Exclusive: Trump to weigh more aggressive U.S. strategy on Iran - sources

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Then the US should change its behaviour (or behavior in this case).

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=57525#.Wb3zs8YxVhE

UN condemns DPRK ballistic missile launch; stresses country cease such activities

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Ummm...15 nations in the UNSC voted for sanctions on NK.  Dozens of others vocally supported it.  Should they all change their behavior? LOL

This thread is about Iran.

US has nothing to do with Iran and should not try to impose itself on Iran. SA and Israel are meddling more than enough there already.

Edited September 17, 2017 by stevenl

[craigt3365]

Wow. What a long list.  LOL

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Iran

[stevenl]

30 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Wow. What a long list.  LOL

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Iran

So? Is that a reason for the US to be interfering there? Or trying to impose their will on Iran? Up to the international community, respresented by the UN, not up to the US.

[craigt3365]

Just now, stevenl said:

So? Is that a reason for the US to be interfering there? Or trying to impose their will on Iran? Up to the international community, respresented by the UN, not up to the US.

You're trying to support a nation like Iran?  Agree with what you say, but still.  Iran is one of the worst.  Not worth arguing about.

[Naam]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

I agree with you, it would be excellent if we could get rid of them altogether. But is it up to the US to decide who gets them?

I believe the UN is in charge of that.  Not the US.

to believe means facts are not available. but even if the latter was the case it begs the question "who empowered the UN to make decisions concerning the affairs of a sovereign state?"

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, Naam said:

to believe means facts are not available. but even if the latter was the case it begs the question "who empowered the UN to make decisions concerning the affairs of a sovereign state?"

Better the UN than the US.

[stevenl]

18 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You're trying to support a nation like Iran?  Agree with what you say, but still.  Iran is one of the worst.  Not worth arguing about.

So you agree but still find it necessary to reach a conclusion far away from what I said. Sad.

[Naam]

46 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Wow. What a long list.  LOL

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Iran

a typical misleading wiki "headline".

note: the UN Security Council does not represent the member countries of the United Nations. as mentioned before this council is a self-appointed exclusive club of hypocrites to which Matthew 7:5 applies:

 

Quote

You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
 

 

 

[craigt3365]

22 minutes ago, Naam said:

to believe means facts are not available. but even if the latter was the case it begs the question "who empowered the UN to make decisions concerning the affairs of a sovereign state?"

The 193 members of the UN made this decision.  Sometimes enforced by the 15 members of the Security Council.

[craigt3365]

15 minutes ago, Naam said:

a typical misleading wiki "headline".

note: the UN Security Council does not represent the member countries of the United Nations. as mentioned before this council is a self-appointed exclusive club of hypocrites to which Matthew 7:5 applies:

Some say hypocrites, others don't. Depends on your point of view.

[Naam]

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The 193 members of the UN made this decision. 

that's the myth. in 1942 and later in 1945 193 nations did not exist.

here are the facts:

Quote

On New Year’s Day 1942, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, Maxim Litvinov, of the USSR, and T. V. Soong, of China, signed a short document which later came to be known as the United Nations Declaration and the next day the representatives of twenty-two other nations added their signatures.

 

[Naam]

9 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Some say hypocrites, others don't. Depends on your point of view.

and never the twain shall meet

[Morch]

Some posters seem to prefer an argumentative purist approach. If I get it correctly, the claim is not that Iran having nukes is a good idea, but that it's somehow preferable to the option of Iran being put off such ambitions by outside powers - be it the US or the UN.

 

A more pragmatic, or realistic, approach would be to accept that we live in an imperfect world. It doesn't make the US (or even the UN) into ultimate beacons of justice and agents of good. It means that the alternatives are, overall, worse.

 

So far and for all his talk, Trump did not scrap the deal, and if advisors are anything to go by, there isn't a whole lot of support for such a move. The further measure adopted are minimal, target specific instances or deal with issues which are not directly related to Iran's nuclear program.

 

As for the US considering a more "aggressive" approach toward Iran (which is what the OP is about, rather than focusing solely on the nuclear issue), this relates to Iran's ongoing regional activities and to the ways US is poised to counter them. Significantly, there's usually less outrage and moralizing when one of Iran's leaders airs similar views directed at the US.

 

Also, some posters may want to look up IAEA and NPT.

 

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, Naam said:

that's the myth. in 1942 and later in 1945 193 nations did not exist.

here are the facts:

 

And in 1843, there were even fewer! LOL