Greece rejects joint maneuver with Israel against Iran

[YuriBierazo]

I will allow VDKMS to respond your thinking of him being biased.

Saying "I will wipe a country off the map" then researching nuclear programs to this extent is not a joke, nor should be taken as one considering the circumstances.

If someone who disagrees with you frequently say "I will come to your house and kill you" and you know this guy has a gun, would you take it as a joke? Do not be silly bud, threats such as those should always be taken seriously. Do not try to downplay this situation.

I also suggest you learn about the NPT, IAEA, etc. Obtaining nukes under these is illegal. Which Iran isn't complying with the IAEA as much as we would all like.

I wish some of you stop forgetting that it is the WORLD that is against Iran and not just U.S and Israel.

What Ahmadinejad really said was that the political elite in Israel should be wiped off and never said that Israel will be wiped off the map. Good thing about having Arabic friends who can translate a video for you huh?

So maybe the threat isn't as bad as you might be told by propaganda. There is a reason the U.S. is called the JEW.S by the rest of the world and that is because it is owned be the Jews who have a big hold over everything that happens in the government whether foreign or domestic such as this.

Like i said who cares if Iran follows policy or not. Its not like Israel or America follows the same policies, they pretty much do whatever they want. Look at all the war crimes committed by the U.S....In any other situation if it was a different country there would have been trials.

BTW in no way does the WORLD cares about Iran building nuclear weapons like Israel and the JEW.S. China offered to aid Russia in attacking America if they openly attack Iran, and Greece declined operating with Israel due to closer relations with Iran, etc

 

[RayManKiller3]

What Ahmadinejad really said was that the political elite in Israel should be wiped off and never said that Israel will be wiped off the map. Good thing about having Arabic friends who can translate a video for you huh?

So maybe the threat isn't as bad as you might be told by propaganda. There is a reason the U.S. is called the JEW.S by the rest of the world and that is because it is owned be the Jews who have a big hold over everything that happens in the government whether foreign or domestic such as this.

Like i said who cares if Iran follows policy or not. Its not like Israel or America follows the same policies, they pretty much do whatever they want. Look at all the war crimes committed by the U.S....In any other situation if it was a different country there would have been trials.

BTW in no way does the WORLD cares about Iran building nuclear weapons like Israel and the JEW.S. China offered to aid Russia in attacking America if they openly attack Iran, and Greece declined operating with Israel due to closer relations with Iran, etc

I have Arabic friends, but never thought of asking them to translate it. Either way, I still don't put my trust into Iran.


U.S is called a lot of things good and bad (mostly bad) by a lot of the world, so I couldn't care about the whole Jew conspiracy thing. As long as these guys are elected then that is what the U.S people are doing. Sure the Jewish lobby can take a dumb down of sorts, but why should it? I do agree that complete support for Israel needs to go, but I will support them over all else there.

Can you please state what policies U.S and Israel are not following that Iran is also not following? As for war crimes, what conflicts are you speaking of? Iraq and Afghanistan have agreements on how to deal with U.S soldiers who commit war crimes. I am also aware that a good deal of war crimes aren't published, but what can we do about something we don't know?

Your last paragraph is incorrect.... "no one cares if Iran gets nuclear weapons"? Are you serious with that?

China offered to aid Russia in attacking America if they openly attack Iran, and Greece declined operating with Israel due to closer relations with Iran, etc

I don't see why you posted this part. If China and Russia want to go into war with U.S for Iran's sake, then let them. I believe if Iran do get attacked, it will be by Israel (with or without U.S support), which will in turn bring U.S into it. I don't recall China and Russia making a deal like that though.

As for Greece, it is understandable why they would prefer to work with Iran rather than Israel. After all, Greece is in a rather unfortunate predicament. They are/were close to defaulting are they not?

 

[RayManKiller3]

And why exactly should they, they don't pay taxes in Iran, and also the US is not complying with UN wishes regarding things like cluster munitions.

For you, the "world" is the US and Israel. I've never heard of Paraguay, or China or Ireland or any number of countries voicing their hatred of Iran. If the US was to give up their support of Israel, I think that you'd find all of their allies would too.

