Apple, other big businesses eye Iranian market after nuclear deal, report says

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 83
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,168member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tmay View Post

     

    Or, you might have an actual understanding of the Middle East and Iran as Juan Cole has;

     

    http://www.juancole.com/2015/07/netanyahu-trying-world.html

     

     

    excerpt from the link;

     

    Quote

     

    1. One sign Iran is not trying to take over the world is that, as I have written before, “it has a small military budget, about $10 bn., on the order of that of Norway or Singapore. It has no air force to speak of. The US military budget is roughly 80 times that of Iran.”

     

    Israel has both a more powerful military and hundreds of nuclear weapons at its disposal. Allied with the U.S., there is a powerful deterrent to Iran using a nuclear weapon, that all players acknowledge that they do not have. Now, they will not be able to even attempt to build one, because of the oversight built into the deal.




    You are assuming the religious leaders (the true holders of power) are rational human beings. Radical Islam is not rational and would ‘touch’ Israel if they thought Allah had willed it no matter what the consequences would be. These people are nuts pure and simple.

  • Reply 22 of 83
    spacekidspacekid Posts: 183member

    And all of those rich gulf countries are now going to make nuclear weapons for themselves. What could go wrong.

  • Reply 23 of 83
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Of course Apple and other companies are looking into getting their products into Iran. Who cares about human rights when there are products to be sold and profits to be made!
  • Reply 24 of 83
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    lkrupp wrote: »

    I agree but the profit motive overrules both ethics and politics. American corporations were doing business with Nazi Germany right up to the start of WWII, and some even after that. And if this whole LGBT thing were to suddenly reverse and become a burden on profits for Apple it would turn on a dime to distance itself from it. 

    I wonder what Tim Cook thinks about this?

    http://www.advocate.com/world/2015/04/11/hbos-vice-uncovers-gay-iranians-forced-surgically-change-gender
  • Reply 25 of 83
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,361member
    Add Cuba too. This is a good, and inevitable thing.

    The naysayers can go suck on a lemon.
  • Reply 26 of 83
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

     



    You are assuming the religious leaders (the true holders of power) are rational human beings. Radical Islam is not rational and would ‘touch’ Israel if they thought Allah had willed it no matter what the consequences would be. These people are nuts pure and simple.


    Except that the religious leaders of Iran are rational when it comes to national defense and International relations. Look at their recent history. 

     

    People seem to miss that Iran is a historical regional power, with a population at 80 million that dwarfs its neighbors, save Pakistan. People also seem to forget that Iran was quite secular up until the rise of Khomeini, and being back in the international community would likely allow the population to shift, slowly, back to a more secular nation. Perhaps the real problem is that Western Imperialism, i.e., the U.S., is not rational which is how we got Khomeini in the first place.

  • Reply 27 of 83
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    I wonder what Tim Cook thinks about this?



    http://www.advocate.com/world/2015/04/11/hbos-vice-uncovers-gay-iranians-forced-surgically-change-gender

    Plenty of other countries that we are engaged with have problems with gays, not to mention our own fundamentalists. Engagement with Iran will likely provide better results in the long run to Iran than the continued siege mentally that the has been endemic in the U.S.

  • Reply 28 of 83
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    Of course Apple and other companies are looking into getting their products into Iran. Who cares about human rights when there are products to be sold and profits to be made!

     

    The proliferation of advanced smartphones is only going to help with human rights and democracy in Iran. 

  • Reply 29 of 83
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    tmay wrote: »
    Except that the religious leaders of Iran are rational when it comes to national defense and International relations. Look at their recent history. 

    People seem to miss that Iran is a historical regional power, with a population at 80 million that dwarfs its neighbors, save Pakistan. People also seem to forget that Iran was quite secular up until the rise of Khomeini, and being back in the international community would likely allow the population to shift, slowly, back to a more secular nation. Perhaps the real problem is that Western Imperialism, i.e., the U.S., is not rational which is how we got Khomeini in the first place.

    I agree, but it's possoble that Iran will shift very quickly to a more secular nation, once the US buries the hatchet. Actually return to a secular society would be more like it.

    Reconnecting to the Iranian diaspora via Facetime and iMessage would help.
  • Reply 30 of 83
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    tmay wrote: »
    The U.S. has ties to all kinds of terrorist groups, depending on usefulness at the time, but this time Iranians are fighting against them on our side.

    http://www.juancole.com/2015/07/daesh-ensure-nuclear.html

    <p style="border:0px;color:rgb(36,36,36);padding-bottom:21px;vertical-align:baseline;">"In Iraq on Tuesday, Iraq militias and the Iraqi military launched a counter-attack on Falluja with the ultimate aim of driving Daesh (ISIS, ISIL) out of al-Anbar Province.</p>

    <p style="border:0px;color:rgb(36,36,36);padding-bottom:21px;vertical-align:baseline;">The operation follows the successful liberation of Tikrit, north of Baghdad, from Daesh by these same forces. In the second half of the Tikrit campaign, the administration of President Barack Obama <a href="http://www.juancole.com/2015/04/progress-forces-cooperate.html" style="border-bottom-style:dotted;border-bottom-width:1px;color:rgb(31,49,99);font-style:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;" target="_blank">joined the fray, giving operational support to the Iraqi forces, including the pro-Iran Shiite militias and their Iranian advisers</a>
    ."</p>

    and;

