jetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2021 posts, RR: 1 Posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7767 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Not looking good for Iran Air. They hiked international fares 90%. There was talk earlier in the year of the government making a public company. Was this partially because of that? The article states the weak rial and increase in fuel prices but I can't imagine it would equate to a 90% change. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/27/ml-iran-economy/
Blue
Professor Foltz: You push down on that yolk, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yolk, the houses get bigger.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22027 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7652 times:
The Iranian currency has been devalued, so yes airfares must rise also to keep par with hard currency.
I don't if this is a new increase, or in addition to the 50% increase last month on international flights which virtually all foreign airlines also instituted.
(Important to note -- there is really no base fare increase in essence if calculated in a foreign hard currency. The increase is when one uses the weaker local rial).
Many people greatly benefited at the expense of airlines by purchasing foreign tickets at Iranian travel agencies using the skewed rial conversion rate to garner fares at far below their hard currency cost. Turkish Airlines for instance recently had to restrict ticketing done in Iran as hundreds caught on to this game.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
KC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 165 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7374 times:
Third world aviation strikes again. Why anyone would fly with this airline is beyond me. Living life on the edge, I guess.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4955 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7014 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1): The Iranian currency has been devalued, so yes airfares must rise also to keep par with hard currency.
It really isn't a value-increase, just the fact that the currency isn't worth crap anymore.
Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 2): Third world aviation strikes again. Why anyone would fly with this airline is beyond me. Living life on the edge, I guess.
What happens when a state-owned airline goes under? Look at Malev, but this is Iran, we're talking about a country with multilateral sanctions being forced upon it.
There is nothing "3rd world" about Iran. While the country might not what you as an American subscribe to as "modern", they have many things going for them despite these sanctions bestowed upon it. 3rd world, they aren't.
Any why wouldn't anyone fly Iran Air? Get out more and you'll see that airline is just like most others. Given the circumstances, I'd say they've done pretty well for themselves and planes are as well maintained as a brand new one. SQ they aren't, but shabby they aren't either.
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6145 posts, RR: 25 Reply 6, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6243 times:
Quoting jet72uk (Reply 5): Who in their right mind would want to fly on them anyway?
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10668 posts, RR: 100 Reply 7, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6197 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1): Important to note -- there is really no base fare increase in essence if calculated in a foreign hard currency. The increase is when one uses the weaker local rial
And that is what matters.
Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 4): There is nothing "3rd world" about Iran.
That depends on the importance you place on 'rule of law.' I like traveling to places where the rules are more fixed and less likely to get me in trouble. I also put 3rd world where the government can tell you what you have to say (e.g., "death to America" in marble at the hotels... )
flaps30 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 253 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5427 times:
Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 2):
Third world aviation strikes again. Why anyone would fly with this airline is beyond me. Living life on the edge, I guess.
Talk about living on the edge, why on earth would anyone in their right mind step into a Saha Air 707 for a flight. These planes have to be at least 50 years old. You could not pay me enough money to fly on one of those.
vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3590 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5332 times:
Quoting flaps30 (Reply 8): Talk about living on the edge, why on earth would anyone in their right mind step into a Saha Air 707 for a flight. These planes have to be at least 50 years old. You could not pay me enough money to fly on one of those
I am with you here - but I know quite a few people who would sell their granny for the chance to get a 707 flight with Saha Air (and also quite q few who have made every endeavour you can think of to do just that - there is even some sort of aviation tourism to Iran (like to North Korea) to sample flights on rare and exotic Iranian aircraft ...).
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 356 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4241 times:
Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 4): Given the circumstances, I'd say they've done pretty well for themselves and planes are as well maintained as a brand new one.
Yes, they have truly "overcome" the impedences of sanctions to still maintain (highly) thier "aged" not "aging" fleet and still do well with it for safety etc. We still fly our old KC-135's all of the time and they are 50+, but a different mission altogether.
They cannot fly anything new and efficient, we all know those TF-33's and TF-39's are fuel burners (and maintenance hogs), so keeping aloft is a "true" task for them!
ASA From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 381 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3659 times:
Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 2): Third world aviation strikes again. Why anyone would fly with this airline is beyond me. Living life on the edge, I guess.
The people of Iran, who have very few choices to fly out of Iran.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1): (Important to note -- there is really no base fare increase in essence if calculated in a foreign hard currency. The increase is when one uses the weaker local rial).