Because they signed an agreement.... An agreement that is legally binding. Either do not agree with it, follow it, or cancel it and show how untrustworthy you are afterwards.

It is pretty obvious why China isn't calling out so much. China only cares in its national interest. When I say "only" I mean they seriosly do not care what happens in the world unless it involves them. There are many examples of why this is so... I know most countries take there national interest above other things, but seriously, China? I am surprised you said China.


I think people like you who spout too fast about propaganda are being quite hypocritical. Unless it is something that is 100% defined, how can you with 100% say something is propaganda? I can easily say what you believe is propaganda or false based on what I read. It do not necessarily make what you said false. That is my opinion though.

 

[senojekips]

Because they signed an agreement.... An agreement that is legally binding. Either do not agree with it, follow it, or cancel it and show how untrustworthy you are afterwards.

Untrustworthy,... like when the US told the marsh Arabs in Iran to rise up against Saddam and said that they would protect them? Then after they put their lives on the line, just turn your back on them and feed then to the dogs.

The fact that they are not abiding by a voluntary treaty carries about as much weight as the US chewing Australia's @rse about not dropping all trade barriers to their goods, while they give US grain farmers subsidies to compete against us worth almost as much as our trade share. The US is in no position to hold the blowtorch on anyone's feet about "trust". We may not buck about it on a diplomatic level, but that does not mean that we are so stupid as to not be aware of what is going on.

It is pretty obvious why China isn't calling out so much. China only cares in its national interest.

And of course the US is not?

C'mon,.... you're not even thinking before you answer these things are you?

I can easily say what you believe is propaganda or false based on what I read. It do not necessarily make what you said false. That is my opinion though.

You could,.... if you read both sides of the argument, but it is quite apparent that you only read the pro US view, and as such your view is not worth your time spent expressing it.

By far the greatest threat to U.S. national security is the willful unapologetic ignorance of the average American citizen. The average American tends to not care about everything that does not affect them directly. It is a worldwide recognizable trait that all other people of the world seem to know except Americans. Source: Here

It would appear that you are a perfect example of the above.

 

[RayManKiller3]

Untrustworthy,... like when the US told the marsh Arabs in Iran to rise up against Saddam and said that they would protect them? Then after they put their lives on the line, just turn your back on them and feed then to the dogs.

The fact that they are not abiding by a voluntary treaty carries about as much weight as the US chewing Australia's @rse about not dropping all trade barriers to their goods, while they give US grain farmers subsidies to compete against us worth almost as much as our trade share. The US is in no position to hold the blowtorch on anyone's feet about "trust". We may not buck about it on a diplomatic level, but that does not mean that we are so stupid as to not be aware of what is going on.

I am not sure how trade between U.S and Australia is relevant. I agree a voluntary treaty carries no weight as it is up to the person that signed it to oblige. You still missing the point though. Also I did not say U.S is trustworthy.

If you sign something and you break your deal, then the people you signed it with have a right to call foul. Just because some untrustworthy country is untrustworthy do not mean it won't complain (as it still have the right to) about another untrustworthy country being untrustworthy lol. Even when it is hypocritical. I think I could have worded that better, but you should understand, no?

Is all you going to do is compare Iran's situation to situations U.S was/is in?

And of course the US is not?

C'mon,.... you're not even thinking before you answer these things are you?

I didn't say U.S isn't. I know full well countries look after its own interest before another country's which is what I said in my post. The difference between the west and China is that China completely looks after its own. It only does stuff that strengthens itself. Every country is guilty of being selfish once in awhile, however, I believe China takes the top.

You could,.... if you read both sides of the argument, but it is quite apparent that you only read the pro US view, and as such your view is not worth your time spent expressing it.

You can read both sides all you want and still succumb to propaganda, though the chance is lessened.

 

[senojekips]

I am not sure how trade between U.S and Australia is relevant. I agree a voluntary treaty carries no weight as it is up to the person that signed it to oblige. You still missing the point though. Also I did not say U.S is trustworthy.

