![]() |
Originally Posted by AntiCompanyMan
(Post 4021895)
How about Korea? How about Vietnam? How about Afghanistan? How about Iraq? Got any examples from the last 80 years? Or are you just adding nothing to the discussion with irrelevant examples that have little bearing on the present situation?
|
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4021927)
That’s why I said it’s a dichotomy. You either obliterate any semblance of the current rule or you let them have nukes. Personally, I think the nukes part is worse. But that’s just like my opinion.
|
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4021927)
That’s why I said it’s a dichotomy. You either obliterate any semblance of the current rule or you let them have nukes. Personally, I think the nukes part is worse. But that’s just like my opinion.
|
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 4021936)
That's not a dichotomy. It's a false dichotomy
|
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4021927)
That’s why I said it’s a dichotomy. You either obliterate any semblance of the current rule or you let them have nukes. Personally, I think the nukes part is worse. But that’s just like my opinion.
|
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4021878)
Yeah, unfortunately there is actually no way to do that in a manner which they would comply. That’s why JCPOA was a pipe dream. Unless there was a way to remove every ounce of nuclear material and forever prevent it from entering the country covertly, both of which would never happen, they would always seek one. It’s just the nature of terrorists. Negotiating with them is a fool’s errand.
It naturally had some comments on the 2015 JCPOA. The author essentially stated that for some factions of American political actors, and the administration that came to power in 2017, there wasn't (and isn't) much that Iran can do. Giving up 98% of their enriched uranium.Destroying most of their centrifuges. Complying with inspections. Etc. Wasn't enough. Negotiating with people whom will not take "yes" for an answer is an impossibility. in short, complying with the agreement which achieved the goals that were stated in last years 12 day war and have belatedly surfaced in the current war was and is not enough for some in both America and Israel. JCPOA wasn't a pipe dream. It likely achieved as good an outcome as reasonable people could expect. No nuclear weapons or enrichment for 10 years. A chance for Iran to rejoin the international community, which would be the basis of any lasting peace. (as a side note, the failure of Russia to integrate into the world order is a major reason why Russia is at war in Ukraine. The achievement of China being integrated into the world's rules based order is a major reason why China ISN'T at war with us or its neighbors) Your post essentially states that Iran can never be allowed to say "yes". |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4021946)
a country run by terrorists
|
Originally Posted by MaxQ
(Post 4021977)
I recently read a piece in Foreign Affairs about what a peace agreement with Iran would look like.
It naturally had some comments on the 2015 JCPOA. The author essentially stated that for some factions of American political actors, and the administration that came to power in 2017, there wasn't (and isn't) much that Iran can do. Giving up 98% of their enriched uranium.Destroying most of their centrifuges. Complying with inspections. Etc. Wasn't enough. Negotiating with people whom will not take "yes" for an answer is an impossibility. in short, complying with the agreement which achieved the goals that were stated in last years 12 day war and have belatedly surfaced in the current war was and is not enough for some in both America and Israel. JCPOA wasn't a pipe dream. It likely achieved as good an outcome as reasonable people could expect. No nuclear weapons or enrichment for 10 years. A chance for Iran to rejoin the international community, which would be the basis of any lasting peace. (as a side note, the failure of Russia to integrate into the world order is a major reason why Russia is at war in Ukraine. The achievement of China being integrated into the world's rules based order is a major reason why China ISN'T at war with us or its neighbors) Your post essentially states that Iran can never be allowed to say "yes". They have no desire to join a world that they largely detest. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4021878)
Yeah, unfortunately there is actually no way to do that in a manner which they would comply. That’s why JCPOA was a pipe dream. Unless there was a way to remove every ounce of nuclear material and forever prevent it from entering the country covertly, both of which would never happen, they would always seek one. It’s just the nature of terrorists. Negotiating with them is a fool’s errand.
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4021927)
That’s why I said it’s a dichotomy. You either obliterate any semblance of the current rule or you let them have nukes. Personally, I think the nukes part is worse. But that’s just like my opinion.
"Iran's nuclear ambitions began under the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, with support from the United States and Western Europe. In 1957, Iran and the US signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement as part of President Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program. This led to the construction of Iran's first nuclear research facility at Tehran. In November 1967, the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) went critical – a 5 megawatt (thermal) light-water reactor, which initially ran on highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel at 93% U-235, provided by the US." Why is the current regime so hostile to America? Oh right, because America enabled political terrorism by the Shah's secret police: "According to a declassified CIA memo citing a classified U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, the CIA played a significant role in establishing SAVAK, providing both funding and training.[7] The organization became notorious for its extensive surveillance, repression, and torture of political dissidents. The Shah used SAVAK to arrest, imprison, exile, and torture his opponents, leading to widespread public resentment." And how do we fix the past mistakes of American intervention? More intervention of course! More regime change! It will definitely work this time. We need to go to war in the middle east because of the threat of WMDs. It'll go great |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4021985)
No, my post says that Iranian regime will never give up its nuclear ambitions. The only thing that negotiating with them does is allow them more time to do the inevitable.
They have no desire to join a world that they largely detest. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:03 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands