Iran warns it would increase missile range if threatened by Europe

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

No I don't regard Iran as a threat. I regard the USA, UK, France, Egypt , some of the Gulf States and Israel as a far bigger threat to peace in the Middle East...their track record is deplorable.

 

You seem to have this naive idea that our politicians are always the good guys and can do no wrong.

 

If the West focused more on peace making and detente in the region than saber rattling, Iran would do the same.

 

N Korea is off topic. But for the record, I hate all bullies, and that regime is one of them too.

I think the West caused many of the problems we are having in the ME today. Drawing lines in the sand didn't help. Same can be said for Africa and South America.

 

But they are doing a great job of creating the problems now. Exporting fanatical views, supporting terrorism, etc. You can't blame the West for all their problems. They are responsible for a majority of it now.

[billd766]

19 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Incorrect.

http://www.newsweek.com/iran-threaten-destroy-israel-tel-aviv-gulf-arab-increase-relations-667045

 

Perhaps it was in response to this https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-destroyed-irans-nuclear-program-already-last-year-leaked-intelligence-claims/

 

or this http://www.heritage.org/middle-east/report/israeli-preventive-attack-irans-nuclear-sites-implications-the-us

 

or this http://nationalinterest.org/feature/israels-master-plan-crush-irans-nuclear-program-13392

 

or perhaps this https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/07/israelandthepalestinians.iran

 

Maybe even this http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/83631/can-they

 

 

[Srikcir]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You can't blame the West for all their problems.

All that's missing is a cap with an Iranian slogan "Make Persia Great Again (MGPA)."

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

 

Perhaps it was in response to this https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-destroyed-irans-nuclear-program-already-last-year-leaked-intelligence-claims/

 

or this http://www.heritage.org/middle-east/report/israeli-preventive-attack-irans-nuclear-sites-implications-the-us

 

or this http://nationalinterest.org/feature/israels-master-plan-crush-irans-nuclear-program-13392

 

or perhaps this https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/07/israelandthepalestinians.iran

 

Maybe even this http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/83631/can-they

 

 

Congrats to Israel for helping to stop Iran and it's nuclear ambitions! Perhaps the same thing should have been done to North Korea years ago.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

And your post is completely uninformed.  You stumble across an article somewhere and think that makes you an expert.  Yes, thank-you.  I realize any bozo can look up carrier status online.  Did you happen to notice how many were actually IN PORT somewhere?  Do you have any clue as to WHY they might be in port?  Actually, the USA does not have 20 aircraft carriers "available".  Only three or at most four usually and under normal circumstances.  You should learn a little about your subject before broadcasting rubbish.  Carriers are not simply built, commissioned, and then "good to go" for the duration of their service lives.  And neither are their aircraft.  They require regular maintenance availabilities without which they degrade and become less & less capable of fulfilling the taskings for which they were designed. Crews are not continuously deployable either.  They require leave, training, reassignments (temporary & permanent), time with their families after the long (and becoming longer) deployments, and have medical issues, legal issues, etc., just like everybody else.   Carriers and their ships company, like most combatant ships, go through a 3-phase work-up/deployment/standdown cycle which essentially means that AT BEST, only one third of the total carrier force is deployable at any given time.  The rest of the time they are pierside in their homeports or locations where they are undergoing their upkeep periods.  And some that are actually underway are actually only working-up, undergoing trials and certifications, providing a ready deck for pilots who are working up, etc., and not on deployment.   Throw in an upgrade (fairly frequent for carriers), refueling (yeap, even nukes require refueling, and when that happens, it's a lengthy yard period), unscheduled maintenance, funding cuts (which cut short and cut corners on the maintenance availabilities and impact readiness in other ways far too numerous to mention; can you say se-ques-tra'-tion?), contingency (unplanned) deployments or repairs into the mix and that 1-in-3 availability suffers accordingly.  I know.  I've been there and have the coffee cups, ballcaps, t-shirts, patches, missed birthdays & soccer games, etc., to prove it.  And you obviously haven't. 

 

You just gotta LOVE the military "experts" here on TV.

 

You sound as though you are one.

 

Please tell me what qualifies you to rubbish my post and makes YOU an expert?

 

Are YOU a military expert? What makes you think that I have no idea what is going on in the world?

 

Have you ever served in any military?

[Morch]

12 hours ago, dexterm said:

Iran is telling Macron quite rightly to MYOB.

....And if you threaten to poke your nose in our affairs, we are entitled to threaten to reciprocate.

 

What does this bogus nose-poking argument cover? Anything and everything which paints Iran negatively or does not align with Iranian ambitions? Issues involving Iran but pertaining to World and Middle East stability are a no no?

 

Macron raised the possibility of negotiations or even sanctions. Iran's response is a military threat. There is no real  equivalency between the two. There s no reciprocation - that would be Iran's counter statements relating to possible  diplomatic or economic steps.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

Well, the nations that signed the deal with Iran should have thought about that before the ink was dry. Not try to shift the goalposts 2 years later.

 

Iran is complying completely with the agreement. It's the west who appears to be breaking their side of the bargain, with such statements as Macron and Trump's, plus  still some financial trade restrictions.

 

"Therefore, as Straw [ex UK Foreign Secretary] says, while there is “not a shred of evidence” that Iran is not implementing its side of the deal — as confirmed by the IAEA — it is the West that is failing to implement its side of the bargain by not providing adequate banking provisions to facilitate trade with Iran."

 

http://jfjfp.com/?p=96602

 

The agreement did not include, as far as I'm aware, a provision which stipulates no other issues will ever be raised with regard to Iran's various military programs. In other words, there is nothing to prevent bringing up a different issue, or trying to negotiate another agreement.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Morch

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

What does this bogus nose-poking argument cover? Anything and everything which paints Iran negatively or does not align with Iranian ambitions? Issues involving Iran but pertaining to World and Middle East stability are a no no?

 

Macron raised the possibility of negotiations or even sanctions. Iran's response is a military threat. There is no real  equivalency between the two. There s no reciprocation - that would be Iran's counter statements relating to possible  diplomatic or economic steps.

There is no real equivalence between the economic, political and military power that France has. What can Iran do...refuse to import any Camembert cheese?

Edited November 27, 2017 by dexterm

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The agreement did not include, as far as I'm aware, a provision which stipulates no other issues will ever be raised with regard to Iran's various military programs. In other words, there is nothing to prevent bringing up a different issue, or trying to negotiate another agreement.

If by another agreement, you mean one replacing the current nuclear deal, then they may as well not bother, because who's to say a new government in France, UK or USA may not move the goalposts yet again when they decide upon another condition in the future.

 

If France does threaten sanctions ostensibly for actions outside of Iran's nuclear agreement, the result they know full well would be to get the Iranians to tear up the current nuclear agreement that is working. Maybe that is what France egged on by others really wants with this provocation.

 

Quite frankly, what have Iranian military programs got to do with France? Iran has never hurt France. It is Sunni terrorists inspired and supported by the head chopping darling of the west,  who have attacked France. No threat of sanctions in response to that though. Just the opposite..sell them $billions of arms, encourage repression, disease and famine in the Middle East. I am sure Iran is noting the hypocrisy.

 

France would appear to be neeedlessly picking on Iran, when Iran was no threat to it at all, especially when of course the major US and European players turn a complete blind eye to the only real nuclear power in the Middle East, the first to introduce them to the region, and the one that at this moment already has nuclear missiles pointed at European capitals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

 

Knowing as they do the long history of western interference in Iranian affairs outlined above, I don't blame them for suspecting France of ulterior motives and defending themselves the only way they can.

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, dexterm said:

There is no real equivalence between the economic, political and military power that France has. What can Iran do...refuse to import any Camembert cheese?

 

Lame deflection.

 

Macron didn't make any military threats, Iran did. France's military power doesn't come into this. Many countries are interested in resuming and expanding trade with Iran, now that the agreement is in place. France is no different - Iran could have simply leveraged that.

[dexterm]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Lame deflection.

 

Macron didn't make any military threats, Iran did. France's military power doesn't come into this. Many countries are interested in resuming and expanding trade with Iran, now that the agreement is in place. France is no different - Iran could have simply leveraged that.

Iran lives in a tough neighborhood. Self preservation is more important to it than trade with France. Anyway, as I outlined in the quoted link above, Iran is not quite enjoying the trade possibilities promised by the EU for signing up to the nuclear deal

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, dexterm said:

If by another agreement, you mean one replacing the current nuclear deal, then they may as well not bother, because who's to say a new government in France, UK or USA may not move the goalposts yet again when they decide upon another condition in the future.

