chooses the supreme leader — also condemned any effort for improved relations with America and warned that nothing is ruled out against the United States, according to Tasnim News Agency, a regime media outlet.

Referring to those who believe talks with the U.S. would be beneficial, Khatami said, “If we take one step back, then we have to retreat 10 steps.”



The ayatollah said that during President Hassan Rouhani’s recent trip to the United States to attend the opening session of the U.N. General Assembly, “The American politicians put out many diplomatic smiles.”

But at a meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the same time, “The American president stated that all options are on the table, including the military option. We too have all the options on the table against America, one of those a strong punch in the mouth to America, the world’s oppressor.”

Khatami said that in resolving the nuclear issue, the West “will then raise the issue of human rights, stating that women must have all the rights that men have.” He added that the holy slogans of “death to America” and “death to Israel” will never be removed and reiterated the regime’s position that Israel must be annihilated, and anyone stating otherwise is “Anti-Supreme Leader,” which carries a death penalty under the laws of the Islamic Republic.

Inside Iran, saying Israel shouldn't be annihilated carries the death penalty.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why isn't that an issue? To not recognise the legitimacy of the country itself - regardless of the government in power - is to desire war with that country. Hell, during the Iraq-Iran war, Israel even tried to be friendly towards Iran, to no avail.

There are 32 countries which don't recognize Israel. And Israel doesn't recognize Iran, just like 82 other countries.

And what proof do you offer that they tried to be "friendly" with Iran while the US government was supporting Iraq during the very same war?

Iran does not have a quarrel with the Israeli government, because historically, since the 1979 revolution, it did not matter what kind of government Israel had, whether it was Socialist, Pro-Peace, Secular Nationalist or whatever. It was about the existence of Israel itself. Iran's disposition towards Israel is like the USA or Israel saying that Iran's regime shouldn't be changed but Iran as a political entity should be dissolved and partioned among Azerbaijan, Iraq and Pakistan.

Again, what utter nonsense. Even Ahmadinejad made it quite clear that he thinks Israel should exist, but as a country which accepts all its citizens as equals and who can live together in harmony, including the Jews. How abominable can you possibly get?

Hardly, the USSR was far more friendly to Saddam Hussein, who was also a major US ally. Hell, Iran was hardly a Cold War battleground at all: Both sides looked away.

That was the excuse commonly used to overthrow their completely legitimate sovereign democracy and install a puppet military dictator in its place.

Iranian leaders have absolutely vowed to destroy Israel.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/14/top-iran-cleric-says-israel-must-be-destroyed-warns-u-s/

And you use the Daily Caller as your source, replete with a scary photo?

 

[Thedrin]

Inside Iran, saying Israel shouldn't be annihilated carries the death penalty.

Being "Anti-Supreme-Leader" carries the death penalty. This guy believes that being anti-annihilation-of-Israel qualifies. If you have an example of someone being executed by the Iranian state for saying that Israel shouldn't be destroyed, could you post it please?