Thanks for pointing this out. For anyone flying into Iran from outside won't notice the difference. It's the people living there that is in trouble. I sat next to this Iranian girl on a DOH-IAD flight this summer ... who had to almost pay double the Rial amount to get US Dollars for her research trip to the US (double compared to last year when more sanctions went in). And I believe the Rial has since slid down another 30-40% .... OUCH!
slinky09 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2009, 592 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3457 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7): That depends on the importance you place on 'rule of law.' I like traveling to places where the rules are more fixed and less likely to get me in trouble. I also put 3rd world where the government can tell you what you have to say (e.g., "death to America" in marble at the hotels... )
Iran is not third world in the conventional sense of the term, far from it. A despotic terrorist supporting government it may have, but it also has many in its population who wish it weren't so and many expats who also wish it weren't so. Damning a whole nation is a rather easy jibe to make, the truth, as always, is more complex.
Quoting jet72uk (Reply 5): Who in their right mind would want to fly on them anyway?
As above, not everyone in Iran believes in the mouthings of Mr Armajihad and they should have a right to travel and so do their friends and relatives overseas. Not all of them have the option of Austrian or Turkish airlines and the others who still fly there because many of them don't have easy access to foreign currency to do so.
falstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5671 posts, RR: 29 Reply 16, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3342 times:
Quoting flaps30 (Reply 8): why on earth would anyone in their right mind step into a Saha Air 707 for a flight. These planes have to be at least 50 years old
nope, they're 36 years old or so. Some of the youngest 707s out there. I have flown on DC-9s older than that. Age doesn't bother me it is the skill of the mechanics who fis them and the pilots who fly them that would interest me. There have been plenty of new planes that have gone down due to mechancial and pilots error issues.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21465 posts, RR: 24 Reply 17, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2488 times:
Quoting falstaff (Reply 16): Quoting flaps30 (Reply 8):
why on earth would anyone in their right mind step into a Saha Air 707 for a flight. These planes have to be at least 50 years old
nope, they're 36 years old or so. Some of the youngest 707s out there. I have flown on DC-9s older than that.
Many of DL's remaining DC-9-51s are older than Saha 707s.
KC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 165 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2453 times:
I fly on 50+ year old aircraft regularly. The difference is, I work on the planes I fly on so I have a good understanding of whether or not it's safe because I am educated on the matter. I don't trust third world planes and I don't trust third world maintenance. You have to imagine that the sanctions imposed on Iran have a direct and negative impact on their ability to maintain their aircraft. For those living in Iran who simply have no choice but to fly on a domestic airline, I understand this, but for ANYONE ELSE to do it simply for leisure is, to me, an unacceptable risk given the circumstances existing in Iran today. I salute you for your bravery non the less!
flaps30 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 253 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2413 times:
Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 18): For those living in Iran who simply have no choice but to fly on a domestic airline, I understand this, but for ANYONE ELSE to do it simply for leisure is, to me, an unacceptable risk given the circumstances existing in Iran today.
Could not have said it better myself.
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17): Many of DL's remaining DC-9-51s are older than Saha 707s.
True, but the Delta planes are maintained by a global airline with all the materials necessary to maintain the aircraft safely. The Saha 707's are flown in a third world country with no means to get spare parts (Do spare 707 parts even still exist?). Flown and maintained by people who may or may not have the proper training. Would you really want to tempt fate like this by flying on one of those aircraft?
KC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 165 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2394 times:
Quoting flaps30 (Reply 19): True, but the Delta planes are maintained by a global airline with all the materials necessary to maintain the aircraft safely. The Saha 707's are flown in a third world country with no means to get spare parts (Do spare 707 parts even still exist?). Flown and maintained by people who may or may not have the proper training. Would you really want to tempt fate like this by flying on one of those aircraft?
Yeah, sure, plenty of spare parts. WE GOT THEM! The Air Force owns a couple hundred old 707s and stores them at DM for use on the KC-135 (sorta) and AWACS/J-STARS fleets. Also, the Navy has a few 707s for TACAMO. All those jets have the spare parts / depot / backshop support necessary for repair and overhaul. I would imagine Iran has NONE of this at their disposal.
