European Support for Iran should come at a price

Just as the title suggests. Iran has been playing this geo-political game against the United States. Since we withdrew from the treaty, they've been ratcheting up provocations. We all know Trump does not want a war. And we definitely know that Iran doesn't want a war. Iran knows if they went to war with us, that will be the end of the ayatollah. Irans objective is to push and push until they pressure the United States back to the table on their terms. And they're using the European leaders as leverage, getting them to back pressure to have the United States come back to the negotiation table.

I cannot stress enough, we have to limit availability of nuclear technology to countries that have been known to sponsor state-terrorism. We can all agree that Switzerland would be better off with nuclear weapons than Iran would. We're already facing a grave dilemma under this nuclear umbrella, compiled onto other world devastating events just waiting to unfold.

I personally don't think Iran should need nuclear technology to provide power considering they have large national oil supplies. The Iran deal was basically "We won't build nukes for 10 years, but after those 10 years, we don't know what's going to happen."

Now they're playing the Europeans hand and telling them they are speeding up the enrichment program and broadening their nuclear program entirely and that they "abided" by the rules of the agreement from the beginning. Boo hoo, sympathy party for the ayatollahs.

If the European leaders want to back this Iran deal and allow Iran to develop its nuclear program for 10 years, not being bound by any agreement there-after to build nukes, I think the United States should pull out of European nations, remove its ABM systems, nuclear sharing, and troops entirely. Not only will we have to send more troops to the middle east due to the spill-out 10 years later, they should be left to their own devices. If they do not want the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, let them stand in their own defense against Russia. Better yet, lets give Germany a nuclear arsenal and say adios. Can't leave a man in the desert without water, right?

/rantover

a reply to: JoeGee

But that's entirely normal to make a contract with time stamp, it is so you can assess the situation and negotiate a new one.
The only one who is putting pressure on somebody is the USA on Iran. There is no proof the tanker sabotage was not SA, or a rogue group. The drone that got shot down might have been in Iranian airspace.
The US just pulled out put sanctions on them and Iran is the one putting pressure on somebody? And you think Europe should be punished for trying to convince them the west is reliable?
I don't understand what the USA expects to accomplish? Regime change?

a reply to: Peeple

It sounds more to me, "We're going to buy time to rebuild our economy, and in 10 years when the treaty is over, we can build a nuke and secure our hateful ambition just like North Korea has".

Iran has closed the straits of hormuz by laying mines and disabling tankers in the straits. Remember operation earnest will? they've repeatedly threatened to shut the straits. And you're going to tell me that wasn't Irans mine? Or like you said, a rogue entity, BUT SPONSORED BY IRAN? Iran and Iraq are the only ones that are known for that sort of tactic, and guess what, we invaded the crap out of iraq 16 years ago, so that leaves 1 more culprit.

I don't understand what it is with appeasement...So we can have another untamable dictatorship that defies the world status quo and American hegemony?

And Iran is ONLY doing this to get America to give in and return to the table or put the spotlight right on Trump. It's the big bad orange mans fault. He withdrew, we abided. Like I said, save me the tears mr.ayatollah. I remember way back when i was growing up, I was always taught in school "The united states does not negotiate with terrorist". When did we go back on that?

originally posted by: JoeGee
Just as the title suggests. Iran has been playing this geo-political game against the United States. Since we withdrew from the treaty, they've been ratcheting up provocations. We all know Trump does not want a war. And we definitely know that Iran doesn't want a war. Iran knows if they went to war with us, that will be the end of the ayatollah. Irans objective is to push and push until they pressure the United States back to the table on their terms. And they're using the European leaders as leverage, getting them to back pressure to have the United States come back to the negotiation table.

What? Iran is trying to avoid war by negotiating? Those bastards!

originally posted by: JoeGee

I cannot stress enough, we have to limit availability of nuclear technology to countries that have been known to sponsor state-terrorism. We can all agree that Switzerland would be better off with nuclear weapons than Iran would.

Little late for that. And Switzerland has better than nukes; they have banks. How do you think they managed to remain "neutral" during WW2?

originally posted by: JoeGee

I personally don't think Iran should need nuclear technology to provide power considering they have large national oil supplies. The Iran deal was basically "We won't build nukes for 10 years, but after those 10 years, we don't know what's going to happen."

I don't think the biggest deterrent to a US invasion is nuclear weapons, I think it would be nuclear power plants. Remember when the US invaded Iraq? Iraqis set the oil fields on fire. Imagine if Iraq had 5 or 6 power plants that could be sabotaged or damaged. Even if the nuclear power plants remained intact, the US would then have the responsibility of maintaining the reactors. I guarantee you, the US military would not want to supply qualified personnel to maintain nuclear reactors built by a Middle Eastern country.

originally posted by: JoeGee

If the European leaders want to back this Iran deal and allow Iran to develop its nuclear program for 10 years, not being bound by any agreement there-after to build nukes, I think the United States should pull out of European nations, remove its ABM systems, nuclear sharing, and troops entirely.

