Greece rejects joint maneuver with Israel against Iran

[RayManKiller3]

I told you why the world is and have a right to protest and sanction Iran over this, which you still have not seemed to recognize.

Is there something you meant to add? You should use quotations when using someone else's words, so people won't get confused.

 

[VDKMS]

Reread the second link. They are slightly reducing instead of not at all....my bad

Then have a look at these links :

UPDATE 1-China extends Iran oil import cut as sanctions mount

REFILE-UPDATE 2-China extends Iran oil import cuts, supply talks to resume

UPDATE 1-China's Jan crude oil imports from Iran down 14 pct m/m

BTW, your first link says nothing about China not decreasing oil imports from Iran, it does say :...Beyond the rhetoric, Beijing has taken a two-pronged approach to the US demands, insisting that China has the right to import oil from Iran or any other country while quietly reducing imports of Iranian oil....

The source of that second link is not really reliable, just have a look at their homepage and compare their news with first rate news agencies.

 

[RayManKiller3]

We know why it's done,... It's really only being protested about at the insistence of the US and Israel, (which is the same thing). The US doesn't want the Israelis to lose their nuclear advantage. I don't seem to remember this much fuss with talk of bombings and sanctions etc., when the Israelis were found to have nukes.

India and Pakistan do not get sanctioned just like Israel don't. Is it because U.S wants India and Pakistan with a nuclear advantage? I think your too tied into U.S and Israel.

The main ones talking of bombing is Israel, though U.S made it clear that it may also do that or support Israel doing it.

Israel was proven to have nukes before the 6 day war.... We sanctioned them for that. Because of the Islamic countries that repeatedly acted and stated they would destroy Israel, those sanctions were removed.

A good reason why there is so much fuss is because of what you say against Israel. Media has increased a great deal since those times and we all know how media is with bad news.

As for the fact that Iran has broken a voluntary agreement, you only have to have a look at your own history to know how little that means. It's all been said before.

No an agreement being broken is only meaningless when the side that is keeping its deal can not do nothing about it. In this case, the world is setting up sactions on Iran, so they are able to persuade/force them to abide by the agreement.

In my opinion Iran should praise the mercy given to them by the west... All sanctions are targeted at the government in an attempt to not effect the general populace. If the west desired, it could have stagnated the Iranian economy.

If the Israelis never had nukes I would agree that Iran has no need either. If you want to de-escalate this middle eastern nuclear race, let the Israelis get rid of their nuclear capability first. As yet we don't even think Iran has any, so it's stupid to ask them to step down.

If they are not honoring a treaty the other signatories expect them to, then how is it stupid to ask them to step down?

I'm sure that if China or Russia started re-arming the US would too,... so why can't the Iranians defend themselves similarly?

NPT that is why. If China and Russia started re-arming they would also fall victim to the same situation Iran is in. We can not say U.S or any other country would start re-arming, though it is definately possible.

It is like I said though.... If one starts to get nukes then others will want nukes and U.S will see no reason to disarm, therefore making the NPT be like the League of Nations.

To simply state what I am saying: Iran may not have nuclear weapons and must abide by the treaty they signed or face the consequences. If they truly are not engaging in illegal activities regarding nukes, then let them prove it.

 

[VDKMS]

You should go back and read what I said,... not what you want me to have said.

Well, you can start with virtually every treaty ever made with their own native American population,... then more recently the arrangements with the Hmong in Laos, the Marsh Arabs in Iraq.

Go on get off your lazy @rse and go and have a look for once, instead of relying on others to do your research for you.

Another department that your knowledge lacks.

"The federal government has enacted numerous statutes and promulgated numerous regulations that establish and define a trust relationship with Indian tribes. Our nation has recognized the right of Indian tribes to self-government. As domestic dependent nations, Indian tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. The United States continues to work with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government, tribal trust resources and Indian tribal treaty and other rights."

You boasted about broken treaties, well show them. Maybe you can find some inspiration here :
Treaties Between the United States and Native Americans

About the March Arabs (as with the Kurds and Shiites), there were no promises nor treaties. In 1991 President George H. W. Bush Ist invited dissidents in Iraq to rise up against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He declared: ”The Day of the Dictator is Over!” They revolted without having the power to unseat Sadam.

