Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

@izzythepush,

Clearly you don't understand that Israel does not control the Gaza Strip any longer and that the only people living there are the Palestinians.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Israel controls the Gaza Strip. They got the Palestinians hemmed in every which a way and come in with their bulldozers and/or bombs anytime they want. Moreover, in all of Palestine they have illegal settlements built everywhere and anywhere they wish and no plans in sight to stop building them which creates false land boundaries for any future Palestinian state unless all the settlements are dismantled and no new ones built. If a true peace is to be reached then Palestine should have it's own state the way they were supposed to when Israel got it's state given to them by the UN, complete with advantages to water and everything else they would need to be a viable independent state with all rights to defend itself just like any other country should be able to.

Why is this discussed on the Iran nuclear deal thread?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

In the case of Iran we're giving up on the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (though it has already been badly weakened by the development of weapon capabilities in India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea). We can expect to see efforts to build a bomb in Saudi Arabia soon.

We aren't giving up on the NPT. If Iran resumes their illegal development of nuclear weapons, the United States will bomb their nuclear facilities.

North Korea is subject to harsh sanctions due to their illegal nuclear weapons.

The NPT does not forbid Israel, India, and Pakistan from having nuclear weapons.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Israel controls the Gaza Strip.

That is incorrect. Ariel Sharon pulled out of the Gaza Strip more than 10 years ago.

It was part of a plan to unilaterally pull out of all Palestinian areas in the hope that, even though the Palestinians refuse to negotiate peace, perhaps they would become peaceful if just left to themselves.

Unfortunately the plan didn't work, and plans for further unilateral pullouts were scrapped. The pullout from Gaza only made the Palestinians more aggressive.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

We aren't giving up on the NPT. If Iran resumes their illegal development of nuclear weapons, the United States will bomb their nuclear facilities.

When pigs fly, and they darn well know it.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

The harsh sanctions on North Korea have so far had little effect except to limit their ability to import technology. Besides you have declared sanctions to be an immoral way of hurting the people and not the wealthy and powerful.

If we couldn't find the will to bomb Iran for their repeated violations of existing agreements, what makes you willing to believe we will find the will to do it later under even less favorable circumstances?

We have simply ignored the "NPT" in our negotiations with Iran, or did you fail to notice that?

1 Reply

Quote:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over incendiary posts on the social network, Bloomberg reported on Sunday, amid complaints from her government about anti-immigrant posts in the midst of Europe’s refugee crisis.

On the sidelines of a United Nations luncheon on Saturday, Merkel was caught on a hot mic pressing Zuckerberg about social media posts about the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany, the publication reported.

The Facebook CEO was overheard responding that “we need to do some work” on curtailing anti-immigrant posts about the refugee crisis. “Are you working on this?” Merkel asked in English, to which Zuckerberg replied in the affirmative before the transmission was disrupted.

This is how progressives handle the truth. They censor it.

http://conservative-headlines.com/2015/09/zuckerberg-promises-merkel-a-crackdown-on-free-speech/

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

The harsh sanctions on North Korea have so far had little effect except to limit their ability to import technology.

Their economy remains in the stone age.

georgeob1 wrote:

Besides you have declared sanctions to be an immoral way of hurting the people and not the wealthy and powerful.

I have?!? Was I posting drunk?

georgeob1 wrote:

If we couldn't find the will to bomb Iran for their repeated violations of existing agreements, what makes you willing to believe we will find the will to do it later under even less favorable circumstances?

Mr. Obama has stated that military options remain on the table. We haven't bombed them so far because he wanted to give diplomacy a chance.

I don't see how the circumstances will be less favorable in the future. The Air Force is about to cut a $75 billion check for a new fleet of stealth bombers. Bombing Iran might be even easier in the future.

georgeob1 wrote:

We have simply ignored the "NPT" in our negotiations with Iran, or did you fail to notice that?