And what would we spend our tax dollars on? Infrastructure? The poor? Meh, let's just invade Iran. What could go wrong?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: JoeGee

But that's entirely normal to make a contract with time stamp, it is so you can assess the situation and negotiate a new one.
The only one who is putting pressure on somebody is the USA on Iran. There is no proof the tanker sabotage was not SA, or a rogue group. The drone that got shot down might have been in Iranian airspace.
The US just pulled out put sanctions on them and Iran is the one putting pressure on somebody? And you think Europe should be punished for trying to convince them the west is reliable?
I don't understand what the USA expects to accomplish? Regime change?

The thing is Iran is going to have nuclear weapon capabilities soon unless somebody stops it from happening.

Twice the U.S. has had to save the world and still we are seen as the bad guy.

Maybe the U.S. should just walk away....F the rest of the world.

We will be fine how would everyone else fair without our money and technology?

I say we find out.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
What? Iran is trying to avoid war by negotiating? Those bastards!

It's called stalling.

SunTzu: "Avoid direct confrontations at all costs"

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Little late for that. And Switzerland has better than nukes; they have banks. How do you think they managed to remain "neutral" during WW2?

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
I don't think the biggest deterrent to a US invasion is nuclear weapons, I think it would be nuclear power plants. Remember when the US invaded Iraq? Iraqis set the oil fields on fire. Imagine if Iraq had 5 or 6 power plants that could be sabotaged or damaged. Even if the nuclear power plants remained intact, the US would then have the responsibility of maintaining the reactors. I guarantee you, the US military would not want to supply qualified personnel to maintain nuclear reactors built by a Middle Eastern country.

Even more of a reason why they shouldn't have nuclear technology. Period.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
And what would we spend our tax dollars on? Infrastructure? The poor? Meh, let's just invade Iran. What could go wrong?

tbh, I think infrastructure is a sinkhole of tax-payer dollars. It's funny, I'm a local 1 plumber and I helped build the Hudson River Yards, and that job has over a $5 billion dollar price-tag on tax payer dollars. Weapons and oil though? Now that's something we can see some profits from. But let me stop myself short, because I don't want to see ourselves in kinetic conflict with Iran.

a reply to: JoeGee

Do you know how complicated it is to build a nuke? You need to test them too ask NK they almost hit Japan. So why can't we just agree the US, SA and Israel can have their way as soon as there are undeniable signs Iran is indeed working on it?
I don't like Iran, I call them the "hate people" but national sovereignity trumps American hegemony.

a reply to: Peeple

national soverignty does not trump HIGHLY potential devastating earthly consequences.

We should not even take the slightest chance. Give an inch, take a mile. Do not put it in your mind for one second there aren't people in this world that wouldn't gladly press the trigger and watch the world burn so they can pick up the pieces and rebuild. Again, I don't see any need for Iran to pursue nuclear technology. Do they all the sudden care about the environment..?

Furthermore, Iran has a very rugged and mountainous terrain. They can easily pull off small underground nuclear tests without much detection.

Also south africa built 6 nuclear bombs. So tell me how hard it would be for Iran to.

a reply to: JoeGee

The only one who has ever actually pressed the trigger was the US. I don't see how that makes them the authority in avoiding global fallout?

Would Iran nuke Israel? Probably. But with the treaty the west would have had a foot in the door to keep an eye open. And all it did when Trump ended it was to make the US look unreliable. That's not a message you want to send, being allies is all about standing by your agreement with others.
That's why Iran surely won't talk. They feel confirmed.

originally posted by: Peeple
The only one who has ever actually pressed the trigger was the US. I don't see how that makes them the authority in avoiding global fallout?

You mean when we pulled the trigger to get Japan to submit after they killed half as many people than the Nazis? You seem to have your history constrewed or ignore what really happened and look at a black and white picture. "WELLLLL americas the only one to use nukes so who are we to say", yeah, and we saved millions more chinese and possibly Australians from being massacred by the Japanese.

In my opinion, the United States is the only nation in the world to uphold the global status quo and international security. Everyone talks about the horrors America saved the world from when the Nazis were taking over. No one talks about the Japanese though. In the face of an enemy that would not surrender and were genocidal (see rape of nanking), I think the nuclear option is well on the table.

originally posted by:
PeepleWould Iran nuke Israel? Probably.

