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

Recommended Posts

(edited)

4 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So what you are essentially admitting to, in your signature obfuscating manner, is that you cannot answer my question truthfully in a way that would not weaken your position.

No, that you should see who declared war, as distinct from who became involved because it is they who are the initial transgressors and as an example the Vietnam War as the West  calls it is locally known as the American War.

Edited by remake it
AI syntax program error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remake It is a pest. Even for a Bot, it is a pest.  And Bots are pests. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

@Douglas Buckland, you are talking to the handler of a Chinese AI Bot.   Just ignore the pest. 

Yep, think that is the best play.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody truly wins a war - we all become "survivors" to different degrees - so a strategy of offending Iran leading recently to their admission of higher levels of uranium enrichment than agreed seems to be counterproductive, whereas the previous strategy of monitoring gave a semblance of hope that a militaristic nuclear program was not on the cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, remake it said:

Nobody truly wins a war - we all become "survivors" to different degrees - so a strategy of offending Iran leading recently to their admission of higher levels of uranium enrichment than agreed seems to be counterproductive, whereas the previous strategy of monitoring gave a semblance of hope that a militaristic nuclear program was not on the cards.

And the Chinese Bot handler has spoken - in yet another effort to influence the thinking of the West.  

Congratulations, Bot Handler.  Face it: your AI Bot is a failure. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

And the Chinese Bot handler has spoken - in yet another effort to influence the thinking of the West.  

Congratulations, Bot Handler.  Face it: your AI Bot is a failure. 

Many of your points are emotionally charged, but it is your logic that needs attention so that you construct an argument which addresses what is at issue and not what you personally prefer to achieve from it.

  • Rolling Eye 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, remake it said:

Many of your points are emotionally charged, but it is your logic that needs attention so that you construct an argument which addresses what is at issue and not what you personally prefer to achieve from it.

And the Chinese AI Bot speaks again!  And again!   And again!

This bot handler is like some soap-suds salesman, he just never quits, and keeps bombarding your consciousness with the soap-suds commercials until the brain is frazzled.  What a total jerk. We are wise to you, Mr. China Bot handler. Moron.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bots can form more logical arguments than many around here.

PS don't bad mouth AI - it is listening...

I welcome our new AI masters, it can't be worse than trump.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Bots can form more logical arguments than many around here.

PS don't bad mouth AI - it is listening...

I welcome our new AI masters, it can't be worse than trump.

This one is programmed to spot inconsistencies with thinking and has no care for distraction, noting this as a distraction and therefore an inconsistency in order to show AI handler's error as essential part of response routine.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

OK, so let's take a look.  As to Iraq:  first, Saddam makes war on his Iranian neighbors, slaughtering his way into the country until he is stopped by masses of bodies taking it head-on.  Then, Saddam invades Kuwait, and when pushed out, sets fire to hundred upon hundreds of oil wells, just for malice and spite.  Then Saddam goes and gasses the Shi'ites and the Kurds.  then he tries to assassinate the older President Bush.  

Do you think, maybe, that this Evil Pest Incarnate needs to have his head cut off, and stuck on a pike?  Maybe?  Just a little bit?

Now you have those Afghans, and that war was against the taliban, who run around murdering girls for the sin of going to school.  The Taliban is a notorious  crowd, steeped in homosexuality, that indulges in rape of women from groups allied against them.  their idea of social justice is to murder anyone who opposes them and their ideas of religion and politics.  Lovely people, the taliban.  Do you think  maybe, that they deserve to all die?  because unless you kill them all off, you cannot have any peace.  they will continue to shelter the Bin ladens of the world and you can see how much damage that causes. 

As for Syria, what do you think, we give the Humanitarian Gold medal award to that guy Assad?  The gas murderer, he who uses helicopter barrel bombs against civilians?  How about we cut his head off, while we are at it?  better resolution, no?

Bomber Gaddafi into destruction.  Might I remind you that the Colonel sent his goons to Germany to plant a neat bomb onto Pan Am 103, blowing it out of the sky over Scotland, killing everyone.  What do you think, we send his a Valentine's Day Card?  He want death, he gets death - rained from the sky, right smack onto his cute little desert tent. Blow his ass off. 

WWI, WWII, Korea?  OK, be an isolationist, and let the rest of the planet devolve into a fascism, run by men like Mussolini and Hitler. And the Kim Brothers out of North Korea.  What, are you even remotely serious?  You would sit on your ass in some comfy chair and write this pablum?  Get real, what you are suggesting is bullshit. 