No.... I'm certainly not missing the point. Wouldn't you think, that if you know your own country is not necessarily trustworthy in matters of self interest, that there's a certain degree of hypocrisy in calling out someone else's country because you say that they are doing the same?

I really think that you'd be very wise to stay right away from using the matter of broken agreements to support your argument..... and as you would say, "I'm not saying all governments don't do it" What I am saying, is that it's not a thing to base your argument on, and still expect any degree of respect or credibility.

 

[RayManKiller3]

No.... I'm certainly not missing the point. Wouldn't you think, that if you know your own country is not necessarily trustworthy in matters of self interest, that there's a certain degree of hypocrisy in calling out someone else's country because you say that they are doing the same?

I really think that you'd be very wise to stay right away from using the matter of broken agreements to support your argument..... and as you would say, "I'm not saying all governments don't do it" What I am saying, is that it's not a thing to base your argument on, and still expect any degree of respect or credibility.

Do you not recall me saying it was hypocritical? Even though it is hypocritical, they still have a right to call foul when someone breaks an agreement with them. Sure it causes them to lose respect and credibility, I never said it didn't. I am basically saying that U.S, Israel, and all other countries protesting Iran have a right to do so, even though what they are doing is hypocritical.

I personally don't trust Iran, however, I am also against those wishing for more conflicts. I just wish Iran would clarify what they are doing so it would speed up the process that we are in. The fact they are not clarifying it beyond speeches, makes it seem more likely they are taking illegal actions. This is what is going to cause Israel to strike them and justifiably so.
If they don't have a military nuclear program, then why are they being so reluctant? If they have one then it will almost guarantee an Israeli strike. They are the ones that can end all this conflict by showing off to the West how much of a paranoid idiot we are, simply by giving the IAEA the access they desire (of course limited only by what the IAEA is allowed by law).

So no, I do not think I an contradicting myself. We all look after our national interest, however when one forgets all else just for national interest, it becomes complete selfishness. A country of their degree could do a little better in solving conflicts don't you think? Also if we go by what you said, not one single country (or person withing that country) can comment on another country's handling of a situation. As far as I am aware every country that existed done what other countries done.

For example: Why are you complaining about Israel "colonizing" Palestine, when Great Britain (I am sure you're ancestors are from there), colonized Australia from the Aboriginals?

You will say "because times were different", but I see that as only an excuse.

 

[VDKMS]

Just a firm supporter of Israel?

If they are right they are right. If they are wrong they are wrong.

 

[VDKMS]

And why exactly should they, they don't pay taxes in Iran, and also the US is not complying with UN wishes regarding things like cluster munitions.

They don't have to comply because they didn't sign it. Just as Irael, China, Russia and Iran among others
Signatories and Ratifying States

 

[VDKMS]

China offered to aid Russia in attacking America if they openly attack Iran, and Greece declined operating with Israel due to closer relations with Iran, etc

Where in the hell did you get that information?

 

[VDKMS]

Originally Posted by San Diego Foreign Policy Examiner
By far the greatest threat to U.S. national security is the willful unapologetic ignorance of the average American citizen. The average American tends to not care about everything that does not affect them directly. It is a worldwide recognizable trait that all other people of the world seem to know except Americans. Source: http://www.examiner.com/foreign-poli...ional-security

It would appear that you are a perfect example of the above.

Did you also read the comments? I don't think so.

The fact that they are not abiding by a voluntary treaty carries about as much weight as the US chewing Australia's @rse about not dropping all trade barriers to their goods, while they give US grain farmers subsidies to compete against us worth almost as much as our trade share. The US is in no position to hold the blowtorch on anyone's feet about "trust". We may not buck about it on a diplomatic level, but that does not mean that we are so stupid as to not be aware of what is going on.

It seems to be a two way street :
"While the U.S. has moved forward with several free trade agreements, our competitors are aggressively negotiating new market access. Australia, Canada, the EU and the Mercosur block are all negotiating agreements with wheat importing countries that, if implemented, would put U.S. wheat farmers at a price disadvantage due to often dramatic differences in tariffs. "
2012 National Trade Estimate Report Foreign Trade Barriers
BTW if Australia is not happy with it they can file a complaint at the WTO. But I think it has nothing to do with Australian policy but with your opinion.