Then we'll have nuclear war because Israel also has nukes. Again, lets try to avoid the cold-war era like stand off by eliminating one. And if I'm going to choose between the only truly democratic government in the middle east over a theocratic government, guess who I will choose...

originally posted by: Peeple
And all it did when Trump ended it was to make the US look unreliable.

then so be it. sounds a lot like the rap cops get. they're here to protect us, but are always painted unreliable and racist. the world will be a lot safer without Iran having a nuclear program. again, I think America should go back to its morals and not negotiate with terrorist.

Ill leave you off with this:
"You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve."

a reply to: JoeGee

You pulled the trigger as Japan was already in the edge of surrendering.
But that's not the point, you want to punish Europe for complying with the treaty the US made. And think that is right somehow. It's not just bad reputation, it's your actions.

originally posted by: Peeple
You pulled the trigger as Japan was already in the edge of surrendering.
But that's not the point, you want to punish Europe for complying with the treaty the US made. And think that is right somehow. It's not just bad reputation, it's your actions.

well i mean not me personally..Japan knew they were defeated, but they did not have the willingness the surrender. Are you trying to assume the nuclear detonations were perhaps a sign of strength to the Soviets? That would be hearsay.

Like I said before, if the international community wants to paint us that way, so be it. Trump or US policy currently won't let Obamas age of appeasement lead to another world devastating war. Like Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of the Germans.

a reply to: JoeGee

we have to limit availability of nuclear technology to countries that have been known to sponsor state-terrorism.

So the US being the only country to nuke other cities, invading the ME, does not act all terroristic?

hahahaha

I personally don't think Iran should need nuclear technology to provide power considering they have large national oil supplies

So does the same go for the US seeing they are self sufficient in oil now? Shut down all those power stations.


War With Iran? Count Us Out, Europe Says
www.nytimes.com...

BRUSSELS — With strong memories of the last catastrophic war in Iraq, Europeans are united in opposing what many consider the United States’ effort to provoke Iran into a shooting war.

Heaven forbid Europe doesn't buy into another invasion on spurious grounds.

And they're using the European leaders as leverage

No. Europe's wised up to the US/MIC wars for profit.

a reply to: JoeGee

I remember way back when i was growing up, I was always taught in school "The united states does not negotiate with terrorist". When did we go back on that?

Did they teach you at school that the Shah was put there with the help of the CIA? or that over 60,000 Iranians suffered as a result of the Shahs policies?

Here, do some catch up, on state sponsored US terrorism

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: JoeGee

The reality is you're just isolating yourself further. And you normalise it to break contracts.
If the USA declare their intentions "peace, democracy, freedom,..." nobody believes it anymore you're acting purely out of self interest. Even less now that you have a president who made it part of his campaign "America first".
Your actions speak louder than words. Plus the US has nothing done in any of its wars that can be considered a success.

What's the alternative to appeasement? What's the plan?

Did the OP just suggest blackmailing fellow countries into participating in a potential devastating and useless war?

Not gonna happen. Demented Donald was "minutes away" from having a full blown air strike until someone seems to have him distracted, maybe with a shiny toy.

But did we already forget that Demented Donald has already started (wednesday last week!) a cyber attack on Iranian forces? Thats totally an act of war for me. Why not escalate from there...?!

Nobody: ---
18 year olds in the USA: *starts sweating*

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
So the US being the only country to nuke other cities, invading the ME, does not act all terroristic?

hahahaha

again, hearsay.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
So does the same go for the US seeing they are self sufficient in oil now? Shut down all those power stations.

Agreed.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
Heaven forbid Europe doesn't buy into another invasion on spurious grounds.

Heaven forbid the United States come to the aid of Europe ever again, couldn't I just say the same? Does Europe fall in line with Iran or with the United States?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
No. Europe's wised up to the US/MIC wars for profit.

Oh really? That's why the British and French governments paid Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state to overthrow Gaddafi? While Gaddafi accumulated billions in gold and plans to create an African currency to challenge the West African Franc? Please, the Europeans are as sly as us Americans. Where do you think we got it from my friend?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
Did they teach you at school that the Shah was put there with the help of the CIA? or that over 60,000 Iranians suffered as a result of the Shahs policies?

Here, do some catch up, on state sponsored US terrorism

en.wikipedia.org...

That's very patronizing of yourself to say that as you sit there high on your perch. In your comfortable home, perhaps in airconditioning, perhaps you're watching netflix on that nice flat screen tv you may have recently bought, or that nice car sitting in your driveway. you seem to enjoy and loath in the freedoms and benefits this free and capitalist country provides. you seem to forget that the world is a better place, at least for you, because of that. you seem to enjoy and reap the benefits but don't like the road you took to get there.

Let me leave you off with another legendary movie quote:

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.

We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!