3 ms·

> "Because Iran signed the NPT" They signed in 1968. In your words, "something that happened 60 years ago when both countries had very different governments" B

> "Because Iran signed the NPT" They signed in 1968. In your words, "something that happened 60 years ago when both countries had very different governments" But, perhaps after watching the US performance in Iraq, maybe Iran wanted a credible deterrent to prevent the same thing from happening to them. If the issue with the nuclear program was really about proliferation, the US would have active sanctions against Pakistan. AQ Khan wasn't an Iranian! > "How many of those are the result of Iranian involvement?" They didn't invade the country, overthrow the government, and disband the army. If Iran invaded Mexico, overthrew the government, and disbanded the army plunging the country into chaos, do you think the US would stand by and do nothing? No way! Do you feel that the ISI is any more odious of an institution that Iranian military intelligence in that respect? Why does the US treat them so differently? > "agreement and compensation" That's blood money, not an apology. The US screwed up big time in shooting down that plane, and the best they could muster was that it was a "...proper defensive action by the U.S.S. Vincennes." (rolls eyes) When Iran shot down the Ukrainian airliner, at least they had the decency to label it a "disastrous mistake." > "Who had been involved in attacking American soldiers." Why were the American soldiers there halfway across the planet in a country where they aren't welcome and don't speak the language? Maybe they wanted the Americans out so that the region could achieve some stability? My point with the Saudi-Yemen thing is that KSA doesn't need nukes as an insurance policy because the US has their back. No nuclear-armed superpower has Iran's back, so they're probably looking for the security of a nuclear deterrent. The US-Irainian conflict, like the US conflict with Cuba, is something that should have ended decades ago. It's a legacy of old political hostilities that happened when my parents were teenagers. It's 2021, we have better things to worry about. It's all so petty.

yyyk 6y ago
>> "Because Iran signed the NPT" >In 1968. So old agreements don't mean anything? I support laying down old grievances, but going back on old agreements is usually undesirable, especially after having no objections all this time. Half the international treaties are older than that, which ones are 'safe'? >> "How many of those are the result of Iranian involvement?" >They didn't invade the country.. plunging the country into chaos Iran sure tried to between 1982 and 1988. And quite a lot of the Iraqi chaos is their doing. They need a weak Iraqi government so their militia can create a state within the state. >That's blood money, not an apology. Iran agreed to it. When Iran shot down its own citizens, it lied about the event until footage leaked out making the lie unsustainable. >Maybe they wanted the Americans out so that the region could achieve some stability? Right. The guys building substate militias everywhere, undermining half the states in ME really care about stability. >the US has their [SA] back Which is why the US really helped them after Iran attacked their oil facilities. Not. >they're probably looking for the security of a nuclear deterrent. They are the one openly calling for the elimination of one ME state, and the overthrow of a half dozen regimes on the other. If they want security they should look at their own actions. Or perhaps the 'security' the Iranian regime is looking for is being able to attack others without fear of interference from the West.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  I'm not arguing that Iran is the best country ever, who does only nice things and only hugs their neighbors. I'm arguing that when you weigh Iran's activities in the Middle East alongside U.S. activities in the region over the last 30 years or-so, Iran really doesn't look like the boogeyman it's made out to be. As a result, when viewing each other as perhaps within the same order of magnitude on the morally outrageous activities scale, the two countries could maybe leave behind the tired old mutual hatred routine that has played itself out since 1979. A big part of that could be the United States extending an olive branch, apologizing for a few things, letting a few things go, and not simply pointing fingers and rattling sabers at them for cheap political points. The U.S. should be able to look around, realize that they have more important stuff to worry about, and embrace Iran as an economic partner like Europe and China have done. It's ok for the U.S. to take the first step and extend an open hand. Go to the Wikipedia page on the 'Reactions to the September 11 attacks.' The Iranians deserve it on the basis of their behavior in the early days after 9/11, and the help they gave the U.S. in the early days of the Afghan War. They're not bad people, and have expressed a great deal of kindness to the United States in times of vulnerability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks#Muslim_world_and_Middle_East https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_... Push soft power aggressively, offer a more prosperous alternative, and you'll pull the damn rug right out from under the hard-liner's justification for their hold on power. If the U.S. has learned anything from Cuba, it should be that the stupid 60-year embargo didn't do anything but keep the Cuban people poor and bitter, and the Castro brothers in power. Our current policy is something dragged up from the Carter administration. It's not the seventies anymore. More GitHub. Less John Bolton.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    Despite having far less power, the Iranian regime's ME body count is higher than any other country - even if we blame Iraq solely on US. Letting those fanatics have nukes would be a mistake. But lets put that aside. How did the 'engage economically to change the regime' policy work with China and Russia? For that matter, did Cuba change at all after Obama's attempt? These policies were a complete failure - the regimes got stronger, yet the drivers of conflict remained. Eventually the same old frosty relations returned. Engagement fails when it is not reciprocal. The economics did not encourage the regimes to get more moderate - rather the reverse. In order for true change in relations to happen, the other side has to commit themselves to some change too. Unfortunately, the Iranian regime is ideologically committed to its current policies, and refusing to discuss any matters except maybe nuclear. They are definitely not willing to apologize or let things go. I see no real prospects for engagement until this changes.

