Jump to content

Morch

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    27,543
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Posts posted by Morch

  1. 47 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

    Back on topic, I agree with Meechai.  It would be FAR better if ALL countries agreed to get rid of nuclear weapons, but although Iran is less 'trustable' than Israel - nonetheless it's incomprehensible why there was no fuss about Israel gaining nuclear weapons!

     

    All countries getting rid of their nuclear weapons ain't on the menu. Getting countries already in possession of nuclear military capability to give it up is extremely complicated, and possibly futile. What remains is to limit the proliferation so that further instances won't arise. That's one reason it makes sense to focus an effort on Iran - precisely because it doesn't have the capability yet. Might not be fair, but in practical terms, and if making a global consideration - that's the way to go.

     

    As for the "no fuss" - I think Israel achieved nuclear military capability somewhere in the mid 60's. The NPT came about at the late 60's early 70's, if memory serves. And, of course, different times - the Cold War was on, and perceptions of Israel were nothing like they are today.

     

    Again, it may not be "fair" - but fair got little to do with things, nor is it, perhaps, a key concept when it comes to non-proliferation.

  2.  

    As usual, Netanyahu overdoes things with his hyperbole. Other than rubbing it in, scoring some points with Trump and his base at home, he'd probably get better cooperation if he toned it down some.

     

    Much like Trump, Netanyahu position on this differs from views expressed by Israel's military and intelligence services. Their views relate more closely to Macron's - the agreement was acceptable, and a better result than could be hoped for otherwise.

     

    When it comes to Iran's regional ambitions and activities, or to its ballistic missile program, there's more of a common ground between the European position and Israel's. The differences relate less to the desirability of curbing these, and more as to the effective ways of achieving these goals. Interestingly enough, seems like Russia is at least partially on the same page there.

     

    The European point of view (which I agree with), is that addressing such issues (and even issues directly pertaining to the Iran Deal), are better handled while keeping the framework of the JCPOA. There's no need to flush the whole thing down the toilet.

     

    As for the effects of US economic pressure (as in the existing and new sanctions concerning Iran) -  remains to be seen, but I think there are indications that they are more effective than some posters previously asserted. This seems to stem both from the EU's response being more talk than action, and the choice between dealing with Iran and being banned from dealing with the US making things a bit of no-brainier for large firms.

     

    This doesn't make Trump's position righteous or even right. It simply implies that loath as some may be to accept this, the US clout and leverage are still very much effective. Thus allowing Trump to promote his foreign policy, misguided as it may be.

     

    On this score, though - given that at the same time Trump seems to have managed getting into trade wars with pretty much all parties involved, it remains to be seen how (or if) this will be reflected in the effectiveness of the sanctions regime.

    • Like 1
  3. Just now, Grouse said:

    Don't try and be clever; you're not quick enough. Read your post and the links. You clearly glorify Trumps action and the resulting responses.

     

    Disregarding your petty insults...Clearly how?

     

    There was a lot of high talk about how Europe will stand up to the new sanctions laid by Trump's administration. My point of view on this was somewhat more skeptical. Despite this tough stance, several major European companies (for example Maersk, Tota and now, PSA) acted differently.

     

    My position was that while Trump's move was wrong, and things could have been better handled working within the framework of the agreement - the new sanctions would be more effective than some were willing to believe. There is no endorsement of Trump's policies involved, and obviously, no "glorification" other than in your mind.

     

    Similarly, there was nothing said to such effect regarding Iran's statements on resuming enrichment. If anything, it was commented upon as still being within the framework of the JCPOA, and described as a "bad omen".

     

  4.  

    @dexterm

     

    You can try to nitpick and twist things all you like - but bottom line, Khemenei's tweet does refer to Israel. That you wish to spin it otherwise, makes no difference whatsoever. It's you vs. facts again. And regardless of your nonsense, doubt most people interpret his words other than as they sound, or make allowances for the lame interpretations you dabble in, and rightly so. It would take holding extreme, vile views such as yours, in order to support such an Iranian version of regime change, or to treat it as anything but a direct threat to Israel. Far as I recall, you're pretty much against regime change notions when applied to, say, Iran.

     

    Trying to spin things as a "witch hunt" against Iran, would require ignoring Iran's history of breaching agreements and violating understandings. The JCPOA was not put in place for no reason whatsoever. It was (or is) in place, precisely because of Iran's conduct. There was strong opposition to the Iran Deal in the US, which led Obama to advance things they way he did, and make do with that. You wish to make up another version, go ahead.

     

    The same goes for your assertions as to which countries are a threat to the US. Iran was considered a threat to the US during Obama's term as well. And other than in your agenda driven hyperbolic posts, there is no war.

     

    Doubt you'll find a post of mine supportive of Trump's withdrawal from the Iran Deal - barking up the wrong tree there.

