End of the road for Iran aviation imports
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some excellent well written posts on this thread. Countries tend to have the leadership they deserve. Unfortunately, Parabellum ( trans: prepare for war) you have elected presidents in the past that have brought well informed people to not only hate the USA but to despise all that you stand for.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some excellent well written posts on this thread. Countries tend to have the leadership they deserve. Unfortunately, Parabellum ( trans: prepare for war) you have elected presidents in the past that have brought well informed people to not only hate the USA but to despise all that you stand for.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the contributing factors in that is the role of the "end timers". There's a certain segment of fundamental Christians who believe that the bible says that the second coming of Christ will only occur after the Jews return to Israel ...all of Israel. I'm a little unclear on exactly what "All of Israel" includes, but the fact that the Second Coming has not occurred leads inevitably to the conclusion that "all of Israel" means more than what they currently occupy. So among those who believe this, the second coming is viewed as a really good thing, and they will support any US foreign policy whcih supports Israel generally, and specifically policies whcih would support Israeli expansion beyond what is currently "Israel"
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that you're wrong, but the fundamental notion that a group of people are entailed to take possession of region at the expense of the people currently living there, on the basis of a historical association with people who lived there a thousand years ago depends pretty heavily on faith doctrine. Good luck removing faith doctrine from people's views of Israel.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some excellent well written posts on this thread. Countries tend to have the leadership they deserve. Unfortunately, Parabellum ( trans: prepare for war) you have elected presidents in the past that have brought well informed people to not only hate the USA but to despise all that you stand for.
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Oliver had a very good, and very funny segment, on his HBO show a couple of weeks ago about the Iran deal. He examines what the Deal achieved, Trump's main gripes with it, and why Trump would be wrong to tear it up.
Official source if you are in the US -
Or you can watch it here elsewhere - http://dai.ly/x6i9dz1
Official source if you are in the US -
Or you can watch it here elsewhere - http://dai.ly/x6i9dz1
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who told you that and why did you believe it? It's patently untrue. https://www.gcsp.ch/News-Knowledge/P...ust-and-Verify (try page 25 onwards)
The US aren't the only ones who care about Iran and its nuclear ambitions, yet it is only they (well, along Iran's sworn enemies obviously) who insist on blowing up a deal that was doing fine for "something better" (undefined) for no obvious reason. (Of course even in the US there are plenty of well informed people in the government and military who were not in favor of terminating the deal either)
The world is a lot bigger than the US and ignoring long standing relationships with strong allies with this obvious buffoonery is worse for the US than it is for Iran.
The US aren't the only ones who care about Iran and its nuclear ambitions, yet it is only they (well, along Iran's sworn enemies obviously) who insist on blowing up a deal that was doing fine for "something better" (undefined) for no obvious reason. (Of course even in the US there are plenty of well informed people in the government and military who were not in favor of terminating the deal either)
The world is a lot bigger than the US and ignoring long standing relationships with strong allies with this obvious buffoonery is worse for the US than it is for Iran.
But what about Iran’s non-nuclear facilities? Opponents of the JCPOA criticize the lack of
“anytime, anywhere” inspections of all suspicious facilities. But Iran (or any other country,
for that matter) would never have accepted such an obligation, making it impossible to
reach an agreement. Iran legitimately wanted to protect its sensitive military facilities and
defences, some of which have nothing to do with its nuclear programme. The IAEA’s
monitoring of Iran is anyhow complemented by national intelligence organizations, which
can be expected to continue to closely monitor the country’s nuclear and military sites.
“anytime, anywhere” inspections of all suspicious facilities. But Iran (or any other country,
for that matter) would never have accepted such an obligation, making it impossible to
reach an agreement. Iran legitimately wanted to protect its sensitive military facilities and
defences, some of which have nothing to do with its nuclear programme. The IAEA’s
monitoring of Iran is anyhow complemented by national intelligence organizations, which
can be expected to continue to closely monitor the country’s nuclear and military sites.
Checks only after a notice period of 24 days in sites already known, and in new 'suspicious' sites on military facilities there is no access for anyone.
That's a really strong verification regime.
So Israel creates access and guess what
Israel finds evidence of Iran Nuclear Subterfuge
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not been to Iran, but worked closely with Iranians and Iraquis and for that matter worked with nationals of most of the Middle East countries.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 78
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an American, embarrassed to see all the posts that have said that only Trump is right and all the other major world leaders are wrong. Iran had hard line Ahmadinejad who continually wanted the destruction of America. He was replaced by Rouhani of the Moderation and Development Party and negotiations began to end Iran's nuclear weapon program. World leaders from all corners embraced the agreement, but then Trump campaigned against it and now has succeeded in destroying it despite world outcry. Major lesson learned is never to trust America at their word. It was in the 1950s that Iran had a democratically elected president who America succeeded in overthrowing in favor of a ruthless dictator. America declared Iraq a producer of weapons of mass destruction based on pictures of a couple semi-trucks. Of course Iraq had chemical weapons - the US supplied them for use in fighting the Iranians. Take over the country and surprise, surprise, the Iraqis had got rid of their American supplied weapons. If I was Kim Jung Un would I get rid of my nuclear weapons? Not until America agrees to get rid of all its nuclear weapons and agree to international inspections proving so. After all America is the only country proven willing to use nuclear weapons (and I am not disagreeing with their having done that), but after the end of WWII they continued to use the nuclear weapons having killed many Pacific Islanders plus their own countrymen (example - read the cancer death list from the cast of Genghis Kahn).