I have failed to notice that.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

oralloy wrote:
We aren't giving up on the NPT. If Iran resumes their illegal development of nuclear weapons, the United States will bomb their nuclear facilities.

When pigs fly, and they darn well know it.

I am confident that Mr. Obama will bomb Iran if Iran resumes nuclear weapons development on his watch.

I am confident that we will see a Republican elected president in 2016, and am confident that whatever Republican is elected will also bomb Iran if Iran resumes nuclear weapons development on their watch.

While I don't see any chance of a Democratic victory in 2016, I am also confident that a President Hillary or a President Biden would bomb Iran if Iran resumed developing nuclear weapons.

I don't know enough about Sanders to draw any conclusions. I suspect though that, IF he did decline to bomb Iran in the face of renewed Iranian nuclear weapons development, he would orchestrate North Korea-like sanctions instead.

0 Replies

@roger,

What makes you so sure Obama wouldn't use force if they breached?

1 Reply

@snood,

The inbuilt prejudice a lot of rightwingers have about a black president.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Well, if that's true, they're jumping to an erroneous conclusion (in my opinion). I asked the question about 'why' so I don't also jump to a conclusion.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

People keep bringing up the 1938 Munich agreement with Hitler but I don't think they have any clue what was in that or the Iran deal because they are hardly comparable.

Hitler never violated the terms of the Munich agreement.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/munich1.asp
Iran can not work on building a nuclear bomb without violating the agreement.

Quote:

In the case of Iran we're giving up on the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty

No, we are not because the treaty includes a provision that Iran is to follow the NPT.

Quote:

Notwithstanding some vacuous and pious pronouncements made earlier here, sanctions are not immoral in themselves, and they are far less damaging than war.

An agreement that imposes sanctions if violated is better than no sanctions at all which is what will happen if the US pulls out of this deal

2 Replies

@parados,

Lots of talk, most of it uninformed, on what happens if Iran breaks the terms of the deal. What about if Iran keeps to the terms of the deal? I read this deal as lots of upside and very little downside. If Iran decides to pursue a nuclear program, that puts us exactly where we are today except that the world will look at the US and say "at least they tried". If Iran decides that they will honor the agreement, then no nuclear Iran, no new war in the Mid East, a new basis for working with Iran on fighting ISIS and other regional issues, a new basis for working with China on Asian issues, an example of the US solving real issues in a non-violent way... lots of wins. I'm don't understand why this deal isn't generating some Republican support when even defense experts in Israel think it is a good deal.

1 Reply

@parados,

Actually, still today, Germany regards the Munich treaty only "ex nunc" from December 11, 1973 onwards (while the [then] Czechoslovakia saw it "ex tunc" [a position, which still exists between Czech and Germany]).

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Wally, how many refugees do you plan to take in?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Personally? You don't know our asylum right and anything about the procedure on federal and our state level, don't you?

If you've finished to learn reading, get some lessons about using the internet. Quite a lot about it is online, in English.

0 Replies

coldjoint wrote:

What a way to live. And in your own country.

Well, 1200 years ago, the Franks invaded my country and my ancestors were Christianised by force or killed, if didn't want to become Christians.

I'm glad that neither you nor your ancestors had to a foreign country! And happy that where you live, all could stay there in their thousands of years old culture without any influences from from abroad!

And of course, I'm happy as well that rape is unknown in your country. (It wasn't an asylum seeker, btw, ....)

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Well, 1200 years ago, the Franks invaded my country and my ancestors were Christianised by force or killed, if didn't want to become Christians.

Well, Wally what good does that do for Germany in the present. Are you saying Islam gives you the same choice? You are a smart one.

And if that girl wasn't raped by a refugee she is only 16 and has plenty of time. And why would someone dismiss rape because it happens all over. It is a crime and other crimes do not justify it.

And I am worried about the now, Wally. It is called reality.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

The inbuilt prejudice a lot of rightwingers have about a black president.

Anything like your built in stupidity about multiculture which is a huge failure in your country and all through Europe.

1 Reply

Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know