We just signed a nuclear deal with Iran

[KevinNYC]

I put a bunch of links in the bigass second term thread.

[OJ SIMPSON 2.0]

I put a bunch of links in the bigass second term thread.
I can't find the thread. Oh wait I found it but you didn't post anything in it. Oh wait my bad I was looking at the BTE thread I found the thread nevermind lol haha...

[HarryCallahan]

Thank god we have the World Police to protect us from an energy program.

[DuMa]

perfect time to nuke iran. they'll never see it coming

[Patrick Chewing]

perfect time to nuke iran. they'll never see it coming


News Alert: U.S. and Allies troll Iran hard

[dunksby]

A big win for Obama finally.

[East_Stone_Ya]

Israel is not happy

[zoom17]

Looks like they reached a new deal.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/14/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PM0CE20150714

[KevinNYC]

Looks like they reached a new deal.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/14/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PM0CE20150714
Pretty sure this is the same deal it just took two years to hammer out the details.

Even last night they were meeting past midnight.

[UK2K]

Bibi won't be happy until he gets to use his nukes. The dude is a war monger of the worst kind.

“Our battalions are named Imam Ali, Imam Hussein and Bayt al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] to clarify our final destination to the Basiji. We will not abandon our [armed] struggle until the annihilation of Israel and until we will be able to pray in al-Aqsa mosque.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“The enemies are talking about the options [they have] on the table. They should know that the first option on our table is the annihilation of Israel.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The Zionist regime will soon be destroyed, and this generation will be witness to its destruction.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh wait. What planet do you live on? :oldlol:

I can post dozens more quotes from Iranian government and military leaders saying things that if said against the US, would be grounds sanctions and military intervention.

If Palestine were to lay down their guns tomorrow, there would be no war. If Israel were to lay down theirs, there would be no Israel - Benjamin Netanyahu

What part of ^^that^^ statement is false?

[Godzuki]

this is stupid. Iran is still controlled by their hardliners. they still chant death to America and Israel. they're still fukkin nuts. we had them by the balls even if other countries were going to pull out of sanctions we should've kept as much pressure on to bankrupt them crazy mf'ers as possible.

all it does is set their nuclear program back a year, which is even questionable if that :rolleyes:

this is the kind of shit that makes me want to vote for Trump.

[KevinNYC]

this is stupid. Iran is still controlled by their hardliners. they still chant death to America and Israel. they're still fukkin nuts. we had them by the balls even if other countries were going to pull out of sanctions we should've kept as much pressure on to bankrupt them crazy mf'ers as possible.

all it does is set their nuclear program back a year, which is even questionable if that :rolleyes:

this is the kind of shit that makes me want to vote for Trump.

Iran is actually quite pragmatic. Yes, Hassan Rouhani is not the Supreme Leader, but he campaigned on making Iran less diplomatically isolated and won easily. He's a big improvement on the previous guy.

We didn't have the by the balls. We had them by the earlobe, annoying yes, but something you could live with you had to.

all it does is set their nuclear program back a year,
Compared to what?
How well did not negotiating with North Korea work out in terms of preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon.

[KevinNYC]

BBC has an interesting feed of reactions from around the world.

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-33509809

The White House has started its campaign. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCF8FJoUAAEpM96.jpg


Curious to see experts weigh in on this.

[dunksby]

[QUOTE=UK2K]

[rufuspaul]

I can see the Saudis getting the bomb now too.

[dunksby]

BBC has an interesting feed of reactions from around the world.

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-33509809

The White House has started its campaign. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCF8FJoUAAEpM96.jpg


Curious to see experts weigh in on this.
The only experts whose opinions matter are the IAEA who were involved in all of the negotiations, nothing was signed before they gave their OK.

[Godzuki]

Iran is actually quite pragmatic. Yes, Hassan Rouhani is not the Supreme Leader, but he campaigned on making Iran less diplomatically isolated and won easily. He's a big improvement on the previous guy.

We didn't have the by the balls. We had them by the earlobe, annoying yes, but something you could live with you had to.

all it does is set their nuclear program back a year,
Compared to what?
How well did not negotiating with North Korea work out in terms of preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon.


rouhani is a joke. why do u think they have to convey everything back to their supreme leader?

thats the thing about the dem's, so desperate for peace they feel they have to do this and that, even if its only temporary. republicans may be fukkin nuts sometimes but they at least play hard ball. they don't feel this need to take the lesser of any evils, and yes we can still maintain as much pressure as possible on them financially without a agreement.

we kept giving in to NKorea, they kept raping us with money and aid for nuclear concessions. like Trump said we have dumbass leaders. we need to financially ruin some of these countries to cause unrest and leader overthrown. with Dem's its constant appeasement for temporary concessions which only delay the inevitable, while helping the leaders maintain power, who are the real problems.

[KevinNYC]

The only experts whose opinions matter are the IAEA who were involved in all of the negotiations, nothing was signed before they gave their OK.
Yeah, I remember when the details came out previously that people were surprised that the details seemed pretty tough and didn't depend on the Iranians word, but scientific tests that would be hard to get around. I meant I would like to see if experts confirm the way the White House is selling the deal.

One liberal group has come up with this image
http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/netanyahu-deal-816x574.jpg

[Godzuki]

BBC has an interesting feed of reactions from around the world.

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-33509809

The White House has started its campaign. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCF8FJoUAAEpM96.jpg


Curious to see experts weigh in on this.


thats not even accurate :facepalm

it just delays, does not block...its basically a gradual lifting of sanctions for inspections.

its letting them get back to financial stability for only a delay in nuclear armament.

[KevinNYC]

I can see the Saudis getting the bomb now too.
too?

As in also?

Because this deal is the opposite of that.

[dunksby]

Yeah, I remember when the details came out previously that people were surprised that the details seemed pretty tough and didn't depend on the Iranians word, but scientific tests that would be hard to get around. I meant I would like to see if experts confirm the way the White House is selling the deal.

One liberal group has come up with this image
http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/netanyahu-deal-816x574.jpg
:oldlol:

[dunksby]

too?

As in also?

Because this deal is the opposite of that.
He means in addition to terrorist infested extremist haven called Pakistan who nobody cares for. I mean if we got to be worried about terrorists getting their hands on nukes it's Pakistan right?

[KevinNYC]

thats not even accurate :facepalm

it just delays, does not block...its basically a gradual lifting of sanctions for inspections.

its letting them get back to financial stability for only a delay in nuclear armament.You are arguing something different. You are arguing if they violate the agreement. You also seem to be forgetting that the US was not the only country who is party to this deal.

[RidonKs]

“Our battalions are named Imam Ali, Imam Hussein and Bayt al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] to clarify our final destination to the Basiji. We will not abandon our [armed] struggle until the annihilation of Israel and until we will be able to pray in al-Aqsa mosque.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“The enemies are talking about the options [they have] on the table. They should know that the first option on our table is the annihilation of Israel.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The Zionist regime will soon be destroyed, and this generation will be witness to its destruction.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh wait. What planet do you live on? :oldlol:

I can post dozens more quotes from Iranian government and military leaders saying things that if said against the US, would be grounds sanctions and military intervention.

If Palestine were to lay down their guns tomorrow, there would be no war. If Israel were to lay down theirs, there would be no Israel - Benjamin Netanyahu

What part of ^^that^^ statement is false?
the netanyahu quote? it's wrong because israel's military is vastly superior to those of its neighbours and is supported by the biggest military superpower in the history of the world. it's wrong because as many ceasefires have been broken by israel as have been broken by its neighbours. substantially more in fact. it's wrong because at the end of the day, state governments are interested in survival and attacking a stronger country which is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons is an easy recipe for suicide. bear in mind how many people die in the petty acts of deranged terrorism you believe currently constitutes a threat to israel, and then consider the level of attack it would take to literally wipe the country out. you live in a fantasy world if you believe that is even remotely possible right now given balance of powers.

the only government paving a road to israeli destruction is the israeli government. it's foolish aggressive nationalist behaviour is nonsensical. they do not need territory, they are a thriving high tech hub in the region. though an argument could be made that stirring up tensions is the best way to sell arms, i don't buy that being in the best interest of the country. its a terrific country domestically in a lot of rich ways, unsurprisingly given the history of the people who live there. it should be applauded when it treats diplomatically, which it unfortunately has not done successfully since before the camp david accords. we know the path forward israel has to take. it's been on the table for years.

[RidonKs]

bravo to barack obama for finally pushing this through

[UK2K]

Yep that's what you can only post, quotes and slogans, while Saudi Arabia, Qata, Turkey and other supposed allies keep sponsoring and protecting ISIS and Al Qaida etc. On the other hand Iran is the only country that is actively fighting ISIS on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

What does that have to do with Iran's desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and furthermore, what does that have to do with Bibi's 'war monger' mentality?

I'll answer for you.

Absolutely nothing.

Now do I think we should work with Iran? Sure. They could be a useful ally and one of the only (somewhat) stable governments in the region.

But your retort has nothing to do with the original accusation that Bibi is a war monger.

[dunksby]

What does that have to do with Iran's desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and furthermore, what does that have to do with Bibi's 'war monger' mentality?

I'll answer for you.

Absolutely nothing.

Now do I think we should work with Iran? Sure. They could be a useful ally and one of the only (somewhat) stable governments in the region.

But your retort has nothing to do with the original accusation that Bibi is a war monger.
My retort is that Iran isn't warmonger either, rhetoric is inferior to practice, the only countries to ever attack Israel are the Arab coalition who call themselves the US allies but have killed so many American soldiers by directly supporting, sponsoring and ccreating terrorist groups.

[UK2K]

the netanyahu quote? it's wrong because israel's military is vastly superior to those of its neighbours and is supported by the biggest military superpower in the history of the world. it's wrong because as many ceasefires have been broken by israel as have been broken by its neighbours. substantially more in fact. it's wrong because at the end of the day, state governments are interested in survival and attacking a stronger country which is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons is an easy recipe for suicide. bear in mind how many people die in the petty acts of deranged terrorism you believe currently constitutes a threat to israel, and then consider the level of attack it would take to literally wipe the country out. you live in a fantasy world if you believe that is even remotely possible right now given balance of powers.

the only government paving a road to israeli destruction is the israeli government. it's foolish aggressive nationalist behaviour is nonsensical. they do not need territory, they are a thriving high tech hub in the region. though an argument could be made that stirring up tensions is the best way to sell arms, i don't buy that being in the best interest of the country. its a terrific country domestically in a lot of rich ways, unsurprisingly given the history of the people who live there. it should be applauded when it treats diplomatically, which it unfortunately has not done successfully since before the camp david accords. we know the path forward israel has to take. it's been on the table for years.

Until Palestine stops harboring Hamas, and allowing Hamas to use schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods as 'protection' (baiting Israel to fire into civilian population centers, as Hamas does) to fire thousands and thousands of rockets into Israel, then **** em.

The last incident of rocket volleys several weeks ago, both times the ceasefire was broken in a matter of hours by more rockets being fired into Israel. Rockets, provided to Hamas, via Iran.

If that happened here across our Southern border, we would invade and annihilate everyone within 100 miles.

I don't doubt Israel would like to be let loose on the ME. Who wouldn't? I sure as shit would if it were American cities where these rockets were landing. If anything, they are showing an incredible amount of restraint.

[UK2K]

My retort is that Iran isn't warmonger either, rhetoric is inferior to practice, the only countries to ever attack Israel are the Arab coalition who call themselves the US allies but have killed so many American soldiers by directly supporting, sponsoring and ccreating terrorist groups.

Bullshit.

Iran provides weapons to Hamas, who then attack Israel.

