dexterm

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Previous international investigations along similar lines failed to either actually investigate or seriously condemn the other side, focusing on Israel instead. Since the Hamas is not about to fully cooperate in any transparent way, why assume this is more than lip service?

 

Quite amusing though. Had the investigation been called off, or if findings fail to reach your standard of Israel hatred, I'm pretty sure the court would not receive quite the high regard exhibited above. Similarly, can already imagine the criticism on court's rulings with regard to the Hamas, if these won't be mild enough to ignore.

>>Since the Hamas is not about to fully cooperate in any transparent way, why assume this is more than lip service?

And Israel has vowed not to cooperate in any way!

It should be pretty easy to document Hamas's indiscriminate firing of rockets into civilian areas.

Equally easy to investigate would be Israel firing shells and missiles into identified civilian buildings, at children playing football on a beach, families murdered while holding white flags trying to seek safety, medics targeted by snipers positioned behind double steel fences and paraplegics whose crime was waving Palestiinian flags by the Gaza fence.

As you agreed above, the war crime of Israel illegally transferring its own population to occupied Palestinian land is well documented.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I did not put words in your mouth, and stop with your bogus "against forum rules" bit. After a series of posts which basically amount to 'it's not fair', 'it's not right', 'it ain't nice' - hard to call it any other way.

 

People choose or support leaders for all sort of reasons, not just the one you mentioned. And even so, it can be argued that trying to amend the agreement would contribute more to overall stability long term. If you wish to pretend believing every politician is a righteous boy scout, that's up to you.

 

 

Holding that reality is more complex than your over-simplistic narrative is not "muddying the waters".

 

To use your own 'argument' - one could claim that if Iran was truly interested in stability, or getting out of this mess, it would simply cease uranium enrichment, and do whatever it takes to restore the agreement. It could be said that Iran failing to do so, focusing on 'you go first', 'Trump reneged on the agreement' and so on is pathetic and gambling with people's lives.

 

But, obviously, such moralizing or 'reasoning' is only ever applied to other parties, not those you support.

 

As for your scaremongering - there is no war, and there are no nuclear weapons. Get a grip.

TVF rule 16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.
...You are using quotation marks to quote words that I did not write. Stop doing so please. If you want to fantasize and paraphrase, then paraphrase, but don't misquote.

Well, I suppose your it is what is routine and "reality is more complex" is at least a variation on your usual obfuscatory theme of it's all in the too hard basket .

More disinformation
>>one could claim that if Iran was truly interested in stability, or getting out of this mess, it would simply cease uranium enrichment, and do whatever it takes to restore the agreement. It could be said that Iran failing to do so, focusing on 'you go first', 'Trump reneged on the agreement' and so on is pathetic and gambling with people's lives.

"do whatever it takes to restore the agreement" i.e. roll over,Iran, allow us to renege on the deal we originally signed but about which we have since changed our minds.  Allow us to set new terms that will emasculate your defenses. And allow Macron to help us do it.

Iran has offered to cease uranium enrichment immediately and simultaneously when USA lifts sanctions.

Trump did renege on the agreement. The peace wrecking ball proposed a long list of impossible preconditions to recomply, basically telling Iran to stop defending itself, so that Israel can act with impunity. Which he knew Iran could only refuse. Biden is doing the same.

Iran has offered synchronized detente through an EU mediator. Biden is the one insisting Iran 'you go first' while at the same time hinting he may want to change US obligations when it's his turn. Who can blame Iran for mistrusting USA?

Iran's offer of slowly slowly this for that, then this...is perfectly reasonable and understandable in the circumstances. Solves the Mexican standoff. Could all be done over a period of days/weeks, and the world could breath more easily. The ball's in Biden's court.

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

This has nothing to do with my personal compass. I'm stating how things are, that's all. Kinda low coming from someone often moaning about 'besmirching'.

 

Unless you missed it, politicians say fine things on certain occasions, and do a whole lot of not so nice things most of the time. That too, is how it is. You want to pretend otherwise? Your choice.

 

How is the JCPOA not broken?

