Comments on: Iranian analyst: For a fair offer, Iran will compromise on its nuclear program

By: Podnośnik koszowy wynajem Szczecin

Podnośnik koszowy wynajem Szczecin — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:07:10 +0000

Whats up very nice blog!! Guy .. Excellent .. Wonderful .. I’ll bookmark your blog and take the feeds additionally?I’m happy to search out a lot of useful info right here within the put up, we want develop extra strategies in this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:43:45 +0000

Good distraction Jack.

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:03:44 +0000

Richard

You are making up terms now. There is nothing called “unilateral state of aggression” in international relation-terms, nor is there any legal term anthing similar to that.

Again, look into what Just war means.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:27:06 +0000

The entire point is that Iran maintains a constant and unilateral state of aggression against Israel.

It is a proxy relationship.

The formation of Hezbollah during the temporary military occupation of Southern Lebanon, allows you to rationalize away the actual relationship and background.

The test of Israeli intent is when there is no active intimate threat.

Work to create that test, so that your words and thoughts have the prospect of conformance to reality.

An Iranian nuke threatens to comprise a portfolio of military aggression.

It is an expression of their intent to expedite the dissolution of Israel as Israel.

If you are complicit in that intent, declare it.

By: richard witty

richard witty — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:08:33 +0000

My thinking started that israel is provoking. In looking more coolly I conclude that the aggressive hezbollah proxy relationship, the rejection of the right of israel, is the root.

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:08:10 +0000

Richard,

800? Thats not even considered medium-range by US definition. Why do you use terms etc that you dont really know about?

Israel have themselves said that they have the right or freedom to strike regardless of approval from other states like the US, how is that not a “unilateral” strike? Again, are also the question why you deny the legal premises for wars.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 06:16:37 +0000

“without a presumption of advocacy”

it seems that you’re the one who’s advocating on behalf of Israel

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 03:13:01 +0000

In Iranian political system, President has no power over the military, foreign affairs and judiciary, Supreme Leader does.

Devaluation may benefit domestic business that is active in import substitution that includes military weapons program. One person’s “economical mismanagement” is another person’s “shock therapy”.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 22:36:55 +0000

Iran successfully tested a missile with range of over 800 miles (Israel).

I don’t see you considering criticism of Iran, or of Hezbollah, Jack.

Again, from my observation, absent active aggression from Iran at Israel and particularly at Israeli civilians as targets, I don’t see an active unilateral campaign of agression from Israel.

Your comments have not addressed that.

Look at it coolly, without a presumption of advocacy.

By: Jack

Jack — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 15:18:23 +0000

Richard

You gave a standard response, you asked a question, I answered it.
You denied to deal with my answer, you denied to deal with the facts of threats you denied to deal with the legal premises for a war.

One could add one more thing that threat of retaliation, is not illegal as you seems to think.

Also Iran doesnt have any long range missile capability (if that what you implied by “long range”).