[QUOTE]According to a senior Western intelligence official, Iran

[nightprowler10]

He means in addition to terrorist infested extremist haven called Pakistan who nobody cares for. I mean if we got to be worried about terrorists getting their hands on nukes it's Pakistan right?
Obama used to push this before he started campaigning. Truthfully, I don't think it's a likely scenario. Even if a terror sympathizing gov't ever does take over the country, there tends to be a separation between the gov't and the military. This separation has allowed the military to do a lot of shady activities without the head of gov't's knowledge, even started wars with India and carry out attacks inside it, but they also protect their nuclear secrets like crazy.

MMA is their right wing fundamentalist party and they haven't gotten close to taking over the gov't, ever. The bigger danger was the MMA sympathizers in the military that also ran/helped run the ISI, and they've pretty much been purged out now. With the majority public opinion staunchly against terror groups now (yes it's taken that long) I really think the peak of that scenario ever happening was 7-8 years ago.

Oh and before anybody points to the fact that the secrets have been leaked before, there's no way in hell AQ Khan wasn't sharing that shit with the military's approval.

[Derka]

UK, toss a link to that quote you're sourcing please.

[RidonKs]

What does that have to do with Iran's desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and furthermore, what does that have to do with Bibi's 'war monger' mentality?

I'll answer for you.

Absolutely nothing.

Now do I think we should work with Iran? Sure. They could be a useful ally and one of the only (somewhat) stable governments in the region.

But your retort has nothing to do with the original accusation that Bibi is a war monger.
the reason you haven't been working with iran is because an anti imperialist revolution overthrew the american installed regime and a theocracy took over in a coup. there is a history which is at least as worth considering as whatever geopolitical strategic benefits you have in mind.

[RidonKs]

Bullshit.

Iran provides weapons to Hamas, who then attack Israel.



So.... yes they are war mongers.
for the sake of argument, can we just call ever state government in the world a war monger. nobody is abstaining from the behaviour you're describing and if you want to call that war mongering, i'm happy to go along.

but given the facts, which are that virtually every country in the world funds foreign militias without a mandate, why are we talking about this? might as well base our decision on how many people like pea soup.

[dunksby]

Bullshit.

Iran provides weapons to Hamas, who then attack Israel.



So.... yes they are war mongers.
Lmfao you can playtthat game with every country including US, Russia, China and so on. You think the US is so innocent? Israel is not a saint either, any big time player in any region sells arms. How about Israel assassination of Iranian sscientists? Israel so innocent and the victim of a few ragged ass Arabs shooting practically fireworks and getting their shit pushed in by American grade jet fighters and missiles.

[UK2K]

Hamas wasnt even relevant in the Middle East until 10 years ago. Now theyre supposedly to blame for the situation? Newsflash mate this sh$t has been going on for 60 years. Everyone knows what Israels role is in the region and who is behind them.

And before Hamas, Israel was being attacked on all sides. Need a history lesson?

What is your point?

In July of 2014, there were 3000 rockets fired from Gaza at Israeli civilians, killing 1,500 and wounding another 7,500. The people of Palestine allow, and encourage, that to continue.

[KingBeasley08]

Great deal. If we can become allies with Saudi Arabia, the biggest sponsor of radical Islam and terrorism in the world, then we can definitely become allies with Iran

[UK2K]

Lmfao you can playtthat game with every country including US, Russia, China and so on. You think the US is so innocent? Israel is not a saint either, any big time player in any region sells arms. How about Israel assassination of Iranian sscientists? Israel so innocent and the victim of a few ragged ass Arabs shooting practically fireworks and getting their shit pushed in by American grade jet fighters and missiles.

Israel is not a saint. Nor is the US. I never said they were.

I was responding to the laughable notion that Israel is the aggressor when Iran's government openly state they want to annihilate the Israeli people.

[NumberSix]

Lmfao you can playtthat game with every country including US, Russia, China and so on. You think the US is so innocent? Israel is not a saint either, any big time player in any region sells arms. How about Israel assassination of Iranian sscientists? Israel so innocent and the victim of a few ragged ass Arabs shooting practically fireworks and getting their shit pushed in by American grade jet fighters and missiles.
Right, but we aren't neutral observers. We are on a side. It's not like a Bucks vs Kings game where I don't care who wins or loses. I care about what's good for my team.

I don't blame other countries or regions for pursuing their interests. But I certainly hope our interests prevail.

[dunksby]

Getting back to the topic of Obama keeping winning here and there:

http://www.jta.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Obama-Iran-deal.jpg

NEWS IRAN NUCLEAR TALKS JUL 14 2015, 9:13 AM ET
Iran Nuclear Deal: President Obama Says Deal Makes World 'Safer and More Secure'
by ERIN MCCLAM

President Barack Obama declared Tuesday that the landmark nuclear deal with Iran is built on verification, not trust alone, and he threatened to veto any attempt by Congress to stop it.

"This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change, change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure," he said in an early-morning statement from the White House.

He said that the United States had "negotiated from a position of strength and principle" and "stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region." Walking away from the deal, he said, could touch off a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world.

[dunksby]

Right, but we aren't neutral observers. We are on a side. It's not like a Bucks vs Kings game where I don't care who wins or loses. I care about what's good for my team.

I don't blame other countries or regions for pursuing their interests. But I certainly hope our interests prevail.
That's a good point but won't get you too far in hard negotiations, you got to compromise at some point, I don't think Obama and Kerry and consequently the US negotiating team would want to sign on a deal that hurt the country. Now that point bbecomes more profound when there are five other world great powers pursuing their own. Some people want to label it as a bad deal just out of spite but close to two years of hard negotiations brought about this deal.

[Dresta]

As much as Israel's conduct is deplorable and unnecessary, i do wish people would stop raging about Palestinians, as the term itself is nothing more than a propaganda term, not used in such a context before the 1960s & 70s. Before ww2 it meant any inhabitant of the Palestine mandate region, including Jews.

Palestine has never been a country, so it is tedious to hear incessant references to 'the people of Palestine' and such, as if there even exists such a thing. The Arabs of the West Bank, in their culture and language, are virtually indistinguishable from the non-Bedouin Arabs of Jordan, and the Arabs of Gaza have more in common with the nearby Egyptians than with the Arabs of the West Bank.

[NumberSix]

That's a good point but won't get you too far in hard negotiations, you got to compromise at some point, I don't think Obama and Kerry and consequently the US negotiating team would want to sign on a deal that hurt the country. Now that point bbecomes more profound when there are five other world great powers pursuing their own. Some people want to label it as a bad deal just out of spite but close to two years of hard negotiations brought about this deal.
Well, I'm not one of these maniacs who automatically hates it because it was President Obama. Only time will tell how it works out.

I think its important to point out though that when we are talking about Iran, we are talking about the regime. Not the people of Iran.

[Godzuki]

Israel is not a saint. Nor is the US. I never said they were.

I was responding to the laughable notion that Israel is the aggressor when Iran's government openly state they want to annihilate the Israeli people.


the real difference is Iran is run by a religious die hard muslim supreme leader supported by a majority muslim hardliner base. to that end they have a completely different mentality than the US and Israel. we all know extremist muslims are fukkin nuts, and are diehard their religion, which is NOT peaceful when you're governing as religious hardliners.

ISH has so many retards that won't admit the obvious and constantly try to obfuscate everyone as even bad guys.

furthermore nobody in America are rallying and marching against Iran chanting "death to Iran" like they are America and Israel. but they're such a normal misunderstood country, right? :facepalm

funny thing is 3/4's of the mfers here don't even regularly follow/read current events but pretend to know everything. half base everything on history from over 20 years ago :oldlol: a few are some of the most brainwashed foreigners reading shit with much less freedom of press pretending like we're the most brainwashed :facepalm

opinions here are so shitty its constant facepalming reading these threads :facepalm

[UK2K]

My point flew straight past your head. Just like all the other intelligent comments directed your way you chose to ignore. Youre blaming Hamas for the current situation in Israel/Palestine today, yet the situation has been the exact same in the region for nearly 60 years. The enemy before was Fatah, not Hamas. But Israel was still doing the exact same BS then as now. It wont stop until they stop using Apartheid against their own citizens.

Instead of supporting a peaceful resolution in the region (what this deal is all about) you continue to blame everyone else (The Arabs and the Iranians) bar your side.

Ok, first off, Based on the principles of Islamism gaining momentum throughout the Arab world in the 1980s, Hamas was founded sometime in 1988[37] soon after the First Intifada broke out, as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which is exactly what I said.

Secondly, I do support a peaceful resolution. I even said we should deal with Iran on the first page, if you had read.

Both sides are to blame. I never said Israel was innocent.

[UK2K]

UK, toss a link to that quote you're sourcing please.

Which one?

Copy whichever quote and google search it.

They're all legit.

[KingBeasley08]

the real difference is Iran is run by a religious die hard muslim supreme leader supported by a majority muslim hardliner base. to that end they have a completely different mentality than the US and Israel. we all know extremist muslims are fukkin nuts, and are diehard their religion, which is NOT peaceful when you're governing as religious hardliners.

ISH has so many retards that won't admit the obvious and constantly try to obfuscate everyone as even bad guys.

furthermore nobody in America are rallying and marching against Iran chanting "death to Iran" like they are America and Israel. but they're such a normal misunderstood country, right? :facepalm

funny thing is 3/4's of the mfers here don't even regularly follow/read current events but pretend to know everything. half base everything on history from over 20 years ago :oldlol: a few are some of the most brainwashed foreigners reading shit with much less freedom of press pretending like we're the most brainwashed :facepalm

opinions here are so shitty its constant facepalming reading these threads :facepalm
As opposed to Saudi Arabia? Hell, Iranians are probably more pro-American than them yet they are still major allies. Iran being on our side has many pros. They're fighting ISIS right now and give a buffer from one side against Iraq and Syria.

[UK2K]

As opposed to Saudi Arabia? Hell, Iranians are probably more pro-American than them yet they are still major allies. Iran being on our side has many pros. They're fighting ISIS right now and give a buffer from one side against Iraq and Syria.

Because we use their bases, and in exchange we sell them weapons.

Plus, we all had a common enemy 20 years ago, like we have a common enemy now.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That doesn't make you an ally.

[Godzuki]

As opposed to Saudi Arabia? Hell, Iranians are probably more pro-American than them yet they are still major allies. Iran being on our side has many pros. They're fighting ISIS right now and give a buffer from one side against Iraq and Syria.


saudi arabia, the government, does not support ISIS. the saudi's are actually a lot more status quo and friendly with us than all of you here make them out to be. they want stability in their region as much as anybody. they do not make direct threats against Israel or anything along those lines like the religiously governed crazy's do.

Iran has been covertly against our interests and helping kill US soldiers for a long time now. their government has held people outside of their territories in accordance with muslim beliefs with death threats or bounty's. the saudi gov doesn't do this kind of shit. there is so much more belligerence with Iran its absurd how people pretend to compare them to anybody else, like everyone is evenly as bad as they are.

bottom line is Iran's hardliners who are in control of that country, i emphasize complete control of that country, absolutely despise us and Israel. Iran sympathizers keep painting this picture here like they're so peaceful and misunderstood when anyone can turn on a news channel to see video of thousands marching chanting "death to America and Israel". who the fukk would trust them as peaceful? :wtf:

[RidonKs]

Right, but we aren't neutral observers. We are on a side. It's not like a Bucks vs Kings game where I don't care who wins or loses. I care about what's good for my team.

I don't blame other countries or regions for pursuing their interests. But I certainly hope our interests prevail.
ah. so you're a cheerleader for powerful interests regardless of where they stand on any issue. good to know your record of total contradiction can be completed by that statement right there.