 

The JCPOA was, maybe (or even probably), the best they could manage at the time and under prevailing conditions. Things changed (yes, Trump was bad) and currently there are different conditions and, perhaps, an opening for forging a more comprehensive version of the same agreement. I get the objections, sort of, but not the vehemence accompanying them. If anything you of all posters should be cheering for it - both for the faux 'great humanist' bit, and the anti-Israel angle.

 

 

The argument that it is what it is is your usual bunkum muddying the waters routine.

If Biden really wants Iran to stop producing enriched uranium, he can do so today. Sign the deal that he and his President Obama negotiated.

If Biden does not want Iran to stop producing enriched uranium, and is thus looking for a pretext to start a war, then make Iran an offer he knows they will refuse by moving the goalposts, which is what he and Macron are currently doing.

If there's a problem with that, it's of Biden's making.

If he's shilly shallying because he wants to appear tough with Iran to please his domestic audience, then it's pathetic brinkmanship, gambling with people's lives. So much for the new US diplomacy.

If that causes a war, or Iran gaining nuclear weapons, then it's squarely Biden's fault.

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Going on and on about 'the world isn't fair' is not much of discussion. I think I've addressed the reasons for the USA's stance on several comments now, you keep ignoring or deflecting rather obvious considerations and points made.

Please don't put words in my mouth by misquoting me, which is against forum rules.

If you want to fantasize about what you think are my opinions, don't use quotation marks.

We pay our leaders to make the world a better and safer place. If you cynically believe that every politician has to be some sort of Machiavelli, that's your problem.

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Because tensions are what they are, and that's how it is.

You seem to ignore that the agreement's status, as far as the USA goes, is less solid than what you claim it to be. The constant references to 'how honest people behave' and all that - you do realize we're talking about international politics, right? You do realize that if Iran was playing straight there would have been no JCPOA, sanctions and the current mess, right?

Yes, it is what it is.

>>The constant references to 'how honest people behave' and all that - you do realize we're talking about international politics, right?

..ROFL So this is your moral compass? I wish Biden had brought up your point in his inauguration speech.

Iran was complying with a nuclear non proliferation deal.

If it ain't broke; don't fix it!

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yawn.

No, that's an accurate representation of reality. Countries are not equal, but posses different levels of power and clout. You seem to understand this perfectly well when cheer-leading China's actions and policies.

>>Countries are not equal, but posses different levels of power and clout.

Might is right. Got it.

How about trying to make the world a safer and perhaps even better place? Biden can halt US involvement in his country's shameful contribution to massacre and famine in Yemen with the stroke of a pen. How about doing the same to end nuclear proliferation in the Middle East? The deal's already negotiated..just sign it.

41 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

The JCPOA can be restored. But at this point in time, one party is still out, and one party is moving further and further into non-compliance and breach of terms territory. So no, not baloney, just the usual matter of what is vs. what may be. I think the 'problem' is more about attitudes such as you represent, focusing on pointing fingers and vehemence.

 

Kindly don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about it being 'ok' to pressure Iran. What I did say is that often how politics and diplomacy work. You want to pretend the world works otherwise or go on about 'diplomatic ethics' go right ahead. Guess no issues when Iran plays the same games, but eh.

 

As for trusting the USA (or for that matter, any other signatory) it's always a sort of a gamble. The expectation is that countries will exhibit some measure of continuity when it comes to such things, but that's not always  the case. When it comes to this specific agreement, the warning lights were flashing even when it was on the drawing board. Obama did not have enough political support to push it through, but went ahead anyway. It might have been a mistake. It's the same way for Iran - whatever they sign up for, their supreme leader can renege on later.

 

The negotiations were indeed lengthy - and that was implied with regard to China and Russia's stance. The final push to sign the agreement was rushed, and was accompanied by several 'deadlines' which were used to promote the sense of urgency. Please stop with the nonsense bits about my personal position - clarified on plenty of posts, including one above. The agreement was the best that could have been achieved under the prevailing circumstances, one of them being Obama's political situation. That goes back to the point about rushing to sign the agreement.

As for the 'untrustworthy', no. The USA, under Trump proving to be untrustworthy is one thing. Iran was not 'keeping it's word' so much as being under a strict regime not leaving them much room to do so. The reason for this inspection regime was precisely because Iran was deemed untrustworthy. Refer to the JCPOA's origins - namely, Iran's non-compliance issues with the NPT.
 

