Historic Deal Signed With Iran!

Skylinehead

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Maybe one of the terms permits Iran to fire nukes at Israel to solve that problem too.

Seaneh wrote: »

Where did the hell did you get that from?

Coupled with him going on about Israel's policies, it just seems to me like a form of justification. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Israel, but no.

Karl Stein

Skylinehead wrote: »

Coupled with him going on about Israel's policies, it just seems to me like a form of justification. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Israel, but no.

Even if we pretend that Iran had a nuclear arsenal that could be successfully delivered to Israel it's beyond reason that they'd commit nuclear suicide by using them.

Augmerson

Peace in our time.

Mr. Incognito

Please don't let this descend into an Israel pro and against thread. We've had enough threads on Israel already FFs.

I think it's a great deal. All diplomatic solutions are to be welcomed.

Skylinehead

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Even if we pretend that Iran had a nuclear arsenal that could be successfully delivered to Israel it's beyond reason that they'd commit nuclear suicide by using them.

Yeah, just a nuclear back and forth until everyones dead, doesn't solve a thing.

Karl Stein

Skylinehead wrote: »

Yeah, just a nuclear back and forth until everyones dead, doesn't solve a thing.

Surely, then, you're arguing for global nuclear decommissioning?

Don't bother though because, unfortunately, that genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in.

wretcheddomain

Skylinehead wrote: »

Coupled with him going on about Israel's policies, it just seems to me like a form of justification. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Israel, but no.

This:

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Even if we pretend that Iran had a nuclear arsenal that could be successfully delivered to Israel it's beyond reason that they'd commit nuclear suicide by using them.

My original post made an obviously tongue-in-cheek remark concerning the terms of the deal but this apparently wasn't obvious for some who'll use any comment, however rhetorical, as a means to demonise those critical of Israel.

hatrickpatrick

To a certain extent I support Iran's quest for nukes. Look, we all know they're not stupid enough to do something like nuking one of their neighbors, but think about it from their point of view: Iran has a f*ckload of oil and this has led, multiple times within the last century, to everyone else with a big gun assuming they have the right to sh!t all over Iranwhenever they like. The Americans overthrew Iran's democratically elected government because they had the temerity to stand up to American corporations exploiting their resources.

The not-so-talked-about purpose of nukes, and the real reason the West doesn't want Iran to have them, has nothing to do with bombing neighbors - it's simply a piece of leverage to use in order to make sure bigger world powers can't interfere in Iranian policy. Nukes are a method of maintaining national autonomy in the face of larger forces with imperial fancies.

tl;dr, I support a nuclear Iran because it'll be one step towards limiting the West's hegemony, which I'm sure I'm not the only person who is increasingly sickened by. Every country has the right to national sovereignty, and if that means people in the West pay more for their petrol then tough sh!t - we don't have any more or less rights than the people who live in Iran, all people being created equal (as per the founding document of the United States, indeed) and our welfare is not somehow more important than the welfare of those other humans just because they happen to be living in a different part of the planet.

Skylinehead

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Surely, then, you're arguing for global nuclear decommissioning?

Don't bother though because, unfortunately, that genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in.

Well in Israel/Iran's case it'd be nice. I don't think any of the superpowers is actually going to try anything.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

means to demonise those critical of Israel.

I said I wasn't a fan of Israel, so don't throw that crap at me.

wretcheddomain

Skylinehead wrote: »

I said I wasn't a fan of Israel, so don't throw that crap at me.

I did see that comment but you apparently didn't see mine where I specifically stated "some people", which doesn't necessarily include you. It was a wider brush stroke against those who do indeed adopt that tactic.

My name is URL

Kinda difficult not to mention Israel in this whole thing considering the power they hold when it comes to diplomacy and politics in the region. Not to mention the fact that they've already started with the fear-mongering and sabre rattling

At the beginning of the government's weekly meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the interim agreement reached Sunday between world powers and Iran in Geneva.

The agreement reached in Geneva is not a historic deal, but rather a historic mistake. It turns the world into a much scarier place, because now the world's most dangerous regime is taking significant steps towards acquiring the world's most dangerous weapon."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4457154,00.html

Hande hoche!

Bibi won't be happy.

hatrickpatrick

^ I'm no fan of Israel's policies myself either but TBH in my view this isn't about Israel, it's about something far more important - geopolitical power and whether or not any nation has the right to exploit another nation.

Call me cynical, but I honestly believe that the only reason the West opposes a nuclear Iran is because it'll make Iran harder to bully. To give you an analogy, the US and EU are like playground bullies who see the kid whose lunch money they used to steal going to the gym and bulking up, and they're pissed because they know they won't be able to rob him as easily in future now that he can beat the sh!t out of them if he wants to.

You'll find a lot of views like these around at the moment and TBH the West has only itself to blame. If it honestly believed that it could raise a generation to believe in all that rhetoric about freedom without us growing up and discovering how hideously hypocritical that was and being just a little pissed off about it...

