4 ms·

You of course are referring to the deal that had the US air freight $400m in the middle of the night to close the deal, only for the Iranians to completely igno

You of course are referring to the deal that had the US air freight $400m in the middle of the night to close the deal, only for the Iranians to completely ignore the deal anyway?

misja111 4y ago
Odd that this is downvoted. The comment is true: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-i...
- recuter 4y ago
  These discussions are astroturfed.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    From my experience, there's quite a heavy level of organic criticism for how Iran has been treated in general. We can trust you're a "real person" just as much as you, us. Diverting critiques on the basis of "astroturfing" is so HRC '16.
    - recuter 4y ago
      Poor Ayatollahs. They surely deserve to be treated better. :( And yet regardless of how poorly it was treated or "what is fair", which is all the whining is ever about, nobody can remotely come up with a reason for why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. This is a dangerous game, regardless of your politics. Astroturfing does not necessarily imply bots, comrade.
      - unmole 4y ago
        > why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. Nuclear weapons deter invasions.
        recuter 4y ago
        Iran itself is an aggressive and expanding regional power. What is to deter Iran itself from invading others? Oh that's right, more nuclear weapons. So next Saudi Arabia will absolutely scramble to get one. 'etc.
      - u801e 4y ago
        > nobody can remotely come up with a reason for why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. Whether it's a positive or negative development really doesn't matter. What matters is what actually happens once that occurs. When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region. Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, etc. didn't start their own nuclear programs. So in the event Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's likely nothing of consequence will happen.
        recuter 4y ago
        > When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region.. therefore... So in the event Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's likely nothing of consequence will happen. Whether the domino theory is at play depends on the balance of power and specifics of each geopolitical region. It simply doesn't follow that because India-Pakistan was contained such a thing won't happen in the Middle East. In fact you'd notice that is a pair. The counterparty to Iran having a nuke would be Saudi Arabia having a nuke, an extremely likely outcome.
        u801e 4y ago
        India conducted their first nuclear test in 1974. Pakistan didn't do the same until 1998. > In fact you'd notice that is a pair. The counterparty to Iran having a nuke would be Saudi Arabia having a nuke, an extremely likely outcome. Israel already has them and has had them for some time. Just like India did before Pakistan developed and tested them.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region Both hostile reactive (Pakistan against India) and (at least semi-)cooperative (Pakistan, or at least AQ Khan as a rogue actor, to other states) proliferation occurred as a result of the Indian and then Pakistani nuclear programs. When India did it, it did lead to proliferation, specifically, in Pakistan. Pakistan’s program lead to (as well as their own bomb) proliferation through the AQ Khan network (to North Korea, as well as several states that never, at leadt yet, tested a weapon.) Myanmar also appears to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 00s, with assistsance from North Korea, which may or may not have since been abandoned. Similarly, Israel's program contributed to the motivation for Iran's and Syria's programs (reactive [both of which appear to have also gotten cooperative aid from the Khan network and/or North Korea, which circles back to India/Pakistan]) and to technology for South Africa’s nuclear weapons (cooperative).
- Convolutional 4y ago
  That link mentions something not mentioned here - that the Iranians were sent their own money.
- jhp123 4y ago
  the comment also mentions that the Iranians ignored the deal, which is false https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-un https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/iran-nuclear-d...
Convolutional 4y ago
The reader might question why the poster neglected to mention to them, that the $400 million transferred was Iranian money.

You of course are referring to the deal that had the US air freight $400m in the middle of the night to close the deal, only for the Iranians to completely ignore the deal anyway?

misja111 4y ago

Odd that this is downvoted. The comment is true: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-i...

recuter 4y ago
These discussions are astroturfed.
- uoaei 4y ago
  From my experience, there's quite a heavy level of organic criticism for how Iran has been treated in general. We can trust you're a "real person" just as much as you, us. Diverting critiques on the basis of "astroturfing" is so HRC '16.
  - recuter 4y ago
    Poor Ayatollahs. They surely deserve to be treated better. :( And yet regardless of how poorly it was treated or "what is fair", which is all the whining is ever about, nobody can remotely come up with a reason for why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. This is a dangerous game, regardless of your politics. Astroturfing does not necessarily imply bots, comrade.
    - unmole 4y ago
      > why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. Nuclear weapons deter invasions.
      - recuter 4y ago
        Iran itself is an aggressive and expanding regional power. What is to deter Iran itself from invading others? Oh that's right, more nuclear weapons. So next Saudi Arabia will absolutely scramble to get one. 'etc.
    - u801e 4y ago
      > nobody can remotely come up with a reason for why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody. Whether it's a positive or negative development really doesn't matter. What matters is what actually happens once that occurs. When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region. Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, etc. didn't start their own nuclear programs. So in the event Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's likely nothing of consequence will happen.
      - recuter 4y ago
        > When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region.. therefore... So in the event Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's likely nothing of consequence will happen. Whether the domino theory is at play depends on the balance of power and specifics of each geopolitical region. It simply doesn't follow that because India-Pakistan was contained such a thing won't happen in the Middle East. In fact you'd notice that is a pair. The counterparty to Iran having a nuke would be Saudi Arabia having a nuke, an extremely likely outcome.
        u801e 4y ago
        India conducted their first nuclear test in 1974. Pakistan didn't do the same until 1998. > In fact you'd notice that is a pair. The counterparty to Iran having a nuke would be Saudi Arabia having a nuke, an extremely likely outcome. Israel already has them and has had them for some time. Just like India did before Pakistan developed and tested them.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region Both hostile reactive (Pakistan against India) and (at least semi-)cooperative (Pakistan, or at least AQ Khan as a rogue actor, to other states) proliferation occurred as a result of the Indian and then Pakistani nuclear programs. When India did it, it did lead to proliferation, specifically, in Pakistan. Pakistan’s program lead to (as well as their own bomb) proliferation through the AQ Khan network (to North Korea, as well as several states that never, at leadt yet, tested a weapon.) Myanmar also appears to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 00s, with assistsance from North Korea, which may or may not have since been abandoned. Similarly, Israel's program contributed to the motivation for Iran's and Syria's programs (reactive [both of which appear to have also gotten cooperative aid from the Khan network and/or North Korea, which circles back to India/Pakistan]) and to technology for South Africa’s nuclear weapons (cooperative).
Convolutional 4y ago
That link mentions something not mentioned here - that the Iranians were sent their own money.
jhp123 4y ago
the comment also mentions that the Iranians ignored the deal, which is false https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-un https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/iran-nuclear-d...

Convolutional 4y ago

The reader might question why the poster neglected to mention to them, that the $400 million transferred was Iranian money.