You can call leveraging an advantage cheating, but that's nothing more than schoolyard take on global politics and diplomacy. The same goes for the faux assumption that the playing field is level, or that parties are of equal standing and strength. Welcome to the real world.

 

Neither the USA nor France want Iran to develop nuclear weapons. If it was otherwise they wouldn't bother with the agreement to begin with. It's just that they seem to think they can that (Iran not developing nuclear weapons) and bit more. Two of the major issues raised are Iran's ballistic missile program and Iran's regional activities. Neither of these does much for promoting a more stable, or peaceful Middle East. Why would you be so upset about these being (potentially )curtailed some?

 

Your threats about wars and nuclear arms are dully noted.

 

I quoted your words directly. Let readers be the judge of who's telling the truth. 

>> and one party is moving further and further into non-compliance and breach of terms territory.
..hogwash. Blaming the victim as usual.
One party, Trump,  abruptly moved into non compliance 4 years ago! and has been bullying Iran and the rest of the world into non compliance ever since!

Iran says it could halt enrichment within days and surrender any enriched material! Will the USA fulfil its side of the bargain?

The USA, Israel, and Saudi Arabia who all destabilize the Middle East, want to emasculate Iran to prevent Iran from defending itself.

They don't want Iran to have ballistic missiles, but its OK for them to be able to rain them down on Iran with impunity.

Honor the current nuclear deal. Get nuclear weapons off the table.

Then negotiate a comprehensive Middle East peace agreement to deal with all other issues...Israel's nuclear arsenal that US admins have repeatedly turned a hypocritical blind eye to might be one of them for starters!

18 minutes ago, candide said:

Exactly. The tension has probably been too high to allow for immediate direct negotiations, so a broker would be useful in order to avoid loss of face issues. It could be Macron or someone else, but he may not be the worst option.

Why the need for a broker as though there isn't already an agreement signed by Iran, France and 5 others? All Biden need do is send off an envoy to resign the deal that Trump reneged on.

If you have a contract or agreement...negotiated over more than two years, shaken hands on it, signed, officially stamped, you wait until the contract is close to renewal to renegotiate terms. Well, that's how honest people behave.

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

If arms sales to regional players would bar parties from being mediator or brokers, than the whole lot of the countries represented in the JCOPA would be dismissed (including Iran). If parties had no vested interests in the region they might not have bothered with the agreement all that much.

 

It's fine rejecting Macron as a broker, just not along the lines suggested. It could be claimed, for example, that he does not represent major clout, doesn't have the trust or backing of parties involved and so on. Making the objection about arms sales is daft.

 

For most intents and purposes, the JCPOA is in tatters. The state of things regionally and internationally shifted as well. Sanctifying a return to the original agreement is alright, but ignores two considerations -

 

(1) Iran is in a weaker position and further concessions can be bargained. That would be 'unfair' inasmuch as international relations have a whole lot to do with 'fairness'. And whether some on here like it or not, it would contribute to a more stable Middle East.

 

(2) The signing or the original agreement was a rushed affair, mainly (IMO) due to Obama's term coming to an end. That meant that certain issues were left out, with Iran capitalizing on the USA political schedule and the concern among Western parties about Russia and China playing along if things were to drag out.

 

If I understand correctly, you do not object to terms being amended or renegotiated as such, just not at this time? If so, then what's the rationale of treating the agreement as hallowed?

 

As for statements such as "Iran wasn't the untrustworthy partner, the US was!"  - The USA, under Trump, did renege on the deal, sure. That doesn't make Iran into a 'trustworthy' partner. Nothing related to this agreement relies on trust, when it comes to Iran, hence the strict terms applied. And to remind, the JCPOA came about after Iran proved itself 'untrustworthy' through non-compliance with the NPT.

 

I doubt Biden wants the JCPOA to fail, especially given he appointed two architects of the agreement to key positions. Similarly, Macron got no real interest in seeing things fall apart, either. Israel's position, which you routinely paint as uniform is not quite that, and Saudi Arabia might wish many things, but it still doesn't make them a reality.