yyyk 6y ago

>> "Because Iran signed the NPT" >In 1968. So old agreements don't mean anything? I support laying down old grievances, but going back on old agreements is usually undesirable, especially after having no objections all this time. Half the international treaties are older than that, which ones are 'safe'? >> "How many of those are the result of Iranian involvement?" >They didn't invade the country.. plunging the country into chaos Iran sure tried to between 1982 and 1988. And quite a lot of the Iraqi chaos is their doing. They need a weak Iraqi government so their militia can create a state within the state. >That's blood money, not an apology. Iran agreed to it. When Iran shot down its own citizens, it lied about the event until footage leaked out making the lie unsustainable. >Maybe they wanted the Americans out so that the region could achieve some stability? Right. The guys building substate militias everywhere, undermining half the states in ME really care about stability. >the US has their [SA] back Which is why the US really helped them after Iran attacked their oil facilities. Not. >they're probably looking for the security of a nuclear deterrent. They are the one openly calling for the elimination of one ME state, and the overthrow of a half dozen regimes on the other. If they want security they should look at their own actions. Or perhaps the 'security' the Iranian regime is looking for is being able to attack others without fear of interference from the West.

phobosanomaly 6y ago
I'm not arguing that Iran is the best country ever, who does only nice things and only hugs their neighbors. I'm arguing that when you weigh Iran's activities in the Middle East alongside U.S. activities in the region over the last 30 years or-so, Iran really doesn't look like the boogeyman it's made out to be. As a result, when viewing each other as perhaps within the same order of magnitude on the morally outrageous activities scale, the two countries could maybe leave behind the tired old mutual hatred routine that has played itself out since 1979. A big part of that could be the United States extending an olive branch, apologizing for a few things, letting a few things go, and not simply pointing fingers and rattling sabers at them for cheap political points. The U.S. should be able to look around, realize that they have more important stuff to worry about, and embrace Iran as an economic partner like Europe and China have done. It's ok for the U.S. to take the first step and extend an open hand. Go to the Wikipedia page on the 'Reactions to the September 11 attacks.' The Iranians deserve it on the basis of their behavior in the early days after 9/11, and the help they gave the U.S. in the early days of the Afghan War. They're not bad people, and have expressed a great deal of kindness to the United States in times of vulnerability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks#Muslim_world_and_Middle_East https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_... Push soft power aggressively, offer a more prosperous alternative, and you'll pull the damn rug right out from under the hard-liner's justification for their hold on power. If the U.S. has learned anything from Cuba, it should be that the stupid 60-year embargo didn't do anything but keep the Cuban people poor and bitter, and the Castro brothers in power. Our current policy is something dragged up from the Carter administration. It's not the seventies anymore. More GitHub. Less John Bolton.
- yyyk 6y ago
  Despite having far less power, the Iranian regime's ME body count is higher than any other country - even if we blame Iraq solely on US. Letting those fanatics have nukes would be a mistake. But lets put that aside. How did the 'engage economically to change the regime' policy work with China and Russia? For that matter, did Cuba change at all after Obama's attempt? These policies were a complete failure - the regimes got stronger, yet the drivers of conflict remained. Eventually the same old frosty relations returned. Engagement fails when it is not reciprocal. The economics did not encourage the regimes to get more moderate - rather the reverse. In order for true change in relations to happen, the other side has to commit themselves to some change too. Unfortunately, the Iranian regime is ideologically committed to its current policies, and refusing to discuss any matters except maybe nuclear. They are definitely not willing to apologize or let things go. I see no real prospects for engagement until this changes.