 

[senojekips]

Did you also read the comments? I don't think so.

Yes I did. Read the last line of my quote.
So many Americans didn't agree with it, considering the article, that is hardly surprising, and it further proves the point of the writer, who you will note is an American writing for a US publication (Jaja Malik Atenra is a graduate of the University of San Diego, with a Master degree in Teaching with an emphasis in International Relations. He also holds a B.A. in Anthropology from the San Diego State University. Currently Jaja is conducting independent research on the impact of U.S. foreign policy in Africa. Areas of Focus: U.S. Foreign Policy, Africa, Terrorism, Security Issues, Islam, Nuclear Non-Proliferation.)

It seems to be a two way street :
"While the U.S. has moved forward with several free trade agreements, our competitors are aggressively negotiating new market access. Australia, Canada, the EU and the Mercosur block are all negotiating agreements with wheat importing countries that, if implemented, would put U.S. wheat farmers at a price disadvantage due to often dramatic differences in tariffs. "
2012 National Trade Estimate Report Foreign Trade Barriers
BTW if Australia is not happy with it they can file a complaint at the WTO. But I think it has nothing to do with Australian policy but with your opinion.

It is free trade (without Government protectionism) Australia has no trade tariffs, nor do we undertake "dumping" at less than cost like the EU, therefore Australia is quite within its rights to negotiate favourable agreements, that is the whole idea of free trade within the meaning of the agreement. If the US can't compete in this field that is not our fault, they should try improving their farming practices, not trying to hobble us because we have been willing to make huge sacrifices in the past, and exploit our natural seasonal advantage with sales to the Northern hemisphere. We can't compete with the US in corn production, so we produce the crops where we have a natural advantage, and we don't complain about our inability to compete in corn (or dozens of other things).

Do you not recall me saying it was hypocritical? Even though it is hypocritical, they still have a right to call foul when someone breaks an agreement with them. Sure it causes them to lose respect and credibility, I never said it didn't. I am basically saying that U.S, Israel, and all other countries protesting Iran have a right to do so, even though what they are doing is hypocritical.

Read back through you own posts, I don't think you know what you are saying. You have just admitted that it's hypocritical, and yet you still want to do it and wonder why you lose respect and credibility. Which is the point I was making. (Shakes head)

We all look after our national interest, however when one forgets all else just for national interest, it becomes complete selfishness.

Thank you,... now turn around and take a look in the mirror....

So why exactly are you decrying another country for doing what you freely admit is only natural behaviour?

For example: Why are you complaining about Israel "colonizing" Palestine, when Great Britain (I am sure you're ancestors are from there), colonized Australia from the Aboriginals?

You will say "because times were different", but I see that as only an excuse.

A "excuse", eh??... I suppose that it's just a coincidence that when Australia and the US were colonised, there were no International agreements against it, whereas that is not the case with Israel in 1947??

 

[YuriBierazo]

Where in the hell did you get that information?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...merica-Iran-nuclear-strike-tensions-rise.html

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-3xeP7NFRE"]China Threatens World War Three If Anyone Attacks Iran 2011 - YouTube[/ame]

Its all over the damn internet look it up.....Iv done my research trust me. Im not the kind of person who talks about something i don't know about.

 

[YuriBierazo]

Iran getting nuclear missiles isn't that bad. They haven't done anything wrong. All that Iran said was that the political elite of Iran needs to be removed and not the country itself. Having a nuclear weapon is good as a feeling of safety in case a nuclear war does happen. For example if your country has no nukes and someone decides to nuke you there isn't anything you can do about it, but if you have nukes the people thinking about bombing you with there nukes might reconsider due to the consequences that might occur. Perfect example is the cold war.

 

[senojekips]

Iran getting nuclear missiles isn't that bad.

VD just doesn't want to see Iran get nukes because he knows that it will neutralise Israel's "big stick" advantage over Iran. Knowing that any country would need very few nukes to effectively turn postage stamp sized Israel into a green glass dessert. You'll note that he's never said a word against Israel's nuclear capability.

