9 ms·

>One could 's/Islamic Republic/KSA' here and it'd be pretty much the same stories. KSA is smart enough not to openly shout 'Death to America'. Nor does it have

by yyyk 6y ago

>One could 's/Islamic Republic/KSA' here and it'd be pretty much the same stories. KSA is smart enough not to openly shout 'Death to America'. Nor does it have a nuclear program or keeps hostages or refuses to join anti-terrorist transparency treaties. >The rest of the story: Because South Korea is effectively stealing $7B worth of oil from Iran. OK, lets have any country which has a financial dispute with some other country takes hostages. That would be a nice world, right? That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour.

AsyncAwait 6y ago
> KSA is smart enough not to openly shout 'Death to America'. Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their generals etc., organizing illegal coups & we'll see then. > Nor does it have a nuclear program That's false[1]. There's little credible evidence Iran is trying to actually build a bomb. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia#2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabi... > refuses to join anti-terrorist transparency treaties It only funds terrorists in Syria, Yemen etc. and constructs radical schools all over, being dubbed fatwa valley but nothing to see here. > That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour. It seems to me like they tried to be constructive with the Iran Deal and got betrayed by the U.S. again. They have plenty of reason not to trust the U.S. Iran has not staged a coup in the U.S. as far as I know.
- yyyk 6y ago
  >Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their generals etc., organizing illegal coups & we'll see then. The first is after a nuclear program and Iran killing hundreds of American soldiers. The coup is unrelated (would you support bombing a different country over something that happened 60 years ago when both countries had very different governments?), and quite funny when one remembers the Islamists also supported the coup. >It seems to me like they tried to be constructive with the Iran Deal If you define being constructive as taking hostages over and over than yes they were. >There's little credible evidence Iran is trying to actually build a bomb. Apart from weapon drawings, direct recordings of one the key architects discussing weapons[1], mass uranium enrichment.... SA has nothing remotely comparable. [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-has-tape-of-slain-iran-nuke-chief-talking-about-building-five-warheads/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-has-tape-of-slain-iran-...
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > The first is after a nuclear program and Iran killing hundreds of American soldiers. How far back should we go with the tit for tat calculations? I recall a war where US sold Iraq chemical weapons to kill Iranian soldiers[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against...
    - adventured 6y ago
      Correction, Germany did more than anyone to help Iraq with chemical weapons. 52% of their chemical weapons equipment derived from Germany for example. The Germans knew exactly what they were doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program
      - mullingitover 6y ago
        I'd call it a team effort. The US was certainly selling dual use equipment in the war, and not only did it not lift a finger to stop the use of chemical weapons, it blocked the UN Security Council from even passing a resolution saying that using them was a bad thing.
        stretchcat 6y ago
        America also provided rhetorical cover for Iraq by accusing Iran of using chemical weapons as well. Allegations which were never substantiated, probably because it never actually happened. And when the Reagan administration learned that Iraq was targetting their own Kurdish population with chemical weapons, they still didn't give a shit. But two decades later, when Bush the Younger decided to emulate his father, the American government invoked those gas attacks against civilians as a justification to dismantle Iraq. Two decades late for the Kurds that got gassed by Iraq while the American government pretended not to notice. American foreign policy is depraved.
      - pushswap 6y ago
- kortilla 6y ago
  > Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their generals etc., organizing illegal coups & we'll see then. > They have plenty of reason not to trust the U.S. Do you see how your goal posts have shifted from “Iran wants peace” to “Of course Iran doesn’t want peace, look at how bad the US is?”
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    The fact that they don't like or trust the US does not mean they also don't want peace. If your idea of peace however is the US antagonizing in the region, (Iran's backyard if you will) and Iran disarming and sitting on their ass watching the US surround them, without any regional allies, then no I don't think Iran is after that, I also don't think it has anything to do with wanting peace.
yongjik 6y ago
> OK, lets have any country which has a financial dispute with some other country takes hostages. That would be a nice world, right? That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour. Well, I'd have to point out, when the US told South Korea (and the rest of the world) to cut trades with Iran (or else), it was engaging in this very kind of behavior. As a South Korean, I'd appreciate if the US and Iran could talk to each other like adults and leave my country out of this, but that's not the kind of world we're living in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- yyyk 6y ago