The same with the Hmong People, there were no promises and no treaties. They just didn't like communism and fought alongside the US in Vietnam. After the peace agreement (Paris Peace Accord Jan. 27, 1973), the US kept its promise and pulled out its forces. North Vietnam didn't keep its promise and the Hmong People were heavily persecuted. Many Laotian Hmong were repatriated to the USA.

 

[VDKMS]

We know why it's done,... It's really only being protested about at the insistence of the US and Israel, (which is the same thing). The US doesn't want the Israelis to lose their nuclear advantage. I don't seem to remember this much fuss with talk of bombings and sanctions etc., when the Israelis were found to have nukes.

As for the fact that Iran has broken a voluntary agreement, you only have to have a look at your own history to know how little that means. It's all been said before.

If the Israelis never had nukes I would agree that Iran has no need either. If you want to de-escalate this middle eastern nuclear race, let the Israelis get rid of their nuclear capability first. As yet we don't even think Iran has any, so it's stupid to ask them to step down.

I'm sure that if China or Russia started re-arming the US would too,... so why can't the Iranians defend themselves similarly?

There is no need for anyone to "demonise" Israel and their supporters, they have been doing that themselves for over 60 years far better than I could. All I have to do is point it out.

Why should Israel give in to nations that not even recognise its existence and that have the destruction of Israel written into their covenants?

 

[hamidreza]

[FONT=&quot]I want to ask a question. Suppose that the main reason of Iran for her nuclear activities is nukes. Do you think it is possible for Iran to make nukes when her activities are under IAEA supervision? And if it is possible, how many she can make under IAEA supervision? 1, 2, 5, 10...Ok. We assume that Iran has made nukes now. What can Iran do with them? Attack to Israel? And what would happen then? The Iranian security would increase? No. I am sure Iran will be wiped out by US nukes quickly after her attack as they said. So there is not any benefit in nukes for Iran.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You might say that Iran want to make nukes because she wants to prevent Israel from nukes attacking. So I give you a suggestion. Iran stops her nuclear activities and destroys them if Israel does the same. Then the number of nukes in the world will decrease and the nuclear competition in ME will be finished. So what is your opinion? Do you agree? If it is Ok why the west hasn’t offered it yet? And if it is not, are you sure Israel won’t use her nukes if a war occur between Iran and Israel? If you are sure they don’t use why they have made it? And if you are not sure what is the different between Iran and Israel? It is important for you Israel doesn’t been attacked by nukes but about Iran no.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is not necessary to have Einstein[/FONT] brain to find who is right? A three years old child can understand it. As Ahmadinejad said before the main reason of US and allies is to preserve world unfair governing which is ruling the world after WWII. They don’t want the other countries develop technologically and scientifically because it is their only strong point.

 

[Der Alte]

Sixty years of actual experience suggests that atomic weapons are practical only for one purpose: to prevent your nation from being attacked. You don’t have to be political scientist Kenneth Waltz (see his 2003 book “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons”, which argues that nuclear proliferation is mainly good because it prevents war) to want to live in a world where nations don’t attack each other. Deterrence has, since 1945, ended great-power war. Deterrence has reduced and might end regional war. There is a gamble involved, obviously. But the likely outcome of Iranian possession of an atomic bomb is that no nation will attack Iran. Why shouldn’t Iran desire this? The United States, Russia, United Kingdom and other nations desired deterrence against attack and would have been entirely outraged if lectured otherwise by the Security Council.

The simple reality is that other nations cannot prevent Iran from fashioning an atomic device. Cannot, except perhaps by an all-out nuclear first strike that obliterates much of the country, or invasion and permanent occupation of a nation substantially larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Conventional aerial attack might slow but cannot stop an atomic program using underground facilities – or conventional aerial attack would have been used against North Korea.

Assuming Iranian acquisition of atomic weapons is near-inevitable, the international response should not be more fist-shaking for the cameras and empty verbiage, but outreach to return Iran to the family of nations. A core lesson of the Cold War is that bluster fails, constructive engagement succeeds. Engagement with Iran would lower regional tensions and lend support to the Iranian democracy movement. The first step regarding Iran should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we’ve displayed thus far. The best defense against Iranian nuclear arms is better diplomatic relations with Iran.

 

[senojekips]

Why should Israel give in to nations that not even recognise its existence and that have the destruction of Israel written into their covenants?

It's nothing to do with "giving in", it's the fact that they have no right to deny another country the right to self defence.

Pretty simple really.

The first step regarding Iran should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we’ve displayed thus far. The best defense against Iranian nuclear arms is better diplomatic relations with Iran.