[KingBeasley08]

saudi arabia, the government, does not support ISIS. the saudi's are actually a lot more status quo and friendly with us than all of you here make them out to be. they want stability in their region as much as anybody. they do not make direct threats against Israel or anything along those lines like the religiously governed crazy's do.

Iran has been covertly against our interests and helping kill US soldiers for a long time now. their government has held people outside of their territories in accordance with muslim beliefs with death threats or bounty's. the saudi gov doesn't do this kind of shit. there is so much more belligerence with Iran its absurd how people pretend to compare them to anybody else, like everyone is evenly as bad as they are.

bottom line is Iran's hardliners who are in control of that country, i emphasize complete control of that country, absolutely despise us and Israel. Iran sympathizers keep painting this picture here like they're so peaceful and misunderstood when anyone can turn on a news channel to see video of thousands marching chanting "death to America and Israel". who the fukk would trust them as peaceful? :wtf:
Saudi Arabia has been sponsoring Wahabi Islam ideology over the world for the past few decades.


With the help of funding from petroleum exports[25] (and other factors[26]), the movement underwent "explosive growth" beginning in the 1970s and now has worldwide influence.[3] Wahhabism has been accused of being "a source of global terrorism",[27][28] and for causing disunity in the Muslim community by labeling Muslims who disagreed with the Wahhabi definition of monotheism as apostates[29] (takfir), thus paving the way for their bloodshed.[30][31][32] It has also been criticized for the destruction of historic mazaars, mausoleums, and other Muslim and non-Muslim buildings and artifacts.[33][34][35] The "boundaries" of what make up Wahhabism have been called (by Youssef Michel Ibrahim) "difficult to pinpoint",[36] but in contemporary usage, the terms Wahhabi and Salafi are often used interchangeably, and the groups they represent are considered to be movements with different roots that have merged since the 1960s.[37][38][39] But Wahhabism has also been called "a particular orientation within Salafism",[5] or an ultra-conservative, Saudi brand of Salafism.[40][41]

Hell, all the hijackers in 9/11 were Saudi. Not only that, but there is a 30 page classified document on the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11. What it says, I wish I could see. Of course, we look the other way because of oil which is exactly my point. We turned a possible enemy into a big asset.

Iran is nowhere near as extreme as other countries in the Middle East. Part of this is because even though they are Muslim, they have a Persian culture that has existed since before Islam became the dominant religion. Compare them to the Arabs in the region and you can see a major difference in cultural values

[KevinNYC]

A morally dubious agreement with a state sponsor of terror that might nevertheless be a national security necessity: http://t.co/ZxqmHqBFw5

[RidonKs]

As much as Israel's conduct is deplorable and unnecessary, i do wish people would stop raging about Palestinians, as the term itself is nothing more than a propaganda term, not used in such a context before the 1960s & 70s. Before ww2 it meant any inhabitant of the Palestine mandate region, including Jews.

Palestine has never been a country, so it is tedious to hear incessant references to 'the people of Palestine' and such, as if there even exists such a thing. The Arabs of the West Bank, in their culture and language, are virtually indistinguishable from the non-Bedouin Arabs of Jordan, and the Arabs of Gaza have more in common with the nearby Egyptians than with the Arabs of the West Bank.
so what should we call the particular millions of stateless arabs dispersed in israel-proper and refugee camps in the surrounded areas? not to mention "ex-pats". they aren't just jordanians or just egyptians. their histories go all ways and at the moment they have no representation in the international arena.

i probably agree with you, but only due to more recent events. gaza and the west bank have been going different directions for a while. i'm more than happy to refer to gazans and refer to west bankers. but their respective populations were not always so isolated from one another.

then again, shouldn't we ask them? if a majority of people in the occupied territories call themselves palestinian, doesn't that by right dignify that title regardless of its history? what more than that is truly needed to knit together a constituency than a brand everybody accepts?

:lol

[RidonKs]

That's a good point but won't get you too far in hard negotiations, you got to compromise at some point, I don't think Obama and Kerry and consequently the US negotiating team would want to sign on a deal that hurt the country. Now that point bbecomes more profound when there are five other world great powers pursuing their own. Some people want to label it as a bad deal just out of spite but close to two years of hard negotiations brought about this deal.
this was one of the more straightforward disputes in the world. two years is not making very good time. but that doesn't mean the guy who finally settled it shouldn't get due credit.

[Godzuki]

Saudi Arabia has been sponsoring Wahabi Islam ideology over the world for the past few decades.



Hell, all the hijackers in 9/11 were Saudi. Not only that, but there is a 30 page classified document on the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11. What it says, I wish I could see. Of course, we look the other way because of oil which is exactly my point. We turned a possible enemy into a big asset.

Iran is nowhere near as extreme as other countries in the Middle East. Part of this is because even though they are Muslim, they have a Persian culture that has existed since before Islam became the dominant religion. Compare them to the Arabs in the region and you can see a major difference in cultural values

thats all conspiracy BS :facepalm

everyone tried to link all of the hijackers, bin laden, etc. to the saudi government, when they despise the saudi government more than they do America. there has been a long standing feud between saudi muslim extremists and the saudi government, in large part because of their government relationships with America.

a llot of the people in the Arab countries are extremist but many of the governments are more pragmatic. Pakistan is a good example, or was, but they obviously have bigger issues now keeping the muslim extremist elements outside of their highest military/gov positions. Iran on the other hand is ruled with total authority by a religious muslim hardliner. they have openly encouraged hate towards the US/Israel, and many of the people despise us.

its ridiculous to pretend Iran is less a threat when they're as belligerent a muslim governed nation that exists today as anyone. there is a reason our top generals are adamant in not allowing Iran to develop nukes or ballistic missiles. no other country has been working behind the scenes in the last 10 years against our interests or killing our troops than Iran.

[UK2K]

thats all conspiracy BS :facepalm

everyone tried to link all of the hijackers, bin laden, etc. to the saudi government, when they despise the saudi government more than they do America. there has been a long standing feud between saudi muslim extremists and the saudi government, in large part because of their government relationships with America.

a llot of the people in the Arab countries are extremist but many of the governments are more pragmatic. Pakistan is a good example, or was, but they obviously have bigger issues now keeping the muslim extremist elements outside of their highest military/gov positions. Iran on the other hand is ruled with total authority by a religious muslim hardliner. they have openly encouraged hate towards the US/Israel, and many of the people despise us.

its ridiculous to pretend Iran is less a threat when they're as belligerent a muslim governed nation that exists today as anyone. there is a reason our top generals are adamant in not allowing Iran to develop nukes or ballistic missiles. no other country has been working behind the scenes in the last 10 years against our interests or killing our troops than Iran.

Not to mention... They are deemed a state sponsor of terrorism by our own government.

Give it time, Obama will change that too. It's very offensive to Iranians living in America.

[Godzuki]

Pakistan isnt in the Middle East you idiot. Just stfu


lol it was an example for muslim extremist gov's :oldlol:

out of every point i made the fact that was the only thng u could take issue with proves my point :pimp:

go back to your 3rd world brainwashed history books terrorist

[KingBeasley08]

thats all conspiracy BS :facepalm

everyone tried to link all of the hijackers, bin laden, etc. to the saudi government, when they despise the saudi government more than they do America. there has been a long standing feud between saudi muslim extremists and the saudi government, in large part because of their government relationships with America.

a llot of the people in the Arab countries are extremist but many of the governments are more pragmatic. Pakistan is a good example, or was, but they obviously have bigger issues now keeping the muslim extremist elements outside of their highest military/gov positions. Iran on the other hand is ruled with total authority by a religious muslim hardliner. they have openly encouraged hate towards the US/Israel, and many of the people despise us.

its ridiculous to pretend Iran is less a threat when they're as belligerent a muslim governed nation that exists today as anyone. there is a reason our top generals are adamant in not allowing Iran to develop nukes or ballistic missiles. no other country has been working behind the scenes in the last 10 years against our interests or killing our troops than Iran.
You do know that Wahabbism is the dominant sect of Islam in Saudi Arabia? They run their own country like a crazy Islamic nation so idk why you're acting like they're some nice country. Them funding Wahabbism overseas isn't conspiracy BS. They are our allies but they are biggest sponsors of radical Islam worldwide

got any proof for that last stuff? Iran hasn't really been a problem in the last decade. Iraq and Syria have easily been much bigger problems. Tell me something Iran has done that makes them so dangerous. They are as pragmatic as any country in the Middle East. They're not gonna attack the US :lol

[UK2K]

You do know that Wahabbism is the dominant sect of Islam in Saudi Arabia? They run their own country like a crazy Islamic nation so idk why you're acting like they're some nice country. Them funding Wahabbism overseas isn't conspiracy BS. They are our allies but they are biggest sponsors of radical Islam worldwide

got any proof for that last stuff? Iran hasn't really been a problem in the last decade. Iraq and Syria have easily been much bigger problems. Tell me something Iran has done that makes them so dangerous. They are as pragmatic as any country in the Middle East. They're not gonna attack the US :lol
Nobody is that dumb.

But I wouldn't dismiss the idea that they'd wipe out Israel if given the support of China and Russia.

[Godzuki]

You do know that Wahabbism is the dominant sect of Islam in Saudi Arabia? They run their own country like a crazy Islamic nation so idk why you're acting like they're some nice country. Them funding Wahabbism overseas isn't conspiracy BS. They are our allies but they are biggest sponsors of radical Islam worldwide

got any proof for that last stuff? Iran hasn't really been a problem in the last decade. Iraq and Syria have easily been much bigger problems. Tell me something Iran has done that makes them so dangerous. They are as pragmatic as any country in the Middle East. They're not gonna attack the US :lol


there is a lot of proof their special forces helped arm and assist Iraqi rebels against our rebuilding and occupation in Iraq.

they are one of the biggest state sponsors of Hezbolla and Hamas.

their governent has made threats to our media and elsewhere for offending Mohammed. their supreme leader put a million dollar bounty on a Indian author for mocking Mohammed.

of course they're not a direct threat now, we'd completely destroy them. but once they have nukes there is no check to what they do. its not that thhere will ever be a nuclear war, more than them constantly pulling the same shit they did during the Iraq war, or causing chaos in their region like they are now, without anyone able to check them. thats the key difference.

nukes aren't really something anyone believes will be used, other than if a fundamentalist crazy country got a hold of them. it would be economic and social suicide for a country to use a nuke today. what it gives a country is unchecked authority to do as they please or negotiate with the upper hand with much less fear of military, and to a lesser degree economic subjugation.

[RidonKs]

God Gudzukis posts make me cringe. Why weren't the Asians in my grade 7 class as dumb as him? I would have won so many more weekly spelling Bs, and my dad wouldnt have hated me so much.
:lol

[KingBeasley08]

there is a lot of proof their special forces helped arm and assist Iraqi rebels against our rebuilding and occupation in Iraq.

they are one of the biggest state sponsors of Hezbolla and Hamas.

their governent has made threats to our media and elsewhere for offending Mohammed. their supreme leader put a million dollar bounty on a Indian author for mocking Mohammed.

of course they're not a direct threat now, we'd completely destroy them. but once they have nukes there is no check to what they do. its not that thhere will ever be a nuclear war, more than them constantly pulling the same shit they did during the Iraq war, or causing chaos in their region like they are now, without anyone able to check them. thats the key difference.
here's the biggest thing regarding nukes. It takes 90% enrichment to develop weapons of mass destruction. This deal allows them to go to 0.5%. We don't gotta worry about nuclear weapons anytime soon :oldlol:

[Godzuki]

here's the biggest thing regarding nukes. It takes 90% enrichment to develop weapons of mass destruction. This deal allows them to go to 0.5%. We don't gotta worry about nuclear weapons anytime soon :oldlol:


experts are saying this deal only stalls their nuclear capability timetable 12~ months :confusedshrug:

[Godzuki]

:lol

dude you're one of the biggest idiots in these threads :oldlol:

you and maksmillan are some of the biggest retards living in conspiracy worlds on this site. your essays are some of the dumbest shit i read here tbh:facepalm

[Droid101]

experts are saying this deal only stalls their nuclear capability timetable 12~ months :confusedshrug:
https://adastracomics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/citation-needed.jpg

[Godzuki]

https://adastracomics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/citation-needed.jpg


it was 2 'experts' on CNN last night

[RidonKs]

dude you're one of the biggest idiots in these threads :oldlol:

you and maksmillan are some of the biggest retards living in conspiracy worlds on this site. your essays are some of the dumbest shit i read here tbh:facepalm
that's a compliment coming from you and i mean that dead seriously

[Godzuki]

that's a compliment coming from you and i mean that dead seriously

good, just know your essays are full of roundabout speaking on your opinions without knowledge of much. i've never seen anyone write so much with so little direct/concise replies :biggums:

[SCdac]

Would you rather die being the nice guy or survive being the "asshole"? Is merely wanting to survive being an asshole?... Depends on who you ask. Ask the anti-semitic ayatollah, and yes, Israel is an asshole for merely wanting to survive and exist in peace... Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and a destabilizing force in the region, as stated by Obama in his first interview with an Arab newspaper not long ago, so it's natural for people and countries around the world to be highly suspect of this nuclear deal and highly suspect of Iran's true intentions. They have a long history of deception in terms of their nuclear program, by all objective accounts. Most people in America don't trust Iran on this deal, according to a recent NBC poll. Can't say I blame em at all. It's that abject rejection of skepticism, rooted in extreme political gridlock, that's more scary than anything. What I'm seeing online is, despite the agreement by world parties to HAMPER and ELIMINATE Iran's capability of nuclear weapons, there is a growing "See, Iran has the fundamental right to nuclear weapons too!" movement underlying the agreement

[RidonKs]

Would you rather die being the nice guy or survive being the "asshole"? Is merely wanting to survive being an asshole?... Depends on who you ask. Ask the anti-semitic ayatollah, and yes, Israel is an asshole for merely wanting to survive and exist in peace...
false choice
you repeatedly ignore the fact that the israeli population is safer than anybody else in the region for perfectly simple reasons. check the numbers. the economy is thriving and it is sponsored by the most powerful government in the world. it has an incredibly well funded and well trained army. it is a hub of high tech weapons manufacturing.

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and a destabilizing force in the region, as stated by Obama in his first interview with an Arab newspaper not long ago, so it's natural for people and countries around the world to be highly suspect of this nuclear deal and highly suspect of Iran's true intentions.
appeal to authority

Most people in America don't trust Iran on this deal, according to a recent NBC poll. Can't say I blame em at all. It's that abject rejection of skepticism, rooted in extreme political gridlock, that's more scary than anything.
a rejection of abject skepticism would imply that most people in america do trust iran on this deal

They have a long history of deception in terms of their nuclear program, by all objective accounts.
by all objective accounts they have been much less forthcoming with their nuclear program than say turkey. they have also been much more forthcoming with their nuclear program than say israel, which has never allowed international agencies in for inspection. every israeli government since reagan has been happy to just shrug and turn away any time somebody raises the subject, even though the israeli nuclear weapons program is the poorest kept secret in the ****ing world.

What I'm seeing online is, despite the agreement by world parties to HAMPER and ELIMINATE Iran's capability of nuclear weapons, there is a growing "See, Iran has the fundamental right to nuclear weapons too!" movement underlying the agreement
nobody has a fundamental right to nuclear weapons. countries that have signed and ratified the non proliferation treaty do have a fundamental right, if by that you mean internationally recognized, to nuclear energy.

if you meet somebody who tells you anybody has a fundamental right to nuclear weapons, please do us all a serious favour and punch them in the teeth.

[RidonKs]

good, just know your essays are full of roundabout speaking on your opinions without knowledge of much. i've never seen anyone write so much with so little direct/concise replies :biggums:
how's this for concision

[dunksby]

Godzuki likes the government who directly attacked the US on its soil and writes stupid walls of text to defend the people who flew planes full of innocent people of America iinto two of its greatest symbols of prosperity and greatness which was again full of innocent Americans. ****ing terrorist sympathizing mother****er isn't even ashamed to pull that shit, I doubt he is even American.

[Derka]

Would you rather die being the nice guy or survive being the "asshole"? Is merely wanting to survive being an asshole?... Depends on who you ask. Ask the anti-semitic ayatollah, and yes, Israel is an asshole for merely wanting to survive and exist in peace... Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and a destabilizing force in the region, as stated by Obama in his first interview with an Arab newspaper not long ago, so it's natural for people and countries around the world to be highly suspect of this nuclear deal and highly suspect of Iran's true intentions. They have a long history of deception in terms of their nuclear program, by all objective accounts. Most people in America don't trust Iran on this deal, according to a recent NBC poll. Can't say I blame em at all. It's that abject rejection of skepticism, rooted in extreme political gridlock, that's more scary than anything. What I'm seeing online is, despite the agreement by world parties to HAMPER and ELIMINATE Iran's capability of nuclear weapons, there is a growing "See, Iran has the fundamental right to nuclear weapons too!" movement underlying the agreement

Most Americans couldn't point to Iran on a map and couldn't begin to understand the unfathomably shitty means through which we violated that country's sovereignty and directly paved the way for the Revolution that launched shitheads like Khomeini and Khamenei into power...so you'll forgive me if I'm not particularly inspired by what I'm certain was a highly scientific, not at all biased poll from a corporate-owned media interest.

TL,DR - Americans don't know what the f*ck they're talking about.

[UK2K]

Most Americans couldn't point to Iran on a map and couldn't begin to understand the unfathomably shitty means through which we violated that country's sovereignty and directly paved the way for the Revolution that launched shitheads like Khomeini and Khamenei into power...so you'll forgive me if I'm not particularly inspired by what I'm certain was a highly scientific, not at all biased poll from a corporate-owned media interest.

TL,DR - Americans don't know what the f*ck they're talking about.

Agreed, but Americans do know Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and we are making deals with them. While 4 Americans rot in their prisons.

[rufuspaul]

Here is what is going to happen: Iran will make whatever concessions are needed to lift the sanctions, their economy will start to take off, their leaders will take the credit, and they will continue their nuclear weapons program in secret.

[IcanzIIravor]

it was 2 'experts' on CNN last night

Take what they say with a grain of salt. Experts have been saying for the last 20 years or more that Iran is on the verge of having the ability to make nukes. It's fear mongering 101.

[IcanzIIravor]

Here is what is going to happen: Iran will make whatever concessions are needed to lift the sanctions, their economy will start to take off, their leaders will take the credit, and they will continue their nuclear weapons program in secret.

The sanctions haven't stopped them. It has only hurt the populace. Just like what happened in the lead up to the Iraq war. Despots make sure the military, sycophants and their pet projects get all they need and the people can suffer.

[dunksby]

Here is what is going to happen: Iran will make whatever concessions are needed to lift the sanctions, their economy will start to take off, their leaders will take the credit, and they will continue their nuclear weapons program in secret.
Yeah like they have been doing all this time and nobody realized, do you read what you post? And to repeat a tired point, IAEA will be regularly inspect anywhere they believe Iran is doing shady work. Regular inspections, regular frequent inspections. World powersaand IAEA are not retarded children to be deceived so easily by Iran.

[rufuspaul]

The sanctions haven't stopped them. It has only hurt the populace. Just like what happened in the lead up to the Iraq war. Despots make sure the military, sycophants and their pet projects get all they need and the people can suffer.


The people can also revolt.

[rufuspaul]

Yeah like they have been doing all this time and nobody realized, do you read what you post? And to repeat a tired point, IAEA will be regularly inspect anywhere they believe Iran is doing shady work. Regular inspections, regular frequent inspections. World powersaand IAEA are not retarded children to be deceived so easily by Iran.


There are underground sites that they (IAEA) will not even know exist. You think the Iranians are stupid?

[SCdac]

Ridonks, Israel has a strong army because it needs to have one. Absolute need. Just today, sirens were going off in southern Israel, signifying rocket attacks or potential rocket attacks from Palestinian territory. It's something suburbanite millennial Americans simply know nothing about, as Mexico and Canada aren't constant threats to us. Israel has a population that sees war often, hence being prepared for war. Yet, nobody in their right mind is worried about Israel and their nukes. Only people obsessed with hating them or deflecting everything on to them bring it up as some kind of equalizing factor for the theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring Iranian regime to also obtain nukes. The abject rejection of skepticism I'm referring to is the dolts who can't even question Iran's potentially nefarious intentions even if they wanted to or had reason to, because it's against Obama's agreement, and backing Obama and any agreement (however weak) is truly most important to some. Personally, I think we should let Iran try to prove themselves as peaceful owners of nuclear energy, but the world powers and UN should for obvious reasons keep them on a short leash, which is what the deal hopefully is (not just on paper, but in reality), and as Obama said, they should be ready to pounce economically or militarily if need be. Understandably, BOTH staunch liberal zionists and staunch conservative zionists in Israel are highly skeptical of the deal (i.e., not just Netanyahu).

[IcanzIIravor]

The people can also revolt.

And get crushed. They are an enclosed society heavily controlled by a theocratic regime with religious police everywhere. It's not a simple thing to revolt when the odds are stacked heavily against you.

[dunksby]

There are underground sites that they (IAEA) will not even know exist. You think the Iranians are stupid?
Why do you think the negotiations have taken so long? Because the US intelligence and other intelligence agencies know about these places and wanted access to them, and you think developing nukes is just as easy as making camp ssomewhere?

[rufuspaul]

Ridonks, Israel has a strong army because it needs to have one. Absolute need. Just today, sirens were going off in southern Israel, signifying rocket attacks or potential rocket attacks from Palestinian territory. It's something suburbanite millennial Americans simply know nothing about, as Mexico and Canada aren't constant threats to us. Israel has a population that sees war often, hence being prepared for war. Yet, nobody in their right mind is worried about Israel and their nukes. Only people obsessed with hating them or deflecting everything on to them bring it up as some kind of equalizing factor for the theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring Iranian regime to also obtain nukes. The abject rejection of skepticism I'm referring to is the dolts who can't even question Iran's potentially nefarious intentions even if they wanted to or had reason to, because it's against Obama's agreement, and backing Obama and any agreement (however weak) is truly most important to some. Personally, I think we should let Iran try to prove themselves as peaceful owners of nuclear energy, but the world powers and UN should for obvious reasons keep them on a short leash, which is what the deal hopefully is (not just on paper, but in reality), and as Obama said, they should be ready to pounce economically or militarily if need be. Understandably, BOTH staunch liberal zionists and staunch conservative zionists in Israel are highly skeptical of the deal (i.e., not just Netanyahu).


Good post. The bold is why it's very hard to believe Iran is suddenly interested in cooperating with the West. They want to recover economically but they aren't giving up their zealotry by any means.

[IcanzIIravor]

There are underground sites that they (IAEA) will not even know exist. You think the Iranians are stupid?

We have hacked their systems multiple times. I wouldn't be surprised if we and Israel know as much about their facilities as they do. Between our HUMINT and SIGINT I am fairly confident with regards to that. What is the alternative? Keep in mind this wasn't 1 on 1 negotiating between us and them.

[dunksby]

And get crushed. They are an enclosed society heavily controlled by a theocratic regime with religious police everywhere. It's not a simple thing to revolt when the odds are stacked heavily against you.
They did back in 2009 IIRC and got crushed so bad even some hardliners started to complain about the regime's method.

[rufuspaul]

Why do you think the negotiations have taken so long? Because the US intelligence and other intelligence agencies know about these places and wanted access to them, and you think developing nukes is just as easy as making camp ssomewhere?


And US intelligence has been soooo accurate in the past. :rolleyes:

[IcanzIIravor]

They did back in 2009 IIRC and got crushed so bad even some hardliners started to complain about the regime's method.

I think people forget how despotic regimes stay in power. So long as the Iranian military leadership is kept happy that regime will keep on going. Once they lose the military then they will topple (see Egypt).

[rufuspaul]

Keep in mind this wasn't 1 on 1 negotiating between us and them.


Of course not. The French in particular are very excited about the deal. Does that make you feel safe?

[dunksby]

And US intelligence has been soooo accurate in the past. :rolleyes:
6 world powers and the IAEA>>>>>you

[rufuspaul]

6 world powers and the IAEA>>>>>you


Whatever. We'll talk again in 5 years.

[Droid101]

Whatever. We'll talk again in 5 years.
Yeah, and it'll be the same fearmongering bullshit "Oh they're just months away from a nuke! Sanctions!!" that you/they've been spewing since the 90's. Go figure.

[resin_baller]

I put a bunch of links in the bigass second term thread.

Congratulations! What was your role in the signing?

[rufuspaul]

Yeah, and it'll be the same fearmongering bullshit "Oh they're just months away from a nuke! Sanctions!!" that you/they've been spewing since the 90's. Go figure.


If all it is is fear mongering bullshit then what is the need for a treaty in the first place? :confusedshrug:

[IcanzIIravor]

Of course not. The French in particular are very excited about the deal. Does that make you feel safe?

If you are coming at this from a point of view in which fear is ruling you then I can sympathize with you. What is your alternative? Do nothing and keep the sanctions in place from our end, even though our allies want to go in a different direction? Scuttle the talks and attempt to apply pressure on our allies via economic threats and withholding money and supplies we give out? Regime change? Can you lay out an alternative that is effective given the current environment? Iran is a despotic regime left over from the cold war. If you're under the impression they are suicidal then I can only shake my head. There is no doubt they will try to weasel out of their end of the deal, but if the goal is to cross our T's and dot our I's to keep a coalition together then this is the way to go. If you want us going solo or just with Israel and you think we should have regime change sooner rather than later then I guess I can understand your apprehension to the deal.

[kentatm]

Of course not. The French in particular are very excited about the deal. Does that make you feel safe?

:roll:

You mean the French gov't that has been openly hostile towards Muslims in their country for years now?

The country that actually has to fear a nuclear Iran b/c of proximity?

We should be worried that they like the deal? Really?

[Godzuki]

Godzuki likes the government who directly attacked the US on its soil and writes stupid walls of text to defend the people who flew planes full of innocent people of America iinto two of its greatest symbols of prosperity and greatness which was again full of innocent Americans. ****ing terrorist sympathizing mother****er isn't even ashamed to pull that shit, I doubt he is even American.


I'm just not a conspiracy retard like 3/4 of you youtube watching fgts. Weak try as usual Dumsby pretending it's all the Saudi gov :applause:

[IcanzIIravor]

If all it is is fear mongering bullshit then what is the need for a treaty in the first place? :confusedshrug:

Because the goal is as much about preventing a nuclear arms race from breaking out as it is from preventing Iran from having the capability even if by some miracle it was for peaceful use. Look at what Iran does and don't focus on what they shout and spew. You have an easy example in North Korea with it's boasts and threats. Iran is a cold war relic. They do state sponsored terrorism to meddle in Israel's affairs and try to influence those immediately around them. They aren't suicidal though.

[Godzuki]

Take what they say with a grain of salt. Experts have been saying for the last 20 years or more that Iran is on the verge of having the ability to make nukes. It's fear mongering 101.

At least it was cnn tho, if anything their agenda is not to naysayers the deal.

I think one guy was a expert on Iran and the other was weapons programs....

[Godzuki]

The sanctions haven't stopped them. It has only hurt the populace. Just like what happened in the lead up to the Iraq war. Despots make sure the military, sycophants and their pet projects get all they need and the people can suffer.

It creates unrest, which encourages change in leadership/policies.

Like Putin will lose power if things get desperate in Russia. Even the north korean prez who has as much power as anybody can be ousted if things become dire enough.

[rufuspaul]

:roll:

You mean the French gov't that has been openly hostile towards Muslims in their country for years now?

The country that actually has to fear a nuclear Iran b/c of proximity?

We should be worried that they like the deal? Really?

That was tongue-in-cheek for the most part. I still have a hard time thinking of the French as hard-liners on anything except going on strike for more vacation time.

[rufuspaul]

If you are coming at this from a point of view in which fear is ruling you then I can sympathize with you.


Not so much fear as skepticism. All this celebration, patting of the backs, etc., it's like we've seen this before.


http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/nevill%20chamberland_zpsiqjoerhi.jpg

Not to fear, it's all on paper.

[RidonKs]

Here is what is going to happen: Iran will make whatever concessions are needed to lift the sanctions, their economy will start to take off, their leaders will take the credit, and they will continue their nuclear weapons program in secret.
this is true. there is a drive in iran to develop nuclear weapons. though it should be noted that the population is less worried about it than the elites who occupy the government.

here's the thing about economic sanctions: they always work. if the sanctioner is powerful enough, it's mob rules and the bitch has to keel. look at greece. this is a matter of livelihood and most people understand that giving in is a lesser evil than the immediate harm that would come from resisting.

if iran is subject to the same routine inspections as each of the eight or however many other nuclear armed countries there are in the world.. better yet if they're held to the country with the highest standards of access and openness... would you still be extremely worried about an iranian bomb? i mean more worried about it than the gazillions of other problems facing the world?

what would be best is a russian/iranian/north korean/pakistani/whoever the **** else alliance that used their own concessions on nuclear disarmament to commit the american lead (on this issue) west to the same bargain. remove them from the equation as they properly should be. or like store them all in a single place in the world.

i'm being dramatic. there are three possibilities. status quo. non proliferation. disarmament. we should probably aim for the last option when it comes to nukes.

another perspective for you to consider: the sanctions have strengthened the ayatollah because when an enemy attack people, they fight for nationalism and believe they need a "strong leader" or whatever. look at GWB. easing of the sanctions will open up space in people's lives they have otherwise spent trying to make a living, allowing them to get involved in government. recall the protests in 2009? those sentiments didn't disappear. perhaps they're rumbling toward eruption, or maybe they're just patient.

[IcanzIIravor]

It creates unrest, which encourages change in leadership/policies.

Like Putin will lose power if things get desperate in Russia. Even the north korean prez who has as much power as anybody can be ousted if things become dire enough.

No. You have to understand that things are very dire in North Korea, but they make sure the military is taken care of, which is why these nations have massive military forces. The training and weapons are inferior, but you get a meal and a roof over your head. At the top the ruling leaders live very well. That's why a poor country like North Korea has stayed as is for so long. They also get propped up by China. When China tires of doing so is when things will change in North Korea. Putin won't lose power because he knows who he needs to keep happy. They overspend on their military and lavish the military leaders because he knows if they are kept firmly in hand he will continue to stay in power regardless of how the civilian population suffers. You augment it with continual propaganda and you get the people to blame your enemies for their suffering.

[IcanzIIravor]

Not so much fear as skepticism. All this celebration, patting of the backs, etc., it's like we've seen this before.


http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/nevill%20chamberland_zpsiqjoerhi.jpg

Not to fear, it's all on paper.

Who is saying this will bring peace in our time? I see you and others bringing up Neville Chamberlain and it baffles me. Iran is far from Hitler's Germany and I haven't seen anything from either side trumpeting this as the final say on Iran's nuclear ambitions. It's another step on the road to either reigning in Iran or making the case to our allies that more drastic means than economic sanctions is needed should it fail.

[RidonKs]

Ridonks, Israel has a strong army because it needs to have one. Absolute need. Just today, sirens were going off in southern Israel, signifying rocket attacks or potential rocket attacks from Palestinian territory. It's something suburbanite millennial Americans simply know nothing about, as Mexico and Canada aren't constant threats to us. Israel has a population that sees war often, hence being prepared for war. Yet, nobody in their right mind is worried about Israel and their nukes. Only people obsessed with hating them or deflecting everything on to them bring it up as some kind of equalizing factor for the theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring Iranian regime to also obtain nukes. The abject rejection of skepticism I'm referring to is the dolts who can't even question Iran's potentially nefarious intentions even if they wanted to or had reason to, because it's against Obama's agreement, and backing Obama and any agreement (however weak) is truly most important to some. Personally, I think we should let Iran try to prove themselves as peaceful owners of nuclear energy, but the world powers and UN should for obvious reasons keep them on a short leash, which is what the deal hopefully is (not just on paper, but in reality), and as Obama said, they should be ready to pounce economically or militarily if need be. Understandably, BOTH staunch liberal zionists and staunch conservative zionists in Israel are highly skeptical of the deal (i.e., not just Netanyahu).
i'm not asking you to justify the strength of its military. i haven't even raised the issue of where that israeli military strength comes from, but i don't have to because everybody already knows.

i'm only suggesting that on this issue, your argument is based on a false assumption; that israel's safety is existentially threatened. it is understandable to jump to this position because of the history; christian persecution, antisemitism, the holocaust, etc. but in discussion of nuclear arms, geopolitics matter and balances of power matter and they are clear as day. israel is not remotely threatened, and the only way it can threaten itself

understand i have not once mentioned the jewish people. jewish people are under threat due to the history we all know. but israel, insofar as it exists in the middle east, is only under threat because of its own thoughtless provocations. i can source you to why i believe this if you like.

scdac, i've told you before you are a rational guy. i don't think you're being irrational here, i think you're ignoring facts that have serious consequences, historical events dating as far back as 1948 but primarily since 1967. i doubt we'll be able to reach agreement on these facts. most of the problem boils to us having this conversation on insidehoops = #1

[RidonKs]

No. You have to understand that things are very dire in North Korea, but they make sure the military is taken care of, which is why these nations have massive military forces. The training and weapons are inferior, but you get a meal and a roof over your head. At the top the ruling leaders live very well. That's why a poor country like North Korea has stayed as is for so long. They also get propped up by China. When China tires of doing so is when things will change in North Korea. Putin won't lose power because he knows who he needs to keep happy. They overspend on their military and lavish the military leaders because he knows if they are kept firmly in hand he will continue to stay in power regardless of how the civilian population suffers. You augment it with continual propaganda and you get the people to blame your enemies for their suffering.
oh look another sanctions regime that had the effect of consolidating power around the despot and devastating the humanity of the population. i suppose it's not surprising the kim's haven't lashed out with nuclear attacks on south korea.... ooooh but they're threatening! MILITARY EXERCISES WHEW! in this batshit world, putting nukes in a box somewhere and announcing it on twitter is the best political move a leader can make to stay in power.

[SCdac]

understand i have not once mentioned the jewish people. jewish people are under threat due to the history we all know. but israel, insofar as it exists in the middle east, is only under threat because of its own thoughtless provocations. i can source you to why i believe this if you like.

who says you have to mention the Jewish people? Stop being so self-righteous and naive. Iran's most powerful figure, their supreme leader and the one who signs off on any major deal, routinely espouses anti-semitic tropes and calls for the destruction of Israel. They state sponsor anti-semitic events, including perpetual holocaust denial, through out these nuclear talks they have not relented, and at the very least it needs to be addressed if we are to talk about long term peace (rather than white-washed by people like you, who think anti-semitism is "so yesterday"). That combined with everything else stated about Iran, sponsorship of Hezbolah and Hamas, and there is an obvious skepticism of any deal they have agreed to, and whether they will abide by it. Whether it'll be too late if they don't abide by it, and so on. As for that bolded statement, it's hyperbolic and is the very essence of blaming the victim, and points to the absurdity of trying to debate anything involving Israel with you. "only under threat because of it's own thoughtless provocations". Give me a break man. Let met guess, a woman wearing a short skirt to a party was her own "thoughtless provocations", right? At the very least you acknowledge that's your belief, and everybody has a right to their beliefs. But it's a twisted belief and not based in reality of the region and world. By your troubling logic, Israel being obliterated and ethnically cleansed of 6+ million Jews is "only" a response to their "thoughtless provocations"? That's so absurd, and I question what other beliefs you have... but it's whatever, agree to disagree, mate ... I have to go to work

[ThePhantomCreep]

Not so much fear as skepticism. All this celebration, patting of the backs, etc., it's like we've seen this before.


http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/nevill%20chamberland_zpsiqjoerhi.jpg

Not to fear, it's all on paper.
War-mongers pull the Neville Chamberlain card so often and so dependably, you can make a killer drinking game out of it.

[NumberSix]

ah. so you're a cheerleader for powerful interests regardless of where they stand on any issue. good to know your record of total contradiction can be completed by that statement right there.
We're talking about the United States and Iran. Yeah, I'm on the United States side. If you have some kind of problem with that, I don't know what to tell you.

But, as I previously clarified, by "Iran" I specifically mean the regime. Not the general people of Iran.

[rufuspaul]

War-mongers pull the Neville Chamberlain card so often and so dependably, you can make a killer drinking game out of it.


War monger? I never said anything about war. I don't want war. i also don't want to bend over and take a slimy Iranian dick up the ass.

[IcanzIIravor]

War monger? I never said anything about war. I don't want war. i also don't want to bend over and take a slimy Iranian dick up the ass.

This deal helps keep that Iranian dick out of your ass. We are the only ones who want to keep sanctions on Iran. If/when they **** this up then we can triumphantly approach our allies and say we all tried to help them do the right thing and they failed. Let's put the sanctions back on and oh hey we have some other ideas on tightening the screws on them as far as the few allowable shipments of goods and products to and from that did not have sanctions on them...

Look at the big picture, my good man.

[rufuspaul]

This deal helps keep that Iranian dick out of your ass. We are the only ones who want to keep sanctions on Iran. If/when they **** this up then we can triumphantly approach our allies and say we all tried to help them do the right thing and they failed. Let's put the sanctions back on and oh hey we have some other ideas on tightening the screws on them as far as the few allowable shipments of goods and products to and from that did not have sanctions on them...

Look at the big picture, my good man.


I'm looking at the big picture and also at history. I'm skeptical.

[IcanzIIravor]

I'm looking at the big picture and also at history. I'm skeptical.

Everyone is skeptical. This keeps our current coalition from falling apart and we can use this to get physical access into these facilities. This will help towards validating or disregarding current intelligence on there setup and security along with the actual capabilities. Should be fairly easy to access their claim of wanting nuclear ability for clean energy and power for the country. The equipment needed for that or weaponized capability are different in key ways. You can hide some things with 14 days notice, but hard to dismantle, move and hide everything.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Netanyhau's head is exploding right now. That makes the whole deal worth it.

[Dresta]

Neville Chamberlain gets an unfairly bad rep: it's not like Britain had any kind of military with which to oppose Hitler at that time - idiotic utopians had gutted it already in the 'never again' furore that followed ww1. Those were the really short-sighted fools, more so than Chamberlain.

[KevinNYC]

Congratulations! What was your role in the signing?
None. I haven't worked with this Secretary.

[highwhey]

Is this a Max contract? How many years/millions are we talking about here? Any player/team options?

[BlakFrankWhite]

Peace for our time

Congrats everyone :cheers:

[Godzuki]

https://adastracomics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/citation-needed.jpg

found another mention...12 months~

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-highlights/index.html

[Godzuki]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/2016-candidates-iran-deal/index.html

[Cactus-Sack]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?referrer=

Iran does not have any desire to possess an atomic weapon. To possess an atomic weapon would immediately put them at #1 on the US/Israeli list of countries in need of democracy and regime change.

Furthermore, even IF they did have one, the don't have ICBM capabilities, so they have no method of delivery.

Aaaaand why would they nuke Israel? Wouldn't that destroy a bunch of Muslim holy sites? Y'know Muslims have been fighting and dieing for control of these holy sights for a long ass time, you really think they wanna blow it all up?


I swear, you people lack critical thinking abilities.

[Godzuki]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?referrer=

Iran does not have any desire to possess an atomic weapon. To possess an atomic weapon would immediately put them at #1 on the US/Israeli list of countries in need of democracy and regime change.

Furthermore, even IF they did have one, the don't have ICBM capabilities, so they have no method of delivery.

Aaaaand why would they nuke Israel? Wouldn't that destroy a bunch of Muslim holy sites? Y'know Muslims have been fighting and dieing for control of these holy sights for a long ass time, you really think they wanna blow it all up?


I swear, you people lack critical thinking abilities.

because a nuclear weapon guarantee's sovereignty of a nation. NKorea has been scared to death the US is going to go in and take out their regime. nukes guaranteed their sovereignty. Iran is afraid of us and Israel, nukes guarantee their sovereignty.

nobody is going to really use nukes these days unless they're crazy and willing to commit suicide of their nation because every other country will turn on them. the only ones possibly crazy enough are some religious leader in power because they act on religious fanaticism.

the other thing nukes do is it makes it a lot more difficult to forcefully bully them, like Israel would have to be a lot more discreet in their sabotage of Iran's military developments.

[UK2K]

Everyone is skeptical. This keeps our current coalition from falling apart and we can use this to get physical access into these facilities. This will help towards validating or disregarding current intelligence on there setup and security along with the actual capabilities. Should be fairly easy to access their claim of wanting nuclear ability for clean energy and power for the country. The equipment needed for that or weaponized capability are different in key ways. You can hide some things with 14 days notice, but hard to dismantle, move and hide everything.
I bet they'll just pull back the curtains for us.

[UK2K]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?referrer=

Iran does not have any desire to possess an atomic weapon. To possess an atomic weapon would immediately put them at #1 on the US/Israeli list of countries in need of democracy and regime change.

Furthermore, even IF they did have one, the don't have ICBM capabilities, so they have no method of delivery.

Aaaaand why would they nuke Israel? Wouldn't that destroy a bunch of Muslim holy sites? Y'know Muslims have been fighting and dieing for control of these holy sights for a long ass time, you really think they wanna blow it all up?


I swear, you people lack critical thinking abilities.

We are gonna overthrow their government after they've attained nuclear weapons?

And you think they're just gonna sit back and watch us?

[rufuspaul]

Iran does not have any desire to possess an atomic weapon. To possess an atomic weapon would immediately put them at #1 on the US/Israeli list of countries in need of democracy and regime change.

How's that working out for North Korea?



Furthermore, even IF they did have one, the don't have ICBM capabilities, so they have no method of delivery.

They are working on ICBMs and the influx of cash and parts that will come as a result of removing sanctions will only accelerate their production.


http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/iran%20nuke_zpsh8kj5tsy.jpg

[UK2K]

How's that working out for North Korea?




They are working on ICBMs and the influx of cash and parts that will come as a result of removing sanctions will only accelerate their production.


http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/iran%20nuke_zpsh8kj5tsy.jpg

Yep, I received a letter from the DOD like a month ago telling me that my information was likely stolen.

Not only am I former military (a big chunk of the ones targeted) but I had Secret security clearance (another big chunk of the ones targeted).

But don't worry, we'll inspect the shit out of Iran :roll:

[Cactus-Sack]

N.Korea haven't gotten a dose of American democracy for the same reason they haven't starved to death, they are a Chinese protectorate, not that they have shitty non working nukes that they have no ability to even use.

Nukes don't "guarantee sovereignty," Pakistan has nukes, but that doesn't stop the US from dropping predator missiles on them.

[Godzuki]

N.Korea haven't gotten a dose of American democracy for the same reason they haven't starved to death, they are a Chinese protectorate, not that they have shitty non working nukes that they have no ability to even use.

Nukes don't "guarantee sovereignty," Pakistan has nukes, but that doesn't stop the US from dropping predator missiles on them.

we drop predator missiles on their border regions/tribes but not on their government.

basically we could forcefully replace regimes around the world a whole lot easier if they didn't have nukes, than if they did.

[Droid101]

Bunch of bed-wetting ******* posting in this thread, jesus christ.

"North Korea is coming for me! Heeelp!"

[rufuspaul]

Bunch of bed-wetting ******* posting in this thread, jesus christ.

"North Korea is coming for me! Heeelp!"


:rolleyes:

We have capitulated to a regime that supports terrorism, denies the Holocaust, has vowed repeatedly to destroy Israel, and is probably the sole reason the Assad regime is still in power in Syria. Yet the liberals are all jumping up and down with joy.

The real celebrating is going on behind closed doors in Teheran. They've got us hoodwinked and they're all about to make a ton of money.

[Cactus-Sack]

"Only reason Assad is still in power"

Assad is quite popular in Syria. The only reason his position is even remotely threatened is because the united States think its a good idea to give crazy Islamic terrorists weapons and training.

[NumberSix]

:rolleyes:

We have capitulated to a regime that supports terrorism, denies the Holocaust, has vowed repeatedly to destroy Israel, and is probably the sole reason the Assad regime is still in power in Syria. Yet the liberals are all jumping up and down with joy.

The real celebrating is going on behind closed doors in Teheran. They've got us hoodwinked and they're all about to make a ton of money.
Isn't that, Israel's problem? Why are we so obsessed with the safety of Israel? :confusedshrug:

I know they're an ally, but they can take care of themselves. We need to stop being obsessed with things that happen in others parts of the world that don't really involve us. Let people handle their own business for once.

[rufuspaul]

"Only reason Assad is still in power"

Assad is quite popular in Syria. The only reason his position is even remotely threatened is because the united States think its a good idea to give crazy Islamic terrorists weapons and training.

http://www.understandingwar.org/report/assad-regime

Article is from 2013 but the same strategy is still being employed.


[Quote]
Pro-Assad militias have become the most significant source of armed reinforcement for the Syrian Army. The mostly-Alawite shabiha mafias are led by extended members of the Assad family and have been responsible for some of the worst brutality against the Syrian opposition. The local Popular Committees draw their ranks from minorities who have armed themselves to protect their communities against opposition fighters. Both types of militia coordinate closely with and receive direct support from the regime, as well as from [B]Iran

[IcanzIIravor]

I bet they'll just pull back the curtains for us.

If they don't then the agreement falls apart and we can move to the next phase with our coalition of partners still on board with us. If the USA walked away it would have all fallen apart. We would have been the only nation to walk from the table. I can't see how that would have helped us in containing Iran.

[UK2K]

If they don't then the agreement falls apart and we can move to the next phase with our coalition of partners still on board with us. If the USA walked away it would have all fallen apart. We would have been the only nation to walk from the table. I can't see how that would have helped us in containing Iran.

You think if we walked off, the European nations wouldn't have walked with us?

I really doubt it.

But then again, you have people like this:


EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said Tuesday. She added, "Under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire nuclear weapons" and promised to release full details of the agreement on Tuesday.

Full of stupidity.

[brownmamba00]

Isn't that, Israel's problem? Why are we so obsessed with the safety of Israel? :confusedshrug:

I know they're an ally, but they can take care of themselves. We need to stop being obsessed with things that happen in others parts of the world that don't really involve us. Let people handle their own business for once.
v.true

Netanyahu can't do shit tho Obama is calling his bluff...wonder how he's gonna react to this in the Syria situation Israel will probably send in their troops.

[IcanzIIravor]

:rolleyes:

We have capitulated to a regime that supports terrorism, denies the Holocaust, has vowed repeatedly to destroy Israel, and is probably the sole reason the Assad regime is still in power in Syria. Yet the liberals are all jumping up and down with joy.

The real celebrating is going on behind closed doors in Teheran. They've got us hoodwinked and they're all about to make a ton of money.

How have we capitulated? We came to an agreement with the input of the very nations who helped us enforce the sanctions. We get access to their facilities in the agreement, which we did not have prior to the agreement. We count several nations who support terrorism as key allies in the war on terror. Who cares if they are idiots that deny the holocaust? Turkey denies the genocide they took part in. We aren't ringing our hands over that. North Korea throws out ridiculous threats too. Look at their actions and not what they yell and shout. They try to support and supply groups that will never overthrow Israel. It's a proxy struggle. Israel could bomb them today and they would take it on the chin because they are not suicidal as the media and others want us to think.

Do you know what would have happened if Assad was overthrown? You want another failed state like Iraq? All that does is help stateless terrorism. It's a helluva lot easier to contain Iran's proxies than nationless terror. Better the devil you know. Half the fools we armed to overthrow Assad are now calling themselves ISIS.

[IcanzIIravor]

You think if we walked off, the European nations wouldn't have walked with us?

I really doubt it.

But then again, you have people like this:



Full of stupidity.

Keep following the rest of the quotes from the EU. They were not walking away from the table. They wanted a deal even more than we did. If you are under the impression they do our bidding then you need to take a closer look at what is going on. People didn't want us negotiating one on one with Iran as they felt it legitimized them, which led to the current negotiations. When you involve multiple nations you're not getting your way with so many competing agendas.

[Godzuki]

If they don't then the agreement falls apart and we can move to the next phase with our coalition of partners still on board with us. If the USA walked away it would have all fallen apart. We would have been the only nation to walk from the table. I can't see how that would have helped us in containing Iran.


truth is there are no repercussions for Iran in breaking their deal. they just go back to the same sanctions we have on them now, more than likely less sanctions than now since they'll have already worked agreements with other countries for their oil, banking billions. thats probably the biggest joke about this agreement, there is no penalty for Iran in breaking their side of this agreement.

in the meantime they get tons of money back into their economy and government, while finding ways to minimize future economic sanction damage.

its a no brainer agreement for Iran. its a joke, desperation agreement for us because the far left negotiate like poohsies. its going to get a lot of oppposition in Congress even if Obama pushes it thru with his power. this could make the Obama admin and Dem's look REALLLY bad if Iran breaks it, or has nukes in the near future.

[Droid101]

there is no penalty for Iran in breaking their side of this agreement.

[citation needed]

[Dresta]

Assad would have crushed the rebellion in a very short time had foreign powers not intervened and unnecessarily turned the country (and also Iraq) into the biggest bloodbath since the second Congo war.

Assad's father only sought alliances with Iran and the USSR for reasons of consolidation and state security. The Assads are clearly tyrants, but they are also the only people that managed to turn Syria into a viable state, after decades of pan-Arabist squabbling and subservience to Egypt:


Ever since the Syrians had decided that the UAR was a mistake, reducing their country to the unbearable condition of an Egyptian colony, the pressure to find another solution had been immense. Jadid’s adventurist policy compounded the problem, contributing as it did to Israel’s devastating pre-emptive war in June 1967 and the aggravation of Syria’s vulnerability by the loss of the Golan Heights. The Syrian minister of defence at that time was Hafez al-Assad, one of Jadid’s colleagues on the Military Committee, and long a close ally. Assad decided Jadid’s policy was folly and in November 1970 he seized power, determined to make Syria a viable and defendable country, whatever it took. A central element of his strategy was building strong alliances with distant and powerful states that had no ambitions to take Syria over, among them the Soviet Union and, from 1979, Iran. At home, he sought national unity in an effort to secure consent to the authoritarian aspect of the regime.

Assad’s ‘corrective revolution’ was popular at first. He moved to the centre ground in domestic as well as foreign policy, abandoning Jadid’s doctrinaire leftism, allowing an appreciable measure of liberalisation in economic matters, courting Sunni business circles and consulting widely with Syria’s notables. He rebuilt the armed forces and other state institutions, and even allowed four other political parties of the Syrian left to operate, on condition that they did so as members of a National Progressive Front in which the Baath retained primacy. In short, Assad performed the function in the Syrian national revolution that Cromwell had performed in the English revolution: he stabilised it so that the country could be governed and defended. In the process, he induced the Syrian Baath to concentrate on making Syria itself, at last, a viable state. The retreat from the romantic pan-Arabism that had encouraged the Baath to seek the Egyptian embrace didn’t signify a repudiation of pan-Arabist principles but a new political realism. Assad’s Syria saw itself as the champion of the Arab cause, but from 1970 onwards its policy was pan-Arabism in one country.

In what sense, then, can Assad and his wing of the Baath be accused of hijacking Syrian independence? They weren’t responsible for the militarisation of Syrian political life, a process which began years before they took power. More coherently and more effectually than any of their predecessors, they sought to make independence a reality.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n14/hugh-roberts/the-hijackers

[Godzuki]

[citation needed]


what is the penalty? read through the agreement, watch what Obama has stated about the agreement, and what would happen if they broke it. there is nothing stating a penalty other than the previous sanctions being slapped back on.

if anything you'd have to give a citation to prove there is a penalty more than old sanctions because that is not evident in the terms of the agreement.

[rufuspaul]

Just listened to the president's presser. Typical Obama talking down to everyone "I know what's best because I'm smarter than you and if you weren't so stupid you would see that I'm right."

[KevinNYC]

what is the penalty? read through the agreement, watch what Obama has stated about the agreement, and what would happen if they broke it. there is nothing stating a penalty other than the previous sanctions being slapped back on.

if anything you'd have to give a citation to prove there is a penalty more than old sanctions because that is not evident in the terms of the agreement.
????

Yes, we will lift the sanctions based their compliance. If they do not comply, sanctions will return. Why is something more needed?

[Godzuki]

????

Yes, we will lift the sanctions based their compliance. If they do not comply, sanctions will return. Why is something more needed?


what contract/agreement doesn't have penalties to be a deterrent in them dishonoring the deal? none.

thats business101.

lets sum it up then. if Iran breaks the contract they're where they're at now but possibly hundreds of billions richer. the only reason we even have them by the balls right now is their economy is in desperation. it gets them out of that desperation and us nowhere but losing leverage.

[IcanzIIravor]

what contract/agreement doesn't have penalties to be a deterrent in them dishonoring the deal? none.

thats business101.

lets sum it up then. if Iran breaks the contract they're where they're at now but possibly hundreds of billions richer. the only reason we even have them by the balls right now is their economy is in desperation. it gets them out of that desperation and us nowhere but losing leverage.

There are really three options, because Iran knows we don't practice regime change if you have nukes.

1. Keep the sanctions in place as is, postponing the eventual getting of nuclear capability. Well, try to do, even though the attempt pretty much guarantees the current coalition of support we have falls apart.

2. Negotiate a treaty, get inspectors in and if Iran doesn't follow through, slap sanctions back on and keep our coalition of support together.

3. Man up and attack them now. **** there country up, turn it into a third failed state and make sure our goal is securing their nuke research sites and scooping up the scientists and other site workers.

Considering the current climate 2 was the logical choice. Feel free to give a detailed better solution.

[rufuspaul]

There are really three options, because Iran knows we don't practice regime change if you have nukes.

1. Keep the sanctions in place as is, postponing the eventual getting of nuclear capability. Well, try to do, even though the attempt pretty much guarantees the current coalition of support we have falls apart.

2. Negotiate a treaty, get inspectors in and if Iran doesn't follow through, slap sanctions back on and keep our coalition of support together.

3. Man up and attack them now. **** there country up, turn it into a third failed state and make sure our goal is securing their nuke research sites and scooping up the scientists and other site workers.

Considering the current climate 2 was the logical choice. Feel free to give a detailed better solution.

Keep the sanctions up until the people rise up. You keep saying that people can't topple a tyrannical regime but it happened in 1979.

Or, keep the sanctions up until the pressure from the people further weakens support and then we can negotiate from a position of strength instead of capitulation.

[KevinNYC]

Keep the sanctions up until the people rise up. You keep saying that people can't topple a tyrannical regime but it happened in 1979.

Or, keep the sanctions up until the pressure from the people further weakens support and then we can negotiate from a position of strength instead of capitulation.

How does this stop their nuclear program?


Do you have any more recent examples of the people toppling a regime? How did it work out?

[RidonKs]

How does this stop their nuclear program?


Do you have any more recent examples of the people toppling a regime? How did it work out?
the 79 revolution didn't come out of a sanctions regime, it was under a foreign imposed despot, which makes the analogy even weaker.

sanctions boost support for nationalist leaders. economic warfare has the same effect on victimized populations that violent warfare does. they rally around whoever is in charge because a strongman is their best bet at defeating external enemies. furthermore it's hard to engage and participate politically when you're more focused on feeding yourself and keeping your family safe.

[Derka]

Keep the sanctions up until the people rise up. You keep saying that people can't topple a tyrannical regime but it happened in 1979.

Or, keep the sanctions up until the pressure from the people further weakens support and then we can negotiate from a position of strength instead of capitulation.

Completely different situations. 1979 succeeded because the people AND the military establishment wanted the Shah gone. The Revolutionary Guard and the Basiji militias in today's Iran are absolutely loyal to Khamenei; these are two forces who have already demonstrated that they will not hesitate to kill and imprison protestors and civilians that demonstrate or push en masse for change.

[Godzuki]

watch Putin's approval ratings when oligarchs and Russia go much further in the tank. when they put all of that money into their military despite declining proceeds from oil. leaders lose support because they become the scapegoat when shit gets dire.

NKorea's upper class still lives in luxury but when they are struggling watch what happens to Kim Jong Un. china does not control NKorea like people think, they have leverage on them, but even they get very frustrated with NKorea's behavior. Kim Jong Un was on the verge of being assasinated or coupe'd by high levels of government.

No leader is going to survive a constant economic decline to the point of everyone struggling. period. its just a matter of things getting a lot worse for those leaders who are still in power with sanctions placed on them. Iran would have HAD to cave at some point when the shit hit the fan, too bad it won't reach that point with this deal.

no country is going to sit there allowing one man to sink the whole ship...

[dunksby]

Keep the sanctions up until the people rise up. You keep saying that people can't topple a tyrannical regime but it happened in 1979.

Or, keep the sanctions up until the pressure from the people further weakens support and then we can negotiate from a position of strength instead of capitulation.
As others have said it will just strengthen the regime's stance, the same realization the US and other world powers came to, you have so little faith in the US government which is ironic as they govern the greatest superpower in the world and have influence over the rest. Even if you are opposed to all Obama's administration has done for the US, you can't deny his ratification of a lot of mistakes the previous government made. Not saying I agree with all his policies but overall his administration score really high.

[NumberSix]

Just listened to the president's presser. Typical Obama talking down to everyone "I know what's best because I'm smarter than you and if you weren't so stupid you would see that I'm right."
Well, to be fair. The president has access to information that we don't.

[rufuspaul]

So sanctions don't work? Yet I just heard the president say the exact opposite today. He said sanctions allowed us to negotiate from a point of strength and that the threat of bringing sanctions back is what makes this such a good deal. But yeah, all sanctions do is strengthen the regime.