Tupolev160 From Ukraine, joined Oct 2011, 316 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2270 times:
So many people in here seem to know ALL about Iran, but i don't even dare to wonder how many of those have actually been to that country. Near to zero, right? To be honest, i felt myself much more free while being in Iran than while i was in the US. And if you consider people's level of education and world-awareness as an index of human freedom and potential - then i can tell you that Iran ranks far above US and most Western countries in that matter. Iranian people are highly educated, cultivated and creative and the education only improved since the 1979 revolution during the present establishment. Iran is a fast developing country and the most developed in the Middle-East (besides Israel), far ahead of nicely-polished-touristic Turkey that imports virtually everything. In Iran at moments you catch yourself thinking you're somewhere in Europe. In short, before spitting at something - show that you have g*ts, get your tickets - on Iran Air or not - and discover it by yourself. It is easy to judge the rest of the world based on private-TV sponsored news and documentaries. Iran is nothing as you imagine it to be, just some people would want you to think that way so that nobody questions their illegal and criminal actions against that given country, be it now or in the future.
PS: So far Iran's worst air crash wasn't caused by old aircraft of maintenance neglect but by a US missile fired on a civilian plane. You might like to discuss that one when talking of aviation safety and "rule of law". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
Teheran:
[Edited 2012-11-28 16:12:36]
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
skywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1969 times:
Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22): So far Iran's worst air crash wasn't caused by old aircraft of maintenance neglect but by a US missile
Unfortunate we have to go there and statement completely overlooks that Iran was shooting at us at the time. There's a lot that shouldn't have happened that day but once the shooting starts bad things happen. The US has publicly acknowledged the mistakes made on our side and paid compensation. Your profile shows you are from the Ukraine. They had a missile test not long after 9/11 that is widely believed to have shot down S7 1812. Officially the Ukraine won't admit they were responsible but offered compensation as a humanitarian gesture. Aviation would be better served if the Ukrainian gov't was as open about what happened that day as the US gov't has been about what happened to IR 655.
AirIndia From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1545 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1907 times:
Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 22): So many people in here seem to know ALL about Iran, but i don't even dare to wonder how many of those have actually been to that country
I agree. Generally Iranian's are extremely polite, humble and hospitable people. Very friendly and to the very least hostile. Infrastructure there is of top quality and design.
Yes sanctions are taking a toll on the Rial or Tomans and it eventually weighs down on the average Iranian.
Keeping politics aside, Iran is generally a place of intelligent, and educated people and within the aviation environmnt i think they have done a great job in keeping those old birds in the sky. I have stepped on a Saha 707 before and will doso again if given a chance.
factsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 308 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1889 times:
Quoting miami1 (Reply 21):
What's the international destination list of Iran Air and do their flight attendants and pilots over night in foreign cities ?
shankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1471 posts, RR: 1 Reply 26, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1810 times:
Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 4): Given the circumstances, I'd say they've done pretty well for themselves and planes are as well maintained as a brand new one
Agree. Since the year 2000, Iran Air has lost one hull in a serious accident...yes there have been a few non-fatal incidents.
There are one or two other 1st world airlines (no prizes for correct answers) who I suspect Iran Air could teach a thing or two regarding maintenance and pilot training
You said "shooting at you". But can you explain to me what were your ships doing 10.000 km away from home next to Iranian territorial waters? Is like you put your hand in the bees nest and then complain "they've bitten me". If you wasn't there i'm sure you wouldn't have been fired at. Think at an Iranian warship off the coast of US, firing and shooting a New York bound plane, and then they say "that's cause you was shooting at us"? Or you wouldn't be shooting at them if they were pointing guns at you just next to your borders? Or you would greet them with Coca-Cola and Big Mac's?
About S71812
That incident is still under investigation. But even if it did, Ukraine would have mistakenly shot a plane above its own territory, not 6000 miles from its borders in the waters belonging to another state. Anyway i don't see what it has to do with the above discussed subject nor in what is it comparable, as if "they did it too" would diminish the gravity of what you did. One accident was caused by recklessness, arrogance and violation of several international laws, the other one is possibly being a pure accident, but yet to be confirmed.
Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 23): Aviation would be better served if the Ukrainian gov't was as open about what happened that day as the US gov't has been about what happened to IR 655.
Ukraine is an independent state and has nothing to be opened about based on your likes and desires.
[Edited 2012-11-29 04:38:58]
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
pvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 535 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1636 times:
Quoting flaps30 (Reply 8): Talk about living on the edge, why on earth would anyone in their right mind step into a Saha Air 707 for a flight. These planes have to be at least 50 years old. You could not pay me enough money to fly on one of those.
Even in Saha Air 707 you are probably way less likely to die in an accident than when travelling same time in a car, so what's the problem?