 

If France does threaten sanctions ostensibly for actions outside of Iran's nuclear agreement, the result they know full well would be to get the Iranians to tear up the current nuclear agreement that is working. Maybe that is what France egged on by others really wants with this provocation.

 

Quite frankly, what have Iranian military programs got to do with France? Iran has never hurt France. It is Sunni terrorists inspired and supported by the head chopping darling of the west,  who have attacked France. No threat of sanctions in response to that though. Just the opposite..sell them $billions of arms, encourage repression, disease and famine in the Middle East.

 

France would appear to be neeedlessly picking on Iran, when Iran was no threat to it at all, especially when of course the major US and European players turn a complete blind eye to the only real nuclear power in the Middle East, the first to introduce them to the region, and the one that at this moment already has nuclear missiles pointed at European capitals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

 

Knowing as they do the long history of western interference in Iranian affairs outlined above, I don't blame them for suspecting France of ulterior motives and defending themselves the only way they can.

 

 

Another lame deflection.

 

The comment was about a negotiating a different agreement, not one replacing the current one. There is nothing which prevents this being raised, discussed, and negotiated. Iran, of course, may choose to accept or reject such initiatives. And, essentially, the same goes for the agreement in place - there is no prevention for things being renegotiated, if all parties are willing. Obviously, that's not going to happen, but that's hardly the point.

 

You seem to imagine that having signed this agreement, no further issues can be raised vs. Iran. The reality is, of course, different.

 

Given that you are not an Iranian negotiator, nor possessing any particular insight as to Iran's decision making - I would not take your version of how Iran may or may not react as a a reliable point of view. Iran would have no real pretext for walking out on the nuclear deal, just because another, separate issue is raised. And Iran is in no rush to experience the sanctions regime all over again - which is exactly what will happen if it reneges on the agreement without due cause.

 

You may try to sneak in Macron's position as a "threat", a "provocation" or whatever other propaganda term you wish to life off Iranian statements. It still doesn't make it so, nor does it cover Iran's over-reaction.

 

If Iran was no concern of France then France would not be involved with the nuclear agreement. Apparently, France's position isn't quite what you'd wish it to be. Guess that Iran's most recent implied threat makes it clear why. Last time I checked France did not sell weapons to terrorist organizations, but of course you'd do your best to misrepresent things.

 

The usual pet spin is the same old default you go to whenever nothing relevant to topic is at hand. Pathetically obvious.

 

.

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Iran lives in a tough neighborhood. Self preservation is more important to it than trade with France. Anyway, as I outlined in the quoted link above, Iran is not quite enjoying the trade possibilities promised by the EU for signing up to the nuclear deal

 

Iran is one of the countries making the ME into a "tough neighborhood". And the recent Iranian threat was directed at a non-hostile country (well, rather a continent) well outside of this so-called "tough neighborhood".

 

I don't think that you have a clear insight as to what Iran's preferences are, outside of headlines and public statements. The very same Iran caved in to sanctions and dropped it's nuclear ambitions, because ultimately, trade was more important and more vital to its "preservation".

 

The pace at which economic changes occur is not quite what Iran hoped for. That is not entirely independent from Iran's conduct on quite a few issues. Hard to see how Iran's recent threats would improve the situation.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Morch

[dexterm]

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Another lame deflection.

 

The comment was about a negotiating a different agreement, not one replacing the current one. There is nothing which prevents this being raised, discussed, and negotiated. Iran, of course, may choose to accept or reject such initiatives. And, essentially, the same goes for the agreement in place - there is no prevention for things being renegotiated, if all parties are willing. Obviously, that's not going to happen, but that's hardly the point.

 

You seem to imagine that having signed this agreement, no further issues can be raised vs. Iran. The reality is, of course, different.

 

Given that you are not an Iranian negotiator, nor possessing any particular insight as to Iran's decision making - I would not take your version of how Iran may or may not react as a a reliable point of view. Iran would have no real pretext for walking out on the nuclear deal, just because another, separate issue is raised. And Iran is in no rush to experience the sanctions regime all over again - which is exactly what will happen if it reneges on the agreement without due cause.

 

You may try to sneak in Macron's position as a "threat", a "provocation" or whatever other propaganda term you wish to life off Iranian statements. It still doesn't make it so, nor does it cover Iran's over-reaction.

