Nuclear Deal with Iran — Page 2

Thank you Heinrich for explaining my position eloquently you are a treasure when it comes to the written word.

Because the assumption that that is Iran's goal is seriously up for debate, because it would further destabilize the region, because Iran and the U.S., and israel, have common interests in the area, because it would alienate the millions of pro U.S. Americans in Iran, because it would be an unprovoked act of aggression, because it would be a war crime, and because it would completely reinforce why a country like Iran feels it justifiably and defensively needs nukes, to wit, because many in this country, including some famous American politicians, want to bomb it... see John McCain's previous campaign rhetoric for example.

In other words by your very logic, since a stated goal of many in the U.S. and Israel, including many powerful and influential people, is to bomb Iran, an Iranian attack on NYC or Tel Aviv might well strike many in Iran as "sane."

It would hardly be the sane or the right thing to do. In both cases!

How many tens of millions of NEWLY virulently and vengefully anti-American Muslims (and particularly Shia Muslims, at a time when there is arguably a far greater Sunni threat to world peace) do you think such an act would create worldwide? Particularly since such a bombing would come at a moment when Iran has agreed to a framework for potential peace and the lifting of sanctions?

What do you think the response of the rest of the world, including our partners in reaching this framework, would be? Do you think that response could possibly be positive for either the U.S. or Israel?

Moreover, this can't be looked at in a vaccum. And many would agree that there is a far more dangerous and in some respects far more threatening nation in the region with far greater present nuclear capacity, Pakistan. Pakistan is by many accounts - inclduing arguably its own admitted ones - the greatest sponsor of international terrorism.

Would you also suggest attacking Pakistan's nuclear facilities?

Updated On: 7/17/15 at 07:47 AM

For once I agree completely with PalJoey... but on that post and that post only.

Henrik said: Pakistan is by many accounts - inclduing arguably its own admitted ones - the greatest sponsor of international terrorism.

Henrik -- every internationally accepted report points to Iran, not Pakistan, as the #1 sponsor of global terrorism. What reports/studies are you using to refute that commonly accepted fact? That aside, I do agree that Pakistan is actually the greatest threat to America. They receive hundreds of millions in aid from the US and go largely unchecked in their own aspirations & activities. Further, Obama's expanded drone strike program in Pakistan has killed thousands of innocent civilians since 2009 including many children. It's amazing Pakistan hasn't raised more hell over such an inhumane and unjust initiative. They accept it because they receive blood money from us but eventually they will grow tired of our illegal antics and strike back.

Henrike is a very good writer, in fact, I think this is Noam Chomsky and I claim my $5

Henrike, I was simply playing devils advocate in my post in order to get your reasoning. So now that I have it I can see we share many concerns but disagree in our fundamental beliefs concerning Iran.

I agree with much of your first paragraph with exception that the US, Israel, and Iran share many common interests. You see, although most people in Iran do not support the government, I do believe their leaders when they say they want to wipe Israel off the map. I also believe that they would love to see America suffer a nuke. You do not believe that. I do. You, perhaps, believe that Iran will live up to the terms of the nuclear deal. I do not believe they will regardless of the terms.

Pal Joey states the simple truth that the prospect of an Iranian nuke will create a nuclear arms race in the area. That arms race creates more danger to the State of Israel than an Iranian bomb. Israel supports its economy and its defense because it is an extremely successful high tech economy which is completely dependent on capital investment. Capital investment in Israel is three times(per capita) what it is in the US. An arms race in the area will have a huge negative impact on international investment.

Yes, much of what goes on is about money on both sides. The word sanity is used frequently. Just look at all the current events in the area. Saying something will or will not happen---should or should not happen because it is or would be insane is moot at this point. Most of what is currently happening is all ready insane. To say Iran would not do something because it would be insane is insane.

Paranoia is setting in. The genie has been out of the bottle for nearly 70 years start digging your fallout shelters. Iran is coming to get you. How long to you think Iran would last if it started a nuclear war? Why hasn't India, Pakistan, North Korea, the former Soviet Union, or any other nation started a nuclear war? Because that would mean annihilation.

Why hasn't Pakistan or North Korea supplied some asshole with a bomb?

Because you nuke Israel or the US the Middle East ceases to exist.

Other points of view are interesting. People arguing things they don't believe for the sake of arguing is TEDIOUS.