Europe aids Iran, Russia and China in looming arms race

[exchemist]

Nukes are also useful for ethnic cleansing enemy nation states when a leadership are delusional enough to believe they will be magically spared the consequences.

If you were to support such delusional people becoming nuclear armed without sufficient investigation into their history of fanaticism and anathema towards reason you would potentially have a share in the responsibility for the blood of an entire nation on your head, so i can only advise you not to approach the fanatical Iranian regime with naive optimism.

This is quite mad. Nobody could possibly contemplate using a nuke for ethnic cleansing. There is no evidence the leadership of Iran is "delusional".

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Headed into the right direction, until they stole millions of investor dollars, after the West virtually built their oil empire for them...

Then Mosaddegh nationalized their oil industry and expelled every Westerner from there, and kept the money for themselves.

...Then came Operation's Boot and Ajax.

Iranians have every right to keep the money for themselves. The oil and the profits from it belong to the Iranian people, not some Western corporation. It is immoral to steal from and exploit others.

 

[Heyo]

Nukes are also useful for ethnic cleansing enemy nation states when a leadership are delusional enough to believe they will be magically spared the consequences.

If you were to support such delusional people becoming nuclear armed without sufficient investigation into their history of fanaticism and anathema towards reason you would potentially have a share in the responsibility for the blood of an entire nation on your head, so i can only advise you not to approach the fanatical Iranian regime with naive optimism.

The fanatical Iranian regime doesn't have a history of attacking foreign countries with made-up premises. They don't have a history of ethnic cleansing (which can't be said of a then ally of the US who attacked Iran).

A little history lesson:

 

[Revoltingest]

A United Nations ban on the sale of weapons to Iran is set to expire in mid-October despite a last-ditch effort by the Trump administration to renew it.

Without the arms ban, Russia and China are poised to bolster their already close military alliances with Iran, selling the country stockpiles of advanced weapons that will be available to the Islamic Republic's terror proxy groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon. Both countries have sold Tehran arms in the past—including aiding its nuclear endeavors—and have been clear in recent months about their desire to amplify the relationship.

European nations have already rejected the United States' bid to indefinitely extend the arms embargo and are now opposing further efforts to restore all sanctions on Iran that were lifted under the 2015 nuclear agreement.

The stalemate at the U.N. Security Council has decimated the United States' historically close relationship with France, Germany, and the U.K.

Looming Middle East Arms Race Sparks Fear of Unprecedented Regional War

...What is your position, and why?

Iran needs arms for self defense.

 

[columbus]

Iran needs arms for self defense.

Which is exactly why the peace deal crafted by Obama/Clinton/Biden, imperfect as it was, was the best shot at preventing further nuclearization of that hottest of hot spots, the Middle East.

It gave the USA 10 years to prove that we weren't the nuclear tipped bully we have been for decades. Trump dumping that agreement didn't just set us back to where we were before the deal. It proved that the USA cannot be trusted to keep a deal. Especially not when a political party can gain advantage by undercutting basic US security, like the Republicans and Trump did.
Tom

 

[exchemist]

Which is exactly why the peace deal crafted by Obama/Clinton/Biden, imperfect as it was, was the best shot at preventing further nuclearization of that hottest of hot spots, the Middle East.

It gave the USA 10 years to prove that we weren't the nuclear tipped bully we have been for decades. Trump dumping that agreement didn't just set us back to where we were before the deal. It proved that the USA cannot be trusted to keep a deal. Especially not when a political party can gain advantage by undercutting basic US security, like the Republicans and Trump did.
Tom

Yes I agree and I think it is very sad. Past presidents would have understood that you devalue the currency of the USA's word, as a country, by reneging so capriciously on an agreement. Trump himself says one thing one day and the opposite the next, depending on what suits him on the day in question. Thanks to Trump, the USA is now seen by everyone as a completely unreliable partner. This has considerably weakened the USA internationally. It is why Putin is so keen to see him in power.

For Iran, it serves to confirm their previous prejudice against the West as untrustworthy. This is likely to increase their resolve to develop their own regional influence and their own means of defence, and to seek alternative partnerships with enemies of the West.

 

[columbus]

This has considerably weakened the USA internationally. It is why Putin is so keen to see him in power.

Exactly.
Putin wants to push the USA off the top of the hill, globally speaking. Trump's helping that happen. Of course the Russians are supporting him!
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Which is exactly why the peace deal crafted by Obama/Clinton/Biden, imperfect as it was, was the best shot at preventing further nuclearization of that hottest of hot spots, the Middle East.

It gave the USA 10 years to prove that we weren't the nuclear tipped bully we have been for decades. Trump dumping that agreement didn't just set us back to where we were before the deal. It proved that the USA cannot be trusted to keep a deal. Especially not when a political party can gain advantage by undercutting basic US security, like the Republicans and Trump did.
Tom

Do you realize that you're agreeing with me.
So many ways to make God cry, eh.

 

[ecco]

This isn't "our" bidding... That's the problem -- people being distracted by current side issues, and not looking long term.

The treaty with Iran was forward-looking. Trump pulled out.
The Paris Agreement was forward-looking. Trump pulled out.

I'm looking forward to 1/20/2021.

 

[ecco]

And in the meantime, those and those like you support the Eastern Authoritarian Bloc... because... Trump.

Silly.

 

[columbus]

How do you propose stopping Russia and China selling weapons to countries they want to sell weapons to?

Same way they'll stop us from selling weapons to governments they don't want us to. Like Israel.
Tom

 

[danieldemol]

The fanatical Iranian regime doesn't have a history of attacking foreign countries with made-up premises. They don't have a history of ethnic cleansing (which can't be said of a then ally of the US who attacked Iran).

Wouldn't their history of state sponsored proxy warfare reveal their true intentions towards other states if they had the power to invade?

And what of the religious persecution that caused the exodus of Iran's Jews following the Islamic revolution? If they couldn't deal faithfully with 50 to 60,000 Jews what makes you think they would deal faithfully with the nation of Israel?

1 Exodus of Iran's Jews - Wikipedia

 

[Cooky]

Iranians have every right to keep the money for themselves. The oil and the profits from it belong to the Iranian people, not some Western corporation. It is immoral to steal from and exploit others.

Wouldn't it be just like taking out a loan to buy a car, and then never making payments to the bank?

...Except this was a $20,000,000,000 oil industry loan...

 

[Cooky]

Iran needs arms for self defense.

Except these arms will be used to protect the Iranian "government", and not actually the people of Iran.

...So when we pick which governments are allowed to weaponize, we need to consider their ideas and policy decisions... Whether they are dictators, authoritarians or religious nut's... We shouldn't be helping those types of regimes gain power.

 

[columbus]

Wouldn't it be just like taking out a loan to buy a car, and then never making payments to the bank?

No.
It would be more like someone invading your yard and cutting down trees and claiming that they'd bought the chainsaws so the trees are theirs.
Tom

 

[Cooky]

No.
It would be more like someone invading your yard and cutting down trees and claiming that they'd bought the chainsaws so the trees are theirs.
Tom

But the Iranians cut down those trees... The U.S. and the U.K. taught them how to accomplish their goals, and even paid money out of their own pocket to get the project going. Like a loan.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except these arms will be used to protect the Iranian "government", and not actually the people of Iran.

History shows a compelling need for defense against foreign
aggressors. Consider the Iraq v Iran war, wherein nearly a million
Iranians died. We fomented that war, aiding Iraq with intelligence
& weapons, including chemical & biological WMDs....the very things
we based the later invasion of Iraq upon.
Since then, Israel has lobbied that we wage war against them,
this time directly rather than by proxy. The Saudis would
likely go along.
So we've created circumstances that created their self
defense needs.

...So when we pick which governments are allowed to weaponize, we need to consider their ideas and policy decisions... Whether they are dictators, authoritarians or religious nut's... We shouldn't be helping those types of regimes gain power.

Of course we don't want Iran armed. They overthrew the
leader that we installed in the 1953 coup. And Israel wants
them neutered. But I'm considering their perspective, not
Ameristan's or Israel's.

 

[Heyo]

Wouldn't their history of state sponsored proxy warfare reveal their true intentions towards other states if they had the power to invade?

And what of the religious persecution that caused the exodus of Iran's Jews following the Islamic revolution? If they couldn't deal faithfully with 50 to 60,000 Jews what makes you think they would deal faithfully with the nation of Israel?

1 Exodus of Iran's Jews - Wikipedia

There are no heroes in this story, only more or less guilty villains and a lot of hypocrites who still think "we are the good ones".

 

[Cooky]

History shows a compelling need for defense against foreign
aggressors. Consider the Iraq v Iran war, wherein nearly a million
Iranians died. We fomented that war, aiding Iraq with intelligence
& weapons, including chemical & biological WMDs....the very things
we based the later invasion of Iraq upon.
Since then, Israel has lobbied that we wage war against them,
this time directly rather than by proxy. The Saudis would
likely go along.
So we've created circumstances that created their self
defense needs.

Of course we don't want Iran armed. They overthrew the
leader that we installed in the 1953 coup. And Israel wants
them neutered. But I'm considering their perspective, not
Ameristan's or Israel's.

Identifying liberty here is a tough one. Whose, and what kind, and if a certain kind is or not... it's hard.

 

[danieldemol]

There are no heroes in this story, only more or less guilty villains and a lot of hypocrites who still think "we are the good ones".

So are you saying we should nuclear arm villains because there are other villains in the world? How does that make sense, the less nuclear armed villains the better.