Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UN Chief: Sanctions Are Harming Iran's Population  
User currently offlinemaxthrusta330 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2522 times:

UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon has said in a recent report that current sanctions against Iran are harming the Iranian polulation:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/c...f-sanctions-harm-iranians-17409619

According to the report, the sanctions are causing a shortage of critical items such as medicine, so how come the main- stream media isn't questioning the ethical aspects of the sanctions?

How can Western countries, particularly the US, claim to have legitimate concern for human rights, when they are responsible for blocking humanitarian sectors in Iran?

For the US to claim a moral high-ground with other countries is a perverse joke. The US's "moral high-ground" has killed literally MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. Can somebody remind me how many innocent people died as a result of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq?

96 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon has said in a recent report that current sanctions against Iran are harming the Iranian polulation:

That's the point of sanctions, to put the government under pressure from the population. And in order to do that, you have to put pressure on the population. So, in other words, the sanctions are working.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7056 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2470 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
That's the point of sanctions, to put the government under pressure from the population. And in order to do that, you have to put pressure on the population. So, in other words, the sanctions are working.

Agree, but to cater to those of other persuasions I would respond to the article by asking this question.
How does the UN, EU, USA ensure that the sanctions only affect government ministers and not the persons that they rule?


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8788 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2468 times:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon has said in a recent report that current sanctions against Iran are harming the Iranian polulation:

Well, duh...

Quoting par13del (Reply 2):
How does the UN, EU, USA ensure that the sanctions only affect government ministers and not the persons that they rule?

There is no possible way to do that. If you can come up with a way, please enlighten us.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7056 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2449 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
There is no possible way to do that. If you can come up with a way, please enlighten us.

I cannot, I need those who follow the line that sanctions are immoral to give us the alternative, indeed the thread starter does seem to have a problem with war so....
Rather than just bashing I think they should be offering alternatives.
Bash fest really acomplish very little.

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
How can Western countries, particularly the US, claim to have legitimate concern for human rights, when they are responsible for blocking humanitarian sectors in Iran?
Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
For the US to claim a moral high-ground with other countries is a perverse joke. The US's "moral high-ground" has killed literally MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. Can somebody remind me how many innocent people died as a result of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq?


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2448 times:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
According to the report, the sanctions are causing a shortage of critical items such as medicine, so how come the main- stream media isn't questioning the ethical aspects of the sanctions?

The Bush sanctions caused devastation on the Iraqi civilian population, especially in increased infant mortality. You can be sure that any Iraqi parent who lost a child will remember that for a long time. In the First World, however, we will wonder why they all don't love us.

The new sanctions will have the same effect on Iran. It will merely reinforce the image of the US as the evil 'Shaitan' who preaches love and yet can coldly justify the suffering of innocents. Ditto for all the wedding parties blown up in error by drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Our Foreign policy has always been a mess, but more so when we decided we needed really clever Cold and Second World War emigres and neo-cons to intellectualize what your poor average American cannot grasp.

To be fair, media like the New York Times and especially the New Yorker have been very good at covering these ethical issues, but the rest of the media is busier covering the latest disappearance of middle-class blond children. Its always a lot easier to relate to people like us than to others half a world away.

Al said and done, there is an underlying strain of decency that puts America on the right path eventually, though I'm not sure yet where it comes from.


User currently offlinebestwestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7081 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2440 times:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):

Firstly - It's not covered because nobody cares.

It's deemed far more important if we know the latest rumours about Paris Hilton getting her tits out because that's what people want to read. Eyes sells advertising, advertising pays the bills. Profits roll in.

Case in point. The most popular article on Huff post for about a week was the story of danish magazine purporting to publish pics of a Brit princess wearing no panties.

Secondly, there is only so much people can worry about. Iranian medicine availability isn't high on the list when little jimmy can't get an x box from Santa this Christmas.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2424 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 2):
How does the UN, EU, USA ensure that the sanctions only affect government ministers and not the persons that they rule?

With great difficulty, and it may be virtually impossible. We tried it with North Korea, but that was only possible because of Kim Jong Il's personality quirks. Banning scotch, porn and golf equipment isn't going to make much of a difference to those who rule Iran.

Quoting comorin (Reply 5):
The Bush sanctions caused devastation on the Iraqi civilian population, especially in increased infant mortality. You can be sure that any Iraqi parent who lost a child will remember that for a long time. In the First World, however, we will wonder why they all don't love us.

The new sanctions will have the same effect on Iran. It will merely reinforce the image of the US as the evil 'Shaitan' who preaches love and yet can coldly justify the suffering of innocents.

All of this is true. Sanctions are very messy. But what is that alternative? Just let Iran be and let them progress with their nuclear program? That's not an acceptable option, and just skipping the sanctions and going in militarily is clearly undesirable as well. I completely understand why people don't like sanctions, but unless they can suggest a better solution, sanctions are what we have.

The best phrase in the article is this:

The currency crisis has put Iranian leaders under the most pressure from dissent since they crushed the opposition movement after the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009.

You didn't see that with Iraq, and you don't see it in North Korea. So that is progress. Hopefully the Ahmedinejad regime will be forced out of power, and then you may start to see real progress, and an accompanying lifting of sanctions.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2421 times:

For those saying "this is how it's meant to be" or "who cares" should really read the 9/11 commission report:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

He = Osama bin Laden

“He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.”

A large, often forgotten reason for 9/11 was the sanctions against the Iraqi people. I read a dialogue by Osama bin Laden saying that million Iraqi children died from them... although I'm not sure where he got the number from and it may be high, the sanctions by the US caused many Iraqi civilians to die, helping brew anti-American sentiment.

Is our quarrel with the Iranian people? Should we punish them due to the actions of their crazy government? Regardless, the fact that:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
the sanctions are causing a shortage of critical items such as medicine

is unacceptable. The goal is to get the citizens to rise up, I get it, but we don't need to kill them at the same time. That is unjustifiable


PS: I'm not an Osama bin Laden apologist. In order to diffuse the problem, you actually need to understand the enemy instead of assume the enemy is just evil and marching on. That doesn't solve anything



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2399 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 8):
A large, often forgotten reason for 9/11 was the sanctions against the Iraqi people.

It's not forgotten, it's just disregarded. Because it's not a good idea to have our foreign policy dictated to us by terrorists.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 8):
The goal is to get the citizens to rise up, I get it, but we don't need to kill them at the same time.

Are we actually restricting medicine, or is the medicine shortage a result of willfully poor distribution by the government? There is a difference, and the latter case does happen quite a bit.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
It's not forgotten, it's just disregarded. Because it's not a good idea to have our foreign policy dictated to us by terrorists.

While I agree, if they point out an injustice that WE are doing, I don't care who says it, we shouldn't do it. Edit: I meant the part about civilians dying

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Are we actually restricting medicine, or is the medicine shortage a result of willfully poor distribution by the government? There is a difference, and the latter case does happen quite a bit.

Yes, I suppose that could be the case. I always thought offering the bare, basic, and critical necessities with a sanction would work better. That way you still get the people riled up by not having products but at the same time show that you don't want them dying. It would breed more good will towards the US, or at least, less anger

[Edited 2012-10-06 10:19:22]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2390 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Because it's not a good idea to have our foreign policy dictated to us by terrorists.

There is a big area between letting them dictate and considering the points the represent.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 11):
There is a big area between letting them dictate and considering the points the represent.

  
That's like saying withdrawing from Afghanistan would be because the terrorists say so. If the terrorists said to breathe, that doesn't mean we should just hold our breathe.

There is a lot that goes into decisions. Like it or not, sometimes the terrorist groups have valid points, even if their methods are wrong. I agree that we meddle too much in the Middle East, doesn't mean I am bowing to their demands, I rationally came to this conclusion on my own. There is definitely a point where we should stand our ground with them (like in the youtube video incident, it is free speech and we shouldn't take it down, even if the terrorists react)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4472 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2379 times:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
How can Western countries, particularly the US, claim to have legitimate concern for human rights, when they are responsible for blocking humanitarian sectors in Iran?

For the US to claim a moral high-ground with other countries is a perverse joke. The US's "moral high-ground" has killed literally MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. Can somebody remind me how many innocent people died as a result of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq?

The sanctions in Iran were emposeed by the UN, which includes many other countries other than the US. If you wish to get into the Moral high ground discussion it should be mentioned why these sanctions exists.

1. Iran has continously threatened to wipe israel off the map
2. Iran funds hezbollah and Hamas.
3. Iran refuses to sign onto a nuclear treaty and allow inspecitions by UN Nuclear regulatory agencies.
4. With numbers 3 and 1 , Iran has highly lent itself to the path of war , and specifically war with weapons of mass destruction.

Should they contunue on the path of #4 , medications will be a far cry from what will be needed and occur . So for the Moral high ground, I would prefer Iran and it's people suffer a bit, in order to bring about change that keeps Iran from it's current path of subtle aggression that could blossom.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2370 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
While I agree, if they point out an injustice that WE are doing, I don't care who says it, we shouldn't do it. Edit: I meant the part about civilians dying

The Iranian government could agree to demands for inspections to ensure they don't have a nuclear weapons program and most of the sanctions would go away. Who is really committing the injustice there? If al-Qaeda really cares so much about the Iranian people, why don't we hear them leveling some blame at the Iranian government as well?

Quoting cmf (Reply 11):
There is a big area between letting them dictate and considering the points the represent.

Is denying Iran a nuclear weapons program not a goal worth pursuing even if it pisses some people off?

With one notable exception (Cuba), you normally don't see the US placing sanctions without a damn good reason for doing so.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8788 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2364 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 5):
The Bush sanctions caused devastation on the Iraqi civilian population, especially in increased infant mortality.

Funny how they are now the "Bush sanctions", when they were imposed by the UN and the president who spent the most time enforcing them was Clinton.

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Are we actually restricting medicine, or is the medicine shortage a result of willfully poor distribution by the government? There is a difference, and the latter case does happen quite a bit.

Possible, but doubtful. We heard the same BS from Iraq pre-2003. Yes, there were massive shortages, because those in power were using the funds meant for food and medicine and and diverting them to reinforce their own power base, security apparatuses, and secret accounts. Saddam had something like $2 billion in his accounts at the time of the invasion. Surely you don't think he was saving his salary...



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7201 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2348 times:

Quoting maxthrusta330 (Thread starter):
How can Western countries, particularly the US, claim to have legitimate concern for human rights, when they are responsible for blocking humanitarian sectors in Iran?
Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
That's the point of sanctions, to put the government under pressure from the population. And in order to do that, you have to put pressure on the population. So, in other words, the sanctions are working.

   your answer right there.

This is why we nuked Japan - to get their population to pressure their government to surrender. Of course a different outcome occurred but they surrendered nonetheless.

We're not gonna nuke Iran but we're gonna cut them off so they run dry and actually communicate with us about what they're doing. Iran is a dangerous nation and my Iranian friends always tell me that they wish their government would change and be more friendly to the west.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
Is denying Iran a nuclear weapons program not a goal worth pursuing even if it pisses some people off?

Not sure how a comment relating to not letting terrorists dictate foreign policy became denying Iran a nuclear weapons program but to address this later specific issue.

I do not see anything positive from Iran having nuclear weapons but I can't find anything that gives us the right to deny them. They are a sovereign nation so why should they not have the rights we think we have because we are a sovereign nation?

If you have the answer to why we can have it but not them then I'm all ears. It certainly can't be based on what we fear they might do, because other nations have equal right to fear what the "good" nuclear nations will do.

Usually the easiest way to find if something makes sense or not is to reverse the situation. What do you think US would do if Iran said we can't have nuclear weapons? What do you think the reaction would be if Iran bombed nuclear facilities in US? We can take some of the political edge away but changing Iran to developed, democratic countries without nuclear weapons making the demands. Just look at how often we see people here on airliners.net argue that people from outside US do not have the right to comment about US.

I am not able to see any way that we have the right to stop them.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 17):
Not sure how a comment relating to not letting terrorists dictate foreign policy became denying Iran a nuclear weapons program

Because that's the issue here. If you want to consider the public perception of sanctions, that's fine, but an Iranian nuclear weapons program is a big deal. This isn't one of those things where you can say "we wouldn't derive a whole of benefit from it, and it'll piss a lot of people off, so let's not do it."

Quoting cmf (Reply 17):
I do not see anything positive from Iran having nuclear weapons but I can't find anything that gives us the right to deny them. They are a sovereign nation so why should they not have the rights we think we have because we are a sovereign nation?

Because it would start an arms race in the region, which represents an unacceptable threat to the security of the rest of the world. Not just the US, but the world.

You'll notice that not even Iran has stated that they want to develop a nuclear weapon. They claim their program is about nuclear power. And if it's just that, then I have no problem with it. But they're acting like it's a whole lot more than that.

Quoting cmf (Reply 17):
If you have the answer to why we can have it but not them then I'm all ears.

Because we already have it. From a purely practical standpoint, that cat is out of the bag - the technology cannot be uninvented. If we were starting from a point where nobody had them, then you'd have a point about a double standard. But you'll note that every international agreement from the Cold War onwards with regard to nuclear weapons has been about reduction, not proliferation. It is only Iran and North Korea that are bucking that trend.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7056 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2309 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 17):
If you have the answer to why we can have it but not them then I'm all ears.

The technology is out, scientist and engineers have made a number of dual use items where all one needs is money, so information on how and the equipment to build are readily available, funny thing is that it is more difficult to build a power station.

On the other hand, who has the USA, Britian, France, China and Russia threatned with nuclear destruction?
The rest of the world who do not and are not in the process of developing nuclear weapons look to those who have such weapons to be responsible with the power they grant.
A point I would make is that if every country in the world thought that the only way to deal with the 5 established nuclear powers was to have nuclear weapons, one can rest assured that much more countries would be attempting to develop them even at the cost of the demise of their population.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2305 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
Because it would start an arms race in the region, which represents an unacceptable threat to the security of the rest of the world. Not just the US, but the world.

Why is our fear more valid than their fear? And so what if they want to spend more money on weapons. They are sovereign nations.

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
You'll notice that not even Iran has stated that they want to develop a nuclear weapon. They claim their program is about nuclear power. And if it's just that, then I have no problem with it. But they're acting like it's a whole lot more than that.

Again, so why does our fear justify restrictions on a sovereign nation?

To EU the CO2 emissions US produce is threat to the rest of the world. Is EU justified (capable is a different topic) to prevent US from emitting CO2?

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
Because we already have it. From a purely practical standpoint, that cat is out of the bag - the technology cannot be uninvented. If we were starting from a point where nobody had them, then you'd have a point about a double standard.

So if I have a car I am justified to prevent anyone who doesn't have a car from getting one? Doesn't sound right to me.

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
But you'll note that every international agreement from the Cold War onwards with regard to nuclear weapons has been about reduction, not proliferation. It is only Iran and North Korea that are bucking that trend.

Why does this remove their rights as sovereign nations? Can't say I'm up to date on what agreements Iran and North Korea have signed but I'm sure they claim to be in agreement with them. And if they are not they can just withdraw. Or do all the countries who signed the Kyoto agreement have the right to dictate Canada's environmental policy?

US never ratified Kyoto but if ROW have the right to dictate Iran nuclear policy doesn't ROW also have the right to dictate US environmental policy? It certainly is a threat to the rest of the world.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6529 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2299 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 13):
The sanctions in Iran were emposeed by the UN, which includes many other countries other than the US.

Some of them are. Others are US only.

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
Because it would start an arms race in the region, which represents an unacceptable threat to the security of the rest of the world. Not just the US, but the world.

The arms race was started a long time ago, by Israel. Did the US impose sanctions ? I didn't think so.

Quoting Mir (Reply 18):
It is only Iran and North Korea that are bucking that trend.

You seem to forget two minor countries, Pakistan and India. Didn't seem to remember sanctions for them either.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 7):
All of this is true. Sanctions are very messy. But what is that alternative?

The alternative is to stop kissing Israel's ass and urging them to resolve the Palestine conflict. Which is ultimately the core of the problem.

Quoting Mir (Reply 7):
You didn't see that with Iraq, and you don't see it in North Korea. So that is progress. Hopefully the Ahmedinejad regime will be forced out of power, and then you may start to see real progress, and an accompanying lifting of sanctions.

If you believe that all Iranians are closet-Americans who are currently repressed by an evil tyrant, yes. Many Iranians like their president. Incidentally, he's the moderate among Iranian politicians.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 13):
1. Iran has continously threatened to wipe israel off the map
2. Iran funds hezbollah and Hamas.
3. Iran refuses to sign onto a nuclear treaty and allow inspecitions by UN Nuclear regulatory agencies.
4. With numbers 3 and 1 , Iran has highly lent itself to the path of war , and specifically war with weapons of mass destruction.

1. Not really.
2. The USA funds Somalian terorrists.
3. They let commisioners into the country. If they show them everything is another question.
4. Iran doesn't want a war. If it wants nuclear weapons, which at this point is not even clear (it's said that they'd need at least 20 years to develop them), they want them to become less vulnerable in case Israel starts something. It is anything but coincidental that the two most vociferous forces on the anti Iran front are the USA and Germany.

Iran's nuclear weapon program, which again, doesn't even exist at this point, is a mean of defense. Not of attack.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2038 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2282 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 21):
The arms race was started a long time ago, by Israel. Did the US impose sanctions ? I didn't think so.

What arms race? The only country in the ME, other than Israel, that has nuclear weapons is Pakistan.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 21):
You seem to forget two minor countries, Pakistan and India. Didn't seem to remember sanctions for them either.

Since their nukes are pointed at each other, the MAD principle provides the necessary checks and balances. As long as their stuff stays in house, and isn't pointed anywhere else, then there is no cause for sanctions.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Why does this remove their rights as sovereign nations?

It's not rocket science. Note my reply above.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2283 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Why is our fear more valid than their fear?

Because it's the fear of many nations against the fear of one.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Is EU justified (capable is a different topic) to prevent US from emitting CO2?

Absolutely. Whether they really want to fight that battle (metaphorically, obviously) is another matter entirely.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Again, so why does our fear justify restrictions on a sovereign nation?