 

If Iran was no concern of France then France would not be involved with the nuclear agreement. Apparently, France's position isn't quite what you'd wish it to be. Guess that Iran's most recent implied threat makes it clear why. Last time I checked France did not sell weapons to terrorist organizations, but of course you'd do your best to misrepresent things.

 

The usual pet spin is the same old default you go to whenever nothing relevant to topic is at hand. Pathetically obvious.

 

.

Your language was ambiguous   "trying to negotiate another agreement"...could mean anything. That's why I covered both options. Write more clearly.

 

>>And, essentially, the same goes for the agreement in place - there is no prevention for things being renegotiated, if all parties are willing. Obviously, that's not going to happen, but that's hardly the point.

 

If France and the other players are sooo concerned about nuclear weapons or missiles that could carry them why not renegotiate a comprehensive "Nuclear Free Middle East" deal. I am sure Iran would jump at that one, and Europe would be able to sleep well in bed at night.

 

Obviously, that's not going to happen either; western hypocrisy would not allow it.

 

If you recall, it was touch and go whether the present nuclear agreement would be ratified. There is a strong anti deal faction in Iranian politics. Common sense eventually prevailed and the deal is working. If that faction can point to perfidious Europe and USA moving the goalposts, I can well see them tearing up the agreement. That is probably the goal of all this Trump and Macron cage rattling.

France is simply part of the sheeple softening up process begun by Trump in his UN speech for an attack on Iran. Same MO as last time.

 

[dexterm]

55 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Another lame deflection.

 

The comment was about a negotiating a different agreement, not one replacing the current one. There is nothing which prevents this being raised, discussed, and negotiated. Iran, of course, may choose to accept or reject such initiatives. And, essentially, the same goes for the agreement in place - there is no prevention for things being renegotiated, if all parties are willing. Obviously, that's not going to happen, but that's hardly the point.

 

You seem to imagine that having signed this agreement, no further issues can be raised vs. Iran. The reality is, of course, different.

 

Given that you are not an Iranian negotiator, nor possessing any particular insight as to Iran's decision making - I would not take your version of how Iran may or may not react as a a reliable point of view. Iran would have no real pretext for walking out on the nuclear deal, just because another, separate issue is raised. And Iran is in no rush to experience the sanctions regime all over again - which is exactly what will happen if it reneges on the agreement without due cause.

 

You may try to sneak in Macron's position as a "threat", a "provocation" or whatever other propaganda term you wish to life off Iranian statements. It still doesn't make it so, nor does it cover Iran's over-reaction.

 

If Iran was no concern of France then France would not be involved with the nuclear agreement. Apparently, France's position isn't quite what you'd wish it to be. Guess that Iran's most recent implied threat makes it clear why. Last time I checked France did not sell weapons to terrorist organizations, but of course you'd do your best to misrepresent things.

 

The usual pet spin is the same old default you go to whenever nothing relevant to topic is at hand. Pathetically obvious.

 

.

What has Iranian support for Shiite factions in the Middle East go to do with France? Iran was not a threat to Europe.

 

I suppose Iran's response is colored by France and Europe's obvious hypocrisy in its favorable dealings with other players in the neighborhood, the way they have been treated in the past by foreign powers, and they naturally suspect foul play. I don't blame them.

You rattle my cage, I'll pull your chain.

 

Yes, Iran did come to the table to make the current working nuclear deal in return for sanction lifting and trade, and the reluctant anti deal faction may well now be saying "Look where it got us? They now want more. Who's to say they won't move the goalposts again, even if we comply with their latest blackmail demands?"

Edited November 27, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

Just now, dexterm said:

Your language was ambiguous   "trying to negotiate another agreement"...could mean anything. That's why I covered both options. Write more clearly.

 

>>And, essentially, the same goes for the agreement in place - there is no prevention for things being renegotiated, if all parties are willing. Obviously, that's not going to happen, but that's hardly the point.

 

If France and the other players are sooo concerned about nuclear weapons or missiles that could carry them why not renegotiate a comprehensive "Nuclear Free Middle East" deal. I am sure Iran would jump at that one, and Europe would be able to sleep well in bed at night.

 

Obviously, that's not going to happen either; western hypocrisy would not allow it.

 

If you recall, it was touch and go whether the present nuclear agreement would be ratified. There is a strong anti deal faction in Iranian politics. Common sense eventually prevailed and the deal is working. If that faction can point to perfidious Europe and USA moving the goalposts, I can well see them tearing up the agreement. That is probably the goal of all this Trump and Macron cage rattling.

