Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sun Mar 29 12:58:44 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Its not war...pt 2
Thu Jan 09 17:53:29
Jergul, Thu Jan 09 17:30:14
Jergul, well others CAN trade with them we just will throw economic sanctions on them as well as is our right...we don't HAVE to trade with anyomse we dont want to.

Europe is big in not wanting to buy fuel that will increase carbon emissions....as is there right. China bans almost all of Google and severely limits Apple two of our largest companies.Europe also severley limits our sales of guns a large industry in the US....why? Because of non - economic reasons they morally oppose these things just as we morally oppose trading with that regime.

Also Sam Adams seems to have been right about Iran shooting down the plane.
large member
Thu Jan 09 18:18:52
And Iran can develop its nuclear programme as is its right, right?

You do see why Iran considers the comprehensive embargo an act of war, right?

It was not really Iran. The launch operators, one of whom threw the launch switch, are probably named Mohammed and Ali.
Thu Jan 09 18:31:15
Iran joined the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970 and are still members of that treaty. So until they leave that treaty no they can't legally continue. Not that it matters they never really honored the treaty anyway.
large member
Thu Jan 09 18:46:14
That is incorrect. They can develop their programme far past the point of nuclear ambiguity and remain in full compliance with the ratified treaty.

Thu Jan 09 23:39:03
Jergul, Your comparing apples to oranges. Your comparing military devolpment to economic trade.

That said, they can as can NK develop such weapons. However if other nations feel threatened they have to realise they may just get attacked to prevent such weapon development.
Fri Jan 10 00:05:27
Jergul, Which is why the current treatise arw BS.

For real for real. No sane person wants Irans government or NKs with nuclear weapons ...why? They are fucking nuts.
Fri Jan 10 01:32:56

So is yours. It ripped up a deal the rest of us thought pretty good, your leader is erratic and crazy and therec are almost no effective checks on his foreign policy powers, and assassinated a foreign official on allied soil sparking a shooting conflict.

I don't want Iran to have the bomb, but equally compared to NK it seems likely to stabilise the situation for the rest of us given neither side is at all interested in stability.
large member
Fri Jan 10 01:38:11
There is no indication that Iran is being anything other than rational in its use of deterrents.

Their current nuclear policy is also rational to a fault. Iran has their equivalent of US Supreme Court rulings forbidding a nuclear arsenal.

The rational? Nuclear arsenals are unusable, and if usable, then they are criminal to use.

The problem sane people see is that profilation in this case will lead to profilation to a number of ME countries relatively soon, and to African countries later down the road.

The problem that insane people see is that Iran already has a pretty robust conventional defence, but is in theory at least still attackable.

It would not longer be attackable if it could slap together nuclear weapons relatively fast if attacked, or if there is anything other absolute certainty that Iran does not already have nuclear weapons.

Otherwise known as nuclear threshold and nuclear ambiguity.

They feel Iran would be more emboldened by having even more deterrents.

The fundamental problem here is Israel's nuclear arsenal. It is profoundly destabilizing and goes a long way in explaining why the ME is so fucked up.

If you follow your logic, then you will eventually have to be willing to attack Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia to avoid profilation too.

If you feel threatened by a mature Iranian nuclear programme, then you should be completely freaked out by the thought of Saudi Arabia having one.
large member
Fri Jan 10 01:57:45
Also, the reason Iran wanted a time limit on the treaty is not because it would be adverse to extending it later (after all, nothing to stop the US and EU from slapping down sanctions in the future), but rather that it does not want to be boxed in if fundamental things change.

For example if Saudi Arabia moved to nuclear threshold status, then Iran would bloody well have to do so to.

It cannot commit to any treaty that would block it from reacting to an emerging Saudi programme.

The same is true to a lesser degree for Turkish and Egyptian programmes.
large member
Fri Jan 10 02:02:17
Also II, the best and only way to denuclearize the ME is by there actually being more countries than Israel to denuclearize.

I am not thinking of actually deployed nuclear weapons. Its enough that one or more other countries down their could weaponize fast if they wanted to.

It would be insane to think Israel would give up its programmes now. It would be more rational of Israel to do so if other countries were also losing potential capability.

Like your president said. Iran has never lost a negotiation. But to negotiate, you actually do need something to negotiate with.
Sat Jan 11 14:38:47
Good old fax!


Hours after a U.S. strike killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the Trump administration sent an urgent back channel message to Tehran: Don’t escalate.

The encrypted fax was sent via the Swiss Embassy in Iran, one of the few means of direct, confidential communication between the two sides, U.S. officials said.
It arrived on a special encrypted fax machine in a sealed room of the Swiss mission—the most enduring method since the 1979 Islamic Revolution—for the White House to exchange messages with Iran’s top leadership.

The equipment operates on a secure Swiss government network linking its Tehran embassy to the Foreign Ministry in Bern and its embassy in Washington, say Swiss diplomats. Only the most senior officials have the key cards needed to use the equipment.

Swiss Ambassador Markus Leitner, a 53-year-old career diplomat, delivered the American message by hand to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif early on Friday morning, according to U.S. and Swiss officials.
Former Swiss ambassadors say the diplomatic channel is effective because the U.S. and Iran can trust a message will remain confidential, be delivered quickly, and will reach only its intended recipients. Statements passed on the back channel are always precisely phrased, diplomatic, and free of emotion, they said.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share