European Commission President days Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. Israel has right to defend itself

[Nowayyousure]

"European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said she told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday that diplomacy was ultimately best on Iran, but stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire.

Von der Leyen said that she agreed with Netanyahu in a telephone call that "Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, without any question."

Von der Leyen has previously criticised Israel's actions in Gaza, but said that Iran's non-compliance with the UN nuclear watchdog meant Israel "has the right to defend itself".

"Iran is the principal source of regional instability," she added."

Yes, that is true, because an external aggressor will always unite a population regardless of the reasons or rights and wrongs. Human nature. Also explains the fact that BN was a lot less popular in Israel before 7/10 than he is now, because as someone pointed out, they are now at war. I'll wait for the fog of war to clear before even attempting to work out exactly what BN has done, or why.

I guess we don’t know how much worse it could have been if they had been allowed to
continue with their world domination or annihilation plans.

True. You can’t compare the two options

What Trump-like hyperbole!? When have Iranians said they want world domination? Are you ok? We heard the same hyperbole with Saddam and his supposed WMDs and that led to war that destroyed millions and sowed seeds of hatred for the USA and Israel for generations to come (Netenyahu was yet again the one bleating on about Saddam having WMDs).

This madness needs to stop.

You see, therein lie your problem. No matter what you think of him, it is for the Iranian people to deal with him / their government (because a leader does nothing without a machine behind them). If it is ok for us to support murdering someone that we do not agree with, what makes us any different than them? When Iran retaliates by murdering British people in London, will that be ok - they don't agree with us, so it's ok? You are also assuming that a more moderate leader would follow. That is not a given at all. And who appoints the new leader - the same ones that appointed thi one, or the Iranian people (unlikely) or the USA (because that worked so well last time they supported someone into power, just about anywhere, didn't it?).

It is not about supporting the Iranian government, but about the fact that when we sink to their level we are no better than them. There are better ways to deal with countries than start wars with them. Nobody except arms dealers wins wars. You would have thought that by now we might have learned that bombing shit out of people does not win any friends. And nobody, just nobody, will ever convince me that Netanyahu, war monger that he is, acted without the explicit agreement if not under the instruction of Trump and the USA. The USA have a spectacular record of imploding countries where they interfere.

You may not have noticed, but that also describes Trump and the USA! It may never have been this bad if the USA were not constantly interfering with other countries sovereign rights. If the USA were not attempting to control the world in their image, there possibly would have been no Al-Qaeda, no 9/11; if no Al-Qaeda, there may have been no ISIS. We also don't know how better it might be if the USA (especially) stopped intervening in things that are not their business.

Thank goodness the US is protecting Israel. You really think all those terrorists groups wouldn't have gained traction without Trump's interference.

ETA: should say USA interference

This reminds me of Corbyn's tactics of sitting down over a cup of tea with terrorists.

My own, admittedly very selfish, worry from all of this is the deluge of refugees and how that will impact the European politics.

I definitely don’t want to see Farage as a PM!

Yes. I agree with you.
Sometimes intervention does work. The USA’s involvement in WW2 for example. It was pretty clear there that ‘regime’ change was for the global greater good. Even though it cost the UK (financially) a huge amount in loan repayment to the USA which almost bankrupted us in the 50s.
Their involvement in Vietnam was a disaster. Both gulf wars equally so.

You literally have no idea what would have happened if the USA wasn't interfering with other countries internal affairs - but do remember that many of these "problem countries" we now experience (including Iran) are the result of puppets installed or supported by the USA. After all, Saddam was a great friend of ours until he wasn't. As was the Shah of Iran. If you want to accuse Corbyn of "tea with terrorists" do remember that most Western leaders and most US presidents in particular have a long history of having tea with terrorists - they just called them friends when it suited them.

And Israel's Zionist government has razed Gaza to the ground and murdered countless civilians, commiting war crimes in the process, so they are not in a great position to lecture others about terrorism. I do not support Hamas, or Iran's funding of Hamas. And I do not blame the people of Israel for the actions of their government, which many are opposed to. But Israel's government in this case needs protecting because it launched an attack on a sovereign nation; and as with the ordinary people of Gaza, it is civilians in both Israel and Iran who are paying the price for the choice of weaponry over other tactics.

Don't forget Korea. And most of South America!

There does seem to be a bit of anti US or anti west even on SM. I think it ignores who is hostile to us.

Which is why the G7 and U v d L are clear on the threat from Iran having nuclear weapon capability.

There does seem to be a bit of anti US or anti west even on SM. I think it ignores who is hostile to us.
I think the anti US anti West sentiment is not about who is or isn't hostile to us. To me it looks like complete disillusionment with the current leaders, their double standards, their (for some) right wing rhetoric, the many social issues that are prevalent and increasing in many countries. There's a lot of anger and a want for change. Not sure people know yet what that looks like.

What's far right rhetoric got to do with this conflict?

Israel's 'zionist' government hasn't murdered civilians at all.

What world are you living in? They have murdered thousands of innocent civilians.

Then who murdered 50000+ people in Gaza?
The democratic, people-loving, full of west-values fair and just government of Israel?

or, is the term murdered that you disagree with? Do you prefer exterminated? Cleansed?

How can it be murder when there was no intent? Why would Israel be warning Gazan and Iranian citizens to evacuate if they wanted to murder them.

No I’d say it goes further than that. It’s a sense that the US are the baddies and the support is for those who are our hostile states.

It’s alarming to see really. If people do live in the U.K.

What makes you think there was no intent?
The warnings are just a part of this performance.

You're absolutely right ES. It's really quite unnerving to see so many posters, based in the UK, burying their heads in the sand about the global threat of Islamic extremism. They are finding any way of discrediting America's and the UK's intervention in ME politics; without that intervention, I'd dread to think.

Do you know they are murdering civilians trying to feed their families almost every single day. They have even started using tank fire on crowds of people