The Real Reasons For The Iran Agreement

[VCheng]

Nope it was Irani nukes and threshold level and their resilience that forced US to work with them,

Wonderful. So Iran had the upper hand. I have no problem accepting that. Congratulations to Iran for such good strategy!

Hi,
exactly, but that after reaction from rag tag terrorist. That too in our soil. Thanks to US Of A were imposed with their war legacy

Just like the rag tag terrorists attacked USA on its own soil in 9/11. No difference.

 

[salarsikander]

Wonderful. So Iran had the upper hand. I have no problem accepting that. Congratulations to Iran for such good strategy!

Hi,
Lets not twist the words to fit our satisfaction level. US was forced to work with them

Just like the rag tag terrorists attacked USA on its own soil in 9/11. No difference.

Were those terroists from Iraq? or from libya? and how long did the war lasted with how many casualties ?

I mean if you could give us the ratio as to how much non american lives are worth for one American than we can get idea or least justify the killing and destroying of an entire generation

 

[Nicky G]

Forget nukes, what the Pakistan Army is doing in FATA and Baluchistan is what serves Pakistani national interests, just as much as the actions of any other Army as ordered by their respective leaders.

You forget they are 'bad' terrorists.

Anyway, I don't usually bring those sensitive topics at PDF - not really required. Plenty of other routes.

Hi,

That still doesn't justify the barbarity, does it ?

My country is not super power like US not it is heavy industrial nation like US. My country faces a constant threat from its neighbour which is 6 times bigger than itself.

Nor my country has illegally occupied any country for that matter.

The policy of first-use will only be activated when, large part of PAkistan is threatened or blockaded. Please do give a good read of Pakistan first use ambiguous policy

Barbarism is subjective - varies with usage.

So if you are weak you can threaten to use nukes on civilians but if you are a super-power you are not allowed to? That's crazy.

As for super-power, neither are you supposedly threatened by a super-power, well apart from the time US gets angry at you.

Illegal occupation is debatable - lets set that aside as it would derail this thread entirely.

I have read your policy. The fact remains - you consider it fine for your country to threaten use of nukes to kill millions of civilians even when you have not been attacked by them but curse others for doing so on what would obviously be a much smaller scale then if your country were ever to use these weapons.

Even if your country sets arbitrary limits as to when you'd use nukes, that's all that they are - arbitrary limits. Other countries have different limits.

In essence, your stance is simply one of double standard; one that you are trying to rationalize by extraneous factors such as not being a super-power, larger enemy etc., so as allow you to hold contradictory thoughts in your head.

Bottom line, countries do as they see fit. You can hold opinions as to whether you consider them just or unjust; however, those opinions would be almost entirely based on your personal prejudices.

 

[VCheng]

Hi,
Lets not twist the words to fit our satisfaction level. US was forced to work with them


Were those terroists from Iraq? or from libya? and how long did the war lasted with how many casualties ?

I mean if you could give us the ratio as to how much non american lives are worth for one American than we can get idea or least justify the killing and destroying of an entire generation

I am not twisting any words. If Iran forced USA to make the deal, then Iran must be congratulated for playing the game better than its opponents. What is wrong in acknowledging that? USA does not always win.

What I am justifying is the pursuit of national interests, a right enjoyed by all nations equally, nothing more, nothing less.

Bottom line, countries do as they see fit. You can hold opinions as to whether you consider them just or unjust; however, those opinions would be almost entirely based on your personal prejudices.

I could not have said it better myself. Thank you.

You forget they are 'bad' terrorists.

Anyway, I don't usually bring those sensitive topics at PDF - not really required. Plenty of other routes.

Pakistan's support for certain groups is just another indicator of every nation having the right to pursue its national interest as they see fit. Getting to deal with the consequences is just as inevitable, of course.

 

[salarsikander]

You forget they are 'bad' terrorists.

Anyway, I don't usually bring those sensitive topics at PDF - not really required. Plenty of other routes.



Barbarism is subjective - varies with usage.

So if you are weak you can threaten to use nukes on civilians but if you are a super-power you are not allowed to? That's crazy.

As for super-power, neither are you supposedly threatened by a super-power, well apart from the time US gets angry at you.

Illegal occupation is debatable - lets set that aside as it would derail this thread entirely.

I have read your policy. The fact remains - you consider it fine for your country to threaten use of nukes to kill millions of civilians even when you have not been attacked by them but curse others for doing so on what would obviously be a much smaller scale then if your country were ever to use these weapons.

Even if your country sets arbitrary limits as to when you'd use nukes, that's all that they are - arbitrary limits. Other countries have different limits.

In essence, your stance is simply one of double standard; one that you are trying to rationalize by extraneous factors such as not being a super-power, larger enemy etc., so as allow you to hold contradictory thoughts in your head.

Bottom line, countries do as they see fit. You can hold opinions as to whether you consider them just or unjust; however, those opinions would be almost entirely based on your personal prejudices.

Hi,

The argument is not relevant since, My country has never used them nor your has. So any amouth of threats is just hot air. trust me.

Secondly, About US that i mentioned is the double standards of attacking other countries on the pretext of Human right violations and all, When they themselves are committing the violation it is ok. Coz oblvsy its Mureeka after all.

Botton line: ''Might is Right'' is the case here. Killing about million or two people and that on 21 century based on some prejudiced ( which was actually, we all know of non-existent WMD) is not and will never ever be justified.

I am not sure by reading your post that if i'm living in medieval time or current 21 century

Pakistan's support for certain groups is just another indicator of every nation having the right to pursue its national interest as they see fit. Getting to deal with the consequences is just as inevitable, of course.

Is that justified? no its not, and i ' m saying this unequivocally

What I am justifying is the pursuit of national interests, a right enjoyed by all nations equally, nothing more, nothing less

What you're justifying in the light of national interest is. It is ok to kill about a million or two people for the pursuit of national interest.

What i ' m saying bluntly is that If PAkistan does it, Its wrong, If India does its wrong. But when mureeka does it you just look for another way to justify it by not admitting it

 

[VCheng]

What i ' m saying bluntly is that If PAkistan does it, Its wrong, If India does its wrong. But when mureeka does it you just look for another way to justify it by not admitting it

Only because of the difference in abilities to actually do it.

 

[salarsikander]

Only because of the difference in abilities to actually do it.

No, not because of that. I have clearly mentioned it in my previous post. But you on the other hand conveniently avoid the admittance

 

[Nicky G]

Hi,

The argument is not relevant since, My country has never used them nor your has. So any amouth of threats is just hot air. trust me.

Secondly, About US that i mentioned is the double standards of attacking other countries on the pretext of Human right violations and all, When they themselves are committing the violation it is ok. Coz oblvsy its Mureeka after all.

Botton line: ''Might is Right'' is the case here. Killing about million or two people and that on 21 century based on some prejudiced ( which was actually, we all know of non-existent WMD) is not and will never ever be justified.

I am not sure by reading your post that if i'm living in medieval time or current 21 century

Hot air or not - its your country's policy, not a throw-away statement at a bar. It unequivocally indicates that your country is fine with use of nukes on civilians even without a similar attack - which you are condemning US for.

'Not real' is a silly attempt to escape - most of the scenarios we discuss on a defense forum are not real since they have not transpired. That does not make them any less valuable - particularly when your country endorses a view.

No country that has undertaken any military action would ever be entirely free from 'human rights' violations. Neither is yours, yet you are here arguing about others's supposed violations.

'Might is right' - mostly true. That's how its always been and fundamentally speaking will always be true. That does not undermine the point I made about all countries acting in their interests and your evaluation of the morality of their actions as being purely subjective.

I fail to see the relevance of 21st century here. Nation states exist, human nature to succeed exist, war exists and will continue to do so. I could go on about medieval vs current times - but that's another thread.

You are condemning the one country with power for wielding that power as all those who came before have done - probably worse. Being in a new century does not mean fundamentals of the world have been set aside or that we all are somehow better human beings than our medieval ancestors - we simply cloak ourselves differently.

Anyway, I believe I have made the points I wished to - unless you can provide me any objective criteria by which to determine why one particular nation needs to be condemned for acting how others act, I'll leave you to your subjective characterizations of the 'evil' empire.

 

[salarsikander]

Hot air or not - its your country's policy, not a throw-away statement at a bar. It unequivocally indicates that your country is fine with use of nukes on civilians even without a similar attack - which you are condemning US for.

'Not real' is a silly attempt to escape - most of the scenarios we discuss on a defense forum are not real since they have not transpired. That does not make them any less valuable - particularly when your country endorses a view.

No country that has undertaken any military action would ever be entirely free from 'human rights' violations. Neither is yours, yet you are here arguing about others's supposed violations.

'Might is right' - mostly true. That's how its always been and fundamentally speaking will always be true. That does not undermine the point I made about all countries acting in their interests and your evaluation of the morality of their actions as being purely subjective.

I fail to see the relevance of 21st century here. Nation states exist, human nature to succeed exist, war exists and will continue to do so. I could go on about medieval vs current times - but that's another thread.

