Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 54 of 54

Thread: How Neocons Sank Iran Nuke Deal

  1. #46
    buck duck huck luck muck puck ruck suck tuck yuck fuuuuuuuu muck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Beim Barte des Proleten!
    Posts
    15,148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    Iran is not affraid because they feel there's nothing left bar open aggression.
    That doesn't make any sense at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    As for bowing down...you really don't get do you? People don't like it when you try to tell them what they have to do. Especially if they have been through 33 years of bull****. Maybe the NVA wasn't pressured enough because they never backed down despite being steamrolled to death by the USA. Pride is something you should never underestimate.
    Pride? Bullshi[*******#000080]t[/COLOR]?
    It seems to me you want to see the entire people as sworn in to the regime's line. The steamrolled 2009 election protests showed how cordially the regime is appreciated by its subjects - just as the deadlocked situation shows a people can't do anything about the decisions of an autoritarian leadership. It's the Mullahs who want the bomb. They want it as a bargaining chip against the America-backed Sunni nations of the Gulf region and to harass Israel with impunity. You underestimate the religious component. It's the 15th century for them and all about "true Islam" against "corrupted" Sunni brown-nosers. The politico-religious leadership of this country will never forgive the creation of the state of Israel and they'll never forget the backing of the Shah. Teheran does not need any particular reason to fight the Jewish state or the "crusaders". This conflict has grown its very own immanence. It's being fought just because.
    If they truly don't mean mischief, why do they not abide by the regulations they pledged themselves to? If they truly don't mean mischief, how come their president may call for the destruction of "the cancer" Israel and walk away unchallenged?
    The international community has every right in the world to suspect Iran.
    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    As for the politicians...Where is the Junta, where is Thatcher?
    The Junta is gone, but not due to the immediate effects of the Falklands War. As for Thatcher, why would that be a concern?
    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    Where is Bashir now (hint he can't move in the open for more than 30 minutes)?
    Is he still the leader of Sudan, or is he not? Have the Sudanese people, should they not agree with his leadership, any chance to remove him from power?
    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    Where is Saddam now?
    Did the Iraqi people have any chance to remove him from power without help?
    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    Where is Ghadaffi now?
    Did the Lybian people have any chance to remove him from power without help?
    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    20 wars are raging right now? What is their geopolitical relevance?
    We're either cross-talking here or I'm deliberately being misunderstood. My point is: Dictators and warlords don't have to answer to their people. Even if they may be afraid of them - the main reason why they have to rely on oppression - they know very well how untouchable from within they are once their grip over their sphere of control has become tight enough. Only foreign activities can stop them. Then again foreign pressure is difficult to mobilize - and in the same breath difficult to be made credible - as elected leaders are answerable to their people. And most of the time the people do not want war. Even if military actions are set in motion they may be watered down to the point of ineffectiveness.
    In 1994 almost a million people were murdered in Rwanda but nobody stepped in to stop the blodshed. The international community was still chewing on the defeat suffered in Somalia. Clinton and his colleagues refused to intervene as their peoples actively resisted such a policy at that time.

    Frankly, I don't know what's to be questioned there.
    Quote Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe View Post
    Bottom line, if the ideological posture did not blind the then US administration, how would you explain the discrepancies between the treatment of the IRI and the ROK while the latter was proven in violation of Articles 2, 3 and 7 as well as Two bilateral agreements for 20 years and possession of fissile material, while the former was yet to be proven guilty of violations of Article 3?

    I would like to hear that.
    At first I'd like to hear a definition of those discrepancies I'm supposed to see.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamming_Python View Post
    I don't like it, but they have the right to their own security same as Israel or the US, Russia, India or whoever. If I were them I would be going for nukes too. That they make some hollow threats to Israel is not really a concern; I'm sure that rhetoric between USSR-US, Pakistan-India, even China-India and China-USSR was worse. The Iranian government is evidently quite rational and not a bunch of fanatics with a deathwish.
    If Iran doesn't respect the authority of the United Nations and the validity of the treaties it signed, which authority will it respect?
    The threats Iran has issued are leagues above the rhetoric between Cold War parties or during other major conflicts. Contrary pretences are just wrong. Russia or the USA never threatened it each other with total annihilation. Russia or the USA never dehumanized their respective counterpart's people. Russia or the USA never claimed to be legitimated to "wipe each other off the map" in the name of divine powers.
    Having said this, I'm amazed by your assessment that the government of Iran would not consist of a "bunch of fanatics" and be "evidently quite rational". That's about the utter opposite of my own perception.

    Well, there is no accounting for taste I guess.

  2. #47
    Zune Free At Last FlintHillBilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Zuneland
    Posts
    10,926

    Default

    Do the same people who blame Neocons for the Iran fiasco also blame Bush for North Korea's nuclear situation?

  3. #48
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    655

    Default

    Necons two years ago? Obama was the president then and he is not a neocone...

  4. #49
    Falcons FTW Kilgor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Joh Country
    Posts
    14,659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flamming_Python View Post
    I The Iranian government is evidently quite rational and not a bunch of fanatics with a deathwish.
    I can bet you if a country say like..ummm... Georgia, was funding terrorist groups and sprouted the same religious hysteria, you would certainly call them a bunch of fanatics with a death-wish.

  5. #50
    Senior Member LineDoggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    38S MB 3661/8351
    Posts
    33,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MUSHROOM123 View Post
    Necons two years ago? Obama was the president then and he is not a neocone...
    You misspelled NeoCon twice in one post....

  6. #51
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LineDoggie View Post
    You misspelled NeoCon twice in one post....
    In the first one i forgot the O in the second it was a spelling mistake...
    *Neocons neocon
    LOL

  7. #52
    Not Goat Roping Shermbodius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Let er rip, tater chip!
    Posts
    17,351

    Default

    I bet that nerf herder Ordie is in the fetal position sinisterly laughing at the Neocon hate right now. Meanwhile, my coffee grows cold.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •