Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

That's all satire, but here's a real reply. It's got some choice bits, like the assertion that the Senators involved may not be fully aware of the concept of international law.

[smjjames]

That's all satire, but here's a real reply. It's got some choice bits, like the assertion that the Senators involved may not be fully aware of the concept of international law.

I know of the real reply though. They waved it off as propoganda (probably better than saying 'as being written by fools') and the guy was pretty surprised that the senators dared to do what they did.

If the next president is republican and they go and cancel the treaty, then they (the republicans) deserve the consequences that would result from doing that.

[Morrigi]

It's ridiculous that the anti-Iran propaganda train is still going. According to Israel, they've been 3 years (2 years) (6 months) (ALMOST DONE THIS TIME, SERIOUSLY) (etc.) away from building nuclear weapons for what, thirty years now?

Also, if the CIA had not meddled in their politics, Iran would be a much nicer place today. Not to mention that, to my knowledge, Iran has not fought an aggressive war since 1826. Hardly the behavior of a modern imperialist power, in contrast to the United States and Russia.

The only reason they hate us is because we fucked them over, and are continuing to fuck them over. This is an unsurprising, and entirely expected, consequence of the actions of the United States. I wager they'd also hate Israel at least a tiny bit less if Israel stopped trying to assassinate their military leaders and scientists.

And as for their supporting terrorism, do the United States and Israel not do the same, when it suits them? It's hypocrisy.

[Vilanat]

Right, Iran would actually be a world leading, human loving paradise if it wasn't for Imperialistic americans and Evil zionists.

[Morrigi]

Right, Iran would actually be a world leading, human loving paradise if it wasn't for Imperialistic americans and Evil zionists.

Yes, because "a better place" clearly has no other meaning than "paradise".

[Sheb]

I think Vilanat is saying that he likes Iran so much it'd be a paradise if it was any better.

[Vilanat]

Oh, i just think you are confusing the historic Actions-Reactions when it comes to Iran.

Iran wouldn't have been a better place if it wasn't for Israel's crucial aid to them during the Iran-Iraq war (With the silent approval of the US) all while Iran persistently spout Anti-israel and Anti-Western declarations. we could speculate all day long what would have happened if Iraq had won that war, but i think its fairly safe to assume Iran wouldn't be in a better position because of it.

And Israel wouldn't have tried to stop Iran nuclear aspirations by assaulting their scientists if Iran wouldn't have openly said that they aim to completely destroy Israel and actively support terror groups against Israel. the scientists assassinations is a very recent thing and to think that its the reason for Iran hatred of Israel is nothing short of ridiculous.

Iran currently have active troops in 5 different states that we know of, not including their Proxy groups which in some of these countries are in leading positions within the governments/ruling forces. Israel/The US do not actually fear Iran throwing the Nukes, they fear that they will further escalate their offensive imperialistic actions throughout the world and especially the Middle East.

I think Vilanat is saying that he likes Iran so much it'd be a paradise if it was any better.

The irony is that the word paradise is derived from the persian word pardes.
The sad thing is that the Iranian people are actually fantastic, highly cultured and intelligent people making Iran a country with tremendous potential. if only they weren't subjected to an imperialistic, fanatically religious, semi-totalitarian regime, that is.

[smjjames]

Actually, the fear is more that it'll start an arms race with the other countries* making nukes in response.

*realistically though, the only one that might plausibly do that is Saudi Arabia. Iraq (assuming it stays in one piece) certainly isn't going to start, Yemen is dirt poor, the Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain aren't likely to, Turkey already has some I think, Jordan and Lebanon definetly don't want to upset Israel (who already have nukes anyway), don't know about Egypt, Syria is a massive question mark for the foreseeable future, but if Assad wanted nukes, he would have a project already.

[FearfulJesuit]

Guys, Iran is not an Afghanistan waiting to happen. Iran is not even a Saudi Arabia.

Iran's people are some of the best-educated, richest, and most liberal in the Middle East. It's just that they're under the yoke of an Islamist oligarchy. When it falls, Iran is going to still have opposing foreign policy goals (although, frankly, the Israelis have burned their bridges so well that it would be absurd to expect otherwise), but it will be about as threatening as Turkey.

[smjjames]

Sounds like the only real solution is to force a regieme change, which kind of seems to be the US's MO for the region for a while....

Of course though, actually going to war with them would be foolish and only damage our reputation, plus they have a good military, unlike Iraqs when Bush invaded.

[Zangi]

Regime change?  Yea... that is the 'final' solution to everyone we don't like outside of the 'west' ain't it?

[FearfulJesuit]

Regime change?  Yea... that is the 'final' solution to everyone we don't like outside of the 'west' ain't it?

We've gotten better since the Cold War at not replacing democracies with dictatorships...I can't think of a single example since 1990, actually.

(Course, I would argue that just because you should never replace a functional democracy with a dictatorship, that doesn't mean you should always replace an autocracy with a democracy. But I don't think we're going to go back to the dozens and dozens of anti-democratic coups we orchestrated in Latin America and elsewhere.)

[smjjames]

We nearly did with Iraq, but that seems to have been more not understanding or underestimating the sectarian conflict over there.

[FearfulJesuit]

We nearly did with Iraq, but that seems to have been more not understanding or underestimating the sectarian conflict over there.

The whole problem with Iraq is that we did try to install a democracy without having the faintest idea how the country operated, or didn't operate. Since we were unwilling to redraw borders, we could have saved everyone a whole bunch of bloodshed and money by putting in a monarch or a better strongman.

[GreatJustice]

Indeed, the US has moved on from replacing democracies with strongmen to replacing regimes of all flavours to bloody power vacuums conductive to the likes of ISIS growing.

We nearly did with Iraq, but that seems to have been more not understanding or underestimating the sectarian conflict over there.

The whole problem with Iraq is that we did try to install a democracy without having the faintest idea how the country operated, or didn't operate. Since we were unwilling to redraw borders, we could have saved everyone a whole bunch of bloodshed and money by putting in a monarch or a better strongman.

That sure didn't work for the Iranians. The difference between leaving a dictator around and installing one yourself is that if shit hits the fan when your installed puppet is running things, you get the blame and enmity of a bunch of people that otherwise wouldn't be able to find your country on a map. That's the sort of thing that produces the likes of the current Iranian regime.