3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Iran was under agreement not to develop such weapons or conduct research and efforts related to it. That would be the NPT. The sanctions which followed were international.

 

Israel, which isn't what the topic is about, was not party to the NPT agreement.

 

As said on many posts, some countries having nuclear arms is not a good argument for unchecked nuclear proliferation. Also, getting countries already in possession of nuclear arms to disarm is problematic. From a realistic point of view, focusing on prevention is where it's at.

 

The world is not perfect, and often, not fair. Welcome to reality.

It seems you like it when the world is not fair - at least when Israel is involved.

If fewer people would criticize Iran and more people would criticize Israel and the USA that would be a good start.

Likely they already have a nuclear bomb, especially with all the mouth they are letting off now. Only interesting thing here is whether they can hold of the religious insanity and not use one ... doubt it though, as seems they are just trying to goad someone else into justifying them using one. Be afraid of the religious theocracy that has a bomb like this.

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems you like it when the world is not fair - at least when Israel is involved.

If fewer people would criticize Iran and more people would criticize Israel and the USA that would be a good start.

 

Being realistic about things got little to do with "liking" them. I'd rather no nuclear weapons whatsoever, but that's not gonna happen.

 

If you feel that criticism (or, in your case, bigotry) is the answer - guess we have a different take on what reality implies.

1 minute ago, Brigand said:

Likely they already have a nuclear bomb, especially with all the mouth they are letting off now. Only interesting thing here is whether they can hold of the religious insanity and not use one ... doubt it though, as seems they are just trying to goad someone else into justifying them using one. Be afraid of the religious theocracy that has a bomb like this.

 

Very unlikely they have a nuclear weapon. At least, none was tested. Same goes for reliable means of delivery. The "goad" bit is kinda far fetched as well - plenty of "reasons" about.

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Being realistic about things got little to do with "liking" them. I'd rather no nuclear weapons whatsoever, but that's not gonna happen.

 

If you feel that criticism (or, in your case, bigotry) is the answer - guess we have a different take on what reality implies.

Ok, please write here that you support that Israel, like many other counties, should not have nuclear weapons.

Let's see if you do that.

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Very unlikely they have a nuclear weapon. At least, none was tested. Same goes for reliable means of delivery. The "goad" bit is kinda far fetched as well - plenty of "reasons" about.

Love the giddy optimism man. You might be right and I'm too cynical ... time will tell.

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

Ok, please write here that you support that Israel, like many other counties, should not have nuclear weapons.

Let's see if you do that.

 

I just did?

1 minute ago, Brigand said:

Love the giddy optimism man. You might be right and I'm too cynical ... time will tell.

 

Nothing to do with optimism. There's no indication that Iran developed and/or tested such a weapon.

22 hours ago, Morch said:

Iran was under agreement not to develop such weapons or conduct research and efforts related to it. That would be the NPT. The sanctions which followed were international.

And you really believe your own BS? Iran and Europe were doing nicely, just that clown who plays POTUS now screwed it up, not the Iranians.

 

Anyways, warmongers are active now as they were with all the lies before to invade an innocent country. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, you name it....

On 9/8/2019 at 11:28 AM, Tug said:

What deal I seem to recall Donald tore it up so there is no deal to break

AFAIR Trump just stopped the US part and then tried to ensure that the world in general would sanction Iran.

 

IMHO it is getting towards the time that the world started to sanction the USA.

On 9/8/2019 at 3:25 PM, Thaifriends said:

Iranians never stopped enrichment. They will make nuclear bombs sooner or later. It is the sanctions thats more frustrating for them. Europeans are just in a thin lane and would do anything to get their Iranian investments start to give returns

 

Just look at the shameless Macron and the Iranian FM visited same day to meet him after G7 meeting. He seems more focused on Citreon and Total. 

 

Even if there is a new deal, still what is the solution:

1. US Sanctions

2. If they make after 5 or 10 years? In that region, there are already 3 nuclear powers bordering to each other and from a distance both Russia and Israel watching the show.

 

I think the regional countries should decide on this rather then the EU and the USA.

 

 

 

quote "I think the regional countries should decide on this rather then the EU and the USA."

 

The problem with that is that Iran is a Shia Islamist country and all the countries surrounding it with the exception of Israel (who already have nuclear weapons) are Sunni Islamist and many are supported by the USA. Quite a few have US bases and Saudi Arabia is being sold nuclear technology by the USA.

 

IMHO the only country in the region who could possibly win a war in the region without the support of the USA is Israel and they would probably have to use nuclear weapons.