  >the US... was engaging in this very kind of behavior. The US is taking South Korean hostages?
  - yongjik 6y ago
    Who needs hostages, when you can crush a whole country's economy with your thumbs? America can cause $$$ to instantly evaporate off Korea just by looking at it the wrong way. You think Korea is keeping Iran's 7 billion dollars just because we like to be a jerk? I don't want to complain too much, because the arrangement is usually mutually beneficial (after all, if you have to keep thousands of foreign soldiers on your own soil, better to be a part of team America than team Iran or team China) - I just think it would be better if we talk about practicality instead of moral outrages.
    - yyyk 6y ago
      I don't think practicality and moral outrages are in contradiction. There's a practical reason to get outraged here - because it would be bad for SK if everyone starts taking hostages and because SK has a duty to its citizens.
- frequentnapper 6y ago
  >but that's not the kind of world we're living in. Exactly, because without US Navy, China would be taking Korean ships and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
nashashmi 6y ago
KSA is smart enough to make everyone hate Iran. The stuff you mention is just Iran hating back.
Analemma_ 6y ago
“Death to X” is an overly-literal translation of a common Persian idiom of frustration, eagerly and maliciously repeated by motivated parties to make Iranians look as dangerous as possible. It’s essentially the Persian equivalent to “fuck X”, and so this is as though you had your arm bitten off by a shark and said, “Fuck sharks!”, and someone deliberately took that to mean you endorse bestiality.
- ShroudedNight 6y ago
  Are there good secondary sources for this? This alleged perversion strikes me as a significant linchpin in the structural animosity between the two people. I really want it to be true, so am particularly hesitant to accept it without compelling evidence.
  - potatoz2 6y ago
    Maybe https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/world/middleeast/some-iranians-seek-to-renew-an-old-chant.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/world/middleeast/some-ira... (there's also a Wikipedia article). I think a good comparison may also be "damn Kubernetes", you're not literally damning some technology. It's less clear in the phrase "damn you to hell". I think it's kind of similar, it's overloaded.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > I think a good comparison may also be "damn Kubernetes", you're not literally damning some technology. The only reason I don't mean that literally is because a: I'm fairly sure Hell doesn't exist, and b: if it did, I support and endorse most of the people there (eg blasphemers, scientists and other heretics, homosexuals and other deviants, and of course heathens, infidels, and apostates) and would not wish to inflict Kubernetes on them, even if the resulting increase in suffering would only be a rounding error. I think you have a valid point in general, but in this case I would, in fact, prefer for Kubernetes to be gone from the world entirely, and I don't think this is by any means a unique position, either regarding Kubernetes, or in the general case of "damn X".
  - 6y ago
input_sh 6y ago
> Nor does it have a nuclear program If only there was some international agency that could have people on the ground that could walk into any place in Iran under any suspicion that they might be enriching uranium beyond the levels needed for nuclear power plants, overriding basically any local laws that might prevent them access. We could call it International Atomic Energy Agency or something. Now seriously, this was in the deal that the US pulled out of, as well as an agreement that Iran will not enrich uranium beyond like 4% (enough for nuclear power plants, not bombs), reducing their stockpiles of uranium by 97% and much, much more. Now just days ago Iran let IAEA know that they're going to enrich it up to 20%.
- yyyk 6y ago
  Yea. It would be tough for Iran to develop weapons under those conditions, if they existed in reality. What would a smart leadership do to make it easier? If only there was a deal that wrote down that the international agency needed to ask permission from Iran in advance for inspections of 'military sites'. Also explicitly allow Iran to keep researching enrichment so breakout time would be small. And make that any extra restrictions are temporary. After all, there was that deal with North Korea, and we see how it worked so well - for North Korea.
  - input_sh 6y ago
    It's uranium, you can't simply hide it in the matter of days. Not to mention 24/7 video surveillance, satellite images, and that IAEA released quarterly reports and every one of them until over a year after US withdrew from the agreement said the same: Iran complied. Hell, even a year after Iran let IAEA know that they're gonna exceed their limits. Here's the entire timeline for those interested: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Nuclear-D... Nothing like the situation was with North Korea, where North Korea was uncooperative with the IAEA, mostly disagreeing on which parts of the plants IAEA can access. Not to mention IAEA had 20 years in between to improve their methods. US absolutely shot themselves in the foot by withdrawing from the deal no matter how you look at it.