Because here's what will happen if Iran gets a nuclear weapon: Saudi Arabia will get one (and that's not conjecture, that's their stated position, and they will have the capability to follow through on it). And then Egypt will probably get one. And then Jordan might follow. And suddenly you'll have six countries with nuclear weapons in a region where instability and conflict are routine, and where fundamentalist religion can justify, or even glorify, suicide as a means of achieving one's ends - that's a recipe for unpleasantness.

The world will feel the effects of that unpleasantness. Any conflict that goes nuclear is likely to escalate to the point where things get out of control and we have World War III. If you have a chance to break that chain, it would be entirely justified.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
So if I have a car I am justified to prevent anyone who doesn't have a car from getting one? Doesn't sound right to me.

If that person were likely to be a reckless driver and attract a whole bunch more reckless drivers, I would consider that justification.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
US never ratified Kyoto but if ROW have the right to dictate Iran nuclear policy doesn't ROW also have the right to dictate US environmental policy?

They could put sanctions on the US if they wanted to. Of course, without trade with the US, a lot of countries would be far worse off, so there's disincentive for them to do that.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Why does this remove their rights as sovereign nations? Can't say I'm up to date on what agreements Iran and North Korea have signed but I'm sure they claim to be in agreement with them.

Iran removed its own right to develop nuclear weapons when it signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which really renders the whole discussion of what sovereign nations can arm themselves with moot, but responded to that because it would still be true if Iran wasn't a part of the NPT). There is ample evidence to suggest that they are not in compliance with it, no matter what they claim. Thus, the sanctions.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6529 posts, RR: 9
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2300 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 23):
What arms race? The only country in the ME, other than Israel, that has nuclear weapons is Pakistan.

Well, only one country with foes around is needed to start an arms race, and that's exactly what Israel did a long time ago. Iran is only following.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 23):
Since their nukes are pointed at each other, the MAD principle provides the necessary checks and balances. As long as their stuff stays in house, and isn't pointed anywhere else, then there is no cause for sanctions.

Israel argues that Iran wants to point nukes at them. They're already pointing nukes at Iran. So, where is the problem, exactly ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19386 posts, RR: 58
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2296 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
That's the point of sanctions, to put the government under pressure from the population. And in order to do that, you have to put pressure on the population. So, in other words, the sanctions are working.

Except they aren't. If anything, they can piss the public off enough that they get angry at the countries placing the sanctions. Do you understand what would happen to Iran if they suddenly got iPhones and such? They might actually revolt against their government if given the tools of social networking and international communication.

If the sanctions were working, and they've been in place for a couple of decades now, they would have worked.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12386 posts, RR: 47
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There are only two issues with sanctions. They harm the general population of the sanctioned country and they don't work. What has 50 years of sanctions against Cuba achieved?


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2285 times:

Quoting something (Reply 22):
Iran's nuclear weapon program, which again, doesn't even exist at this point, is a mean of defense. Not of attack.

Doesn't exist, based on what, exactly?

In any case, please explain to me if there are any positive sides to this word: destabilization.

No? Because that's what you have in the region once Iran goes nuclear.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2272 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 23):
It's not rocket science. Note my reply above.

No it is not rocket science. It is respect for the sovereignty of other territories. MAD does not address that.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
Because it's the fear of many nations against the fear of one.

Sounds like gang rape to me.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
Absolutely. Whether they really want to fight that battle (metaphorically, obviously) is another matter entirely.

Glad to know where you stand but I think you are hard pressed to find many people who agree.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
Because here's what will happen if Iran gets a nuclear weapon: Saudi Arabia will get one (and that's not conjecture, that's their stated position, and they will have the capability to follow through on it). And then Egypt will probably get one. And then Jordan might follow. And suddenly you'll have six countries with nuclear weapons in a region where instability and conflict are routine, and where fundamentalist religion can justify, or even glorify, suicide as a means of achieving one's ends - that's a recipe for unpleasantness.

I do find this a likely scenario. Still don't see how it gives us the right to supersede what we claim to be fundamental principle of sovereignty.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
The world will feel the effects of that unpleasantness. Any conflict that goes nuclear is likely to escalate to the point where things get out of control and we have World War III. If you have a chance to break that chain, it would be entirely justified.

Where does the justification revert to the principles we claim to stand for?

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
If that person were likely to be a reckless driver and attract a whole bunch more reckless drivers, I would consider that justification.

But it is just my claim they will be a reckless driver. They claim they will not even drive the car on public roads. Why do I have the right to prevent them from get a car then? I fail to see how this is justifiable.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
They could put sanctions on the US if they wanted to. Of course, without trade with the US, a lot of countries would be far worse off, so there's disincentive for them to do that.

Sanctions are incentives. The sovereign nations remain sovereign.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
Iran removed its own right to develop nuclear weapons when it signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which really renders the whole discussion of what sovereign nations can arm themselves with moot, but responded to that because it would still be true if Iran wasn't a part of the NPT).

Pretty much as I thought it stands. Of course Iran state they are in compliance since their nuclear program is to generate power.

Quoting Mir (Reply 24):
There is ample evidence to suggest that they are not in compliance with it, no matter what they claim. Thus, the sanctions.

When we have nuclear power and weapons but forcefully prevent others from having it then it is double standards. No way around it. Our fear doesn't justify breaking our principles.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2262 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
While I agree, if they point out an injustice that WE are doing, I don't care who says it, we shouldn't do it. Edit: I meant the part about civilians dying

The Iranian government could agree to demands for inspections to ensure they don't have a nuclear weapons program and most of the sanctions would go away. Who is really committing the injustice there? If al-Qaeda really cares so much about the Iranian people, why don't we hear them leveling some blame at the Iranian government as well?

I've heard similar arguments but the reality is some governments and al-Qaeda don't care if innocent people die, they have a larger goal to defeat the infadels and remove them from their land and all that jazz. I'm not saying that Iran is a bad regime, I'm just wondering if another terrorist attack against America or a war with Iran is worth all this

It's quite obvious the Iranian people hate their government... we saw that from the revolts



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6529 posts, RR: 9
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2254 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 28):
In any case, please explain to me if there are any positive sides to this word: destabilization.

No? Because that's what you have in the region once Iran goes nuclear.

The region is everything but stable already.

Like it or not, it's Israel that is currently threatening to attack another country, not the other way around.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2251 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
When we have nuclear power and weapons but forcefully prevent others from having it then it is double standards. No way around it. Our fear doesn't justify breaking our principles.

Except that it is more than fear this time. The world economy depends on relative stability in the ME region for the foreseeable future. So long as that is the case, and there is no nuclear threat to the Strait of Hormuz, there is a rational basis for preventing Iran from screwing with the entire system. Nevermind the fact that their Revolutionary Guard are linked to all manner of organizations that serve nefarious purposes - are these the folks you want safeguarding fissile materials??

Our nuclear force derives from a different era, and a different kind of fear. I don't think we have forgotten the cost of that responsibility, and that is why the nuclear nations take this kind of episode very seriously. This technology is not for people to be messing around with - that much has already been learned.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2236 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 32):
Except that it is more than fear this time. The world economy depends on relative stability in the ME region for the foreseeable future. So long as that is the case, and there is no nuclear threat to the Strait of Hormuz, there is a rational basis for preventing Iran from screwing with the entire system. Nevermind the fact that their Revolutionary Guard are linked to all manner of organizations that serve nefarious purposes - are these the folks you want safeguarding fissile materials??

Don't know how it more than fear but the rest is certainly possible. But why do we have the right to cause pain and havoc to one nation because we fear they may cause it to us? Really sounds like the Animal Farm,

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 32):
Our nuclear force derives from a different era, and a different kind of fear. I don't think we have forgotten the cost of that responsibility, and that is why the nuclear nations take this kind of episode very seriously. This technology is not for people to be messing around with - that much has already been learned.

I agree this is serious stuff. As are many other issues. Sovereignty for example. If we don't respect that are we much different from terrorists?


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
I agree this is serious stuff. As are many other issues. Sovereignty for example. If we don't respect that are we much different from terrorists?

Because, there are only good or bad people and there is only one right way. Naturally, the US way is the right way (what are the odds, right?) and that's why the USA is only spreading the goodness in all selflessness around the world. And this is exactly the situation in Syria. Who cares about the actual conflict and the different interests? Just bomb the place down.
Who cares about Iranians, or the pesky reasons behind this conflict (you neo-libs with your fancy ''facts'') or international law when a person the media tells me is unlikeable is given the business?

Again. It's not the USA telling other nations what to do because it serves their own interest, they're just doing the region a selfless favor. There's a clear distinction though: When other countries are trying to tell the USA what to do, like signing the Kyoto protocol for example (which is really an egregious demand with a much more severe impact on US citizens than depriving Iranians of medication). Such behavior is beyond the pale and the US, as a sovereign nation, will not bow to international demands based on the above mentioned pesky facts. Because this has nothing to do with goodness being spread on them. They don't want it, regardless of what others think, and as a sovereign nation they are free to reject foreign demands.

On that note. US emissions are a real thing. Today. The Iranian nuclear bomb isn't.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2214 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 21):
You seem to forget two minor countries, Pakistan and India. Didn't seem to remember sanctions for them either.

Neither signed the NPT. So that's a whole different ballgame right there. And their motivations for getting nuclear weapons were very different from Iran's.

Quoting something (Reply 22):
The alternative is to stop kissing Israel's ass and urging them to resolve the Palestine conflict. Which is ultimately the core of the problem.

Not at all. The Israel/Palestine conflict could end peacefully tomorrow and Iran would still want nuclear weapons. How would the presence of a Palestinian state remove any perceived threat to Iran from Israel?

Iran wants nuclear weapons as a status symbol and for influence in the region.

Quoting something (Reply 22):
If you believe that all Iranians are closet-Americans who are currently repressed by an evil tyrant, yes. Many Iranians like their president.

And many don't. I don't expect Iran to become an American puppet. They can hate America for all I care. As long as they have a government that recognizes that having nuclear weapons is not in their interest, that's fine.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25):
Well, only one country with foes around is needed to start an arms race, and that's exactly what Israel did a long time ago.

Israel has unofficially had nuclear weapons for a while and nobody in the Middle East tried to develop them.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
Sounds like gang rape to me.

Oh please. Preventing a country from getting nuclear weapons is hardly analogous to rape.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
I do find this a likely scenario. Still don't see how it gives us the right to supersede what we claim to be fundamental principle of sovereignty.

So, in other words, just let one nation take the entire world to hell in a handbasket? I don't accept that.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
Where does the justification revert to the principles we claim to stand for?

What, freedom and prosperity? Or let's just focus on prosperity. As Aaron said, the economic system of the world is dependent on at least some stability in the Middle East. And people think it's a good idea to have a nuclear arms race there?

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
Of course Iran state they are in compliance since their nuclear program is to generate power.

Their program is not to generate power. Or rather, not only to generate power. In other words, they're lying.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
When we have nuclear power and weapons but forcefully prevent others from having it then it is double standards. No way around it.

There's no double standard in expecting countries to live up to their treaty obligations.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 30):
I've heard similar arguments but the reality is some governments and al-Qaeda don't care if innocent people die, they have a larger goal to defeat the infadels and remove them from their land and all that jazz.

So why do we care when they cite the deaths of innocent people as justification for their actions?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 30):
I'm just wondering if another terrorist attack against America or a war with Iran is worth all this

Since a terrorist attack is not an automatic result of pressure on Iran, and the consequences of Iran getting a nuclear weapon are potentially dire, I think it's quite worth it.

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
Sovereignty for example. If we don't respect that are we much different from terrorists?

Yes. Quite a bit. Terrorism has nothing to do with sovereignty.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13511 posts, RR: 62
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2208 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 6):
Paris Hilton getting her tits out


- perk -

Where?  












(just kidding, please continue squabbling)



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2200 times:

Quoting something (Reply 34):
Again. It's not the USA telling other nations what to do because it serves their own interest, they're just doing the region a selfless favor.

Mind you, this isn't just the US. It's most of the world.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2199 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
So why do we care when they cite the deaths of innocent people as justification for their actions?

Because we're unjustly killing whereas when they have collateral damage, they die for Allah's cause. IDK they're terrorists

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
and the consequences of Iran getting a nuclear weapon are potentially dire

Are they? There are some pretty shady countries with nuclear weapons that haven't done anything. Do you honestly think they'd risk becoming a smoldering hole and use a nuke? That includes supplying a nuke to someone else, it wouldn't be hard to guess where it came from and the reactions would be mostly the same



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7201 posts, RR: 17
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2194 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Oh please. Preventing a country from getting nuclear weapons is hardly analogous to rape.

  

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Neither signed the NPT. So that's a whole different ballgame right there. And their motivations for getting nuclear weapons were very different from Iran's.

But at the same time Iran has been raising up the rhetoric, which is why Israel is threatening an attack. Anti-Israel rhetoric + nuclear enrichment = ?????

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Since a terrorist attack is not an automatic result of pressure on Iran, and the consequences of Iran getting a nuclear weapon are potentially dire, I think it's quite worth it.

The one thing I see about this is- if Israel attacks iran, could we have another 1973 fiasco happen?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):
Because we're unjustly killing whereas when they have collateral damage, they die for Allah's cause. IDK they're terrorists

That's the very idea of terrorism right there- to force people through killing to align with their beliefs- or to be killed for the fact of being "undermensch" to those terrorists

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
When we have nuclear power and weapons but forcefully prevent others from having it then it is double standards. No way around it. Our fear doesn't justify breaking our principles.

That's not a double-standard. We had nukes originally because we needed them to stop Japan from continuing the 2nd world war. Ok I know there's more to that, but when Russia began stockpiling and our rhetoric with russia began to raise, that's what created the arms race.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2184 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):
IDK they're terrorists

Which I'd regard as a pretty good general-purpose reason not to take whatever they espouse too seriously.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):
Do you honestly think they'd risk becoming a smoldering hole and use a nuke?

If it's just them and Israel, probably not. But, as I mentioned before, it wouldn't be. There'd be Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Pakistan is already a nuclear power. You get that many countries vying for supreme influence in a region ripe for conflict, and then throw nuclear arms into the picture? That's ugly.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2178 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 40):
But, as I mentioned before, it wouldn't be.

Source? Why would Iran getting a nuke mean everyone else would want one? Israel has had them for a while and they all hate Israel. Why is Iran magical?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2176 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
Why would Iran getting a nuke mean everyone else would want one? Israel has had them for a while and they all hate Israel. Why is Iran magical?


Because nuclear weapons are about influence. Israel is never going to have dominant influence in the Middle East simply because they are not Muslim - they'll never get others in the region to be their surrogates. That's not the case with Iran. Saudi Arabia, who is currently the dominant power, will get them (they've said they would). There is no reason that Egypt, who could also be the dominant power in the region, wouldn't as well.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2165 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 42):
There is no reason that Egypt, who could also be the dominant power in the region, wouldn't as well.

I don't follow this line of thinking. But it's bedtime so maybe I'll research this tomorrow.

BTW most countries in that region hate Iran, maybe not as much as Israel, but they are far from buddies with Iran, Muslim or not



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21515 posts, RR: 55
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 43):
BTW most countries in that region hate Iran, maybe not as much as Israel, but they are far from buddies with Iran, Muslim or not

But they also hate the West. And if Iran does succede in thumbing its nose at the West, that could rally other countries to their cause. Or perhaps not. But that's an example of how unstable the region is, and the fact remains that putting nuclear weapons in an unstable region is a very bad idea.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2106 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Iran wants nuclear weapons as a status symbol and for influence in the region.

I think you're missing the main reason a country want nuclear weapons. To create balance with the nuclear powers who insist on telling them what they can and can't do.

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Oh please. Preventing a country from getting nuclear weapons is hardly analogous to rape.

Several people (countries) preventing on one person (country) to do things others can do is.

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
So, in other words, just let one nation take the entire world to hell in a handbasket? I don't accept that.

But you are. It is just that you like the group who is doing it in this case.

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
What, freedom and prosperity? Or let's just focus on prosperity. As Aaron said, the economic system of the world is dependent on at least some stability in the Middle East. And people think it's a good idea to have a nuclear arms race there?

Freedom and prosperity, absolutely. By denying those rights to some we are just the bigger bully. Could even be labeled terrorist.

So are we setting our principles aside only for nuclear arms or what else? What about biological weapons? What about access to raw materials?

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Their program is not to generate power. Or rather, not only to generate power. In other words, they're lying.

Only they know for certain. But the thing is, they can withdraw from any agreement whenever they want so what does it matter?

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
There's no double standard in expecting countries to live up to their treaty obligations.

Agree, there is no double standard in expecting countries to live up to their obligations. The double standard in preventing someone from doing what you do yourself and allow others to do.

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Yes. Quite a bit. Terrorism has nothing to do with sovereignty.

On the contrary. What one side call terrorists are typically called freedom fighters by the other side.

But back to the issue. What right do we have to mandate what others do on their sovereign territory? Depending on how it is done we certainly have labeled it terrorism.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 39):
But at the same time Iran has been raising up the rhetoric, which is why Israel is threatening an attack. Anti-Israel rhetoric + nuclear enrichment = ?????

Too many people threatening sanctions and talking about attacking/invading = get nuclear weapons to make them stay away.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 39):
That's not a double-standard. We had nukes originally because we needed them to stop Japan from continuing the 2nd world war. Ok I know there's more to that, but when Russia began stockpiling and our rhetoric with russia began to raise, that's what created the arms race.

Of course it is double standard when you say - I can have it but you can't.
No way around it.

Quoting Mir (Reply 44):
But they also hate the West.

They hate us - We hate them
They can cause havoc to us - We can cause havoc to them
We will not allow them to dictate what we do - They should do what we tell them to do

Do you see the imbalance?


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2093 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Iran wants nuclear weapons as a status symbol and for influence in the region.

I think you're missing the main reason a country want nuclear weapons. To create balance with the nuclear powers who insist on telling them what they can and can't do.

If the Palestinian conflict would be resolved, the Arab/Persion world would sign a peace treaty. The leaders of all countries in the region have stated this repeatedly.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 43):
BTW most countries in that region hate Iran, maybe not as much as Israel, but they are far from buddies with Iran, Muslim or not

Muslim Muslim. Sunnites and Shiites are practically two separate religions just that one believes in the ''Part 2'' of the book series.

Quoting Mir (Reply 44):
But they also hate the West.

Yes, ''the West''. Iran and Brazil are actually trading partners. And they don't speak of Argentina very often either. Both those countries are inarguably western countries, with western culture.

Iran ''hates'' the West not because of who they are, but because of how they are treated by them. Listen to all the hostile language against the ''Eurocrats'', or the UN even, whenever they're asking the USA to compromice on the most banal issues. Now how do you expect Iranians to feel about the USA, considering what ''compromices'' they are asking of them?

Or another example: Look at what Fox News is doing to people in the midwest. They have managed to get those people to reject reality. After all, they have managed to get you to hate Iran. And this worked in a free country, with free media, free press, uncensored internet accessibility, very limited travel restrictions, high standard of living (computers, phones etc. are not limited to the rich elite). Imagine what censored, state media does to the world view of the average Iranian.

People don't sit around bored and think: ''What could we do today? Wait.. I got it. Let's all hate America!''. You usually need to give people a reason to hate you. Which is why they ''hate'' America, but not Argentina.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6529 posts, RR: 9
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2091 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 40):
If it's just them and Israel, probably not. But, as I mentioned before, it wouldn't be. There'd be Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Pakistan is already a nuclear power. You get that many countries vying for supreme influence in a region ripe for conflict, and then throw nuclear arms into the picture? That's ugly.

Having nuclear weapons might give you influence, but using them will not. Besides, having influence over a nuked territory doesn't seem that appealing. And many proxy wars have been fought between nuclear countries without any nuke being used. Even direct skirmishes/battles in the case of Pakistan/India.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2079 times:

Quoting something (Reply 46):
If the Palestinian conflict would be resolved, the Arab/Persion world would sign a peace treaty. The leaders of all countries in the region have stated this repeatedly.

Peace in the Middle East would spell disaster for the American military-industrial complex, with impacts to a whole bunch of Congressional districts. Likewise it would threaten to significantly delay Jesus' return amid the Apocalypse.

And you wonder why our policy seems completely incoherent?


User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1207 posts, RR: 3
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2081 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
That's the point of sanctions, to put the government under pressure from the population. And in order to do that, you have to put pressure on the population. So, in other words, the sanctions are working.

Sanctions are working only if this pressure actually makes government to change their policy, and so far it hasn't. As long as leadership in Iran is backed up by Iranian army these sanctions are totally useless and only cause harm to civilian population.

Just look at Cuba, have these sanctions really worked? No. US government is extremely stupid if it truly believes that this will work either, probably just makes some people more loyal towards Iranian government.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8788 posts, RR: 24
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2060 times:

Quoting something (Reply 46):
Or another example: Look at what Fox News is doing to people in the midwest. They have managed to get those people to reject reality. After all, they have managed to get you to hate Iran.

Oh, brother...  

What reality have they rejected?

And I don't think anyone here hates Iran. You don't see people shouting "Death to Iran", do you? Nobody desires to wipe them off the face of the earth (and we've had the capability to do so for many years). We aren't guided by a faith that says subjugating or killing people who believe differently than us will gain us a place in heaven.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2058 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 48):
Peace in the Middle East would spell disaster for the American military-industrial complex, with impacts to a whole bunch of Congressional districts.

On a serious note, imagine what the US economy would look like if the army budget was reduced to a quarter. The US army is a huge job creation machine (could not be more socialist in all of its branches) and it keeps endless other businesses alive, the arm industry being the most obvious one.

Personally, I am of the believe that this is one of the main reasons why the Republicans want to increase the military budget. Not (only) to strengthen America's global presence, but to artificially create jobs and to artificially boost the economy. That would inevitably happen at the expense of an even greater deficit, but that is just Obama's fault for giving out free cellphones.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 48):
And you wonder why our policy seems completely incoherent?

Ethically incoherent yes. Economically, no.

In all fairness though, I don't think America has bad intentions per se. There just is no perfect solution for the middle east conflict. They do make it more complicated than it already is by their involvement, but abandoning the region would not solve the problems either. It'd solve some, and worsen others. Not sure if the balance of that would be positive, negative or neutral. Nobody can know. So why not maintain the status quo, if it means so many good things (jobs, new markets, drilling rights) for one self.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2038 posts, RR: 6
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2046 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25):
Israel argues that Iran wants to point nukes at them. They're already pointing nukes at Iran. So, where is the problem, exactly ?

There's no guarantee that Iran will keep the nukes and technology in house. With a regional arms race, it's very likely they will arm their proxy states, such as Syria, as well. That put's Israel at a serious disadvantage.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25):
Well, only one country with foes around is needed to start an arms race, and that's exactly what Israel did a long time ago. Iran is only following.

Iran want's a get-out-of-jail-free-card. They know they can do whatever the hell they want in the region, short of cooking one off, after they arm themselves with nukes. It's NATO that they're afraid of, not Israel.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
It is respect for the sovereignty of other territories. MAD does not address that.

In the case of Pakistan and India, it does. But you're right that MAD does not work in all situations. That was my point.

Quoting cmf (Reply 29):
I do find this a likely scenario. Still don't see how it gives us the right to supersede what we claim to be fundamental principle of sovereignty.

That's the pre-WW2 mentality. The international community has moved beyond that.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 47):
And many proxy wars have been fought between nuclear countries without any nuke being used. Even direct skirmishes/battles in the case of Pakistan/India.

Proxy wars need to be prevented, especially if there are a number jihadist proxy forces targeting the civilian population of one country. It's only a matter of time before a line is crossed, and one of the major players makes a move against another. Superpowers ---> Regional Powers ---> Proxy forces, is just linking up a chain of errors that will eventually lead to an international conflict.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2024 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 50):
You don't see people shouting "Death to Iran", do you?

It is frequent on the conservative talk radio. I consider it the comedy channel but there is no doubt many of the hosts and those calling in absolutely believe it.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 52):
That's the pre-WW2 mentality. The international community has moved beyond that.

Please expand because I am not aware of anything that has reduced the rights to sovereignty. I would say it is stronger than ever.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8788 posts, RR: 24
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1999 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 53):

It is frequent on the conservative talk radio. I consider it the comedy channel but there is no doubt many of the hosts and those calling in absolutely believe it.

Give me a single example of someone saying something like "Death to Iran"



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7201 posts, RR: 17
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1996 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
Too many people threatening sanctions and talking about attacking/invading = get nuclear weapons to make them stay away.

THAT = terrorism right there.

Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
Of course it is double standard when you say - I can have it but you can't.

Because we are RESPONSIBLE. We will not nuke someone ... most likely ever. We have them simply because of our cold war with Soviet Russia, when we almost had to use them if they nuked us.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 50):
What reality have they rejected?

Yes exactly, what reality? Why has MSNBC thrown the average joe under the bus in favor of the "99%" hipsters that ruin the integrity and intelligence of our country?

Quoting cmf (Reply 53):
It is frequent on the conservative talk radio. I consider it the comedy channel but there is no doubt many of the hosts and those calling in absolutely believe it.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 54):
Give me a single example of someone saying something like "Death to Iran"

Seconded.

A lot of my conservative buddies say invading Iran isn't a good idea, unless it's completely warranted.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1978 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 54):
Give me a single example of someone saying something like "Death to Iran"
Let's be blunt here: the only way to stop them is to destroy the Iranian regime, the mullahs, and that can only be accomplished through war. And by war I don't mean ground troops; I mean massive bombing raids intended to destroy every one of the key targets.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1...ugh-calls-for-massiv_n_397715.html

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 55):
THAT = terrorism right there.

Then US is a terrorist state.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 55):
Because we are RESPONSIBLE. We will not nuke someone ... most likely ever.

Responsible according to us. Not according to others.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 55):
We have them simply because of our cold war with Soviet Russia, when we almost had to use them if they nuked us.

May have been a little convincing if we got rid of them after the fall of Russia.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8788 posts, RR: 24
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1956 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 56):
Let's be blunt here: the only way to stop them is to destroy the Iranian regime, the mullahs, and that can only be accomplished through war. And by war I don't mean ground troops; I mean massive bombing raids intended to destroy every one of the key targets.

I see the target being the Iranian regime and the Mullah's. I do not hear hatred for Iran or its people. No "Death to Iran".



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7201 posts, RR: 17
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1955 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 56):
Then US is a terrorist state.

How, because we are issuing sanctions on a nation that threatens our ally?
If this is your criteria of terrorist states, then almost every state that participates in NATO/UN sanctions are terrorist states too.

Quoting cmf (Reply 56):
Responsible according to us. Not according to others.

Exactly. Other nations are too paranoid/ignorant to think we're gonna actually bomb them. Especially with a nuke.

Quick open question to the international A.net population - do you think the USA will ever nuke anyone?

Quoting cmf (Reply 56):
May have been a little convincing if we got rid of them after the fall of Russia.

Russia still has them. China has them. India and Pakistan has them. Sure they're not going to use them. It's a sense of security. A billion dollar sense of security.....  