 

https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Saudi-Arabia-wants-to-enrich-uranium-for-nuclear-power-minister-601094

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/5875740/saudi-arabia-uranium/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia

1 hour ago, MadMac said:

And you really believe your own BS? Iran and Europe were doing nicely, just that clown who plays POTUS now screwed it up, not the Iranians.

 

Anyways, warmongers are active now as they were with all the lies before to invade an innocent country. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, you name it....

 

BS how? I believe that you're either uninformed or pretend to be.

 

The  JCPOA is a direct result of Iran breaching its NPT commitments and trying to lie about it.

 

Trump chose to withdraw from the JCPOA. I think that was both stupid and unwarranted.

 

Wouldn't know what claiming that "Iran and Europe were doing nicely" got to do with anything. Same goes for them unspecified  "lies before" bit.

 

A short tally of USA forces in the region would be a good indication that there is no invasion happening any time soon. As for your historical references - these could be argued. Kinda doubt the "innocent" label quite applies in all cases.

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, billd766 said:

quote "I think the regional countries should decide on this rather then the EU and the USA."

 

The problem with that is that Iran is a Shia Islamist country and all the countries surrounding it with the exception of Israel (who already have nuclear weapons) are Sunni Islamist and many are supported by the USA. Quite a few have US bases and Saudi Arabia is being sold nuclear technology by the USA.

 

IMHO the only country in the region who could possibly win a war in the region without the support of the USA is Israel and they would probably have to use nuclear weapons.

 

https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Saudi-Arabia-wants-to-enrich-uranium-for-nuclear-power-minister-601094

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/5875740/saudi-arabia-uranium/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia

 

I was kinda hoping he meant that nonsense "sort it out" bit as in using peaceful ways. Not that it makes it any more plausible.

 

What's missing from your post is the part that Iran is neither passive, nor quite lambish with regard to messing with countries in the region. Laying the blame on everyone else is hardly objective.

Edited September 9, 20196 yr by Morch

On 9/8/2019 at 10:13 AM, Morch said:

 

A major flow in this argument would be that to date, Iran wasn't invaded, despite not having nuclear arms. Same goes for NK - which only got its nuclear arms relatively recently.

 

 

How does that story generate "momentum" for an imagined invasion?

 

There aren't even enough USA forces in place to mount such an invasion. Far more likely that there will, eventually, be a meeting between leaders. Maybe at the next UN session.

When it's about countries which should never ever have (got...!) nuclear arms, let's start attacking Israël and Pakistan, much too much 'sh.t stirring' by these both ultra-religious fascistoïd countries already! LOL!

6 minutes ago, bangrak said:

When it's about countries which should never ever have (got...!) nuclear arms, let's start attacking Israël and Pakistan, much too much 'sh.t stirring' by these both ultra-religious fascistoïd countries already! LOL!

 

Who is the "we" implied in the "let's"?

 

Let me spell it out again. Countries which already possess nuclear military capability are a problem to deal with, never mind "attack". It is simply more realistic to focus on the prevention angle - non-proliferation.

 

 

 

Off topic removed. topic is not about Israel

On 9/9/2019 at 9:59 PM, Morch said:

 

 

Let me spell it out again. Countries which already possess nuclear military capability are a problem to deal with, never mind "attack".

 

 

 

agree, and that is why everyone at risk of being attacked

by usa/israel should have a nuke, the only credible deterrent. i say proliferate, the more the merrier

42 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

agree, and that is why everyone at risk of being attacked

by usa/israel should have a nuke, the only credible deterrent. i say proliferate, the more the merrier

 

You're either trolling or taking a very narrow take on things. For the World in general, more nuclear arms around is not a good thing, no matter what supposed justification is touted. Certainly not merrier. Concepts like MAD work, sort of, as long as there aren't multiple parties involved, and when everyone plays along the same rules. Doesn't apply in your "vision".

18 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You're either trolling or taking a very narrow take on things. For the World in general, more nuclear arms around is not a good thing, no matter what supposed justification is touted. Certainly not merrier. Concepts like MAD work, sort of, as long as there aren't multiple parties involved, and when everyone plays along the same rules. Doesn't apply in your "vision".

MAD works, its proven

3 hours ago, brokenbone said:

MAD works, its proven

 

Guess we have different ideas on what "prove" implies. That you state is as fact, doesn't make it so. As said, it might be a plausible concept in simpler settings, but the more parties involved, the riskier it gets.