Historic deal reached with Iran to limit nuclear program
Options
Comments
-
to be entirely fair, the way the Gulf states are reacting, people obviously think Iran's a cowboy in the region in their own way.kingblaze84 wrote: »And I didn't say America has to be the only nation that can't be involved in world affairs. Of course America can but it can't continue its reputation of being a cowboy in the region.
Gulf states have some legit reason to feel that way but are Shias supposed to just die off? Of course Iran is going to protect them and the minorities who work well with them. I'm not saying Iran is good in everything it does, like in Syria but Saudis and some other Gulf states act like cowboys in their own right. -
no, the point is just that calling countries "cowboys" is probably a little less about what they do and a little more about "do you like what they do."kingblaze84 wrote: »Gulf states have some legit reason to feel that way but are Shias supposed to just die off? Of course Iran is going to protect them and the minorities who work well with them. I'm not saying Iran is good in everything it does, like in Syria but Saudis and some other Gulf states act like cowboys in their own right.
-
no, the point is just that calling countries "cowboys" is probably a little less about what they do and a little more about "do you like what they do."kingblaze84 wrote: »Gulf states have some legit reason to feel that way but are Shias supposed to just die off? Of course Iran is going to protect them and the minorities who work well with them. I'm not saying Iran is good in everything it does, like in Syria but Saudis and some other Gulf states act like cowboys in their own right.
Well most people, including myself, are going to have their biases.....what I do know is American actions in the region, at this current pace, will continue to make problems in the region worse. Many nations around the world have said the same, and that goes for many of the actions of Shia and Sunni nations in the region. One reason I want America to be more hands off in the region, outsiders can't fix it, especially Americans lol.... -
ultimately i don't understand how American meddling is OUTRAGEOUS but Iranian meddling is kosher because their country is closer to another country.kingblaze84 wrote: »One reason I want America to be more hands off in the region, outsiders can't fix it, especially Americans lol....
-
ultimately i don't understand how American meddling is OUTRAGEOUS but Iranian meddling is kosher because their country is closer to another country.kingblaze84 wrote: »One reason I want America to be more hands off in the region, outsiders can't fix it, especially Americans lol....
I never said Iran's meddling is fine, I just said the region needs to handle Iran for itself if it is that bad. In fact, John Kerry himself yesterday admitted that out of the 6 or so nations that negotiated with Iran, none of them would support a military confrontation. -
now, if the region says "okay, we'll get the US to help us..."kingblaze84 wrote: »I never said Iran's meddling is fine, I just said the region needs to handle Iran for itself if it is that bad.
-
now, if the region says "okay, we'll get the US to help us..."kingblaze84 wrote: »I never said Iran's meddling is fine, I just said the region needs to handle Iran for itself if it is that bad.
My last post got deleted but I'll phrase it this way.....
It depends on the help the region is asking for. If it involves more bombings for the pleasure of Saudi Arabia or Israel, then I say no. Saudis and Israelis have enough atrocities on their hands and they've done a lot of it with American weapons and support. Let them find someone else to play their game. -
[url="
http://"]https://youtu.be/fpQdg4D78Jc[/url]
--Hmmmm.....all this Iran nuclear weapon talk sounds familiar..... -
yeah, we lost some stuff there. anyways...kingblaze84 wrote: »My last post got deleted but I'll phrase it this way.....kingblaze84 wrote: »It depends on the help the region is asking for. If it involves more bombings for the pleasure of Saudi Arabia or Israel, then I say no. Saudis and Israelis have enough atrocities on their hands and they've done a lot of it with American weapons and support. Let them find someone else to play their game.
well, the thing is, if the region handles Iran instead of the US, you can still make your "American weapons" complaint. yet typically we blame other nations for their own actions if they use Russian/Chinese/etc hardware. so... -
yeah, we lost some stuff there. anyways...kingblaze84 wrote: »My last post got deleted but I'll phrase it this way.....kingblaze84 wrote: »It depends on the help the region is asking for. If it involves more bombings for the pleasure of Saudi Arabia or Israel, then I say no. Saudis and Israelis have enough atrocities on their hands and they've done a lot of it with American weapons and support. Let them find someone else to play their game.
well, the thing is, if the region handles Iran instead of the US, you can still make your "American weapons" complaint. yet typically we blame other nations for their own actions if they use Russian/Chinese/etc hardware. so...
In all honesty, I wouldn't care too much if Saudi Arabia and their buddies in Israel bomb Iran with American weapons they ALREADY have, as long as America isn't giving logistical and direct support to any future attack there. America has enough enemies in the region, and Iraq's govt wouldn't be happy about us helping the Saudis or Isra-hell's govt bomb their favorite ally.
Also, I'm sure Europe would be ? . More negatives than positives for America helping the wackjob Saudis and mentally bent Israelis take on Iran. -
i mean, i understand the complaint about America assisting (if indirectly) in a conflict you disagree with. my question is more if that complaint is fairly applied.kingblaze84 wrote: »In all honesty, I wouldn't care too much if Saudi Arabia and their buddies in Israel bomb Iran with American weapons they ALREADY have, as long as America isn't giving logistical and direct support to any future attack there.
-
i mean, i understand the complaint about America assisting (if indirectly) in a conflict you disagree with. my question is more if that complaint is fairly applied.kingblaze84 wrote: »In all honesty, I wouldn't care too much if Saudi Arabia and their buddies in Israel bomb Iran with American weapons they ALREADY have, as long as America isn't giving logistical and direct support to any future attack there.
I would say it's fairly applied. Have America's adventures and policies in the Middle East been worth the cost and effort? Has it done much, if anything to improve America's standing in the region? Nope, not at all. It's not like these conflicts are paying off the national debt or gaining us popularity. -
no, the comparison here is how much you blame America for what people do with American weaponry versus how much you blame another country for what people do with THAT country's weaponry.kingblaze84 wrote: »I would say it's fairly applied. Have America's adventures and policies in the Middle East been worth the cost and effort? -
So what exactly is the issue here? It seems that anyone who has a problem with this is mainly rooted into religion, stating some sort of prophecy will happen. The other side says that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon.
Question, why haven't they already and what's stopping them regardless of a deal or no deal?