It's called, mutually assured destruction and as you pointed out, it has worked before.:thumb:

 

[RayManKiller3]

Iran getting nuclear missiles isn't that bad. They haven't done anything wrong. All that Iran said was that the political elite of Iran needs to be removed and not the country itself. Having a nuclear weapon is good as a feeling of safety in case a nuclear war does happen. For example if your country has no nukes and someone decides to nuke you there isn't anything you can do about it, but if you have nukes the people thinking about bombing you with there nukes might reconsider due to the consequences that might occur. Perfect example is the cold war.

You do realize the difference between Russia and U.S and some other countries, right? The more countries get nukes, increases the chance someone using a nuke. That is simple.

As for me, I personally don't care if they get a nuke or not, but others do not want them with it. The main worry is that the M.E will turn into a nuclear arms race, which is very possible.

Are we to believe everyone on Earth hold simple logic that will keep them from using nuclear war heads? Not sure if I trust the unexpectedness of humanity with so much destructive weapons.

If no one or not as many have nukes, the chances of someone using a nuke is vastly lowered.

 

[senojekips]

You do realize the difference between Russia and U.S and some other countries, right?

No,... please tell us what this difference is,....

 

[RayManKiller3]

Read back through you own posts, I don't think you know what you are saying. You have just admitted that it's hypocritical, and yet you still want to do it and wonder why you lose respect and credibility. Which is the point I was making. (Shakes head)

I still want to do what? I am telling you why they (the west and Israel) have a legitimate, despite contradicting concern. I do not wish either way on this situation. I do not want Iran with nukes due to my speculation of a possible nuclear arms race in the M.E. I also do not wish an attack on Iran. I am simply stating that this could be over quickly if they comply. If they have nukes, a planned attack on them is definately increased possibility. If they prove they don't have it, then they can rub it in the faces of the west.

Hypocracy do not destroy legitimacy... Only respect and credibility.

Now that I think about it... Are you talking about me calling out China or Iran?

Thank you,... now turn around and take a look in the mirror....

So why exactly are you decrying another country for doing what you freely admit is only natural behaviour?

I can name quite a few things U.S done that wasn't in its immediate national interest for the benefit of others. I can not, however find much the same for China... Could be they don't air their good deeds, but because I don't see it, it don't exist to me.

A "excuse", eh??... I suppose that it's just a coincidence that when Australia and the US were colonised, there were no International agreements against it, whereas that is not the case with Israel in 1947??

Yes that is an excuse. What they did was still wrong, it do not matter what authority was in place at the time. Because you want extreme measures taken on Israel, then why don't you advocate the same for your country?

Again.... Many Nazis that were tried, were tried before the laws were set. Laws were drafted just to set a trial for many of the nazis. By your logic, they shouldn't have been sentenced.

 

[senojekips]

I still want to do what? I am telling you why they (the west and Israel) have a legitimate, despite contradicting concern. I do not wish either way on this situation. I do not want Iran with nukes due to my speculation of a possible nuclear arms race in the M.E. I also do not wish an attack on Iran. I am simply stating that this could be over quickly if they comply.

Like most International Islamic terrorism and the ongoing problems in the middle east that causes it, could be over quickly if the US stopped supporting the Israelis? So you feel it was OK when the US and Russia had nukes, but you don't think anyone else should be able to use then for their defence?

Hypocracy do not destroy legitimacy... Only respect and credibility.

There is no legitimacy, you have no right to deny other sovereign countries that which you have yourself, and your argument is hypocritial.

Now that I think about it... Are you talking about me calling out China or Iran?

Haven't you been reading my posts?

I can name quite a few things U.S done that wasn't in its immediate national interest for the benefit of others.

Away you go, list them, and I'm not talking about "immediate" national interest whatever that is, I'm talking about the expectation of something in return.

Yes that is an excuse. What they did was still wrong, it do not matter what authority was in place at the time. (There was no "authority" at the time) Because you want extreme measures taken on Israel, then why don't you advocate the same for your country?

Obviously it is not an excuse in the case where no law was broken, no excuse was needed at that time, every major maritime country in the world was colonising other countries. This was not true in 1947.

