Promises from Iran

[WildCat]

Really? Or a quote of a translation? I'm not sure I've ever heard Rohani speak English. The distinction isn't just incidental.

Ever notice it's always their apologists in the west, and never the Iranians themselves, who are always claiming they're mistranslated?

 

[WildCat]

If you want peace, prepare for war.

And if you want war, prepare for war.

Iran certainly isn't demonstrating that it wants peace, what with fighting proxy wars against Israel for the last 35 years and now fighting a proxy war against Syrian insurgents (not all of which are IS or al Qaeda).

If Iran is drawing the attention of the west it's entirely their own doing.

 

[WildCat]

As opposed to those who are merely the Republican party's candidate for President?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

There's a hell of a difference between bombing nuclear facilities and destroying a country.

Your attempt at moral equivalence is beyond absurd.

 

[trustbutverify]

Ever notice it's always their apologists in the west, and never the Iranians themselves, who are always claiming they're mistranslated?

Well, Prof. Zibakalam certainly doesn't seem to have any mistranslation issues, as noted in post #59. Maybe he just isn't as fluent as our Western "experts".

 

[McHrozni]

As opposed to those who are merely the Republican party's candidate for President?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

Yeah, near as I can tell, he never came close to having power, so it's significantly different to actually having power.

It also needs to be said that calls to bomb Iran from the US are a direct response to 35 years of open and unprovoked hostility from Iran. You really can't compare the two. Iran can mend ties with US within a year, whereas US can't mend ties with Iran, regardless of what it does (save maybe nuking itself).

McHrozni

 

[Trakar]

Yeah, near as I can tell, he never came close to having power, so it's significantly different to actually having power.

It also needs to be said that calls to bomb Iran from the US are a direct response to 35 years of open and unprovoked hostility from Iran. You really can't compare the two. Iran can mend ties with US within a year, whereas US can't mend ties with Iran, regardless of what it does (save maybe nuking itself).

McHrozni

A major party candidate who collected more than 45% (~60 million votes) of the popular vote in 2008 when he was making these bomb Iran quips is about as close as a losing presidential candidate has gotten since Gore won the popular vote in 2000.

 

[Trakar]

There's a hell of a difference between bombing nuclear facilities and destroying a country.

Your attempt at moral equivalence is beyond absurd.

Exactly where in any of the links I've posted do you see conservative war-mongers limiting the bombing they want to do to nuclear facilities?

 

[McHrozni]

A major party candidate who collected more than 45% (~60 million votes) of the popular vote in 2008 when he was making these bomb Iran quips is about as close as a losing presidential candidate has gotten since Gore won the popular vote in 2000.

As opposed to someone who actually has held power for many, many years? Not comparable, Iranian threats and posturing are far more credible.

You also completely ignored the fact US hostility towards Iran is a direct consequence of unprovoked Iranian hostility towards the US. Iran was a major US ally until the current government seized power in a violent coup and took US diplomatic mission hostage for over a year, among other things. You can't just pretend that isn't the case and claim both sides are at fault. Iran is clearly the major factor, and does approximately nothing to fix that.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

As opposed to someone who actually has held power for many, many years? Not comparable, Iranian threats and posturing are far more credible.

You also completely ignored the fact US hostility towards Iran is a direct consequence of unprovoked Iranian hostility towards the US. Iran was a major US ally until the current government seized power in a violent coup and took US diplomatic mission hostage for over a year, among other things. You can't just pretend that isn't the case and claim both sides are at fault. Iran is clearly the major factor, and does approximately nothing to fix that.

McHrozni

As has been pointed out upthread, it depends on where you draw the line. The 1979 coup was due in part to U.S. support of the Shah and his regime with the secret police and the torturing which was brought into power by the US and UK sponsored coup in 1953. There was a reason for Iranian antipathy in 1979 towards the U.S., support for the Shah.

 

[Darat]

If you go here;
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32176399

and wait a bit, first comes an Indian ad, then comes the voice over translation, OK.
During this voice over translation comes, “We will keep our promises within the framework of our national interest”.
I have written to the BBC as to the validity of the translation, they have been known to be wrong.

I don't see adverts on the BBC site so that doesn't help me.

It's a live translation so could be erroneous but the speech seems quite clear he says the Iranians will not cheat, will honour their promises as long as everyone else does. Seems a rather calm and totally uncontroversial speech from Iran.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Reuters: The United States and its Western allies say it is vital that Iran fully cooperate with a U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) investigation into past nuclear activities that could be related to making weapons.Iran for its part has said that "possible military dimensions" (PMD) are an issue it will not budge on.
"PMD is out of the question. It cannot be discussed," an Iranian official said. This issue has not been resolved.
Khamenei ruled out any "extraordinary supervision measures" over Iran's nuclear activities.
"Iran's military sites cannot be inspected under the excuse of nuclear supervision," he said.

So no "trust, but verify?" Clear intent on display. Add the Islamic 10-year limits and so on, insistence on lifting sanctions regardless of implementation and compliance, and you get the real picture. I still agree on the deal, as prelude to a phase in which non-compliance and true intent are made obvious to all. If fears proved wrong, no loss. If right, clarity of thought and freedom to act decisively, with less opposition from other nations.

 

[McHrozni]

As has been pointed out upthread, it depends on where you draw the line. The 1979 coup was due in part to U.S. support of the Shah and his regime with the secret police and the torturing which was brought into power by the US and UK sponsored coup in 1953. There was a reason for Iranian antipathy in 1979 towards the U.S., support for the Shah.

Sure, let's pretend events before 1979 are more relevant than those after it, that makes perfect sense

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Sure, let's pretend events before 1979 are more relevant than those after it, that makes perfect sense

McHrozni

Didn't say it was more relevant (or less relevant) but pretending that the 1979 revolution happened out of nowhere doesn't make sense to me.