Now that N. Korea and Iran are getting them....



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1947 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 58):
Quick open question to the international A.net population - do you think the USA will ever nuke anyone?

Arizona would be a good place to start.   

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 58):
How, because we are issuing sanctions on a nation that threatens our ally?

I will leave the explanation to my good man cmf], but you missed his point as far as one possibly could. Surprise.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1944 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57):
I see the target being the Iranian regime and the Mullah's. I do not hear hatred for Iran or its people. No "Death to Iran".

That's more or less what I hear from the anti-Israel crowd... they are against the Israeli government, that one "wipe off the map" mis-translation was talking about the Israeli regime. If all these Muslim countries hated Jews so much, why do they allow Jews to live in their own countries? True, they may not have the same rights as Muslims sometimes, but that applies to other religions too.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1942 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57):
I see the target being the Iranian regime and the Mullah's

Because if Iran said they would only remove the US regime you would think that is fine..

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 58):
How, because we are issuing sanctions on a nation that threatens our ally?

Because you stated having nuclear weapons as deterrent equals terrorism.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 55):
Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
Too many people threatening sanctions and talking about attacking/invading = get nuclear weapons to make them stay away.

THAT = terrorism right there.
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 58):
Exactly. Other nations are too paranoid/ignorant to think we're gonna actually bomb them. Especially with a nuke.

Doesn't matter. We are threatening.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 58):
Russia still has them. China has them. India and Pakistan has them. Sure they're not going to use them. It's a sense of security. A billion dollar sense of security.....  

And right there is the reason why Iran and North Korea want them. To reduce the risk of US invasion.

Going back to the the issue. I sure don't want any of them to have nuclear weapons but I don't know anything that gives us the right to prevent them from having it. Granted Iran will need to withdraw from some agreements but that wouldn't be the first time someone withdraws from an agreement. Nothing you have provided solves that dilemma. All that has been suggested is that your fear is more valid than their fear.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1938 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 61):
Nothing you have provided solves that dilemma. All that has been suggested is that your fear is more valid than their fear.

Wrong. The need for economic stability of 20+ countries outweighs the needs of one. Case closed.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1926 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 62):
Wrong. The need for economic stability of 20+ countries outweighs the needs of one. Case closed.

Case closed. Not even past the opening paragraph.

What international agreement authorizes this?

What happens when all developing countries start demanding their economic stability?

How is economic stability defined?


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 63):
What international agreement authorizes this?

Virtually all nations with the exception of North Korea participate in the global marketplace, its institutions, and are interested in generating income for their citizens and revenue. No agreement necessary - who doesn't want to make money?

Quoting cmf (Reply 63):
What happens when all developing countries start demanding their economic stability?

They already do. Take note of the increasingly aggressive trade policies and protectionist threats from the BRICS nations.

Quoting cmf (Reply 63):
How is economic stability defined?

Not having military threats to normal trade routes and key commodity deliveries would be one of a number of measures.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1916 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 61):
All that has been suggested is that your fear is more valid than their fear.

Love it.

Quoting cmf (Reply 63):
What international agreement authorizes this?

Most people confuse their gut feeling with law. That's why so many Americans are in favor of the death penalty because it somehow feels right. And that our (as the collective ''west'') demands feel right goes without saying. That there are opposing views that - under the principle of sovereignity - have the exact same, equal right of existence is usually overlooked.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 64):
Quoting cmf (Reply 63):
How is economic stability defined?

Not having military threats to normal trade routes and key commodity deliveries would be one of a number of measures.

Which Iran has not actually done. The US imposed sanctions on Iranian oil exports do make oil more expensive for third parties though. That is okay because it serves a higher purpose - a purpose that is ''right'' because it happens to feel right to you?

[Edited 2012-10-07 17:21:34]


..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1904 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 64):
Virtually all nations with the exception of North Korea participate in the global marketplace, its institutions, and are interested in generating income for their citizens and revenue. No agreement necessary - who doesn't want to make money?

So you're saying that your rules supersede established principles of sovereignty. Or to describe it. Everyone else should do what you like.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 64):
They already do. Take note of the increasingly aggressive trade policies and protectionist threats from the BRICS nations.

Give examples where they deny sovereignty.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 64):
Not having military threats to normal trade routes and key commodity deliveries would be one of a number of measures.

That certainly is a new definition. So you're saying that Iran will be able to trade with anyone who want to trade with them without fear of third countries intervening?

Where is the full definition?


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7201 posts, RR: 17
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1887 times:

Quoting something (Reply 59):
Arizona would be a good place to start.

   In July it's hotter than a nuke fireball, so I think we'd survive. Plus I got my bunker filled with an Ice Hockey rink and hot asian girls so I think i'd be ok  
Quoting cmf (Reply 61):

Because you stated having nuclear weapons as deterrent equals terrorism.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 55):
Quoting cmf (Reply 45):
Too many people threatening sanctions and talking about attacking/invading = get nuclear weapons to make them stay away.

Yes I am saying IRAN is doing that. Not us. We are not stockpiling anything. We haven't created new nukes in quite some time now.

Quoting cmf (Reply 61):
Doesn't matter. We are threatening.

Yes threatening by saying "Hey if you do this, we're going to respond."

Quoting cmf (Reply 61):
And right there is the reason why Iran and North Korea want them. To reduce the risk of US invasion.

We will only invade if provoked. We don't do preemptive strikes anymore. We learned that lesson from Iraq.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 67):
We will only invade if provoked. We don't do preemptive strikes anymore. We learned that lesson from Iraq.

LOL I'm sure Iran is convinced



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

Quoting something (Reply 65):
That's why so many Americans are in favor of the death penalty because it somehow feels right.

Not all Americans do  
Quoting something (Reply 65):
Which Iran has not actually done.

Incorrect.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/worl...tions-embargo-us-persian-gulf.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/o...s-to-cut-off-Strait-of-Hormuz.html

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-e...bluff-says-iran-commander-1.451210

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16344102

Quoting cmf (Reply 66):
So you're saying that your rules supersede established principles of sovereignty.

Please find the quote where that was said? I'm not talking about any rule here - this is how the world works. The marketplace exists, and realpolitik dictates that nations do what they need to do to take part in it.

Quoting cmf (Reply 66):
Give examples where they deny sovereignty.

Negotiation is about compromise. Absolute sovereignty in a vacuum is impossible in the modern world.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7056 posts, RR: 8
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):
That includes supplying a nuke to someone else, it wouldn't be hard to guess where it came from and the reactions would be mostly the same

Really, so you are saying if a dirty bomb is exploded in Israel, got there from Lebanon and has Iran fissionable material the UN, USA and EU would ok a nuclear strike by Israel on Iran? Really, how many nukes, one, two, how many cities, what proportion of the population killed would be acceptible? Israel is a small nation, the amount oof contaminated land could be huge, do we go by percentage of Iranian land to be devastated? The pressue on Israel to not respond would be massive beyond belief.
If one truly starts looking at the above questions you get a good idea why folks in governments the world over would prefer not to have such a scenario.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 48):
Peace in the Middle East would spell disaster for the American military-industrial complex,

The USA supplies a lot of funds to Israel - who mostly build their own military equipment - and Egypt who get a lot of material as well as funds. As for the rest of the ME, Europe supplies just as much or even more, but the point is that the ME is not as large a market for the US military industrial complex as you might think.
The military industrial complex - in my opinion - recognized the competition years ago and switched from quantity to supposed quantity, why sell 10 fighter a/c when you can make one for the same price. The number of tanks, planes, ships and helicopters have been falling for years, yet the purchase price has continued to rise.
The USS Michael Murphy was just commissioned, one billion dollars, USS Miami is going to have upwards of a 200+ million repair bill, the nuke carriers in need of refuelling in additon to other submarines, the F-35, billions are going to be spent on equipment for the US military only, when they start reducing those numbers the complex will be in trouble, reducing foreign sale is a blip on one part of the screen.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 67):
Yes I am saying IRAN is doing that. Not us. We are not stockpiling anything. We haven't created new nukes in quite some time now.

We don't need to produce nukes. We have plenty of them. We have used them for decades.

On top of that we frequently use our military in contempt of the sovereignty of other nations and with scaring frequency for attacks and even invasions for dubious reasons.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 67):
Yes threatening by saying "Hey if you do this, we're going to respond."

If that was the full story there would be no problem, but you know it isn't the full story.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 67):
We will only invade if provoked. We don't do preemptive strikes anymore. We learned that lesson from Iraq.

If only.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, warned “This resolution reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war, and could be the precursor for a war with Iran. It’s effectively a thinly-disguised effort to bless war.”
http://rt.com/news/cogress-us-war-iran-573/

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 69):
Negotiation is about compromise. Absolute sovereignty in a vacuum is impossible in the modern world.

So again no support for your statement since negotiation is a willing surrender and thus not denial.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1857 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 71):
So again no support for your statement since negotiation is a willing surrender and thus not denial.

My statement is logically consistent. You established a context of developing nations demanding economic stability not sovereignty.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1848 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 72):
You established a context of developing nations demanding economic stability not sovereignty

Where did I do that?