  5. 14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

    I’m not convinced Trump will last that long.

     

    Yes, two way street re gas/cash but turning off the gas is immediately effective, a mere ‘accidental’ disruption may easily be read as a warning to ease up on Russia.

     

    The EU getting into bed with Russia, not a chance though authoritarians with rightwing political parties (and there sponsors) are clearly open to the idea.

     

    Turning off the gas, as you put it, means no revenues. Even if this was to happen - not exactly a basis for friendly relations and a shift of alliance. It's leverage, that's all. And I think Europe might take some steps to improve its situation in the not so far future (for example, Mediterranean partnerships).

     

    IMO, Europe ought to try and weather the storm, as far as Trump goes (or rather, until he goes away). Standing up to him and all that, but not letting things getting out of hand. At the same time, come up with ways to ensure its independence could be better guarded in the future. Stave off advances and plots by Putin, and address issues making secessionist forces popular. Once Trump's gone, drive a hard bargain with the next POTUS, possibly setting some new grounds rules regarding the relations.

  6. 43 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:


    We, as 'we' are against sanctions against Iran. We, as Britain, Europe, Russia and China don't want sanctions against Iran.

     

    And yet, you do not speak for any "we". All the more so when the "we" was coupled with "on planet earth".

     

    There are restrictions and sanctions in place, which have nothing to do with the US withdrawing from the JCPOA. Some of these are also enforced by the EU (and, I believe, the UK as well). So painting it as if "we" are all in favor of no such whatsoever is misleading.

     

    Same goes for your nonsense comment about "everybody knows that Iran is harmless". That's just you trying to co-opt some imaginary wall-to-wall support for your propaganda.

  7.  

    @dexterm

     

    As pointed out in my post, the deflections and spins were expected.

     

    The first link provided leads to the tweet in question. Note that it refers to Israel. And does not mention Zionism. As per script, you simply ignored that and trudged on with your usual vehement propaganda.

     

    As for Merkel's comment - it can easily be found on other venues. The WaPO free access depends on usage and location, hence another link provided.

     

    If you wish to pretend that he focal point here was poster's hyperbole about "Iran firing nuclear missiles", rather than Iran's stance toward Israel - that's entirely up to you. In effect, it reads like irrelevant nitpicking nonsense. If anything, Khamenei's words are a fine reminder of the danger posed by Iran coming to possess such weapons.

     

    There is no "witch hunt" against Iran. Iran breached signed agreements (NPT), and further understandings for years - hence the sanctions regime, and the JCPOA. The Iran Deal is not a testimony of Iran's innocence and goodwill, quite the opposite.

     

    Your extreme, hateful, one-sided regarding Israel are public knowledge. And it is not surprising that you'll identify with the views of vile people such as Khemenei (while at the same time, claiming to be a great humanist etc.). Note again, that Khemenei's words did not apply the bogus differentiation you employ. Nor is it possible for Iran to carry out an attack differentiating the two. Waffle on.

     

    Try as you might to hijack the topic as a platform for your standing agenda, the topic is Iran.

    • Like 1
  8. 57 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

    Punitive Duties against the EU, Sanctions against Iran and Russia:

    Since the bully Trump resided in the white house, the usa is no longer internationally reliable. That could lead to Europe looking for Moscow's proximity. Increasing cooperation at the economic level supports this assumption.

     

    Unlikely. The EU having a rough time with Trump, doesn't mean their stance vs. Russia changed much. But it's alright to fantasize.

    • Like 1
  9. 8 minutes ago, dexterm said:

    >>state  openly and clearly their intent is to destroy israel with nuclear bombs seems to have escaped you 

    ...that's not true. Can you provide links for that please.

     

     

    Ready your deflections and spins:

     

    Quote

    Our stance against Israel is the same stance we have always taken. #Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen

    https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784

     

    The Israeli Embassy's response would apply to yourself as well.

     

    Merkel condemns Iran tweet but still backs nuclear deal

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iaea-chief-renews-call-to-iran-to-cooperate-on-inspections/2018/06/04/7f68c54e-67df-11e8-a335-c4503d041eaf_story.html?utm_term=.73fe6bb800fe

     

    Israel Responds With 'Mean Girls' GIF After Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei's Nuclear Threats

    http://www.newsweek.com/israel-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-mean-girls-regina-george-iran-twitter-embassy-957440

     

     

    • Like 1
  10. Yet another European company gets cold feet over Iran:

     

    Peugeot Maker Halts Iran Expansion, Yielding to U.S. Sanctions

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-04/peugeot-maker-halts-iran-expansion-yielding-to-u-s-sanctions

     

    And Iran raises the stakes:

     

    Iran to inform IAEA of start of process to boost uranium enrichment capacity: ISNA

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-iaea/iran-to-inform-iaea-of-start-of-process-to-boost-uranium-enrichment-capacity-isna-idUSKCN1J02ZU

     

    Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei orders country's atomic energy body to prepare for uranium enrichment capacity upgrade

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-nuclear-deal-uranium-enrichment-supreme-leader-ali-khamenei-atomic-energy-trump-a8383076.html

     

    If I understand correctly, this is still within the parameters of the JCPOA (aka the "Iran Deal"), if not a particularly good omen.

  11. 4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

    You miss my point.

     

    I don’t expect all Trump supporters to defend his assertions that he is above the law, I don’t even expect the diehards to either.

    My point is, here in these assertions of being above the law Trump goes beyond what is defendable in a democracy.

     

    We are seeing exactly where Trump wishes to take America, into tyrrany.

     

     

     

    I didn't miss your "point" at all. Even referred to it directly.

    In order to make your "point", there wasn't any real need to evoke the issue of Trump supporters not showing up to defend Trump, though. As it stands, more to do with baiting then making an actual "point". And to a degree, they have it coming. Fair enough (if someone's into that).

  12. 8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

    Seems to me the main criticism of the Palestinian leadership is that when they had the chance, they wouldn't settle for half a loaf. Who knows, maybe if King George had offered to cut taxes by 50%, the colonists would have settled for it. Doesn't seem quite consonant, though, with the principles laid down in the document.

     

    Seems to me that you try to spin things this way. Doesn't make it stick, though. In the context of this topic, for example, the criticism isn't less to do with accepting a compromise - but more strongly relates to their responsibility regarding their people's safety and best interests.

  13. 4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

     No attempts at all from Trump supporters to defend Trump’s assertion that he’s above the law.

     

    Perhaps the cold reality of who and what Trump is is sinking in.

     

     

     

    A while back there was a sentiment expressed by some Trump supporters on this score. To simplify, they "won", and as  the baiting, gloating and rubbing it in lose their novelty, things get back to "normal", from their point of view. Other than some regular diehards, most will not surface until the next elections. It is quite normal for the opposition to be more active on such political debates. Maybe it's seen as unnecessary, or a waste of energy by the side that won. 

     

    Far as I can tell, it's been like that for as long as I joined TVF. This also applies to baiting the other side about not "showing up", though.

     

    Wouldn't know that all Trump supporters like everything he does and says. That's ignoring some of his appeal apparently being grounded on simply not being HRC. Expecting all Trump supporters to be mindless drones is a cop out. Some are, some are not. Expecting all of them to defend whatever Trump does is bogus.

  14.  

    @bristolboy

     

    The Deceleration of Independence quote would indeed apply for the Gazans and the Hamas rule. Or, for that matter, the Palestinians and the PA. Not much signs either is about to happen. And doesn't seem like the two Palestinian leaderships' way of doing things goes anywhere or that it benefits their people. While it's all very well spinning things as Israel being solely responsible, the Palestinians can certainly be held accountable as well, for choices made - either by their leaderships, or their own - by accepting such failed leaderships.

    • Like 1
  15. 37 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

    "they have sleeper terror cells" "and kill all us citizens "  Sound like you're conflating the bogeymen with some facts that are hardly threatening to the world but only to the region. A region in which Iran is hardly the only nasty player. And in fact finds many of them arrayed against it.

     

     

     

    Not that I subscribe to the other poster's hyperbole version, but neither to your nothing-to-see-here one. The "sleeper cell" thing is based, I think, originated from the words of some IRGC commander a couple years back or so. There was an Iranian operation disrupted earlier this year, in Germany. And that botched affair in Bangkok. Just a few examples, there were other international instances in which Iranian involvement (directly or by proxy) was suspected or implicated. Regionally, Iran is obviously far more active with regard to such activities.

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1
  16. 8 hours ago, selftaopath said:

    If U.S. democracy survives I think there ought to be many changes in the law. The Constitution seems to have assumed the President would be for the betterment of the country and the people. They seem to have never thought a/b this despicable example of slime. 

     

    I don't know about The Constitution, but the Deceleration of Independence includes strong views on such matters (example, many others):

     

    Quote

    ...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  17. 7 hours ago, Redline said:

    Trump is the President, and he has to take full responsibility!  He chose his advisors.  He is not a child, even though he acts like one.  What is it these days about no one taking responsibility?  I take full responsibility for my actions and decisions, and people who don't should not be respected

     

    Indeed.

     

    But by placing the "blame" on some unspecified "advisors" influencing Trump, the poster can bash the US, while allowing enough room for both supporters of Trump and those opposing him to accept his bogus point of view. The message is that it's not Trump's doing, not the American people's fault or will, but some nefarious cabal directing things. Same reason poster often employs "Washington", rather than the "US" etc.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...