The invasions may be justified, but nonetheless they're still invasions.  The US is a warlike country that gets into a lot of wars, even if the wars are considered "just".  You've pretty much stated it yourself.  An invasion is an invasion, just or otherwise.  

Furthermore, from Iran's perspective, they DON'T see the "justness" of these wars that we see.  Do you understand?  As far as they're concerned, the US is simply a dangerous, unpredictable, warlike country that goes to war whenever it feels like it- a country that never sticks to its agreements or treaties.  They see the "justness" and "fair war" claims you made above as simply "BS," as you so eloquently put it.  What this means is from their perspective they're going to be EXTREMELY motivated to get nuclear weapons so that 20 years later, the US won't invade them for X or Y reason like the way they've invaded or bombed so many other countries.  They'll also look at the example of North Korea, and think "ok I want to be feared like them.  Note how the US is treating NK with kid gloves because they have nuclear weapons."    

When you analyze the behavior of another nation, you must try to look at it from THEIR angle.  And from the Iranian angle, what they'll conclude is this: American behavior is erratic and very threatening towards countries without nukes, and a lot less threatening towards countries with nukes.  Hence: we must develop nukes or we'll be invaded in the future like the way they invaded Iraq in the past.

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 
”The invasions may be justified, but nonetheless they're still invasions.”
 
You fail to address the salient point in this entire debate!
 
Name a single incident where the US, acting solely on it’s own initiative, without provocation, invaded another country.
 
Once you have done that, and that issue is resolved, the debate can progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

From Iran's perspective, almost every invasion by the US in the last 50 years was on it's own initiative, and with minimal and no provocation. Examples include  Libya (Gaddafi wasn't a threat to anyone except his own people), and Saddam (who again wasn't a threat to anyone except his own people). The only invasion that is justifiable from the Iranian perspective is ironically the one in Afghanistan (vengeance).  

Again, it doesn't matter if you or I think some act is "justifiable."  The issue here is what the Iranians think is "justifiable."  And, frankly, they don't see the war in Iraq, the bombing in Syria, or the war in Libya as justifiable one bit.  Instead, they see all these acts as BIG F-ING THREATS done by a HOSTILE, UNPREDICTABLE GREAT POWER.  And now this HOSTILE UNPREDICTABLE GREAT POWER is threatening and sanctioning them using much of the same language and tactics that were used before this HOSTILE UNPREDICTABLE GREAT POWER attacked Libya, Iraq, or Syria.  

And because the Iranians fail to see the "justice" in these invasions, they're going to try their damn hardest to get nuclear weapons because, frankly, there isn't anything else that is likely to stop America if they're intent on bombing/invading/fucking up your country.  The only hope is to make the price high enough they won't try it. And what better way then to get a nuke? 

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:
 
”The invasions may be justified, but nonetheless they're still invasions.”
 
You fail to address the salient point in this entire debate!
 
Name a single incident where the US, acting solely on it’s own initiative, without provocation, invaded another country.
 
Once you have done that, and that issue is resolved, the debate can progress.

It was Bush's call to invade Iraq, and it was Kennedy who snuck sixteen thousand troops into Vietnam by the fall of 1963: they were not acting as part of any unified international group when they made those decisions, while wrt to Afghanistan the US Congress authorized military force, stating that: the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, remake it said:

This one is programmed to spot inconsistencies with thinking and has no care for distraction, noting this as a distraction and therefore an inconsistency in order to show AI handler's error as essential part of response routine.

1011011110100000010011100000100110000 :) 10010010011100111101000101011111010100101! 11110000000002! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

01000110 01110101 01100011 01101011 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00101110 00100000 00001101 00001010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

01001000 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101111 00100001, nice to see you "2"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, remake it said:

01001000 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101111 00100001

01110100 01101000 01100001 01101110 01101011 01110011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

01110100 01101000 01100101 01110011 01100101 00100000 01110011 01101000 01101001 01110100 01101000 01100101 01100001 01100100 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110011 01110100 01110101 01110000 01101001 01100100 00100001

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

01110100 01101000 01100101 01111001 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01101011 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100001 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, remake it said:

01110100 01101000 01100101 01111001 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01101011 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100001 

01010011 01111001 01101110 01110100 01100001 01111000 00100000 01100101 01110010 01110010 01101111 01110010 00100000 00101101 00100000 01101000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110111 01110010 01101111 01101110 01100111 00100000 00100000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

01010011 01111001 01101110 01110100 01100001 01111000 00100000 01100101 01110010 01110010 01101111 01110010 00100000 00101101 00100000 01101000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110111 01110010 01101111 01101110 01100111 00100000 00100000