by yyyk 6y ago

AsyncAwait 6y ago

> KSA is smart enough not to openly shout 'Death to America'. Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their generals etc., organizing illegal coups & we'll see then. > Nor does it have a nuclear program That's false[1]. There's little credible evidence Iran is trying to actually build a bomb. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia#2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabi... > refuses to join anti-terrorist transparency treaties It only funds terrorists in Syria, Yemen etc. and constructs radical schools all over, being dubbed fatwa valley but nothing to see here. > That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour. It seems to me like they tried to be constructive with the Iran Deal and got betrayed by the U.S. again. They have plenty of reason not to trust the U.S. Iran has not staged a coup in the U.S. as far as I know.

yyyk 6y ago
>Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their generals etc., organizing illegal coups & we'll see then. The first is after a nuclear program and Iran killing hundreds of American soldiers. The coup is unrelated (would you support bombing a different country over something that happened 60 years ago when both countries had very different governments?), and quite funny when one remembers the Islamists also supported the coup. >It seems to me like they tried to be constructive with the Iran Deal If you define being constructive as taking hostages over and over than yes they were. >There's little credible evidence Iran is trying to actually build a bomb. Apart from weapon drawings, direct recordings of one the key architects discussing weapons[1], mass uranium enrichment.... SA has nothing remotely comparable. [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-has-tape-of-slain-iran-nuke-chief-talking-about-building-five-warheads/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-has-tape-of-slain-iran-...
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > The first is after a nuclear program and Iran killing hundreds of American soldiers. How far back should we go with the tit for tat calculations? I recall a war where US sold Iraq chemical weapons to kill Iranian soldiers[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against...
  - adventured 6y ago
    Correction, Germany did more than anyone to help Iraq with chemical weapons. 52% of their chemical weapons equipment derived from Germany for example. The Germans knew exactly what they were doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      I'd call it a team effort. The US was certainly selling dual use equipment in the war, and not only did it not lift a finger to stop the use of chemical weapons, it blocked the UN Security Council from even passing a resolution saying that using them was a bad thing.
      - stretchcat 6y ago
        America also provided rhetorical cover for Iraq by accusing Iran of using chemical weapons as well. Allegations which were never substantiated, probably because it never actually happened. And when the Reagan administration learned that Iraq was targetting their own Kurdish population with chemical weapons, they still didn't give a shit. But two decades later, when Bush the Younger decided to emulate his father, the American government invoked those gas attacks against civilians as a justification to dismantle Iraq. Two decades late for the Kurds that got gassed by Iraq while the American government pretended not to notice. American foreign policy is depraved.
    - pushswap 6y ago
kortilla 6y ago
> Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their generals etc., organizing illegal coups & we'll see then. > They have plenty of reason not to trust the U.S. Do you see how your goal posts have shifted from “Iran wants peace” to “Of course Iran doesn’t want peace, look at how bad the US is?”
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  The fact that they don't like or trust the US does not mean they also don't want peace. If your idea of peace however is the US antagonizing in the region, (Iran's backyard if you will) and Iran disarming and sitting on their ass watching the US surround them, without any regional allies, then no I don't think Iran is after that, I also don't think it has anything to do with wanting peace.

