Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 309 posts

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#81

Post by afarrell »

bsaul wrote: post #64
skylan_q wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran is a country much more aligned with the US in many more ways than Saudi Arabia is. It's really a "natural ally" for the US in the middle east.

Out or curiosity, why does the (religious) iranian regime keeps calling USA "the great devil" then ? Ps :reading some answers, i know about the history of conflicts between usa and iran. I was just pointing the fact that calling Iran a "natural ally" is a bit of a stretch.

Partly because we once overthrew their democratically-elected prime minister out of fear he would align with the USSR. In our defense, China had just become communist and Britain was convincing us this would happen because their PM was saying he would nationalize the Anglo-Iranian oil company (now known as BP). Have a CrashCourse video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4Ku6l7OEI

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#82

Post by simonh »

bsaul wrote: post #64
skylan_q wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran is a country much more aligned with the US in many more ways than Saudi Arabia is. It's really a "natural ally" for the US in the middle east.

Out or curiosity, why does the (religious) iranian regime keeps calling USA "the great devil" then ? Ps :reading some answers, i know about the history of conflicts between usa and iran. I was just pointing the fact that calling Iran a "natural ally" is a bit of a stretch.

For similar reasons that the USA is the great pariah in Cuba. In both cases the USA was a primary supporter of a repressive totalitarian government kicked out by a popular revolution. It's just that in Cuba the revolution was communist while in Iran it had a strongly religious dimension. Other than the Iranian's support of the Palestinian cause, there's really no particular reason for them to be a great enemy of the west, except that we totally screwed them over repeatedly for a few generations.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#83

Post by 1stop »

threeseed wrote: post #63
bsaul wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only justified because trying to get a nuclear weapon has an impact on everyone's peace. Especially for a country that's been at war with its neighbours for the last 50 years at least, in a chaotic region filled with international terrorists groups and active war zones right at the moment.

So maybe we should be thinking about disarming Israel then. It seems to fit all of your criteria.

Why down vote? It fits the EXACT criteria outlined by the GP?

I'd be interested to hear a rational argument for why it's okay for Israel to pursue nuclear weapons but not a neighbouring county? (Please don't resort to some quote about Iran hating Israel, as Israel have said equally extreme things as well).

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#84

Post by bsaul »

threeseed wrote: post #63
bsaul wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only justified because trying to get a nuclear weapon has an impact on everyone's peace. Especially for a country that's been at war with its neighbours for the last 50 years at least, in a chaotic region filled with international terrorists groups and active war zones right at the moment.

So maybe we should be thinking about disarming Israel then. It seems to fit all of your criteria.

Didn't downvote, but since someone asked : Israel is the target of said terrorists group and hostility, not the initiator or sponsor (like Iran). That's why it's an ally and not an opponent.

I really didn't think i'd ever have to make such obvious statements.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#85

Post by hodwik »

EliRivers wrote: post #66
hodwik wrote: post #12

Iran agreed to provide "Managed access". Iraq inspections all over again.

If there's one thing we learned from the invasion of Iraq, it's that access for inspections doesn't matter. Iraq complied, the UN reports all indicated that there were no WMDs, the people who wanted to invade just made up some nonsense bullshit anyway. Hans Blix, Jan 2003: "...access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect... cooperated rather well". Iran just watched a neighbour get invaded and seri…

Access most certainly matters, we wouldn't have made that mistake with Iraq had we had reliable access.

If you recall, one of the "smoking guns" that the administration used to move into Iraq were intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi Republican Guard members.

Those conversations mentioned "hiding" something before the inspectors got to a site. Since Iraq (like Iran) was allowed a few days before any visit, it was believed at the time that they were shifting materials whenever the inspectors came. I recall even liberal media organizations poking fun at the inspectors -- about how they were playing a game of chase with the Iraqis.

Remember this graphic, much shown in the media? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Powell_U...

Had no such rule been in place, they could have moved that day to inspect the site, and would have realized there was nothing to be found.

