France Alarmed at Obama's Iranian Capitulation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Look, when a bunch of Egyptians and Saudis commandeered a pair of American jets and flew them into the Twin Towers, the finger pointed at Osama bin Laden so fast it nearly broke the sound barrier.[/quote]

Hmmm.

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall protests from around the world that it was “too soon to tell” and “there is no proof.”

Had an argument with a Brit about it, as I recall now…[/quote]

Immaterial.

The White House and the Pentagon were convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt, within hours of the incident.

It was uncanny. Almost as if they knew whodunnit even before whoeverdunnit diddit.[/quote]

I would hardly call the views of other nations immaterial to how the subsequent actions of the U.S. are viewed.

Sufficient doubt on the part of the international community about just who was responsible for a dirty bomb or some such would certainly Impact what the US could get away with as a response.[/quote]

What I meant was that the reasonable doubt of the international community was immaterial in the rush to punish the evildewers that dun did the evil deed. Recall that we started bombing Afghanistan EXACTLY THIRTY DAYS after the Twin Towers came down. I remember, because I was climbing Mt Fuji that night and I heard it all on my little radio (yes, I was climbing Mt Fuji at night in October. Yes, it was cold. Yes, I am fucking insane).

It all happened with such expediency that if one didn’t know better, one might almost suspect that the bombing and subsequent invasion had been planned in advance.

42

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Huh?

Did the nuclear age exist in the early 20th century?
[/quote]

Are you saying that the communists decide to ignore their former mission statement as stated by the Comintern after WWII?

What happened to the “THE COMMIES WANT TO DESTROY US ALL!” thing that reigned up until the U.S.S.R. collapsed?

What makes the Iranians crazier even though they really are saying the same things?

43

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

What I meant was that the reasonable doubt of the international community was immaterial in the rush to punish the evildewers that dun did the evil deed. Recall that we started bombing Afghanistan EXACTLY THIRTY DAYS after the Twin Towers came down. I remember, because I was climbing Mt Fuji that night and I heard it all on my little radio (yes, I was climbing Mt Fuji at night in October. Yes, it was cold. Yes, I am fucking insane).

It all happened with such expediency that if one didn’t know better, one might almost suspect that the bombing and subsequent invasion had been planned in advance.
[/quote]

I’ve recently watched a whole bunch of the 9/11 broadcasts up on youtube. And, ya, as soon as the 2nd tower got hit and all doubts of it being an accident went out the window, every expert the news stations consulted said “This can only be Al-Qaeda”.

44

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Yes. We’ll see.

The mullahs do harp on the anti-America rhetoric, which one would do if one were trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Something that our hawkish politicians and pundits in the United States never, ever do, of course.

And an aphorism about barking dogs comes to mind.

In the meantime, Iran, along with Jordan and Egypt, may be the only power in the region capable of controlling the spread of the Islamic State, which to my eyes appears to be the more noxious of adversaries.

We may at very least rest easy in the knowledge that if ISIS ever do acquire a nuclear weapon, it will not have come from Iran.

[/quote]

I don’t rest easy in that at all. Death to Israel can make strange bed fellows. In as much as they hate each other now in the whole sunni/ shiite thing, an opportunity arising may change enemy to adversary. If ISIS do get a nuclear weapon, Iran would still be high on my list of culprits. It wouldn’t take much to turn foe in to friend in order to achieve common terror goals. While they hate each other ideologically, they do have common goals. Rest easy, in other words, I will not. Having ISIS deliver a nuclear payload to Israel would be very beneficial to Iran. They would be able to achieve a long stated goal and have a scapegoat. Sure it’s hypothetical at this point, but stranger things have happened. I wouldn’t rule it out based on the current situation.

45

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

I have thought it through, and I guarantee so have the Iranians.

[/quote]

You can guarantee things on behalf of the Iranians, huh? You’re sumthin else.

I suspect because the Soviets, as evil as they were, weren’t as crazy as the bastards who’ve been caterwauling “Death to America” incessantly since 1979.

[quote]

A Mk54 SADM in the hands of whatever rebels we happened to have been supporting would have made quick work of Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Daniel Ortega or Bashar al-Assad, and the assassin would not even have to get close enough to the target to risk getting shot himself. Similarly, a few Soviet RA-115s in the hands of Marxist guerrillas would have made their revolutions go ever so much quicker.

The answer, of course, is that a nuke is unmistakable. And all one would need to do is look at the target, ask cui bono (who benefits), and extrapolate where the weapon must have come from.

If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, the world is going to know, just as the world knew the instant Pakistan and North Korea developed theirs. Just as we knew the precise instant Israel detonated their first nuclear device in 1979.

From that instant on, if any terrorist organisation ever detonates a nuclear device, whether they are a Shi’a organisation or not, the finger of the world will unambiguously point at Teheran.