Anyway personally wouldn't care if I die in a plane or a car crash, in the end the result will be the same both ways.
skywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1581 times:
Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 27): But can you explain to me what were your ships doing 10.000 km away from home next to Iranian territorial waters?
Next to, as in outside her territorial waters in an international waterway. No further explanation needed.
Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 27): Ukraine is an independent state and has nothing to be opened about based on your likes and desires.
Aviation is my like and desire. Ukraine, unless I'm very much mistaken, is a member of ICAO. As such there are obligations to Israel and Russia for what happened to an aircraft traveling between both countries over her territory. That has nothing to do with my likes or dislikes.
ushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2888 posts, RR: 18 Reply 30, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1558 times:
Glad to see our American members talk a lot of unsubstanciated smack here again.
Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 29): Next to, as in outside her territorial waters in an international waterway. No further explanation needed.
Well, you seem to forget how the USS Vincennes also breached Iranian waters before shooting down a civilian airliner in Iranian airspace.
What would the US call such an action taken by any (hostile) nation, if it happened to them? Right. An act or war (or terrorism, which sounds flashier today). So get off your high horse and drink a nice can of STFU.
skywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1510 times:
Hey guys If you go back and read a lot of my posts from other threads you'll see I frequently have criticized numerous policies of my gov't with regards to aviation. To many to list here. Also freely acknowledged many mistakes were made that morning in the gulf. Sorry you feel I am riding in on a high horse like a wild cowboy stampeding over everything else. If someone wants to say oh you killed all those people without acknowledging there's a whole lot of blame to go around on both sides well I'm going to point that out. It's dishonest to pretend the US is 100% at fault. I'd say that if I were a citizen of pretty much any European country given how incredibly open the US has been about what happened that day frankly under the circumstances. That doesn't mean I always agree with my gov't. Thankfully I live in a country where I can openly question my qov't if that's not being to much of that wild cowboy on my high horse.
planespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3438 posts, RR: 5 Reply 32, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1449 times:
Let's all take a deep breath.
FACT: The United States supported the despotic Shah of Iran before the Iranian Revolution, rightly earning the ire of a decent percentage of Iranian citizens that still exists today.
FACT: Since the Revolution, the government of Iran has ruled in much the same way as the Shah (controlling the media, qwelling free speech, using secret police, etc.). Unlike the Shah, the government of the Revolution bases the rule of law on their interpretation of Islam (and also taking some liberties beyond the Quran).
FACT: Any country has a right to be in International Waters (hence the name), especially if a coalition of countries wants to guarantee safe transit of valuable commodities that are not only valuable to its own interests, but to the rest of the world as well.
FACT: A country has a right to defend its own territorial waters should they be breached.
FACT: The United States grossly errored in shooting down a passenger/civilian aircraft and should have taken greater precautions to prevent something like that from happening.
FACT: A country with a government that is as externally unstable and seemingly hot-headed as Iran should not be allowed to posses nuclear-weapon making capabilities.
Tupolev160 From Ukraine, joined Oct 2011, 316 posts, RR: 1 Reply 33, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1413 times:
Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 23): Aviation would be better served if the Ukrainian gov't was as open about what happened that day as the US gov't has been about what happened to IR 655.
Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 29): Next to, as in outside her territorial waters in an international waterway.
Actually the Vincennes was in Iranian waters when the incident took place, so useless to play with vocabulary.
Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 29): As such there are obligations to Israel and Russia for what happened to an aircraft traveling between both countries over her territory.
Well, i don't remember ICAO taking any action against Ukraine, so i guess they were opened enough and compensated the victims as far as i know. I don't see what else is expected. The two incidents cannot be compared anyway.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
skywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1400 times:
Couldn't agree more with the entire post planespotting. You left out our involvement in Mosaddegh's removal but yeah we get the picture.
Btw I grew up as a TWA brat and remember when half their 747 fleet was sold to Iran. I wonder how much of that fleet is still flying besides the one lost in Spain. Are they all still IIAF birds or did some convert back to passenger service?
I support all you say, but if Iran shouldn't be allowed to possess nuclear weapons so shouldn't Israel or the US, who are far more belligerent and irresponsible towards other nations than Iran and who didn't hesitate to use those or other weapons of mass destruction in the past, far beyond their borders, when their national security wasn't compromised at all.
France has nuclear weapons for deterrent purposes, so Iran should have them as well, especially taking into account the amount of threats they receive from nuclear-armed countries. Let's just look at what happened a week ago, 160 people were killed at will and Israel has no accounts to give to anyone. Why aren't you more afraid of such a country possessing nuclear weapons than Iran who hasn't attacked anyone in decades if not centuries?