Hans Blix also said, in December 2012, (from wikipedia:) that the Iraqi weapons declaration filed on December 7 "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997, and that it "is not enough to create confidence" that Iraq has abandoned its WMD efforts. So the US was not alone in that position.

and

Hans Blix states that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation. Specifically, Iraq has refused to destroy its al-Samoud 2 long range missiles. (These are not a WMD, and Iraq is permitted "battlefield" missiles. However, Iraq's missiles were limited by UN instruction to a diameter of 600mm, and the Al-Samoud II has a diameter of 760mm). These missiles are deployed and mobile. Also, an R-400 aerial bomb was found that could possibly contain biological agents. Given this find, the UN Inspectors have requested access to the Al-Aziziyah weapons range to verify that all 155 R-400 bombs can be accounted for and proven destroyed. Blix also expresses skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#86

Post by bsaul »

toyg wrote: post #55
bsaul wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We may not like their government but at least they're rational" Well, a theocracy is almost by definition not rational, in the modern sense. It's based on divine laws, obedience, and absolute faith on an ideology. Not logic, provability, and the scientific method. Dealing with the iranian regime the same way you would deal with an occidental country is the greatest mistake i think. Thinking "sure, they apply shariah…

> a theocracy is almost by definition not rational Neither it is a monarchy; shall we embargo the Dutch, the Spanish and the Swedes next? As a UK taxpayer, I wholly support your ideas and hope you will accord the same distrust to British governments, removing your NATO bases at once and stopping NSA/GCHQ cooperation. > Thinking "sure, they apply shariah, and believe islam is the only true religion, and that god leads…

Didn't know the pope ruled italy, nor that kings and queens had any true power in any occidental country.

Same can not be said with iranian mollah, which rule every part of the iranian society.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#87

Post by evgen »

afarrell wrote: post #81
bsaul wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out or curiosity, why does the (religious) iranian regime keeps calling USA "the great devil" then ? Ps :reading some answers, i know about the history of conflicts between usa and iran. I was just pointing the fact that calling Iran a "natural ally" is a bit of a stretch.

Partly because we once overthrew their democratically-elected prime minister out of fear he would align with the USSR. In our defense, China had just become communist and Britain was convincing us this would happen because their PM was saying he would nationalize the Anglo-Iranian oil company (now known as BP). Have a CrashCourse video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4Ku6l7OEI

It is also worth noting that Mohammad Pahlavi (aka 'the Shah' and the person we backed after the coup) was a really, really heinous individual who did some incredibly nasty shit over a couple of decades as he clung to power. Like many revolutionaries of that period, the people who overthrew him had a lot of very legitimate grievances.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#88

Post by mason240 »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #3

If you had told me that would be today's headline at any point over the past decade, I'm not sure I would have believed you. If this works out, the President has another thing to add to his list of "things no President before me achieved".

I don't know if capitulating to theocratic regime in their attempts at nuclear proliferation (which will likely set off a regional nuclear arms race) is something to be proud of.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#89

Post by mason240 »

toyg wrote: post #36
briandear wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read the Iran deal? The Iranians were happy about it, this it likely wasn't a good deal for the rest of us. The Iranians can't be trusted. If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution; instead those protestors were executed, tortured or imprisioned. Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup. Honestly, Obama doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to foreign policy. He…

> The Iranians can't be trusted. National stereotypes, pillars of pragmatic diplomacy ever since 2000 BC and the clear mark of logical thinkers the world over. > If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution How do you know he didn't? Because he didn't send in bombers to "support demonstrations"? > Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup ... when the alternative would have been m…

>> The Iranians can't be trusted.

>National stereotypes, pillars of pragmatic diplomacy ever since 2000 BC and the clear mark of logical thinkers the world over.

The OP clearly means the theocratic regime, not the Iranian people themselves.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#90

Post by [deleted] »

willismichael wrote: post #79
Tomte wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nationwide Universal Healthcare.

Anecdote here - I know people who used to be able to afford to go to the doctor, but now they are paying so much in premiums that they can't afford to pay the deductible (also significantly increased), so they don't go to the doctor anymore.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN