PZ

Nuclear Deal Is Dead? Iran Distances Itself Further From ND, Alarming Russia And France

Recommended Posts

(edited)

The deal never had a chance since Trump killed it.  Whatever.  That's the past.  The larger issue is the future, namely: why would Iran negotiate with the US ever?

If I was a mullah in Iran, I would be telling everyone I know that Iran should go for nukes, damn the consequences.  The reasoning is simple: there is no point in reaching an agreement with the US on anything because the US government changes every 4-8 years, invalidating any previous negotiations or agreements.  Just because you've reached a deal with Trump or Obama or whoever happens to be president now, guess what: the deal is meaningless once the next president comes into power.  Consequently, the ONLY surefire way to guarantee national security from an American invasion is to get a nuke

What's the lesson for Iran here? Saddam Hussein didn't have a nuke.  That's why US invaded his country and he died in an embarrassing way.  Kim has a nuke.  That's why he's safe and alive kicking, and why Trump is saying good things about him.  So, for Iran to be safe, Iran must have a nuke.  The issue here isn't just Trump.  The issue now is whether Iran will negotiate in good faith with ANY American administration, as such negotiations have proven to be pointless [End of "thinking as a mullah" analysis]

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

So by that reasoning, North Korea should have a nuke as well. Heck, anyone who claims that the US may invade them deserves a nuke as well...although the US has yet to invade any other country!

Keep in mind that North Korea and Iran have threatened to launch ballistic missiles at the US....not France, not Germany, not New Zealand...the US! Maybe this is why they fear invasion.

Also, since the US apparently is the only democratic nation that changes head of state on a fairly routine basis, let’s not try to rope them into any climate change bullshit either...I’d go for that!

Edited by Douglas Buckland
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

North Korea does have a nuke, which is why they're safe. Is this good or bad? Probably bad. But I'm not making moral judgement here. If I started an international consulting firm for shitty countries, I would advise everyone to go for nukes to protect themselves from whatever great power that doesn't like them.  

The lessons of the past are clear: to protect yourself from an American or Russian invasion, get a nuke.  

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zhong Lu said:

North Korea does have a nuke, which is why they're safe. Is this good or bad? Probably bad. But I'm not making moral judgement here. If I started an international adviser firm for shitty countries, I would advise everyone to go for nukes to protect themselves from whatever great power that doesn't like them.  

The lessons of the past are clear: to protect yourself from an American invasion, get a nuke.  

Name a single country, without a nuke, that the US has invaded or threatened to invade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Iraq and Afghanistan.  They've also invaded Vietnam, Grenada, bombed Serbia, bombed Syria, bombed Libya, tried to invade Cuba, and invaded North Korea before it had a nuke.  

That's only in the last 70 years.  The number of countries America has invaded or bombed that has a nuke or protected by a nuclear great power: ZERO.  

America, like Russia, is a very warlike country.  My pitch as that international consulting firm will go like this: If America don't like you, you're liable to get invaded or bombed at some point in the next several decades... unless you have a nuke.

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Iraq and Afghanistan.  They've also invaded Vietnam, Grenada, tried to invade Cuba, and invaded North Korea before it had a nuke.  

That's only in the last 70 years.  The number of countries America has invaded that has a nuke or protected by a nuclear great power: ZERO.  

America, like Russia, is a very warlike country.  My pitch as that international consulting firm will go like this: If America don't like you, you're liable to get invaded at some point in the next several decades... unless you have a nuke.

What? The US has ‘invaded’ those countries? Do you honestly believe that the US entered those countries with the intent to ‘subjugate and occupy’ them? Is the US presently ‘subjugating and occupying’ Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam? Was that ever the intent?

Americans were at risk in Grenada, a much different issue. Again, did America ever ‘subjugate and occupy’ Grenada?

You may have a point as far as intent goes with the Bay of Pigs fiasco....but we never actually invaded Cuba!

When has the US EVER invaded North Korea?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

My point is this: if a cruddy little day trader in the US can reach this conclusion, you can bet your mother many of the mullahs have reached this conclusion, too.  

It is currently in Iran's best interests to get a nuke.  The only question is: how.  

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

What? The US has ‘invaded’ those countries? Do you honestly believe that the US entered those countries with the intent to ‘subjugate and occupy’ them? Is the US presently ‘subjugating and occupying’ Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam? Was that ever the intent?

Americans were at risk in Grenada, a much different issue. Again, did America ever ‘subjugate and occupy’ Grenada?

You may have a point as far as intent goes with the Bay of Pigs fiasco....but we never actually invaded Cuba!

When has the US EVER invaded North Korea?

Korean war.  MacArthur and that whole Yalu thing.

If you put thousands of your troops on another countries' soil without permission, that means "invasion."  

America at its time had reasons for these invasions and bombings.  I'm not saying these invasions were wrong or unjustified.  But they were invasions according to the definition and meaning of the word.

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Korean war.  

If you put thousands of your troops on another countries' soil without permission, that means "invasion."  

America at its time had reasons for these invasions and bombings.  I'm not saying these invasions were wrong or unjustified.  But they were invasions according to the definition and meaning of the word.

When you start a war, remember the North Koreans started this thing, then the gloves are off and if you get invaded as a result it is a much different story than someone simply invading your country without cause.

The Cold War concept of ‘mutually assured destruction’ is well understood. But back in those days it was IF you launch, WE will launch.

Iran and North Korea have said they MIGHT launch a pre-emptive first strike to wipe out Israel and the US respectively. Again, this is NOT a MAD scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

So the US will attack you if you attack them.  Fine.  But the US will also attack you if you don't attack or threaten them (Serbia, Iraq, Libya).  The US is a country that likes to launch preemptive strikes, too.

Regardless of the justification at the time, the lesson seems clear: if you're a country that the US doesn't like, there's a 1% probability the US will attack you in any given year.  Over the course of a century, that 1% rises to 96.3%.  Sooner or later, the US will get angry at something you've done, and wham! you're bombed or invaded.

Unless you have a nuke (like North Korea right now.  Trump is very friendly to Kim.  Very unfriendly to Iran.  Why? Because Kim has a nuke, Iran doesn't. It's not as if NK's human rights or behavior is any better than Iran's)  

Again, I'm not making moral judgments.  If I was a country who isn't liked by America, the best way to protect my self and my family's interests over the next century is to get a nuke.

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you started out by claiming the US would invade other countries, but that is historically incorrect (as a note, the US forces NEVER crossed the Yalu River during the Korean War). Now you say we will bomb them and bring up Serbia. The bombing in Serbia was a NATO affair, the reason the US was dropping the ordinance is that the other NATO ‘allies’ were either incapable or unwilling to do so.

Your initial argument was weak and inaccurate.

This is another case of the US is ‘damned if it does, and damned if it doesn’t’, a good reason to just refuse to be the world’s policeman and let others kill, maim and mutilate to their hearts desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

The point of history isn't to argue who was right.  The point of learning history is to figure out what is likely to happen next.  

Based on past historical trends the lesson is clear: if I was a dictator unliked by America, I should get a nuke. That's my argument.  Even if the current administration says "it won't be a policemen", the next administration might go and do the opposite.  There's no point in appeasing whatever administration happens to be in power now.  Sooner or later the Americans will find an excuse to bomb or invade your country.  Unless you have a nuke.  

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer for Japan South Korea Germany is to develop nukes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

They're friendly to America.  My advice is designed for countries that America doesn't like.  I would also advise Ukraine to develop nukes to not get invaded by Russia.  It was really dumb of them to give it up after the Soviet Union broke apart.  So it's not only an American thing.  

EDIT: From Iran's perspective, Saddam's and Gaddafi's biggest mistake was giving up their nuclear programs.  This meant they had no protection when the Americans and NATO finally went after them 20 years later.  With great powers that are hostile to you, you cannot afford to trust their promises.  It doesn't matter what they say now.  They'll break it within a decade or two the moment they want to.  

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

The point of history isn't to argue who was right.  The point of learning history is to figure out what is likely to happen next.  

Based on past historical trends the lesson is clear: if I was a dictator unliked by America, I should get a nuke. That's my argument.  Even if the current administration says "it won't be a policemen", the next administration might go and do the opposite.  There's no point in appeasing whatever administration happens to be in power now.  Sooner or later the Americans will find an excuse to bomb or invade your country.  Unless you have a nuke.  

Another very important point while studying history is to be accurate and factual when you regurgitate it to make your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Well yes I've stated facts.  America/Russia has invaded many nations in the last 70 years that didn't have nukes (Georgia, Afghanistan-by both Great Powers in fact, Ukraine, Vietnam, NK, Iraq, etc.).  They have yet to invade a country that has a nuke.  

Consequently if I was a political consultant for dictators of smaller countries, I would tell them to get a nuke if they don't want to risk getting invaded by America/Russia.  I would also tell them to never trust what the leaders of a Great Power tell them, though that should be pretty obvious by now, even to Americans and Russians.  Unless you're in their alliance orbit, treaties signed with these countries are not worth the paper they're signed on. Furthermore, don't be stupid like Gaddafi or Ukraine.  Just because you've won some temporary good will by given up your chemical or nuclear weapons, this won't stop the next set of leaders from Russia or America from bombing/invading you the moment they see an opening.

And if I've reached this conclusion I'm pretty sure Kim and the mullahs in Iran have reached this conclusion, too.  

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your definition of ‘invaded’ must be very loose and flexible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion

An invasion is a military offensive in which large numbers of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory owned by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution.[citation needed]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/invasion

invasion
noun [ C ]
US  /ɪnˈveɪ·ʒən/
 
the act of entering a place by force, often in large numbers:
the invasion of the Normandy coast on D-day
fig. I certainly regarded the tapping of my phone as an invasion of (my) privacy.
(Definition of invasion from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)
invasion | ENGLISH
invasion
noun [ C or U ]
UK  /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/ US  /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/
 
B2
an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country:
They were planning to mount an invasion of the north of the country.
 

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion

An invasion is a military offensive in which large numbers of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory owned by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution.[citation needed]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/invasion

invasion
noun [ C ]
US  /ɪnˈveɪ·ʒən/
 
the act of entering a place by force, often in large numbers:
the invasion of the Normandy coast on D-day
fig. I certainly regarded the tapping of my phone as an invasion of (my) privacy.
(Definition of invasion from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)
invasion | ENGLISH
invasion
noun [ C or U ]
UK  /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/ US  /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/
 
B2
an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country:
They were planning to mount an invasion of the north of the country.
 

So then, has the US, on it’s own initiative, without being part of a larger coalition (NATO, UN, coalition to oust Saddam, multi-national force in Vietnam [SEATO], etc...ever invaded another country as per your definition? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

An invasion is a military offensive in which large numbers of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory owned by another such entity

You said this AFTER reading the definition, so maybe you are not appreciating what an invasion entails?

19 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So then, has the US, on it’s own initiative, without being part of a larger coalition (NATO, UN, coalition to oust Saddam, multi-national force in Vietnam [SEATO], etc...ever invaded another country as per your definition? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, remake it said:

You said this AFTER reading the definition, so maybe you are not appreciating what an invasion entails?

 

Good lord you’re stupid!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2019 at 8:47 PM, Zhong Lu said:

Or we could have just stuck to the old nuclear deal.  

That wasn't even a "DEAL", it was everyone cow-towing to a ploitical regime that con only stay focused on one goal. That is the destruction of EVERY other religion on the face of the planet, that includes you Zhong. They don't care about anything else. Over here in the states a bunch of lily livered pussies ran around touting that we need to accept them with open arms and show them love and understanding. Take a good hard look at how THAT has turned out in Europe. They are going to have to do some extermination to get rid of those rats now. But they don't have the balls it would take, so you can easily consider Europe to be a muslim nation now..... Only a matter of time now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

It is interesting that Fordow is closer to Qom (religious capital) than to Tehran (political capital) which shows that it is the religious establishment leaders, who has been hypocritically claiming that nukes are forbidden, are the very ones who are keeping them close at hand under their own control since they probably don't even trust most of their own politicians in Tehran and their own people since they can turn against them at any time. These nukes might not just be for dealing with outsiders but also for threatening insiders too who do not tow their religious fanatical line. Religious fanatics are always hateful against two groups. First against their own inside who are not religious enough for them and second against others outside who are not of their religious group. It being south of Qom and Tehran being north of Qom makes this separation very symbolic. The road to Fordow passes through Qom first. So if you are going south from Tehran to Fordow, you have to pass through Qom first as if it is guarding it from Tehran. Qom is south of Tehran and Fordow is south of Qom.

Edited by canadas canadas
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2019 at 7:47 PM, Zhong Lu said:

Or we could have just stuck to the old nuclear deal.  

And Churchill could have stuck with Chamberlain's deal.

Wonder how that would have worked out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Sure, it's possible for multiple countries as a coalition to invade another country.  Countries form alliances to invade others.  Did Germany and Russia invade Poland in 1939 as part of their (very temporary) alliance? Yes.  When UN forces invaded North Korea back in the Korean War was that considered an invasion by most people? Yes.  Was the UN invasion of North Korea more morally justified then the German and Russian invasion of Poland? I would argue yes.  But were they still invasions? Most definitely yes.  

By your definition Douglas Buckland, the German invasion of Poland in 1939 would not be an "invasion" because it was done as part of a multilateral coalition with Russia.  This does not make any sense.  

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.