I believe I read the Russki's are working to eliminate all US built components of the Superjet so it can be sold without US government approval. Doesn't get Iran into the wide bodies but will greatly enhance their domestic airlines. Now if only one of the nuclear powers would supply Iran nuclear weapons so they could use the "mutual destruction" defense and protect themselves from what is now an inevitable attack by 2 nuclear powers - America and Israel.
I believe I read the Russki's are working to eliminate all US built components of the Superjet so it can be sold without US government approval. Doesn't get Iran into the wide bodies but will greatly enhance their domestic airlines. Now if only one of the nuclear powers would supply Iran nuclear weapons so they could use the "mutual destruction" defense and protect themselves from what is now an inevitable attack by 2 nuclear powers - America and Israel.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an American, embarrassed to see all the posts that have said that only Trump is right and all the other major world leaders are wrong. Iran had hard line Ahmadinejad who continually wanted the destruction of America. He was replaced by Rouhani of the Moderation and Development Party and negotiations began to end Iran's nuclear weapon program. World leaders from all corners embraced the agreement, but then Trump campaigned against it and now has succeeded in destroying it despite world outcry. Major lesson learned is never to trust America at their word. It was in the 1950s that Iran had a democratically elected president who America succeeded in overthrowing in favor of a ruthless dictator. America declared Iraq a producer of weapons of mass destruction based on pictures of a couple semi-trucks. Of course Iraq had chemical weapons - the US supplied them for use in fighting the Iranians. Take over the country and surprise, surprise, the Iraqis had got rid of their American supplied weapons. If I was Kim Jung Un would I get rid of my nuclear weapons? Not until America agrees to get rid of all its nuclear weapons and agree to international inspections proving so. After all America is the only country proven willing to use nuclear weapons (and I am not disagreeing with their having done that), but after the end of WWII they continued to use the nuclear weapons having killed many Pacific Islanders plus their own countrymen (example - read the cancer death list from the cast of Genghis Kahn).
I believe I read the Russki's are working to eliminate all US built components of the Superjet so it can be sold without US government approval. Doesn't get Iran into the wide bodies but will greatly enhance their domestic airlines. Now if only one of the nuclear powers would supply Iran nuclear weapons so they could use the "mutual destruction" defense and protect themselves from what is now an inevitable attack by 2 nuclear powers - America and Israel.
I believe I read the Russki's are working to eliminate all US built components of the Superjet so it can be sold without US government approval. Doesn't get Iran into the wide bodies but will greatly enhance their domestic airlines. Now if only one of the nuclear powers would supply Iran nuclear weapons so they could use the "mutual destruction" defense and protect themselves from what is now an inevitable attack by 2 nuclear powers - America and Israel.
I hope Iran cranks their nuke program up as soon as possible - it will make the world a safer place.
I give you credit, you filled in any blanks in the past few posts readers might have has about you.
You want Iran to have the bomb, yet you wanted the agreement to remain in force. Yah, I guess not having your cake and eating it too has deeply angered you.
You can remain entrenched in the Iranian camp minus the anti semitism, anti US rhetoric, it’s a choice.
You want Iran to have the bomb, yet you wanted the agreement to remain in force. Yah, I guess not having your cake and eating it too has deeply angered you.
You can remain entrenched in the Iranian camp minus the anti semitism, anti US rhetoric, it’s a choice.
So, if Iran builds a bomb in a locale not accessible to inspectors, how will you characterize the agreement then?
You’ve said you’re ok with Iran having the bomb, so the obvious is you want Iran to have the benefits the agreement comes with, yet you’re equally ok with them violating the agreement through a loophole you know is there.
Enough said.
You’ve said you’re ok with Iran having the bomb, so the obvious is you want Iran to have the benefits the agreement comes with, yet you’re equally ok with them violating the agreement through a loophole you know is there.
Enough said.
Knowing what mods think of this individual back and forth, I’ll make this my final comment.
Iran was already free to build nukes under the agreement by building them in places they’ve declared off limits to inspectors. If they didn’t have anything to hide, they’d open their bases to inspection. That’s too big a loophole to accept for the sake of having an agreement. For the sake of sales. It was a placebo pill, made you feel better without really doing anything.
Iran was already free to build nukes under the agreement by building them in places they’ve declared off limits to inspectors. If they didn’t have anything to hide, they’d open their bases to inspection. That’s too big a loophole to accept for the sake of having an agreement. For the sake of sales. It was a placebo pill, made you feel better without really doing anything.