Look, when a bunch of Egyptians and Saudis commandeered a pair of American jets and flew them into the Twin Towers, the finger pointed at Osama bin Laden so fast it nearly broke the sound barrier. The fact that the Taliban was letting him sleep on their couch was enough justification for us to launch a campaign of bombing, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan that is still going on nearly fifteen years later.

I don’t care who Iran’s terrorist proxies are. If any of them ever detonate an Iranian nuke, Teheran will be blamed, it will be bombed, and it will be invaded and occupied. Everyone knows this. Iran knows this. Why it hasn’t occurred to you is a mystery.[/quote]

Very reassuring. I’ve changed my mind. Whew! All it took was a little of your impeccable logic.

No, wait. Come to think of it, as smart as you are, I don’t think you’ve been inside the buttholes’ minds who run Iran. I think you’re just hoping. You’re trying to use YOUR mind as to what YOU do if you were them. You miniature yellow submarine never did make the voyage inside the brain of the ding-dong motherfucker(s) who insists Israel be wiped off the map.

So I guess I’m not buying any stock in your Iranian Leaders Are Really Smart Folks company. Sorry. You’ll have to peddle it to someone else. We’ll see if my decision, and yours and your buyers’, pans out for each.[/quote]

In other words don’t trust crazy? I would agree. I put nothing past Iran.
The best thing that could happen is this current agreement fail. As much harping as the Republicans have done, even obama has given it less than a 50-50 shot at succeeding. No deal is better than a bad deal.

46

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Look, when a bunch of Egyptians and Saudis commandeered a pair of American jets and flew them into the Twin Towers, the finger pointed at Osama bin Laden so fast it nearly broke the sound barrier.[/quote]

Hmmm.

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall protests from around the world that it was “too soon to tell” and “there is no proof.”

Had an argument with a Brit about it, as I recall now…[/quote]

Immaterial.

The White House and the Pentagon were convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt, within hours of the incident.

It was uncanny. Almost as if they knew whodunnit even before whoeverdunnit diddit.[/quote]

And almost like the moon landings that never happened?[/quote]

No. We know who was responsible for the moon landings.
[/quote]
L. Ron Hubbard.

47

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Yes. We’ll see.

The mullahs do harp on the anti-America rhetoric, which one would do if one were trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Something that our hawkish politicians and pundits in the United States never, ever do, of course.

And an aphorism about barking dogs comes to mind.

In the meantime, Iran, along with Jordan and Egypt, may be the only power in the region capable of controlling the spread of the Islamic State, which to my eyes appears to be the more noxious of adversaries.

We may at very least rest easy in the knowledge that if ISIS ever do acquire a nuclear weapon, it will not have come from Iran.

[/quote]

I don’t rest easy in that at all. Death to Israel can make strange bed fellows. In as much as they hate each other now in the whole sunni/ shiite thing, an opportunity arising may change enemy to adversary. If ISIS do get a nuclear weapon, Iran would still be high on my list of culprits. It wouldn’t take much to turn foe in to friend in order to achieve common terror goals. While they hate each other ideologically, they do have common goals. Rest easy, in other words, I will not. Having ISIS deliver a nuclear payload to Israel would be very beneficial to Iran. They would be able to achieve a long stated goal and have a scapegoat. Sure it’s hypothetical at this point, but stranger things have happened. I wouldn’t rule it out based on the current situation. [/quote]

If the documents leaked by Edward Snowden are correct, and al-Baghdadi was trained by Mossad, then it kind of makes me wonder whether he really REALLY wants the death of Israel, or is just pretending to in order to give his growing gang of malcontents something to rally around.

50

Question I have is why are the Russian and Chinese allies and enemies of ours allowed to possess nuclear weapons while our allies and enemies of Russia are not. Let’s see, it’s cool that North Korea has the bomb, but let’s give nukes to Taiwan or Japan, or even Vietnam and see what hell breaks out. Russia is supporting the Iranians in their quest for nuclear power, but when the Soviet Union fell apart, we made damn sure that Ukraine didn’t keep their nukes. If we attempted to give them back now, Putin would threaten the destruction of the West or something. What’s your take on this?

51

[quote]pat wrote:

I don’t rest easy in that at all. Death to Israel can make strange bed fellows. In as much as they hate each other now in the whole sunni/ shiite thing, an opportunity arising may change enemy to adversary. If ISIS do get a nuclear weapon, Iran would still be high on my list of culprits. It wouldn’t take much to turn foe in to friend in order to achieve common terror goals. While they hate each other ideologically, they do have common goals. [/quote]

Really? Before anyone says you’re wrong:

And remember, Isis started out as AQII. (al-Qaeda in Iraq)

52

[quote]magick wrote:

What makes the Iranians crazier even though they really are saying the same things?[/quote]

Because, as Sting said “The Russians love their children too”. (or some crap), while the Iranians used children to clear minefields.