France is simply part of the sheeple softening up process begun by Trump in his UN speech for an attack on Iran. Same MO as last time.

 

 

But you haven't "covered" anything. You simply opined that Iran is not subject to...well, anything. This, apparently, is due to some supposed original sin committed by the evil West. Nothing in your posts makes it clear why you imagine it is illegitimate to raise other issues vs. Iran.

 

As for your ongoing nonsense regarding some imagined "comprehensive" agreement - how about addressing what's at hand, rather than your fantasies? Iran's position, by the way, is that the ballistic and nuclear issues are not related.

 

Whining about "Europe and the USA" supposedly moving the goalposts (Europe moved the goalposts? Where did this happen? The USA? The same provisions were there when the agreement was signed, no one batted an eyelid), while at the same time seem to suggest that it is perfectly legitimate for Iran to have (as you describe) a less than unified, or even solid, position on the agreement. Perhaps sneaking in "perfidious" is what passes for making an argument in Iran, I dunno.

 

As for the derogatory "sheeple", and the claims that Trump and Macron are synced - grabbing at straws for lack of any coherent contribution.

 

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, dexterm said:

What has Iranian support for Shiite factions in the Middle East go to do with France? Iran was not a threat to Europe.

 

I suppose Iran's response is colored by France and Europe's obvious hypocrisy in its favorable dealings with other players in the neighborhood, the way they have been treated in the past by foreign powers, and they naturally suspect foul play. I don't blame them.

You rattle my cage, I'll pull your chain.

 

Yes, Iran did come to the table to make the current working nuclear deal in return for sanction lifting and trade, and the reluctant anti deal faction may well now be saying "Look where it got us? They now want more. Who's to say they won't move the goalposts again, even if we comply with their latest blackmail demands?"

 

More nonsense.

 

You are the one who whined about Iran's "tough neighborhood". The comment made was to point out that Iran is responsible, in no small part, for making it a "tough neighborhood". That you try to misrepresent my words is just muddying of the waters. That you do not consider Iran a threat is irrelevant. France, as well as the other signatories to the nuclear agreement obviously do not fully share your views. That you pretend France got no viable interest in ME stability, is ridiculous, at best.

 

Guess that the only way you can comment or relate to the topic at hand is either by casting back to historical events, or tie things up whichever way with your pet standing agenda. Whether you "blame" Iran or not, is irrelevant as well.

Essentially, your pro-Iranian position is that the nuclear agreement should act as the final set of issues which may be raised against Iran. That's not even remotely realistic.

 

For someone often pretending to favor non-violence, peace and whatnot, you sure do invest an effort justifying a threat of violence aired in response to something which, at best, could be construed as a non-violent "threat".

 

[dexterm]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

But you haven't "covered" anything. You simply opined that Iran is not subject to...well, anything. This, apparently, is due to some supposed original sin committed by the evil West. Nothing in your posts makes it clear why you imagine it is illegitimate to raise other issues vs. Iran.

 

As for your ongoing nonsense regarding some imagined "comprehensive" agreement - how about addressing what's at hand, rather than your fantasies? Iran's position, by the way, is that the ballistic and nuclear issues are not related.

 

Whining about "Europe and the USA" supposedly moving the goalposts (Europe moved the goalposts? Where did this happen? The USA? The same provisions were there when the agreement was signed, no one batted an eyelid), while at the same time seem to suggest that it is perfectly legitimate for Iran to have (as you describe) a less than unified, or even solid, position on the agreement. Perhaps sneaking in "perfidious" is what passes for making an argument in Iran, I dunno.

 

As for the derogatory "sheeple", and the claims that Trump and Macron are synced - grabbing at straws for lack of any coherent contribution.

 

>>due to some supposed original sin committed by the evil West. 

 

Deny, deflect, deride. The usual MO.

There is nothing faux about the decades of suffering Iranians have endured due to Western interference in order to get their greedy paws on Iranian oil.

 

Why should Iranians be covered by anything other than what they have already agreed to, if the anything is not consistently applied equally to Iran's neighbor's. Smacks of bullying and hypocrisy. And the only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>due to some supposed original sin committed by the evil West. 

 

Deny, deflect, deride. The usual MO.

There is nothing faux about the decades of suffering Iranians have endured due to Western interference in order to get their greedy paws on Iranian oil.

 

Why should Iranians be covered by anything other than what they have already agreed to, if the anything is not consistently applied equally to Iran's neighbor's. Smacks of bullying and hypocrisy. And the only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them.

 

The defection and spins are of your own doing.

 

The topic is not about the region's history, not even the emotive and vehement interpretations you favor. Neither is the topic about your default whataboutery.

 

For someone whining about moving the goalposts, you sure do a fair bit of that. Doubt there's anything on offer, other than incessant wholesale nonsense justifications of any Iranian position.

 

[dexterm]

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

More nonsense.

 

You are the one who whined about Iran's "tough neighborhood". The comment made was to point out that Iran is responsible, in no small part, for making it a "tough neighborhood". That you try to misrepresent my words is just muddying of the waters. That you do not consider Iran a threat is irrelevant. France, as well as the other signatories to the nuclear agreement obviously do not fully share your views. That you pretend France got no viable interest in ME stability, is ridiculous, at best.

 

Guess that the only way you can comment or relate to the topic at hand is either by casting back to historical events, or tie things up whichever way with your pet standing agenda. Whether you "blame" Iran or not, is irrelevant as well.

Essentially, your pro-Iranian position is that the nuclear agreement should act as the final set of issues which may be raised against Iran. That's not even remotely realistic.

 

For someone often pretending to favor non-violence, peace and whatnot, you sure do invest an effort justifying a threat of violence aired in response to something which, at best, could be construed as a non-violent "threat".

 

I disagree. I regard another player, the cancer in the Middle East, as a far more destabilizing influence, the root cause of all the conflict. That's what the West should be focusing on to bring peace. But I'll leave that for another more appropriate thread.

 

Violence and conflict do not happen in a vacuum. History makes nations what they are today. Iran has cause to be wary.

 

I am a great believer in balance of power to attain peace, followed by detente and gradual ratchetting down of armaments.

Edited November 27, 2017 by dexterm

[dexterm]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The defection and spins are of your own doing.

 

The topic is not about the region's history, not even the emotive and vehement interpretations you favor. Neither is the topic about your default whataboutery.

 

For someone whining about moving the goalposts, you sure do a fair bit of that. Doubt there's anything on offer, other than incessant wholesale nonsense justifications of any Iranian position.

 

I see the bigger picture surrounding the controversy. You prefer to focus on the obfuscatory technical niceties.

 

I am also trying to see things from Iran's point of view in the context of previous dealings with the untrustworthy hypocritical West.  Several times bitten and all that.

Edited November 27, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

I disagree. I regard another player, the cancer in the Middle East, as a far more destabilizing influence, the root cause of all the conflict. That's what the West should be focusing on to bring peace. 

 

Violence and conflict do not happen in a vacuum. History makes nations what they are today. Iran has cause to be wary.

 

I am a great believer in balance of power to attain peace, followed by detente and gradual ratchetting down of armaments.

 

Your extreme and hateful views are well known. The topic is not about that, even though you apparently feel the need to inject them into each and every topic dealing with the Middle East.  Hence whataboutery, deflections and derailing of topics.

 

Violence and conflict do not happen in a vacuum, but apparently Iran gets a free pass, because it "has cause to be wary". Of course, in your mind, Iran is not an author or originator of violence, hence can do no wrong. There was a threat involving violence made by Iran, in response to a non-violent "threat". Spin away.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I see the bigger picture surrounding the controversy. You prefer to focus on the obfuscatory technical niceties.

 

I am also trying to see things from Iran's point of view in the context of previous dealings with the untrustworthy hypocritical West.  Several times bitten and all that.

 

Pffft.

 

On a recent topic, you prided yourself on seeing things as black or white. Now you try to present yourself as "seeing the bigger picture", "believe in balance" - pull the other one. That you wish to disregard reality, facts and the world not actually lending itself to a black and white categorization doesn't make other people wrong.

 

Allow me to doubt, again, that you have any particular insight seeing things from Iran's point of view. What you post reads more like a propaganda pamphlet rather than a reasoned point of view. It does not communicate any ambiguities, it does a poor job of conveying differences within the supposed Iranian position.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

I see the bigger picture surrounding the controversy. You prefer to focus on the obfuscatory technical niceties.

 

I am also trying to see things from Iran's point of view in the context of previous dealings with the untrustworthy hypocritical West.  Several times bitten and all that.