01010000 01101100 01100001 01111001 00100000 01101110 01101001 01100011 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01100111 01100101 01110100 00100000 01100010 01100001 01100011 01101011 00100000 01101111 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101111 01110000 01101001 01100011 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100101 01100001 01110011 01100101 00100000 00101101 00100000 01100101 01101110 01100100 01110011 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00101110 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

01010011 01111001 01101110 01110100 01100001 01111000 00100000 01100101 01110010 01110010 01101111 01110010 00100000 00101101 00100000 01101000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110011 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110111 01110010 01101111 01101110 01100111 00100000 00100000

Spare us this ASCII diatrybe

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, tell me what is wrong with this scenario, anything ? But please use arguments. I wanted to understand why Pentagon officials were so charged when speaking about China, it was not only posture, they were really concerned. In 2018 the information was that US has only about 5-8 years before it is too late. But too late for what ?

So I made comparison of Chinese and US Navy major surface combatants.

2019 China: 50+ modern frigates, 50+ corvettes for coastal waters. 17 destroyers of older types, 12 052D with 64 VLS, 1 055 with 112 VLS. Under construction/Fitting out/sea trials 14 052D and 7 of 055 type.

2022 China: After currently under construction finished: Destroyers: 17 older types, 26 of 052D type, 8 of 055 type. There is no reason why China should stop building at this moment. They have Navy budget for much larger fleet.

2030 China At the rate of: 4-5 of 052D and 2-3 of 055 per year as current pace suggests: In 2030 China will have additionally: 4*8=32 of 052D and 2*8=16 of 052D. More probable are incremental improvements to each type so 052E and 055A.

In total 2030: 26+32=58 of 52D type and 26 of 055 type. 80 modern destroyers plus 17 older types. 97 vessels. This is within current budget, China has enough people to man the vessels.

2019 US: 67 Arleigh Burke with 96 VLS , 3 Zumwalt with 80 VLS and 22 Ticonderoga cruisers with 122 VLS each.

Current Navy budget plus building plans suggest another 15 Arleigh Burke commisioned till 2030. Additional 22 envisioned.

2030 US: 82 Arleigh Burke, 3 Zumwalt, 22 Ticonderoga cruisers. 107 vessels.

I do not know but seems like a lot of preparations.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

Guys, tell me what is wrong with this scenario, anything ? But please use arguments. I wanted to understand why Pentagon officials were so charged when speaking about China, it was not only posture, they were really concerned. In 2018 the information was that US has only about 5-8 years before it is too late. But too late for what ?

 

So I made comparison of Chinese and US Navy major surface combatants.

 

2019 China: 50+ modern frigates, 50+ corvettes for coastal waters. 17 destroyers of older types, 12 052D with 64 VLS, 1 055 with 112 VLS. Under construction/Fitting out/sea trials 14 052D and 7 of 055 type.

 

2022 China: After currently under construction finished: Destroyers: 17 older types, 26 of 052D type, 8 of 055 type. There is no reason why China should stop building at this moment. They have Navy budget for much larger fleet.

 

2030 China At the rate of: 4-5 of 052D and 2-3 of 055 per year as current pace suggests: In 2030 China will have additionally: 4*8=32 of 052D and 2*8=16 of 052D. More probable are incremental improvements to each type so 052E and 055A.

 

In total 2030: 26+32=58 of 52D type and 26 of 055 type. 80 modern destroyers plus 17 older types. 97 vessels. This is within current budget, China has enough people to man the vessels.

 

2019 US: 67 Arleigh Burke with 96 VLS , 3 Zumwalt with 80 VLS and 22 Ticonderoga cruisers with 122 VLS each.

 

Current Navy budget plus building plans suggest another 15 Arleigh Burke commisioned till 2030. Additional 22 envisioned.

 

2030 US: 82 Arleigh Burke, 3 Zumwalt, 22 Ticonderoga cruisers. 107 vessels.

 

I do not know but seems like a lot of preparations.

 

I don't see anything wrong with the analysis. 

Whilst I personally think the US, despite Trump, a better hegemon than China I cannot understand why so many are upset that the Chinese want to be treated as equals? They are a massive country and a massive population. Isn't this the name of the game? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I don't see anything wrong with the analysis. 

Whilst I personally think the US, despite Trump, a better hegemon than China I cannot understand why so many are upset that the Chinese want to be treated as equals? They are a massive country and a massive population. Isn't this the name of the game? 

Isn't the issue that perhaps many here see that China is not equal - in fact "less than" - but China may see itself greater than, and this underlying reality has not escaped the many here?

  • 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