yongjik 6y ago

> OK, lets have any country which has a financial dispute with some other country takes hostages. That would be a nice world, right? That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour. Well, I'd have to point out, when the US told South Korea (and the rest of the world) to cut trades with Iran (or else), it was engaging in this very kind of behavior. As a South Korean, I'd appreciate if the US and Iran could talk to each other like adults and leave my country out of this, but that's not the kind of world we're living in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

yyyk 6y ago
>the US... was engaging in this very kind of behavior. The US is taking South Korean hostages?
- yongjik 6y ago
  Who needs hostages, when you can crush a whole country's economy with your thumbs? America can cause $$$ to instantly evaporate off Korea just by looking at it the wrong way. You think Korea is keeping Iran's 7 billion dollars just because we like to be a jerk? I don't want to complain too much, because the arrangement is usually mutually beneficial (after all, if you have to keep thousands of foreign soldiers on your own soil, better to be a part of team America than team Iran or team China) - I just think it would be better if we talk about practicality instead of moral outrages.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    I don't think practicality and moral outrages are in contradiction. There's a practical reason to get outraged here - because it would be bad for SK if everyone starts taking hostages and because SK has a duty to its citizens.
frequentnapper 6y ago
>but that's not the kind of world we're living in. Exactly, because without US Navy, China would be taking Korean ships and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

nashashmi 6y ago

KSA is smart enough to make everyone hate Iran. The stuff you mention is just Iran hating back.

Analemma_ 6y ago

“Death to X” is an overly-literal translation of a common Persian idiom of frustration, eagerly and maliciously repeated by motivated parties to make Iranians look as dangerous as possible. It’s essentially the Persian equivalent to “fuck X”, and so this is as though you had your arm bitten off by a shark and said, “Fuck sharks!”, and someone deliberately took that to mean you endorse bestiality.

ShroudedNight 6y ago
Are there good secondary sources for this? This alleged perversion strikes me as a significant linchpin in the structural animosity between the two people. I really want it to be true, so am particularly hesitant to accept it without compelling evidence.
- potatoz2 6y ago
  Maybe https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/world/middleeast/some-iranians-seek-to-renew-an-old-chant.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/world/middleeast/some-ira... (there's also a Wikipedia article). I think a good comparison may also be "damn Kubernetes", you're not literally damning some technology. It's less clear in the phrase "damn you to hell". I think it's kind of similar, it's overloaded.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > I think a good comparison may also be "damn Kubernetes", you're not literally damning some technology. The only reason I don't mean that literally is because a: I'm fairly sure Hell doesn't exist, and b: if it did, I support and endorse most of the people there (eg blasphemers, scientists and other heretics, homosexuals and other deviants, and of course heathens, infidels, and apostates) and would not wish to inflict Kubernetes on them, even if the resulting increase in suffering would only be a rounding error. I think you have a valid point in general, but in this case I would, in fact, prefer for Kubernetes to be gone from the world entirely, and I don't think this is by any means a unique position, either regarding Kubernetes, or in the general case of "damn X".
- 6y ago

input_sh 6y ago

> Nor does it have a nuclear program If only there was some international agency that could have people on the ground that could walk into any place in Iran under any suspicion that they might be enriching uranium beyond the levels needed for nuclear power plants, overriding basically any local laws that might prevent them access. We could call it International Atomic Energy Agency or something. Now seriously, this was in the deal that the US pulled out of, as well as an agreement that Iran will not enrich uranium beyond like 4% (enough for nuclear power plants, not bombs), reducing their stockpiles of uranium by 97% and much, much more. Now just days ago Iran let IAEA know that they're going to enrich it up to 20%.

yyyk 6y ago
Yea. It would be tough for Iran to develop weapons under those conditions, if they existed in reality. What would a smart leadership do to make it easier? If only there was a deal that wrote down that the international agency needed to ask permission from Iran in advance for inspections of 'military sites'. Also explicitly allow Iran to keep researching enrichment so breakout time would be small. And make that any extra restrictions are temporary. After all, there was that deal with North Korea, and we see how it worked so well - for North Korea.
- input_sh 6y ago
  It's uranium, you can't simply hide it in the matter of days. Not to mention 24/7 video surveillance, satellite images, and that IAEA released quarterly reports and every one of them until over a year after US withdrew from the agreement said the same: Iran complied. Hell, even a year after Iran let IAEA know that they're gonna exceed their limits. Here's the entire timeline for those interested: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Nuclear-D... Nothing like the situation was with North Korea, where North Korea was uncooperative with the IAEA, mostly disagreeing on which parts of the plants IAEA can access. Not to mention IAEA had 20 years in between to improve their methods. US absolutely shot themselves in the foot by withdrawing from the deal no matter how you look at it.