Yes more aggressive, and a bit of basic honesty wouldn't go astray either.

Your post has hit the nail on the head,.... Well said!

 

[George]

Sixty years of actual experience suggests that atomic weapons are practical only for one purpose: to prevent your nation from being attacked. You don’t have to be political scientist Kenneth Waltz (see his 2003 book “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons”, which argues that nuclear proliferation is mainly good because it prevents war) to want to live in a world where nations don’t attack each other. Deterrence has, since 1945, ended great-power war. Deterrence has reduced and might end regional war. There is a gamble involved, obviously. But the likely outcome of Iranian possession of an atomic bomb is that no nation will attack Iran. Why shouldn’t Iran desire this? The United States, Russia, United Kingdom and other nations desired deterrence against attack and would have been entirely outraged if lectured otherwise by the Security Council.

The simple reality is that other nations cannot prevent Iran from fashioning an atomic device. Cannot, except perhaps by an all-out nuclear first strike that obliterates much of the country, or invasion and permanent occupation of a nation substantially larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Conventional aerial attack might slow but cannot stop an atomic program using underground facilities – or conventional aerial attack would have been used against North Korea.

Assuming Iranian acquisition of atomic weapons is near-inevitable, the international response should not be more fist-shaking for the cameras and empty verbiage, but outreach to return Iran to the family of nations. A core lesson of the Cold War is that bluster fails, constructive engagement succeeds. Engagement with Iran would lower regional tensions and lend support to the Iranian democracy movement. The first step regarding Iran should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we’ve displayed thus far. The best defense against Iranian nuclear arms is better diplomatic relations with Iran.

For the most part,but...the Nuclear Club's members are, with an obvious exception, stable nations that we assume will have sane & rational Leaders. Pakistan is unstable & theft by Terrorists is a possibility. Iran is a different question. We have a Leader who is making speaches threatening Isreal, weather it's "Wiping them off the map" as commonly interpreted, or removing the ruling elite as someone here claims(How does Iran do such a thing w/o a massive attack?) We see Islamists perfectly willing to strap bombs on their children, so why not try to nuke Israel if they have the bomb?
North Korea has a huge military that is well dug in, I suspect there isn't much enthusiasm for going after them because of anticipated casulties.

 

[RayManKiller3]

Sixty years of actual experience suggests that atomic weapons are practical only for one purpose: to prevent your nation from being attacked. You don’t have to be political scientist Kenneth Waltz (see his 2003 book “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons”, which argues that nuclear proliferation is mainly good because it prevents war) to want to live in a world where nations don’t attack each other. Deterrence has, since 1945, ended great-power war. Deterrence has reduced and might end regional war. There is a gamble involved, obviously. But the likely outcome of Iranian possession of an atomic bomb is that no nation will attack Iran. Why shouldn’t Iran desire this? The United States, Russia, United Kingdom and other nations desired deterrence against attack and would have been entirely outraged if lectured otherwise by the Security Council.

Again, you guys are using the Cold War as a comparison. Not all countries and/or their leaders are like U.S and the Soviets. Remember, it was the big 5 that is determined to get rid of nukes, so saying they would be outraged is odd.

You do realize how close U.S, Israel (during 1973 for Israel), and the Soviets were to nuclear war? How can we say the same for other countries knowing that? Your logic is a gun rights logic... The problem is with more weapons available, it increases the chance of some idiot using it. Not all people have a mindset that a nuclear war is unwinnable.

Sure they can desire a nuclear bomb, but they shall not be allowed to have it.


While deterrence is great to have, the Cold War era was suppose to have been scary. I do not want to live in a world where everyone has nukes. If Iran get nukes, so will Egypt and all the other M.E nations that can afford it.

The simple reality is that other nations cannot prevent Iran from fashioning an atomic device. Cannot, except perhaps by an all-out nuclear first strike that obliterates much of the country, or invasion and permanent occupation of a nation substantially larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Conventional aerial attack might slow but cannot stop an atomic program using underground facilities – or conventional aerial attack would have been used against North Korea.

This isn't so. North Korea and Iran are completely different scenarios. The main reason North Korea isn't/wasn't blown to high heaven by conventional attacks was because no one wanted to re-open the Korean War.

Unlike the North Korean situation, there IS a country that is willing to bomb Iran's facilities.