 

Would Iran be more open to renegotiate terms or amend the deal to include further issues if the agreement is restored? I kinda doubt it. Open an agreement to extension two years before it's end? What would be Iran's motivation to do that? By then, it would be in a much better place economy-wise, and a couple of years' worth of delays and 'negotiations', or even sanctions are something it could handle.

 

The bottom line is that the circumstances allow some parties to get an advantage. I think what's on the table now is just how much will be conceded.

>>For most intents and purposes, the JCPOA is in tatters.
..Baloney! Biden seems to think Iran can restore compliance within weeks, and so does Iran. The US admin is the problem who wants to renegotiate a promise already agreed upon.

>> Iran is in a weaker position and further concessions can be bargained. 
So you're saying it's OK to continue reneging on a deal that was working and ratified in the UN Security Council, because Trump broke the word of the USA. Therefore it is now fine to take advantage of Trump's duplicity. It's OK to kick a man you just knocked to the ground...because you can. And that's what you call a diplomatic way to prevent nuclear proliferation? So much for diplomatic ethics.

How can Iran trust any US administration if you accept that it is normal to backtrack on anything already agreed. Who's to say, the goalposts won't be moved again in 4 years' time?

>>The signing or the original agreement was a rushed affair, mainly (IMO) due to Obama's term coming to an end. That meant that certain issues were left out, with Iran capitalizing on the USA political schedule and the concern among Western parties about Russia and China playing along if things were to drag out.
..nonsense. It involved over 2 years of negotiations, and was the best that could possibly be agreed to by all parties, and still is if you really want to halt Iran's nuclear program. You do want that...well don't you? Of course that was before the US and now apparently France changed its mind.

>> The USA, under Trump, did renege on the deal, sure. That doesn't make Iran into a 'trustworthy' partner.
..Thank you. Trump broke his word..sure! Iran kept theirs..as the weapons inspectors confirmed.

>>Would Iran be more open to renegotiate terms or amend the deal to include further issues if the agreement is restored? I kinda doubt it.
..yes and so do I, and so does Biden. And that is the name of France's, Israel's, Saudi Arabia's and Biden's game. They are trying to make Iran an offer that they know Iran will refuse. So that they can conveniently play the blame game.

>>The bottom line is that the circumstances allow some parties to get an advantage.
..that's a nice euphemism for saying: the USA and France can cheat and lie if they can get away with it.

The real bottom line is. Does France, USA want Iran to develop nuclear weapons or not? Iran will willingly return to an agreement that was working. They are willing to do so in a slowly slowly you show me yours, I'll show you mine approach...and I don't blame them! Biden is saying: go back to exactly what you Iran were doing before i.e full compliance ..err ...but maybe we won't quite be doing the same.

Does Biden actually want Iran to end its nuclear enrichment or not? Or would he prefer Iran to be the scapegoat allowing Israel or even US forces to attack Iran? 

if war breaks out or Iran gains a nuclear weapon, just remember it was the USA who continued reneging on a deal that was working.

OP: "U.S. President Joe Biden has said if Tehran returns to the pact, Washington would do so as well and would then seek to build a broader pact to also deal with Iran's development of ballistic missiles and support for proxy forces in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere."

If Biden means: re-join the original deal...lift sanctions in return for the end of enrichment - good! Get the possible nuclear weapons part off the table....the agreement's original purpose. So that we can all breath more easily again.  

Then, sort out the ballistic missiles and the proxy forces bit in a separate agreement, as part of a comprehensive Middle East peace deal including ALL the players: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Gulf states, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Israel and the Palestinians.

If Biden tries to lump all the issues together in a single package, as Trump did, it will be a non starter.

If Biden achieves both parts separately, there's a Nobel Peace Prize in it for him.

9 hours ago, puchooay said:

Having been living in UK since before the start of the pandemic I can tell you one thing from personal experience and observations.

 

Lockdown or no lockdown, late or on time lockdown, mask or no mask, test and trace or no test and trace, Johnson or any other PM, the results would have been much the same.