Besides that, the given country is not a signatory of any international protocol regarding nuclear energy, while Iran is signatory of NPT and opened to all possible inspections.
I don't know how hot-headed one would be after having a war launched upon by an extremely armed proxy from abroad (Iraq), while being for decades under crippling sanctions touching even the aviation and medical sector and receiving such an amount of threats almost on a daily basis. I think that they're quite cool and reasonable given their position.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
ushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2888 posts, RR: 18 Reply 36, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1381 times:
Quoting planespotting (Reply 32): FACT: A country with a government that is as externally unstable and seemingly hot-headed as Iran should not be allowed to posses nuclear-weapon making capabilities.
What do you mean by "externally unstable?" I cannot recall Iran invading other countries, unlike the United States (which they do on a very regular basis).
Edit: I do agree with the rest of your post though.
skywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1329 times:
I was already thinking we were heading off an Iranian version of Godwin's Law cliff but now we're really hanging off the edge on the original law.
planespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3438 posts, RR: 5 Reply 38, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1323 times:
Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 35): but if Iran shouldn't be allowed to possess nuclear weapons so shouldn't Israel or the US, who are far more belligerent and irresponsible towards other nations than Iran and who didn't hesitate to use those or other weapons of mass destruction in the past, far beyond their borders, when their national security wasn't compromised at all.
Quoting ushermittwoch (Reply 36): What do you mean by "externally unstable?" I cannot recall Iran invading other countries, unlike the United States (which they do on a very regular basis).
Good points, and I did anticipate these arguments as potential logical "holes" in my last "FACT." However, let me say what I mean by "externally unstable," and a few other things as well.
- Neither the U.S. nor Israel have the destruction of another country inherent within the founding documents of their countries.
- The president of Iran speaks often about the Holocaust and typically deems it a lie or overall unfounded
- Along with being a Holocaust denier, he also says things like:
"The September 11 incident was a big fabrication as a pretext for the campaign against terrorism and a prelude for staging an invasion against Afghanistan."
"Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need.”
"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,”
Those things are what I mean by externally unstable. I have a decent idea about how posturing works in the middle east and that it is somewhat different than what we are used to in the West, but at the same time, a minor drawdown in the rhetoric by Iran would be exponentially beneficial for the entire country. Merely saying something like "Israel is still our enemy but we will no longer work toward its eventual destruction" would be a huge deal and probably lift many of the economic sanctions that have been placed on it for so long.
The fact that Iran refuses to even act a little bit reasonable in its own best interest tells me that they probably aren't reasonable, at least from a foreign policy/external standpoint. I'm fine if they don't want to cowtow or appease the United States ever, but keeping up their hardest of hard-line stances against Israel is holding them back from being the dominant economic and military power in the Middle East that they really want to (and can easily) be.
Beyond that, yes, Israel and the United States have nuclear weapons and have gone to war; however, the U.S. has only used them once, and only then to end a terrible conflict that would have cost hundreds of thousands of additional lives beyond those who were killed at Heroshima and Nagasaki. Since then, both Israel and the U.S. have engaged in many conflicts and have for the most part have never been close to using their nuclear arsenel (exceptions being the Yom Kippur war for Israel in 1973 as a last-line of defense, and the Cuban Missle Crisis for the U.S. in 1962).
Iran doesn't have that track record because they've never had nuclear arms (and I'd say the same thing for any other country who wants them but doesn't have them - if you don't have them you don't need them). Personally, I wish we could somehow eliminate the concept of nuclear weapons from physics so as to never have to deal or worry about them, but that is obviously not how it works.
jetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2021 posts, RR: 1 Reply 39, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1290 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
This thread has gone off topic and turned into a political debate. It will be locked to further posts.
Blue
Professor Foltz: You push down on that yolk, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yolk, the houses get bigger.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2021 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4955 posts, 
It really isn't a value-increase, just the fact that the currency isn't worth crap anymore. 
From Singapore, joined Mar 2002, 4652 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Oct 2011, 102 posts, 
From Brazil, joined May 2011, 379 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3590 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 314 posts, 
From Bangladesh, joined Dec 2010, 381 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21465 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2001, 706 posts, 
From Ukraine, joined Oct 2011, 316 posts, 
From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1545 posts, 
From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 308 posts, 
From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 535 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