Sovereignty has been the staple of my objections throughout. Stability, especially economical, has been your argument for superseding sovereignty.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 63):
What happens when all developing countries start demanding their economic stability?

I answered the above directly, and we continued that vein of the thread from reply 64 on, yeah?



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10884 posts, RR: 37
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1832 times:

We know who has the N bombs.



I am fed up with all this "stop Iran from building N bombs" brainwashing. Those responsible for all this pounding should look at their own nuclear arsenals.

This game of hypocrisy has to stop.

 Wow!



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1821 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 74):
I answered the above directly, and we continued that vein of the thread from reply 64 on, yeah?

You have not even been close to answer any of the three questions in reply 63. And for the little you attempted in reply 64 I directly questioned how it related to the issue of sovereignty.

Reality is that you have not produced anything to:

- What international agreement authorizes this?

- What happens when all developing countries start demanding their economic stability?

- How is economic stability defined?

And most definitely nothing that addresses the original question:

- I am not able to see any way that we have the right to stop them.

All you have produced is that is better for other nations if Iran doesn't have nuclear capability. You have not produced anything that gives us the right to deny it to them.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1775 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 70):
Really, so you are saying if a dirty bomb is exploded in Israel, got there from Lebanon and has Iran fissionable material the UN, USA and EU would ok a nuclear strike by Israel on Iran?

Yes I think that would happen. I'm not condoning nuclear war, but look at the situation right now... it seems that we are on the brink of invading Iran. What do you think would happen if a nuke went off? When I said they'd be wiped out, I didn't mean they'd be carpet bombed with nukes (probably should have said that) but I believe that country would be invaded swiftly and harshly. Just look at the political situation now and imagine what it would be



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1777 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 70):
but the point is that the ME is not as large a market for the US military industrial complex as you might think.

I'm not even talking about foreign sales here...I just think that one of the largest drivers for US military expenditure right now is the potential for a Middle Eastern conflict to escalate into something larger. IMO the most likely threat scenario.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7201 posts, RR: 17
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1739 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 71):
We don't need to produce nukes. We have plenty of them. We have used them for decades.

We haven't actually used a nuke in combat since Nagasaki.

We've tested them up until I believe the 1990s or maybe before that (No one precisely knows because everyone was shoving the test ban treaty up eachother's arses)

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 75):
I am fed up with all this "stop Iran from building N bombs" brainwashing. Those responsible for all this pounding should look at their own nuclear arsenals.

Well we in the US aren't gonna use ours. We have our own way to obliterate populations- Justin Bieber   

i do wanna know though, why does everybody say Israel has nukes? Anyone have a sources that confirms or shows that Israel is nuclear-armed?



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 79):
We haven't actually used a nuke in combat since Nagasaki.

Actually we have, and still do. We use them as deterrent every day.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7201 posts, RR: 17
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1683 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 80):
Actually we have, and still do. We use them as deterrent every day.

There's a different between combat uses and deterrents



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1653 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 81):
There's a different between combat uses and deterrents

Where do you hope to take this? We have nukes. Several other nations have nukes. That they have not be used in anger is a sign we are getting the use we want from them.

So the original question is still unanswered. What is there to justify that we and a few other nations can have nukes but another nation can't?

All that has been proposed is versions of - We don't like what they can do if they have nukes. So while I completely agree with that sentiment I don't know what right we have to stop them anymore than they have the right to stop us from having nukes, or aircraft carriers, or stealth bombers, or drones.

I do not understand how it can be anything but double standards? Maybe you don't care? At least not as long as the people you like is the biggest bully. Or should that be biggest terrorist?


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7201 posts, RR: 17
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1652 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
Where do you hope to take this? We have nukes. Several other nations have nukes. That they have not be used in anger is a sign we are getting the use we want from them.

Where do I hope to take this? Well if this were a perfect world we'd all sit down and ask why we'd have them. People don't wanna do that, I.e. North Korea and Iran, so we have them just in case some crazy shit goes down.

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
So the original question is still unanswered. What is there to justify that we and a few other nations can have nukes but another nation can't?

Because we're responsible, democratic nations that espouse freedom. Sure your ideas of "freedom" may differ, but I'm pretty sure the US (or at least the political parties i support) espouse economic, religious, sexual (i.e. gay marriage), total freedom to do whatever you want so as long as it doesn't harm or break any serious law.

Because of this, we have our nukes because we are responsible with them. They're hiding underground in huge silos to prevent them from damage or misuse. You won't see that happen in N. Korea.

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
I do not understand how it can be anything but double standards? Maybe you don't care? At least not as long as the people you like is the biggest bully. Or should that be biggest terrorist?

Terrorists?


Here's an interesting thread: Oil sales are UP in Iran!
Iran Oil Sales Up - Fights Back Against Sanctions (by flightfan4ever Oct 9 2012 in Non Aviation)



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1899 posts, RR: 9
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1646 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 75):
Those responsible for all this pounding should look at their own nuclear arsenals.

Yeah because I'm shaking in my boots over the fact that the UK has nuclear weapons  
Quoting cmf (Reply 76):
- I am not able to see any way that we have the right to stop them.

Ever heard of "might makes right"? Throughout this whole thread you've been making an argument that the US has no "right" to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons and that attempting to stop them is an infringement of their sovereignty, and all I have to say is so what? I'll readily admit that the US and the West is obviously using coercion to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, but you're trying to transplant domestic US governing ideals onto the world which is implausible.

Where is it written in the US Constitution that we're not permitted to violate the sovereignty of other nations? National sovereignty of countries can be and is violated all the time...that's just the way the world works. Going by your logic we definitely shouldn't have fought the Civil War and violated the sovereignty of the Confederacy, nor should we have fought the Revolutionary War which violated the sovereignty of and "stole" territory from Great Britain. Bottom line being that violation of sovereignty happens all the time (whether passively or aggressively, knowingly or unknowingly), and rightly countries on both sides should be prepared to respond in ways they deem appropriate. Whether or not you agree with the reasoning behind the action being taken is a different story. I'm perfectly fine with the West coercing an unstable, undemocratic, theocratic, authoritarian government which oppresses and denies equal rights to it's own citizens from getting a nuclear weapon. You on the other hand seem to be perfectly fine with such a rogue, pariah state which spouts genocidal rhetoric having nuclear warheads so long as their sovereignty wasn't violated.

I would be perfectly fine with France or the UK having every single nuclear weapon in the world provided Iran would never get one, but alas that's just fantasy-talk unfortunately.

Quoting cmf (Reply 61):
Because if Iran said they would only remove the US regime you would think that is fine..

So you somehow find it morally equivalent that a secular, democratically-elected and run government be toppled to that of an abusive, theocratic, authoritarian government being toppled. Hmmm, that's a real jam figuring out which one would be the more tragic (sarcasm).

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 60):
they are against the Israeli government, that one "wipe off the map" mis-translation was talking about the Israeli regime.

Sure...just ignore all the other hideous things they've had to say about the Jews as a race, and try not to think about their "progressive" views on homosexuals, Christian converts, and women....those mullahs there in Iran really are a swell bunch, aren't they?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1646 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 83):
Where do I hope to take this?

Lot of platitudes but still nothing that address why our point of view is more valid than their point of view.

Not even the argument that they are not allowed to be able to disrupt our way of life is valid since we are already disrupting their way of life.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 83):
"I don't think you know what it means"

Pot, kettle, black.

If you were one of those suffering under sanctions just because someone think your country should not be allowed to have something other countries have and forcefully prevent you from getting it, then there is little difference compared to what the people you accept calling terrorists are doing?



The sum of the problem is that we fear the power they will have with nuclear weapons but we have no justification for denying it. If we had something I would not have raised the question but if asked anyway the rest of you would have no problem answering and defending it.

You certainly would be able to provide logical reasoning to support your argument in a constructive manner, as required by the forum rules, instead of posting a mime questioning my understanding of what is terrorism.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1621 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 85):
The sum of the problem is that we fear the power they will have with nuclear weapons but we have no justification for denying it. If we had something I would not have raised the question but if asked anyway the rest of you would have no problem answering and defending it.

The problem is that the principles of realpolitik already apply to the question you've asked, you are just not seeing it. Specific examples of how it applies were already provided but you continue to look for some kind of black-or-white absolutist perspective that simply does not exist in the current construct of modern international relations.

Quoting cmf (Reply 85):
If you were one of those suffering under sanctions just because someone think your country should not be allowed to have something other countries have and forcefully prevent you from getting it, then there is little difference compared to what the people you accept calling terrorists are doing?

If one accepts conventional definitions of terrorism, then that is far too broad a brush to be painting with. Suffering under sanctions is a pretty nebulous concept when you consider the various media-bound and socioeconomic filters that already permeate in places like Iran where sanctions are put in place, and on balance, already cause suffering of one type or another that is difficult to measure. This kind of equivocation statement is also a slippery slope in that one could just as easily say, "if you are suffering because someone somewhere else thinks their lifestyle takes precedence over yours" then we are potentially just as well equating ignorance or willful lack of action on a number of pressing world issues to also be a form of terrorism. Which, I might add, the vast majority of us are guilty of unless currently serving in the Peace Corps or devoting our careers to some non-aligned NGO.