Assuming Iranian acquisition of atomic weapons is near-inevitable, the international response should not be more fist-shaking for the cameras and empty verbiage, but outreach to return Iran to the family of nations. A core lesson of the Cold War is that bluster fails, constructive engagement succeeds. Engagement with Iran would lower regional tensions and lend support to the Iranian democracy movement. The first step regarding Iran should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we’ve displayed thus far. The best defense against Iranian nuclear arms is better diplomatic relations with Iran.

So far all I seen the west doing was diplomacy with sanctions attached. I believe there could be a better way to do this too as I do not wish another conflict. Only Israel put up a really strong urge of airstrikes, but of course if Israel does that, U.S will definately be pulled in sooner or later.


So far all the west wants Iran to do is allow IAEA the ability to inspect Iran's facilities, as there is doubts about them. All Iran has to do is comply and either show how they held up to their words or that they broken the NPT completely.

 

[senojekips]

Again, you guys are using the Cold War as a comparison. Not all countries and/or their leaders are like U.S and the Soviets.

No, thankfully, and I'm sure we're well aware of that,... OK, so tell us the difference.

I dunno if you are old enough to remember how the US carried on about Russia developing the bomb, but it was just the same as what you are spouting now with Iran.

The Russkies were portrayed as man eating monsters who were going to turn the world into a nuclear wasteland,... They were not like us, they were inhuman savages, they didn't value human life like we do,....

Likewise, if we didn't send our troops to Vietnam, there was going to be a "Domino effect" with the Communists first taking over all of SE Asia and then the Pacific, finally the world. Well, they certainly won that one, and I'm still waiting for the Commissar to knock down my door rape my family and drag me off to Siberia.

Yeah, we've seen all this propaganda before, and idiots like you just can't wait to suck it up every time.

 

[hamidreza]

Please attack us if you can. We are in bad condition after the west sanctions. Especially after gasoline sanction. We pay 0.35 dollar for each liter and also the government consider 60 liter for each car every month which it price is 0.2 dollar.
How much is it in your countries?

 

[senojekips]

Please attack us if you can. We are in bad condition after the west sanctions. Especially after gasoline sanction. We pay 0.35 dollar for each liter and also the government consider 60 liter for each car every month which it price is 0.2 dollar.
How much is it in your countries?

I have tried to be even handed and realistic and have supported you on a number of points, however I find your last comment rather childish as it has no real bearing on any possible war in Iran. The US has enough oil to easily mount a full scale attack and maintain it for much longer than would be needed.

Your production facilities are just another very obvious, well known and easily destroyed target. I have no doubts whatsoever that the US could reduce your production and reserves of petroleum products to absolute zero in a few days, possibly only hours. All without landing a single soldier in your country.

All you are doing with such comments is destroying your own credibility.

 

[hamidreza]

I have tried to be even handed and realistic and have supported you on a number of points, however I find your last comment rather childish as it has no real bearing on any possible war in Iran. The US has enough oil to easily mount a full scale attack and maintain it for much longer than would be needed.

Your production facilities are just another very obvious, well known and easily destroyed target. I have no doubts whatsoever that the US could reduce your production and reserves of petroleum products to absolute zero in a few days, possibly only hours. All without landing a single soldier in your country.

All you are doing with such comments is destroying your own credibility.

Do you think I get serious the comments in this forum? Most of your information are originated from the western media and it is like the bubble on the water. I am sure many of their news are lie and are directed by global dirty Zionist network. They are very successful in their job. They color the sparrow and then sell it as a canary. And it is why a country with brilliant civilization, a country who observe all international rules shown as a rebel, but a group of people who occupy the others land, kill them and make them homeless, don’t sign the international treaties and threaten other countries shown as an oppressed.

 

[senojekips]

Do you think I get serious the posts in this forum? Most of your information originated from the western media and it is like the bubble on the water. I am sure many of their news are lie and directed by global dirty Zionist network. They are very successful in their job. They color the sparrow and then sell it as a canary. And it is why a country with brilliant civilization, a country who observe all international rules shown as a rebel, but a group of people who occupy the others land, kill them and make them homeless, don’t sign the international treaties and threaten other countries shown as an oppressed.

I always try to answer you seriously,.... and I must say that all of the western media is not the "bogey man" you suppose, there are many even handed International news agencies. The problem lies in the inflexible views of those reading and watching what is written. These are people that just refuse to see both sides or attempt to make objective judgments as a result of what they read and see.They circle around making excuses for their views, and never attempt to get to the base problem.