Son Of A Vidic

Zebra3 wrote: »

Can we get the nuclear inspectors in to Israel next?

As convenient non-signatories of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).They can do as they please and ignore international norms. Something they quite have a penchant for.

WilyCoyote

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Even if we pretend that Iran had a nuclear arsenal that could be successfully delivered to Israel it's beyond reason that they'd commit nuclear suicide by using them.

Must disagree with you here O Man Of Many Nomenclatures . Could the appeal of 70 virgins giving head per capita, not tip the balance in that direction?

wretcheddomain

Benjamin Netanyahu:
"What was achieved last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, it was a historic mistake."

1) At least he recognised something was achieved.

2) Something can be both a historical agreement and a historic mistake, they're not mutually exclusive as is presented here.

3) It wasn't a historic mistake...that definition is the sole property of Israel, and occupied as such.

As the Israeli's might say, that pretty much settles it...

mrsoundie

dlm wrote: »

The N Koreans haven't had much success with their nukes so far.

Their 2006 tests fizzled so was an outright failure. 2009 was a success but only around 3 kilotons and 2013 test emitted no radiation so it may only been a fake nuclear explosion using conventional explosives.

The Chinese know how to build nukes so if the North Koreans were given some they'd wouldn't be trying to showing off with duds and fakes.

Imagine going to Kim jong Un and telling him it was a dud. :eek:

getzls

Seaneh wrote: »

I'd say the only think holding Israel back is that even though their government is a shower of crazy bigots, they aren't actually stupid enough to try and **** with Iran.

Iran has vowed to wipe Israel out.

To state the obvious, Israel will not let that happen.

Who can blame them if they attacked Iran.

Nodin

getzls wrote: »

Iran has vowed to wipe Israel out..

Simplistic tosh which doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

getzls wrote: »

To state the obvious, Israel will not let that happen.

Who can blame them if they attacked Iran.

The majority of states on the planet, I'd imagine.

You realise that a lot of retaliation for any strike would be asymmetrical? Personally I don't fancy the thought of innocents suffering for a bunch of political hawks.

getzls

Nodin wrote: »

Simplistic tosh which doesn't hold up to scrutiny.



The majority of states on the planet, I'd imagine.
.

The Iranian leader stated that less than two years ago.

Has he told you he has changed his mind?

Frank Garrett

Seaneh wrote: »

I'd say the only think holding Israel back is that even though their government is a shower of crazy bigots, they aren't actually stupid enough to try and **** with Iran.

A shower of crazy bigots vs. a shower of crazy bigots.

You'd have to be pretty mentally retarded to choose sides.

Nodin

getzls wrote: »

The Iranian leader stated that less than two years ago.

Has he told you he has changed his mind?

....that would be the Iranian leader who fell into disfavour and is no longer in power following the recent election....?

getzls

Nodin wrote: »

....that would be the Iranian leader who fell into disfavour and is no longer in power following the recent election....?

He is not the President.

Though he is the supreme leader.

Nodin

getzls wrote: »

He is not the President.

Though he is the supreme leader.

You've a source for that?

getzls

Nodin wrote: »

You've a source for that?

Try the internet.

Do you think Iran poses no threat to Israel?

Bog Standard User

Mr. Tom wrote: »

Here's a Link.

http://flamesnation.ca/uploads/Image/weak%20link.jpg


israel you are the weakest link... goodbye

Nodin

getzls wrote: »

Try the internet.?

The "internet" didn't make the claim, you did. As a result, I'm asking you. Seeing as you have more knowledge of the supposed threat than me, it should take little effort to provide a source, thus allowing the discussion to progress.

getzls wrote: »

Do you think Iran poses no threat to Israel?

Iran will not attack Israel with nuclear weapons, because it would be destroyed in the retaliatory strikes.

It may pose a threat to Israels military dominance over the region, which is no bad thing. Iran, for all its flaws, is not colonising areas outside its borders.

Karl Stein

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Must disagree with you here O Man Of Many Nomenclatures . Could the appeal of 70 virgins giving head per capita, not tip the balance in that direction?

The Persians are not Al Queda.

arybvtcw0eolkf

getzls wrote: »

Do you think Iran poses no threat to Israel?

More an annoyance than any real threat.. And although Israel would defeat Iran in a war the cost/scale would be nothing like anyone here can remember.

I think adding any nukes into the cess pit of the Middle East & Persia is a very bad idea... Regardless who has the damned things, including Israel.

I'd have to remind myself and bring myself up to date but is Iran still declares itself an enemy of Israel then its entirely legitimate for Israel to attack Iran and deny them of their nukes.. You can legitimately attack your enemies country, its cities, ports, shipping channels etc.. but hopefully it doesn't come to that while we have troops serving in the region (or even after their deployment ceases).

getzls

Iran with a nuke will i believe attack Israel sometime in the future