    <p style="border:0px;color:rgb(36,36,36);padding-bottom:21px;vertical-align:baseline;">"For those European leaders who take the threat of Daesh seriously, a new relationship with Iran seems essential. Iran has been the most effective regional power in rolling back Daesh conquests. Without Iran, Daesh would still dominate parts of Diyala Province and would still have the city of Tikrit.</p>

    <p style="border:0px;color:rgb(36,36,36);padding-bottom:21px;vertical-align:baseline;">In contrast, neither Saudi Arabia nor Israel has been the least bit helpful in the fight against Daesh."</p>

    <p </p>

    <p </p>

    Juan Cole is a useless source of information. I've read a number of his articles and he's extremely biased and often ill-informed.
  • Reply 31 of 83
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Juan Cole is a useless source of information. I've read a number of his articles and he's extremely biased and often ill-informed.

    You provide nothing to this conversation other than an opinion that I have learned to ignore.

  • Reply 32 of 83
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    tmay wrote: »
    You provide nothing to this conversation other than an opinion that I have learned to ignore.

    One may read Cole's "wealth of information" and decide on their own. My takeaway is that he is hopelessly biased.
  • Reply 33 of 83
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    One may read Cole's "wealth of information" and decide on their own. My takeaway is that he is hopelessly biased.

    Yet you provide no counterpoint; other than he is biased.

     

    Weak response.

  • Reply 34 of 83
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    tmay wrote: »
    Yet you provide no counterpoint; other than he is biased.

    Weak response.

    I've read enough of his opinions to determine that he is rabidly pro-violence in support of his politics. In other words, nothing he says is of interest or value to me.
  • Reply 35 of 83
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tmay View Post

     

    Except that the religious leaders of Iran are rational when it comes to national defense and International relations. Look at their recent history. 

     

    People seem to miss that Iran is a historical regional power, with a population at 80 million that dwarfs its neighbors, save Pakistan. People also seem to forget that Iran was quite secular up until the rise of Khomeini, and being back in the international community would likely allow the population to shift, slowly, back to a more secular nation. Perhaps the real problem is that Western Imperialism, i.e., the U.S., is not rational which is how we got Khomeini in the first place.


    "Western Imperialism", right.

     

    We got Khomeini thanks to the formerly "Worst President Ever" Jimmy Carter.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Juan Cole is a useless source of information. I've read a number of his articles and he's extremely biased and often ill-informed.

     

    Just from the stated opinions here I can tell he's completely clueless, if not intellectually bankrupt.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tmay View Post

     

    You provide nothing to this conversation other than an opinion that I have learned to ignore.




    "The voices in my head are correct; I ignore real people now when they disagree with the voices"

     

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is that you? Or, as I prefer to call you, President Tom?

  • Reply 36 of 83
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Anyone wishing to learn a bit more about some of the (US & UK) history with Iran should read All the Shah's Men, by Stephen Kinzer. It reads like a fictional suspense/thriller with international excitement at the centre, but it's non-fiction, and very enjoyable.

    Didn't know about this book, thanks.

    The point is, America (and Britain) created this nexus of paranoia between East and West with the overthrow of Mossedegh in 1953.

    It's an old story. The governments collude with the military industry in Machiavellian schemes to undermine democracy.

    Ubiquitous communication among the people around the world is a new wild card in the deck. It may work.
  • Reply 37 of 83
    tmaytmay Posts: 5,811member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    I've read enough of his opinions to determine that he is rabidly pro-violence in support of his politics. In other words, nothing he says is of interest or value to me.

    Is it possible the Libertarians cannot articulate positions? Is Libertarian intellect merely binary thought process guided by simple rules. Is it all confirmation bias that drives them?

     

    Just pathetic

  • Reply 38 of 83
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     

    "Western Imperialism", right.

     

    We got Khomeini thanks to the formerly "Worst President Ever" Jimmy Carter.


     

    Yeah, what a putz Jimmy Carter was for trying to promote human rights in Iran.  It is of no consequence at all that Britain and Russia invaded a neutral country in WW2 and deposed its ruler to secure oil, nor that the US and Britain staged a coup in 1953 to overthrow a democratically elected government to secure oil.  Jimmy Carter was the sole cause for idiotically refusing to ignore a brutal repression of Iranian people by a despot.  Oil trumps human rights, right?

  • Reply 39 of 83
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    "Western Imperialism", right.

    We got Khomeini thanks to the formerly "Worst President Ever" Jimmy Carter.

    This is another example of hysterical "thinking"—completely unhinged from history, oversimplified into a Glenn Beckian comic book of personalities doing evil deeds.
  • Reply 40 of 83
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    tmay wrote: »
    Is it possible the Libertarians cannot articulate positions? Is Libertarian intellect merely binary thought process guided by simple rules. Is it all confirmation bias that drives them?

    Just pathetic

    Which part of Juan Cole is "rabidly pro-violence" was confusing to you?
Sign In or Register to comment.