No rational, moral person takes any pleasure or comfort from the fact that poverty, suffering, and the deaths of children in their parents' arms are regular daily occurrences the world over, but most of us are aware at some level that it is simply impractical to entertain notions of completely surrendering the lives we have been born into to eliminate all suffering everywhere.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1207 posts, RR: 3
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1597 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 83):
Because of this, we have our nukes because we are responsible with them. They're hiding underground in huge silos to prevent them from damage or misuse. You won't see that happen in N. Korea.

Responsible, haha. One little missile conflict in Cuba almost caused a nuclear war, just a bit more than 10 years before first nuclear weapon. I seriously doubt that those nuclear weapons are going to stay in their silos for next 500 years, human race is too violent not to use them at some point.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 83):
Because we're responsible, democratic nations that espouse freedom. Sure your ideas of "freedom" may differ, but I'm pretty sure the US (or at least the political parties i support) espouse economic, religious, sexual (i.e. gay marriage), total freedom to do whatever you want so as long as it doesn't harm or break any serious law.

Democrats maybe, Republicans certainly do not.

It's not that long time from the times when United States was still supporting right wing dictatorships all around the world to fight against all spread of communism, including democratic one.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1566 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 84):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 60):
they are against the Israeli government, that one "wipe off the map" mis-translation was talking about the Israeli regime.

Sure...just ignore all the other hideous things they've had to say about the Jews as a race, and try not to think about their "progressive" views on homosexuals, Christian converts, and women....those mullahs there in Iran really are a swell bunch, aren't they?

No, they are terrible. But don't you think there's a difference in being against an Israeli as a person/Jew and being against Israel's government/their actions? Don't you think, in dealing with this huge, sensitive problem, we should at least try and find out? It kind of changes the dynamic here



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1558 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 84):
Ever heard of "might makes right"?

So you're a bully.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 84):
but you're trying to transplant domestic US governing ideals onto the world which is implausible.

LOL. No, I'm applying the golden rule.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 84):
Going by your logic we definitely shouldn't have fought the Civil War

You think war is good?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 84):
So you somehow find it morally equivalent that a secular, democratically-elected and run government be toppled to that of an abusive, theocratic, authoritarian government being toppled. Hmmm, that's a real jam figuring out which one would be the more tragic (sarcasm).

Nice rewrite to avoid the question on the table.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 86):
The problem is that the principles of realpolitik already apply to the question you've asked, you are just not seeing it. Specific examples of how it applies were already provided but you continue to look for some kind of black-or-white absolutist perspective that simply does not exist in the current construct of modern international relations.

Realpolitik, Animal Farm is a better description.

If you don't follow the principles you preach... double standards.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 86):
If one accepts conventional definitions of terrorism, then that is far too broad a brush to be painting with. Suffering under sanctions is a pretty nebulous concept when you consider the various media-bound and socioeconomic filters that already permeate in places like Iran where sanctions are put in place, and on balance, already cause suffering of one type or another that is difficult to measure. This kind of equivocation statement is also a slippery slope in that one could just as easily say, "if you are suffering because someone somewhere else thinks their lifestyle takes precedence over yours" then we are potentially just as well equating ignorance or willful lack of action on a number of pressing world issues to also be a form of terrorism. Which, I might add, the vast majority of us are guilty of unless currently serving in the Peace Corps or devoting our careers to some non-aligned NGO.

I have no idea how you came up with the above definition. There is no single agreed definition but most are along the lines of "Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience"

Per the above there is no doubt it is terrorism.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 86):
No rational, moral person takes any pleasure or comfort from the fact that poverty, suffering, and the deaths of children in their parents' arms are regular daily occurrences the world over, but most of us are aware at some level that it is simply impractical to entertain notions of completely surrendering the lives we have been born into to eliminate all suffering everywhere.

How is this related to the subject at hand?


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1552 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 89):
How is this related to the subject at hand?

Making a point about the folly of absolutist thinking, since that is what you are continuing to push here.

Quoting cmf (Reply 89):
"Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience"

The part of the usual definition you are leaving out of this is that it is perpetrated by non-state actors.

Quoting cmf (Reply 89):
Realpolitik, Animal Farm is a better description.

Do you even know what it is? Realpolitik is exactly what we are talking about here. A commentary on failed Soviet leadership is a loose connection at best - unless one is willing to admit that the only constant in human governance is, in fact, corruption.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1899 posts, RR: 9
Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1549 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 88):
But don't you think there's a difference in being against an Israeli as a person/Jew and being against Israel's government/their actions?

Well, sure, however most people who mean to criticize one and not the other make the effort to specify...as if that's something so hard to do. Ahmadinejad believes the holocaust was a "myth" and regularly rails against Zionists and the "Zionist regime"...newsflash, any Jews who believe in the existence of a Jewish state are by definition Zionists, and since the "Zionist regime" is democratically elected by it's Zionist electorate, I'm not sure how one can really argue that "wiping the Zionist regime off the map" can be construed as a simple difference in opinion with the Israeli government.

Unless one seriously believes that the "Zionist regime" should be wiped off the map and all Jews forcibly expelled from the region (sound familiar, circa 1930's familiar?) be my guest, call me crazy though if I don't think that's a rational point on which to have civilized, diplomatic discussions with another nation, and that the world might not like the idea of you acquiring a nuclear weapon.


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1899 posts, RR: 9
Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1541 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 89):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 84):
Ever heard of "might makes right"?

So you're a bully.

Yep, and I'm perfectly fine bullying a suicidal, authoritarian, theocratic regime into not having a nuclear weapons.

Quoting cmf (Reply 89):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 84):
but you're trying to transplant domestic US governing ideals onto the world which is implausible.

LOL. No, I'm applying the golden rule.

Well that's perfectly fine and you're entitled to that opinion, but I don't believe in the golden rule when it comes to foreign policy.

Quoting cmf (Reply 89):
You think war is good?

Good? No one thinks that war is actually good, war is undesirable but sometimes necessary. All measures within reason should be taken for a peaceful resolution, however if none can be found and the danger great, then war can be the only necessary solution at times. Irrational avoidance of conflict can be just as dangerous as war-mongering.


User currently offlineflightfan4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1515 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 84):
Sure...just ignore all the other hideous things they've had to say about the Jews as a race, and try not to think about their "progressive" views on homosexuals, Christian converts, and women....those mullahs there in Iran really are a swell bunch, aren't they?

Most of the media reports concerning comments made about Israel are based upon a mistranslation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...and_Israel#Translation_controversy

If you wish to base your outlook upon a mistranslation with no basis in reality then I pity you.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8788 posts, RR: 24
Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1487 times:

Quoting flightfan4ever (Reply 93):
Most of the media reports concerning comments made about Israel are based upon a mistranslation:

Good God, man, how can you think this is all about a single comment rather than many years of constant and consistant hatred for Israel and Jews repeated over and over on a daily basis?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7803 posts, RR: 52
Reply 95, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1476 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 91):
and that the world might not like the idea of you acquiring a nuclear weapon.

I really wish they didn't. I think it'll be no good. I will not deny Iran has done/said some shady things.

That being said, I am not convinced that war should be the plan. If Iraq didn't happen I'd probably think we should strike them. But I think we should be more cautious, and I am not so dubious when I think of Iran and a nuke (I very very seriously doubt they'd use it.) But I am merely one vote



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1899 posts, RR: 9
Reply 96, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1453 times:

Quoting flightfan4ever (Reply 93):
If you wish to base your outlook upon a mistranslation with no basis in reality then I pity you.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 94):
Good God, man, how can you think this is all about a single comment rather than many years of constant and consistant hatred for Israel and Jews repeated over and over on a daily basis?

  
My assertion is not based on one mistranslated remark, but rather his usual tone/rhetoric. Is his statement that the holocaust is a myth a mistranslation? His disgust and calls for the destruction of the Zionist regime (aka the democratically elected Israeli government) a mistranslation? His belief that Zionists (aka any Jew supportive of the state of Israel, so the entire Israeli population) should be expelled from the region a mistranslation?


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
UN Passes Sanctions Against Iran posted Sat Dec 23 2006 21:43:18 by RJpieces
CIA Sought Material On UN Chief posted Fri Dec 3 2010 13:43:55 by TheCommodore
UN Weapons Inspectors , Are They Usefull Or Not? posted Sat Jan 11 2003 15:58:04 by Galaxy5
Iran Sanctions - Should Spare Parts Be Covered? posted Fri Jul 9 2010 01:07:18 by SKAirbus
Russia And China Approve Expanded Iran Sanctions posted Wed May 19 2010 17:57:09 by Aaron747
Iran On UN Commision Of Womens Status? posted Sun May 2 2010 06:17:07 by soon7x7
Russia, China Veto UN Sanctions Against Zimbabwe posted Fri Jul 11 2008 17:49:17 by HuskyAviation
Iran Sanctions Imposed By U.N. posted Sat Mar 24 2007 21:10:52 by Allstarflyer
Blair Threatens UN Action On Iran posted Wed Jan 11 2006 19:32:00 by BMIFlyer
Halliburton In Iran Despite Sanctions? posted Thu Mar 10 2005 18:55:38 by DIJKKIJK