Yes, what you say is largely true, but to make statements that are just as silly does not help your cause.

Israel is a parasitic country that only exists in it's present form because of the continued oppression and murder of another people. As a Jew by birth, I have no real objections to them "wanting" a homeland, although I must say that if it were any other religious group, the idea would never have even received a hearing. Personally I "want" to be stupendously wealthy, but the fact is, that no one is going to make me wealthy, and no one should have given the land of the Palestinian people to a group of European refugees.

I can see what you are getting at, but it really has little to do with the subject of this thread except for the fact that Israel is the major cause of 99.9% of the problems between the Islamic world and Israel and it's supporters.

As you are no doubt aware, the truth, is the first casualty in any war. This war is no different.

 

[George]

Please attack us if you can. We are in bad condition after the west sanctions. Especially after gasoline sanction. We pay 0.35 dollar for each liter and also the government consider 60 liter for each car every month which it price is 0.2 dollar.
How much is it in your countries?

The world market is the same everywhere(less the price of transport), just your Govt is electing to lose the diffrence in price to keep people happy.

 

[Harlow58]

Referring to the Islamic Republic of Iran as a country with rich culture and civilization, the Greek foreign minister stressed that Athens is willing to further promote all-out ties with Tehran.

 

[Del Boy]

No, thankfully, and I'm sure we're well aware of that,... OK, so tell us the difference.

I dunno if you are old enough to remember how the US carried on about Russia developing the bomb, but it was just the same as what you are spouting now with Iran.

The Russkies were portrayed as man eating monsters who were going to turn the world into a nuclear wasteland,... They were not like us, they were inhuman savages, they didn't value human life like we do,....

.

Yeah, we've seen all this propaganda before, and idiots like you just can't wait to suck it up every time.

Well I am old enough. Your portrayal of our attitude towards your 'Ruskies' is nonsense . The dangers were recognised and challenged until until the threat, which was real, was overcome. The communist advances into indo-china were halted at great cost, in fact. Success was achieved by the leadership of USA. I think that you are drifting away from reality in your desperation to make everything fit into your one trick agenda.

Next thing - you'll be trying to tell us you are a Jew! Spare us please. LOL.

Yeah, I have seen all your propaganda before, and......................................................................

 

[VDKMS]

[FONT=&quot]I want to ask a question. Suppose that the main reason of Iran for her nuclear activities is nukes. Do you think it is possible for Iran to make nukes when her activities are under IAEA supervision? And if it is possible, how many she can make under IAEA supervision? 1, 2, 5, 10...Ok. We assume that Iran has made nukes now. What can Iran do with them? Attack to Israel? And what would happen then? The Iranian security would increase? No. I am sure Iran will be wiped out by US nukes quickly after her attack as they said. So there is not any benefit in nukes for Iran.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You might say that Iran want to make nukes because she wants to prevent Israel from nukes attacking. So I give you a suggestion. Iran stops her nuclear activities and destroys them if Israel does the same. Then the number of nukes in the world will decrease and the nuclear competition in ME will be finished. So what is your opinion? Do you agree? If it is Ok why the west hasn’t offered it yet? And if it is not, are you sure Israel won’t use her nukes if a war occur between Iran and Israel? If you are sure they don’t use why they have made it? And if you are not sure what is the different between Iran and Israel? It is important for you Israel doesn’t been attacked by nukes but about Iran no.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is not necessary to have Einstein[/FONT] brain to find who is right? A three years old child can understand it. As Ahmadinejad said before the main reason of US and allies is to preserve world unfair governing which is ruling the world after WWII. They don’t want the other countries develop technologically and scientifically because it is their only strong point.

I agree with your proposal if Iran and the other countries also make a peace deal with Israel en recognise it.

In fact it is all so simple if you take the first step. How can you expect a country to act first when it is not even recognised by you.

A new and previously secret enrichment plant being built underground near Qom, without the knowledge or decleration to the IAEA, was revealed in 2009. And you expect us to believe that you are only telling the truth?

 

[VDKMS]

Please attack us if you can. We are in bad condition after the west sanctions. Especially after gasoline sanction. We pay 0.35 dollar for each liter and also the government consider 60 liter for each car every month which it price is 0.2 dollar.
How much is it in your countries?

I pay 2.02 dollar for a liter (95 unleaded) but I can get as many as I am able to pay. In the Netherlands they pay almost 2.50 dollar for a liter.