As I see it, Iran's antipathy towards the U.S. immediately post 1979 had a lot to do with U.S. support for the Shah of Iran's regime. Claiming that the Iran's actions towards the U.S. were unprovoked completely ignores a complex and murky history.

from your own post earlier:

You also completely ignored the fact US hostility towards Iran is a direct consequence of unprovoked Iranian hostility towards the US. Iran was a major US ally until the current government seized power in a violent coup and took US diplomatic mission hostage for over a year, among other things.

The U.S.'s ally was a brutal authoritarian regime (which unfortunately was replaced by a brutal theocratic authoritarian regime).

 

[McHrozni]

The U.S.'s ally was a brutal authoritarian regime (which unfortunately was replaced by a brutal theocratic authoritarian regime).

That's my reason for discounting it almost entirely. If Iranians were upset about brutality of a pro-US regime, they surely would be at least as upset by the brutality of the regime that came after.

It smells of an excuse. In fact, it can only be that, nothing more.

McHrozni

 

[WildCat]

Exactly where in any of the links I've posted do you see conservative war-mongers limiting the bombing they want to do to nuclear facilities?

It's always been that, and that is what McCain was talking about. Where have you ever heard of US government officials talking about destroying Iran?

 

[McHrozni]

It's always been that, and that is what McCain was talking about. Where have you ever heard of US government officials talking about destroying Iran?

Correct, and any pretense to the contrary is a blatant lie.

Furthermore, if Iran is only after peaceful use of nuclear energy, why is there such desperate need for exceptionalism? Many countries use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without problems, and Iran was offered just that. But they refused to compromise even temporarily, to build up trust.

If they wanted nuclear energy for peaceful purposes only, they would've agreed to a interim solution, where nuclear fuel would be supplied to Iran for the first decade. But Iran insisted to process fuel themselves ... in facilities whose size clearly showed their intended purpose was either to build a large fleet of nuclear powered ships (which Iran can neither build nor afford), or nuclear bombs.

McHrozni

 

[Trakar]

Correct, and any pretense to the contrary is a blatant lie.

Furthermore, if Iran is only after peaceful use of nuclear energy, why is there such desperate need for exceptionalism? Many countries use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without problems, and Iran was offered just that. But they refused to compromise even temporarily, to build up trust.

If they wanted nuclear energy for peaceful purposes only, they would've agreed to a interim solution, where nuclear fuel would be supplied to Iran for the first decade. But Iran insisted to process fuel themselves ... in facilities whose size clearly showed their intended purpose was either to build a large fleet of nuclear powered ships (which Iran can neither build nor afford), or nuclear bombs.

McHrozni

Is that why we develop domestic sources of gas, oil and coal? We could just buy oil from Iran, SA, Iraq, Qatar, Kuwai; coal from China. Gas from Mexico.

Independent nations, especially those with shaky politics and extreme/restless social movements, feel the need to secure domestic energy sources ahead of reliance upon external sources subject to embargo, by nations trying to disrupt their economy to force a internal political regime change.

 

[McHrozni]

Is that why we develop domestic sources of gas, oil and coal? we could just buy oil from Iran, SA, Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait.

Incomparable, since none of those can be turned into weapons of mass destruction. Plus unlike nuclear power, fossil fuels are unfortunately a necessity for the civilization as we know it to exist at all. You'll notice use predates nuclear power by centuries.

Independent nations, especially those with shaky politics and restless social movements, feel the need to secure domestic energy sources ahead of reliance upon external sources subject to embargo, by nations trying to disrupt your economy to force a internal political regime change.

And the result of that hard-headiness is that after 13 years Iran still has no nuclear power and it's economy suffered due to sanctions. If they only agreed to the standards that are in place for everyone else, they'd be enriching their own uranium for several years now. Splendid job, splendid logic, splendid policies.

You ignored the point where their enrichment program was only sensible if they have a military program planned, with civilian program as a cover. Why can't you explain that? Oh wait, I know - other than the sensible option I mentioned it can't be explained at all.

Mchrozni

 

[The Don]

That's my reason for discounting it almost entirely. If Iranians were upset about brutality of a pro-US regime, they surely would be at least as upset by the brutality of the regime that came after.

We consider it brutal, they don't - or more specifically not enough of them do for long enough to depose it.

Although there have been some demonstrations, they are largely confined to the urban middle classes. As far as can be determined, the majority of Iranians (the less well off and/or rural ones) are not unhappy with their theocratic regime.

It certainly seems to be less unpopular than the Shah's regime (though the Shah did set the bar very low indeed).

 

[McHrozni]

Although there have been some demonstrations, they are largely confined to the urban middle classes. As far as can be determined, the majority of Iranians (the less well off and/or rural ones) are not unhappy with their theocratic regime. .

Yes, and this means they don't deplore brutality of a regime, they mere deplore who it's targets are.

Iranian current regime openly condones and commits acts of horrific torture for no good reason. It violates the most basic human rights on a large scale. Shah certainly had his own share of faults, but he was deposed because he didn't pick only on the vulnerable in the society.

There is a word for that - hypocrisy. It also clearly demonstrates any Iranian animosity towards the US is clearly manufactured for internal political gain.
Without a foreign enemy like the US, the revolution would quickly begin to devour itself, after all. It's like in 1984, really.

Iran also has a bone to pick with Israel. A country that doesn't border any country that borders on Iran, has previously attacked Iran's enemies and that has no reason to strike Iran at all ... other unprovoked hostility of Iran. Any idea as to why that is? I contend it's a mixture of antisemitism and manufacturing enemies as described above. Do you have another option maybe?

McHrozni