6 ms·

> KSA is smart enough not to openly shout 'Death to America'. Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their generals etc., organizing illegal coups & w

> 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
      Civilians, not only soldiers, were gassed by the German's munitions resulting in long term injuries and deaths. It's surprising this isn't more well known, and that Germany was not internationally censured, tried, & made to pay compensation to the victims of these disgusting actions following their conduct in the Holocaust. Why's it so necessary for Germany to sell chemical weapons to be used in a warzone anyway? I wouldn't be surprised to see these were the same companies or individuals that acted 40 years earlier. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against_Iran https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_again... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  > nuclear program Objectively, why can't Iran have a nuclear program while Israel, India, and Pakistan can? > Iran killing hundreds of American soldiers They are a regional superpower and the United States invaded and destabilized their neighbor causing widespread chaos throughout the region. Civilian casualties from violence in Iraq following the destabilization of the '03 war have been estimated at around 200,000. > would you support bombing a different country over something that happened 60 years ago The US did shoot down an Irainian civilian airliner in 1988 and refuse to apologize about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 And then assassinated one of their generals earlier this year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleima... > SA has nothing remotely comparable They don't need them. They can do whatever they want in the region while the U.S. looks away and sells them the weapons to do it. "The bomb dropped on a school bus in Yemen by a Saudi-led coalition warplane was sold to Riyadh by the US, according to reports based on analysis of the debris. The 9 August attack killed 40 boys aged from six to 11 who were being taken on a school trip. Eleven adults also died. Local authorities said that 79 people were wounded, 56 of them children. CNN reported that the weapon used was a 227kg laser-guided bomb made by Lockheed Martin, one of many thousands sold to Saudi Arabia as part of billions of dollars of weapons exports. Saudi Arabia is the biggest single customer for both the US and UK arms industries. The US also supports the coalition with refuelling and intelligence." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/19/us-supplied-bomb-that-killed-40-children-school-bus-yemen https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/19/us-supplied-bo...
  - yyyk 6y ago
    >Objectively, why can't Iran have a nuclear program while Israel, India, and Pakistan can? Because Iran signed the NPT unlike the others and should abide by its commitments? Because Iran is the country which threatens other countries publicly? Because the Pakistani bomb is enough of a problem and nobody really needs another such problem? >They are a regional superpower and the United States invaded and destabilized their neighbor causing widespread chaos throughout the region. Civilian casualties from violence in Iraq following the destabilization of the '03 war have been estimated at around 200,000. How many of those are the result of Iranian involvement? For that matter, how many civilian casualties are the result of Iranian 'stabilization' in Syria? >The US did shoot down an Irainian civilian airliner in 1988 and refuse to apologize about it. Read your own cite, there was an agreement and compensation. >And then assassinated one of their generals earlier this year. Who had been involved in attacking American soldiers. >They [SA] don't need them. They can do whatever they want in the region while the U.S. looks away and sells them the weapons to do it. SA couldn't even respond to the attack on their oil facilities. I was talking about the Iranian nuclear problem though.
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.

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
    Civilians, not only soldiers, were gassed by the German's munitions resulting in long term injuries and deaths. It's surprising this isn't more well known, and that Germany was not internationally censured, tried, & made to pay compensation to the victims of these disgusting actions following their conduct in the Holocaust. Why's it so necessary for Germany to sell chemical weapons to be used in a warzone anyway? I wouldn't be surprised to see these were the same companies or individuals that acted 40 years earlier. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against_Iran https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_again... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
phobosanomaly 6y ago
> nuclear program Objectively, why can't Iran have a nuclear program while Israel, India, and Pakistan can? > Iran killing hundreds of American soldiers They are a regional superpower and the United States invaded and destabilized their neighbor causing widespread chaos throughout the region. Civilian casualties from violence in Iraq following the destabilization of the '03 war have been estimated at around 200,000. > would you support bombing a different country over something that happened 60 years ago The US did shoot down an Irainian civilian airliner in 1988 and refuse to apologize about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 And then assassinated one of their generals earlier this year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleima... > SA has nothing remotely comparable They don't need them. They can do whatever they want in the region while the U.S. looks away and sells them the weapons to do it. "The bomb dropped on a school bus in Yemen by a Saudi-led coalition warplane was sold to Riyadh by the US, according to reports based on analysis of the debris. The 9 August attack killed 40 boys aged from six to 11 who were being taken on a school trip. Eleven adults also died. Local authorities said that 79 people were wounded, 56 of them children. CNN reported that the weapon used was a 227kg laser-guided bomb made by Lockheed Martin, one of many thousands sold to Saudi Arabia as part of billions of dollars of weapons exports. Saudi Arabia is the biggest single customer for both the US and UK arms industries. The US also supports the coalition with refuelling and intelligence." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/19/us-supplied-bomb-that-killed-40-children-school-bus-yemen https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/19/us-supplied-bo...
- yyyk 6y ago
  >Objectively, why can't Iran have a nuclear program while Israel, India, and Pakistan can? Because Iran signed the NPT unlike the others and should abide by its commitments? Because Iran is the country which threatens other countries publicly? Because the Pakistani bomb is enough of a problem and nobody really needs another such problem? >They are a regional superpower and the United States invaded and destabilized their neighbor causing widespread chaos throughout the region. Civilian casualties from violence in Iraq following the destabilization of the '03 war have been estimated at around 200,000. How many of those are the result of Iranian involvement? For that matter, how many civilian casualties are the result of Iranian 'stabilization' in Syria? >The US did shoot down an Irainian civilian airliner in 1988 and refuse to apologize about it. Read your own cite, there was an agreement and compensation. >And then assassinated one of their generals earlier this year. Who had been involved in attacking American soldiers. >They [SA] don't need them. They can do whatever they want in the region while the U.S. looks away and sells them the weapons to do it. SA couldn't even respond to the attack on their oil facilities. I was talking about the Iranian nuclear problem though.

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.