 

It is the public that is at fault. People walking in shops, supermarkets, in the country, along the promenade or just down the street. A large percentage of the population just aren't taking any notice.

 

In Morrison last week and must have had half a dozen people brush past me as I was stationary. 

 

Only this morning I passed 4 women, all with kids in pushchairs, standing on the corner of our street chatting. No distance and no face masks.

 

The rules have been there but no one is taking much notice.

 

Many care homes are a joke too. The media have made it sound like PPE is a new thing when it isn't. Care homes have been using it for years. My wife and daughter work in a care home. There has never been a shortage of PPE. Why? Because the management did not hang about and wait for guidance or handouts. They bought there own supplies from the many suppliers that had a mountain of stock. They also quickly set up their own quarantine area for those infected or residents arriving there from hospital. Any care home management team that are worthy if their position should have been able to make these decisions too.

 

Can't hold the PM responsible, whatever his name is or whether you like him/her or not, for the behaviour of the whole population. 

So how do you account for the fact that total covid deaths stats are:

UK 94,580 deaths !! 

whereas,

Thailand (similar sized population, not as developed and not even an island) 71 deaths total
Australia (where most of population are crowded into coastal cities) 909 deaths total
New Zealand (where most of population are crowded into coastal cities) 25 deaths total

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Either the Brits are an extraordinarily disobedient people, or they have had very poor leadership. Got a feeling it's the latter.

2 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Your not getting what I am saying, I mean we are all going to die eventually, not advising the ages to me is creating fear among the populations, if it was reported correctly, e.g. 1,785 elderly people passed today due to Covid, then that is who passed, by not disclosing ages/statistics, it as I said before creates fear when it shouldn't, ok, wash hands, social distance, wear a mask, stay away from the elderly, but 1,875 people died of Covid today isn't really telling us which people died, the elderly, middle age, the young.

 

If you can't see what I am on about, I give up.

Because if that were true, it would only encourage younger people with the attitude "I'm all right Jack. This doesn't affect me. Therefore I can flout the rules."

Some folks, would you believe, are irresponsible. What's the point of inspire some age groups to be complacent?

Besides, Google: how old youngest covid death victim

You'll get plenty of hits. Youngest so far I found was 13 days old.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-06-18/thirteen-day-old-baby-covid-19-victim-is-believed-to-be-youngest-person-to-die-from-coronavirus-in-the-uk

5 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

They can't be that intelligent if they keep getting caught in fishing nets. And doubt they are any more sentient than cows, pigs or other animals you are happy to eat....which are farmed and killed in horrific conditions. 

So would you torture to a slow death sentient mammals such as yours or your neighbor's dog, cat or horse? Speaks volumes about you if that's what you turn a blind eye to. Turn yourself in to the nearest FBI psychopath profiling unit.

Cows, sheep and pigs are killed humanely where I live, for those who want to eat them. It's forbidden to kill whales or dolphins, unlike the Japanese.

Try being a vegetarian. Seriously think about it;  you'll live much longer than Japanese whales (71 years in case you wondered).

19 minutes ago, Natai Beach said:

Agree with Boris on this one, even if it is just a side diversion.

 

i am sure that will go down well when he is negotiating the new trade agreement with Japan. 
 

The Brits also recently were complaining about the coconut monkeys. About a month ago I was looking at some land and we heard moaning and a hand raised in the grass. 
 

A 21 year old Thai bloke had been picking coconuts on the unoccupied land and fell. He had been there for a few hours already and was covered in ants already. If we hadn’t of decided to take a look at the land, nobody would have found him and he would have died, as the owner of the land doesnt live there.
Broke his back, ruined his life. 
 

At least the monkey was ok.
 

 

Johnson may be doing the Japanese a favor. Whaling is not even a viable commercial enterprise in Japan.

"The Japanese government subsidises whaling to the tune of nearly US$10 million per year."
https://au.whales.org/our-4-goals/stop-whaling/whaling-in-japan/#:~:text=As a result high subsidies,US%2410 million per year.

5 minutes ago, MasterBaker said:

i think one should look at the number of tests conducted not at number of infections found by itself

How about looking at death certificates due to Johnson's incompetence? There's something unequivocal about mortality.