Anyway, I believe I have made the points I wished to - unless you can provide me any objective criteria by which to determine why one particular nation needs to be condemned for acting how others act, I'll leave you to your subjective characterizations of the 'evil' empire.

Hi,

Perhaps youre getting me wrong here.

I never said my country is free from anything for that matter. But we do not claim to be champion of freedom or Human rights, Just a poor third world country.

Nor it has used NUKES ! or mounted an invasion supposedly based on suspicion (iraq WMD). killing about so far 1 mn and still counting, if i am not mistaken.

If it does then YES it should be condemned, but since it hasnt, I cant blame them for something they havent done !

My point here was that Pursuit of NAtional objective at the expense of nations populations lives cannot be justified in any way. There are other paths to progress, like the one that Japan used after ww2.

What is wrong is wrong ans should be condemned

 

[VCheng]

You are condemning the one country with power for wielding that power as all those who came before have done - probably worse. Being in a new century does not mean fundamentals of the world have been set aside or that we all are somehow better human beings than our medieval ancestors - we simply cloak ourselves differently.

Of course, power that seems obscene in anybody else's hands is entirely justifiable when in one's own hands.

 

[salarsikander]

Of course, power that seems obscene in anybody else's hands is entirely justifiable when in one's own hands.

Again wrong, and finding ways to justify it

You are condemning the one country with power for wielding that power as all those who came before have done - probably worse. Being in a new century does not mean fundamentals of the world have been set aside or that we all are somehow better human beings than our medieval ancestors - we simply cloak ourselves differently.

Hi,

Then at least one should not use the pretext of fighting for freedom in their country to protect their country from their dictators

And call oneself proudly the land of free at the expense of others freedom

 

[VCheng]

Again wrong, and finding ways to justify it

I will end here by quoting this:

Anyway, I believe I have made the points I wished to - unless you can provide me any objective criteria by which to determine why one particular nation needs to be condemned for acting how others act, I'll leave you to your subjective characterizations of the 'evil' empire.

 

[salarsikander]

I will end here by quoting this:

post 39 is what you're looking for

 

[Nicky G]

Hi,

Perhaps youre getting me wrong here.

I never said my country is free from anything for that matter. But we do not claim to be champion of freedom or Human rights, Just a poor third world country.

Nor it has used NUKES ! or mounted an invasion supposedly based on suspicion (iraq WMD). killing about so far 1 mn and still counting, if i am not mistaken.

If it does then YES it should be condemned, but since it hasnt, I cant blame them for something they havent done !

My point here was that Pursuit of NAtional objective at the expense of nations populations lives cannot be justified in any way. There are other paths to progress, like the one that Japan used after ww2.

What is wrong is wrong ans should be condemned

You are missing the point. Let me try to see if I can clarify.

Pak has never had the power to do anything you accuse US of and get away with it. If it uses nukes, it'd be obliterated, if it invaded some poor defenseless country - others would respond and so on.

Take '71 (not for any Indo-Pak point scoring) for example - India was able to invade and liberate a part of your country. Whatever the reason - we did it and essentially got away with it as the net geo-political scenario allowed us to do so. Perhaps, if we had tried for more, we might have received push back and even USSR might not have backed us.

So your arguments are based on condemning someone who has power for using it, while implicitly excusing others who do not have that power for not using it. This is why we need hypothetical.

History is also relevant since all the evidence we have - does not make US an exception in your 'misuse' of power, merely the destructive power has increased due to technological advancements.

You don't want to talk of historic examples, you don't want hypothetical backed entirely by your country's official policy - as I said, you set the parameters based on your prejudice.

Let me try a different route - religion. People are committing atrocities on a massive scale currently in the name of what they call Islam. If you ignore history when others have done similar or not talk about hypothetical that would mean others in similar position might do the same - does that mean you uniquely single out Islam?

Note - I am not making any judgment on religion, merely giving an analogy.

To condemn someone, we need a frame of reference - you take both possible ones out. That's not proper - maybe you don't realize it since I am sure you are sincere, but you are making a fundamental mistake.

Anyway, nice chatting. Appreciate your responses and since I brought in new aspects lets take it up later if you wish to. Cheers!

 

[Indika]

Theoretically it looks good on paper. But as usual most of the american strategies are short sighted and will have repercussions in the long run. I guess Iran is just buying time and money for nukes. They can simply do what india & pakistan did. Stay low, add more economic muscle and test a nuke. By that scenario in middle east would have changed and iran would have more trading partners. Once western companies start investing in Iran they will loathe to oblige any more new sanctions.