Untrustworthy hypocritical West? But Iran is trustworthy? Seriously?

 

You've lost the plot.

[dexterm]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Your extreme and hateful views are well known. The topic is not about that, even though you apparently feel the need to inject them into each and every topic dealing with the Middle East.  Hence whataboutery, deflections and derailing of topics.

 

Violence and conflict do not happen in a vacuum, but apparently Iran gets a free pass, because it "has cause to be wary". Of course, in your mind, Iran is not an author or originator of violence, hence can do no wrong. There was a threat involving violence made by Iran, in response to a non-violent "threat". Spin away.

>> Of course, in your mind, Iran is not an author or originator of violence

...Iran has committed no violence against France. Hence I don't understand why France is making threats against Iran. While other players in the Middle East on France's Like List have encouraged and supported violence against France. Doesn't make sense. But it does when you consider more sinister puppeteers at work pulling the strings. Iran is well aware of these double standards, hence its reaction.

 

The only country Iran is any danger to is you know who. And that ultimately is what this brouhaha is all about. Same as last time. The west is being dragged incrementally into yet another unnecessary conflict in the Middle East on someone else's behalf . 

[dexterm]

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Untrustworthy hypocritical West? But Iran is trustworthy? Seriously?

 

You've lost the plot.

Iran has not broken the terms of the agreement it signed. Sounds pretty trustworthy to me.

 

France is the one initiating threats over a new set of rules it just invented.

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

Iran has not broken the terms of the agreement it signed. Sounds pretty trustworthy to me.

 

France is the one initiating threats over a new set of rules it just invented.

The West hasn't broken the terms of the agreement. Research Iran's history of breaking promises and lying. It's a looooong list.

 

You are so one sided. And in support of a government like Iran. Very bizarre.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, dexterm said:

>> Of course, in your mind, Iran is not an author or originator of violence

...Iran has committed no violence against France. Hence I don't understand why France is making threats against Iran. While other players in the Middle East on France's Like List have encouraged and supported violence against France. Doesn't make sense. But it does when you consider more sinister puppeteers at work pulling the strings. Iran is well aware of these double standards, hence its reaction.

 

The only country Iran is any danger to is you know who. And that ultimately is what this brouhaha is all about. Same as last time. The west is being dragged incrementally into yet another unnecessary conflict in the Middle East on someone else's behalf . 

 

Could you possibly cease twisting my words and quoting them out of context? Especially when the references are directly related to specific "points" raised in your own posts?

 

Your posts alleged that Iran needs to be "wary" because it lives in a "tough neighborhood". The comment you cited was related to Iran itself playing a contributing role in the making of said "tough neighborhood".

 

As for other deflection and your contrived "I don't understand" - this was addressed earlier, and ignored. That you do not consider Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs as threats is not how other countries, France among them, see things. You may allege whatever conspiracy nonsense you like, it doesn't change things one bit.

 

Iran is not a threat to only one country, that's a plain BS spin attempt. And spin it all you like, Iran did just threat France. Sort of shoots your bogus argument out of the water, there. 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Morch

[Morch]

6 hours ago, dexterm said:

Iran has not broken the terms of the agreement it signed. Sounds pretty trustworthy to me.

 

France is the one initiating threats over a new set of rules it just invented.

 

May want to consider why the agreement is there to begin with, then reflect on Iran being "trustworthy". The terms of the agreement, by the way, reflect a clear distrust, more than anything else.

 

France did not "invent" any "new rules". The issue has been ongoing for years. The relevant threat was issued by Iran. A call for Iran to negotiate or limit it's ballistic missile program is not a threat. 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Morch

[Srikcir]

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

May want to consider why the agreement is there to begin with

And just as importantly, why Iran signed the agreement that essentially restricted its sovereignty to self defense through nuclear weapons development. Ironically Iran claimed the agreement was proof of the strength of its sovereignty.

 

Reasons go beyond apparent tangible economic advantages. They are intangible such as national pride in scientific achievements and defense of the nation, engagement in the international community as an equal and proof of the legitimacy of a Muslim government to represent Iranian citizens.

 

If negotiations for a "missile deal" overlooks such intangible factors by only focusing on the scientific aspects of Iran's development of alleged nuclear-capable missiles and economic sanctions, such agreement will fail. With Russia's veto in the UN Security Council, there can also be no mandatory UN sanctions against Iran for such failure.