53

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

If the documents leaked by Edward Snowden are correct, and al-Baghdadi was trained by Mossad, then it kind of makes me wonder whether he really REALLY wants the death of Israel, or is just pretending to in order to give his growing gang of malcontents something to rally around.[/quote]

Can someone please explain to me why anyone thought the creation of ISIS out of a band of terrorists who were one of three main enemies during the Iraq occupation, the others being the remnants of the Baath Party, & the Mahdi Militia, was a good idea and why would it benefit Israel to have these crazies so close to their border? How is this a better situation than having Assad in charge?

54

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Question I have is why are the Russian and Chinese allies and enemies of ours allowed to possess nuclear weapons while our allies and enemies of Russia are not. Let’s see, it’s cool that North Korea has the bomb, but let’s give nukes to Taiwan or Japan, or even Vietnam and see what hell breaks out. Russia is supporting the Iranians in their quest for nuclear power, but when the Soviet Union fell apart, we made damn sure that Ukraine didn’t keep their nukes. If we attempted to give them back now, Putin would threaten the destruction of the West or something. What’s your take on this? [/quote]

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

55

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Question I have is why are the Russian and Chinese allies and enemies of ours allowed to possess nuclear weapons while our allies and enemies of Russia are not. Let’s see, it’s cool that North Korea has the bomb, but let’s give nukes to Taiwan or Japan, or even Vietnam and see what hell breaks out. Russia is supporting the Iranians in their quest for nuclear power, but when the Soviet Union fell apart, we made damn sure that Ukraine didn’t keep their nukes. If we attempted to give them back now, Putin would threaten the destruction of the West or something. What’s your take on this? [/quote]

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.[/quote]

I may be mistaken on this, but I think the scientific/industrial nuclear capacity Iran has began with US support under the Shah.

Maybe Bismark could clarify?

56

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Question I have is why are the Russian and Chinese allies and enemies of ours allowed to possess nuclear weapons while our allies and enemies of Russia are not. Let’s see, it’s cool that North Korea has the bomb, but let’s give nukes to Taiwan or Japan, or even Vietnam and see what hell breaks out. Russia is supporting the Iranians in their quest for nuclear power, but when the Soviet Union fell apart, we made damn sure that Ukraine didn’t keep their nukes. If we attempted to give them back now, Putin would threaten the destruction of the West or something. What’s your take on this? [/quote]

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.[/quote]

I may be mistaken on this, but I think the scientific/industrial nuclear capacity Iran has began with US support under the Shah.

Maybe Bismark could clarify?
[/quote]

Yes, it began in 1957 under Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace.

57

[quote]Bismark wrote:

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.[/quote]

Explains nothing of what I wrote. So it says in the NPNW Treaty that allies of the Russian Federation and China are allowed to possess or attempt to create nuclear weapons while allies of the United States are not allowed to possess or attempt to create nuclear weapons except for those allies who are already members of the nuclear club? Who the hell negotiated this treaty?

I mean, Biz, I mentioned Ukraine. We went in and took their nukes away when the SU split up to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. I could never see the Russians trying to stop Iran from gaining nuclear energy or weaponry, and I could never see China taking away North Korea’s nukes or persuading them to give up their nuclear program.

Substitute Ukraine or Japan or Taiwan for Iran & North Korea in regards to their nuclear programs and/or nuclear weapons and the world would be on the brink of WWIII.

58

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.[/quote]

Explains nothing of what I wrote. So it says in the NPNW Treaty that allies of the Russian Federation and China are allowed to possess or attempt to create nuclear weapons while allies of the United States are not allowed to possess or attempt to create nuclear weapons except for those allies who are already members of the nuclear club? Who the hell negotiated this treaty?
[/quote]

Read the NPT text. It’s not long as far as treaties go. Not that I’m condoning it, but it’s worth noting that the DPRK withdrew under Article X before it became a nuclear weapons state. Israel, India, and Pakistan also possess nuclear weapons, and all can be described as US allies to one degree or another. China and Russia also supported various UNSC resolutions aimed at preventing the DPRK and Iran from become NWS.

59

Good to know. I’ll check it out if I can.

60

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Look, when a bunch of Egyptians and Saudis commandeered a pair of American jets and flew them into the Twin Towers, the finger pointed at Osama bin Laden so fast it nearly broke the sound barrier.[/quote]

Hmmm.

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall protests from around the world that it was “too soon to tell” and “there is no proof.”

Had an argument with a Brit about it, as I recall now…[/quote]

Immaterial.

The White House and the Pentagon were convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt, within hours of the incident.

It was uncanny. Almost as if they knew whodunnit even before whoeverdunnit diddit.[/quote]

And almost like the moon landings that never happened?[/quote]

No. We know who was responsible for the moon landings.
[/quote]

But did they really happen? Hmmmm…[/quote]

Yes.