I owned many firearms which are now illegal in my country, I do not have to apologise for having them at that time, because i was breaking no law, and no, that is not an "excuse". Same thing,....

The English settlers in Australia broke no International laws, they also made it a capital crime to murder the natives here in 1832. We have since admitted to the Aboriginals, and the world, that it is their country we have formally apologised and have recognised this fact in law, we also pay every Aboriginal man woman and child a clearly defined agreed "rent" for the land they have given up, paid every two weeks.

Again.... Many Nazis that were tried, were tried before the laws were set. Laws were drafted just to set a trial for many of the nazis. By your logic, they shouldn't have been sentenced.

I can see that this is going to take some time, so I think you had better start another thread before I answer.

OK,.... List the Nazis that were charged and convicted, without having committed any International crime at that time of the alleged offence.

 

[RayManKiller3]

Like most International Islamic terrorism and the ongoing problems in the middle east that causes it, could be over quickly if the US stopped supporting the Israelis? So you feel it was OK when the US and Russia had nukes, but you don't think anyone else should be able to use then for their defence?

The problem with you're statement is that I do not believe U.S stopping support of Israel will reduce Islamic terrorism to the extent it sounds like you saying. Also I have no where supported U.S and the Soviets/Russians having nukes./

We are trying to REDUCE the amount of countries with nukes, thereby we can convince ourselves that we may reduce it ourselves.

There is no legitimacy, you have no right to deny other sovereign countries that which you have yourself, and your argument is hypocritial.

So you're talking about nuclear weapons? U.S has a right to call this out because it is following the NPT. The fact is Iran did sign it. Even leaving NPT, they can still get sanctioned lol. We signed a new START with Russia which like before, we will comply with.

However, U.S will hesistate to keep reducing its arsenal if it see other countries obtaining it.

In fact we sanctioned Israel for having nukes until the 6 day war by what I read. We sanctioned Pakistan and India as well until Bush excepted them of the list.

Away you go, list them, and I'm not talking about "immediate" national interest whatever that is, I'm talking about the expectation of something in return.

Something is always expected in return... What you are saying is broad. I am talking about deeds that are done with little expectations for a good investment.

Obviously it is not an excuse in the case where no law was broken, no excuse was needed at that time, every major maritime country in the world was colonising other countries. This was not true in 1947.

I owned many firearms which are now illegal in my country, I do not have to apologise for having them at that time, because i was breaking no law, and no, that is not an "excuse". Same thing,....

The English settlers in Australia broke no International laws, they also made it a capital crime to murder the natives here in 1832. We have since admitted to the Aboriginals, and the world, that it is their country we have formally apologised and have recognised this fact in law, we also pay every Aboriginal man woman and child a clearly defined agreed "rent" for the land they have given up, paid every two weeks.

I agree with this not being charged before a law is set, but what you are wanting Israel to do is to go back to the "Palestinians". This is something your country have not really done. The fact you are telling them to do that simply because it is illegal now is still contradicting in a moral perspective.'

One of the main reasons your country have not done what you want Israel to do is the vast amount of time that it occurred. It is morally incorrect to try, "correcting" it that way. Not to mention Israal, U.S, and Australia are stable countries. I feel the same should apply to Israel. I believe they have soveriegnty now, as they fought for it many times over. They have been a country for more than 60 years now. I think it is too late to divide it now. I believe this to be so even if they did "steal" the lands illegally. I do not believe Israel "stole" the land though.

I can see that this is going to take some time, so I think you had better start another thread before I answer.

OK,.... List the Nazis that were charged and convicted, without having committed any International crime at that time of the alleged offence.

This will definately take some time to find. Crimes against humanity as far as I know wasn't set in stone until the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which was created in 1945.

Do you know how many critics there were of the Nurumberg trials?

Either way, the main trial was full of people that was claimed "guilty" for Crimes against Humanity.

I read Hague and can not find how they link that to the London Charter (those that support the Nurumberg trials) in order to establish legitamacy... I will drop this argument if someone can explain that to me.

For now, I will see the trials as an example of ex post facto law.