[dunksby]

So sanctions don't work? Yet I just heard the president say the exact opposite today. He said sanctions allowed us to negotiate from a point of strength and that the threat of bringing sanctions back is what makes this such a good deal. But yeah, all sanctions do is strengthen the regime.
Pick a ****ing stance and stick to it moron, if you agree with the policy and how they approached the deal then STFU and congratulate the administration on a job well done.

[rufuspaul]

Pick a ****ing stance and stick to it moron, if you agree with the policy and how they approached the deal then STFU and congratulate the administration on a job well done.

Learn to ****ing read asshole. I was responding to all the Obama dick suckers who are lecturing me that sanctions strengthen the regime when their God in Chief said the opposite. You ****ers need to quit contradicting yourselves.

[RidonKs]

So sanctions don't work? Yet I just heard the president say the exact opposite today. He said sanctions allowed us to negotiate from a point of strength and that the threat of bringing sanctions back is what makes this such a good deal. But yeah, all sanctions do is strengthen the regime.
they strengthen a regime's stranglehold over domestic politics. but they weaken a regime from the standpoint of external enemies. america succeeded in making iran capitulate on a whole bunch of its demands, but at the same time, america's expressed primary objective, stopping the iranian nuke, will still likely fail.... meaning i don't believe this is the last we'll hear of it. iran will pursue a bomb because they're afraid of attack given the recent history of two countries sandwiching it.

while obama is wrong in his logic, he is still pursuing an admirable agenda. at least compared to traditional american foreign policy.

[dunksby]

Learn to ****ing read asshole. I was responding to all the Obama dick suckers who are lecturing me that sanctions strengthen the regime when their God in Chief said the opposite. You ****ers need to quit contradicting yourselves.
Mother****er you are a walking contradiction :roll:

[rufuspaul]

they strengthen a regime's stranglehold over domestic politics. but they weaken a regime from the standpoint of external enemies. america succeeded in making iran capitulate on a whole bunch of its demands, but at the same time, america's expressed primary objective, stopping the iranian nuke, will still likely fail.... meaning i don't believe this is the last we'll hear of it. iran will pursue a bomb because they're afraid of attack given the recent history of two countries sandwiching it.

while obama is wrong in his logic, he is still pursuing an admirable agenda. at least compared to traditional american foreign policy.

Now that is making a little more sense. I guess time will tell once the money starts flowing in. One thing I'm worried about is that there is a lot of economic opportunity for the other countries in the coalition and that if Iran cheats, which they will, and gets caught these countries might not be so keen on bringing sanctions back.

[dunksby]

Dresta is in red, his reps are in gray.

[rufuspaul]

Mother****er you are a walking contradiction :roll:


Example? I think my opinion on this matter is pretty clear. Hint: I think it makes the U.S. look like a little biotch

[RidonKs]

Now that is making a little more sense. I guess time will tell once the money starts flowing in. One thing I'm worried about is that there is a lot of economic opportunity for the other countries in the coalition and that if Iran cheats, which they will, and gets caught these countries might not be so keen on bringing sanctions back.
iran has potential to be rich and powerful because it thinks of itself as an international leader. this is why it has been so hostile to the united states, compared to other countries in the region with a less potent history. well i made that up but its a reasonable suspicion. it does have a large population, it's got plenty of resources, it controls major trade routes, and the people there are really pissed off... by no means only at the united states. expats are angry about the situation there at least.

i think you're right about european governments and business. apathetic towards nuclear weapons and interested in trade.

the hope is that there will be internal revolt as the country begins to flourish again economically. part of the reason the ayatollah has pushed the weapons program so hard is because he knows the pursuit of a nuke keeps him in power and acquisition of one virtually solidifies it. it's a major victory not just for americans but potentially for other political factions in iran.

i'm not so afraid of iran using nuclear weapons. i am afraid of iran threatening to do too much under the 'security blanket' of its nuclear weapons which don't necessarily make it so secure.

[dunksby]

Example? I think my opinion on this matter is pretty clear. Hint: I think it makes the U.S. look like a little biotch
So should the US continue to sanction and then make a deal? Because that's what exactly happened but you just disagree because you weren't asked about it? I mean did you even follow the negotiations? Because I hav, everyllittle step they took to get there and it was a slow and grinned out negotiations. But naysayers like you don't even know what the deal is all about and keep saying Iran is just going to produce nukes without us knowing and so on. This deal took a lot of turns for the bad, almost fell through completely at times but all parties involved had the will to get it done. This is as air tight as it gets and leaves no room for Iran to wiggle out of it and if they break promise they will be caught cheating. Go research about the deal before you judge it.

[dunksby]

And to the white text: the US gets a lot of bad cred worldwide but being a bitch? It's the opposite actually since many think that most of the world is America's bitch. You prove my point though, y'all don't give the government no credit.

[Nanners]

One nice thing about this deal is that Iran will be able to put their oil back on the global market, which is a good thing for a variety reasons - reduced gas prices for american consumers, reduced oil revenue for asshole saudis, reduced profit potential of canadian tar sands and american fracking operations.... a win-win-win

[RidonKs]

One great thing about this deal is that Iran will be able to put their oil back on the global market, which is a good thing for a variety reasons - reduced gas prices for american consumers, reduced oil revenue for asshole saudis, reduced profit potential of canadian tar sands and american fracking operations.... a win-win-win
more emissions from nonrenewable fuel we should probably leave in the ground... lol

[Nanners]

more emissions from nonrenewable fuel we should probably leave in the ground... lol

yes we probably should leave it in the ground... but thats a whole different discussion :oldlol:

[KingBeasley08]

Also if Iran's oil gets back into the market, Russia's economy tanks even more. I wouldn't even be surprised if we made this deal for that purpose. Use Israel and Iran as pawns in a much bigger game

Obama's been straight up shitting on Putin the past year, holy shit :lol

[Dresta]

Dresta is in red, his reps are in gray.
lol, where did this come from? Seems completely irrelevant to everything else in thread (someone delete a post or something?).

Some losers do go around here negging people and signing my name, as if getting ISHs peepz to dislike me makes their day or something :lol.

[dunksby]

lol, where did this come from? Seems completely irrelevant to everything else in thread (someone delete a post or something?).

Some losers do go around here negging people and signing my name, as if getting ISHs peepz to dislike me makes their day or something :lol.
Some loser has been at it for a long time now, dude can't just post whatever he wants to say and nneeds to feel more anonymous as if posting online under a handle is not enough :lol So yeah I was addressing him because I knew that basement dweller was reading the thread.

[Dresta]

Aww, that makes me feel a little special :oldlol: - can only be amused by people having secret little internet vendettas against me.

"I'll bring the bastard down, guffaw, guffaw..."

[Hawker]

One nice thing about this deal is that Iran will be able to put their oil back on the global market, which is a good thing for a variety reasons - reduced gas prices for american consumers, reduced oil revenue for asshole saudis, reduced profit potential of canadian tar sands and american fracking operations.... a win-win-win

Price of oil is getting killed at the moment so american companies are operating very lean and getting rid of a lot of fat to make profit and oil production hasn't stopped in the US. It's increased by about a million bbls of day resulting in a decrease of imported oil from OPEC to the gulf. The amount of drilling has decreased though but has increased for the past two weeks.

Production decrease may happen eventually but it will take some time and it will be interesting to see what happens. This could bring prices up and make it more profitable or maybe companies just won't see it as economical and stop producing as much. As a result, this could increase reliance on foreign oil.

So in your situation, you will probably see an increase in reliance on foreign oil, if you're ok with that. The US government should begin to allow US companies to export crude oil as that could be economical at this price.

I've always been amused about your irrational hate for fracking btw...so many jobs have been lost (by hardworking americans, not "asshole, evil" executives who will do anything for profit). Also tons of studies out there saying fracking is safe. There are issues, no doubt, but those issues have nothing to do with the actual fracking process. Long hours, safety, land, effect on local communities due too boom/bust and lack of financial education for the laborers are the main ones.

If this happened in any other industry, there would've been huge news about these layoffs and that something should be done.

[KevinNYC]

Originally Posted by rufuspaul
Example? I think my opinion on this matter is pretty clear. Hint: I think it makes the U.S. look like a little biotchIs this your stance on any negotiations?

[Hawker]

As for Iran, I'm learning more and more about it but reasons like supporting terrorism and possibility of Israel being destroyed aren't legitimate greivances to me. The US shouldn't care about these issues and the US has supported terrorism in the past.

[KevinNYC]

Interesting graphic at armscontrolwonk.com
http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/7779/iran-deal

before and after the deal.

[Nanners]

I've always been amused about your irrational hate for fracking btw...so many jobs have been lost (by hardworking americans, not "asshole, evil" executives who will do anything for profit). Also tons of studies out there saying fracking is safe. There are issues, no doubt, but those issues have nothing to do with the actual fracking process. Long hours, safety, land, effect on local communities due too boom/bust and lack of financial education for the laborers are the main ones.


I dont hate the actual fracking process. I have no real problem with fracturing some rocks thousands of feet below the surface of the earth, I just hate all the bullshit that comes along with it - the inevitable corner cutting with wastewater disposal, the shoddy and leaky well casings, the thousands of methane flares... etc.

I certainly dont give a shit if people in oil and gas lose their jobs. Maybe these people shouldnt have pursued careers in a boom/bust field based on extracting a finite resource.

[Hawker]

I dont hate the actual fracking process. I have no real problem with fracturing some rocks thousands of feet below the surface of the earth, I just hate all the bullshit that comes along with it - the inevitable corner cutting with wastewater disposal, the shoddy and leaky well casings, the thousands of methane flares... etc.

I certainly dont give a shit if people in oil and gas lose their jobs. Maybe these people shouldnt have pursued careers in a boom/bust field based on extracting a finite resource.

I like how you say finite like it won't exist in the near future as that's not the case at all. And it's technically not finite...just takes a long process for fossil fuels to form.

And do you think these people went into it knowing the field wouldn't be sustainable? The financial education is what I'm referring to. At the time of this oil boom, there weren't really any other jobs available. America was in a recession. Why do you think tons of people moved to these boom areas? No doubt these employees realize it now though.

I could apply your logic to most jobs. McDonalds workers on strike? Should've pursued a better career choice. Don't like working for the minimum wage? Find a better paying job. There are humans just like you and it's unfortunate that it comes with a stigma but I can't be mad. Most people don't understand the process and their relationship with oil starts and ends at the pump.

[KevinNYC]

First the nuke deal and then this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFPmjxkNRmA&feature=youtu.be&t=85

[bladefd]

Keep the sanctions up until the people rise up. You keep saying that people can't topple a tyrannical regime but it happened in 1979.

Or, keep the sanctions up until the pressure from the people further weakens support and then we can negotiate from a position of strength instead of capitulation.

Do you realize that the only people the sanctions hurt are those very people who you say would stand up? They get hurt to the point that they cannot stand up to their own government. It becomes the chicken or the egg issue.

Sanctions hurt everyone in a country, but the lower and middle class families much more and it also makes it harder for them to stand up to their own government as they can barely feed their families. Upper class people have fewer reasons to stand up to their government that might throw them in jail and hurt their wealth.

Besides, you are asking for a potential bloodshed as the Iran government doesn't care about their citizens.

[bladefd]

I like how you say finite like it won't exist in the near future as that's not the case at all. And it's technically not finite...just takes a long process for fossil fuels to form.


You have to drill deeper and deeper to get to oil wells. There are very few oil wells that are easy to get to and with enough oil to be worth it. I think that is what nanners meant by finite.

Shallow wells in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran are already drying up so you have to get farther and farther into deeper oil wells in deep waters. Plenty of oil wells exist in the Arctic and tar sands but too dangerous to open those up.

Some fracking is okay but definitely not widespread fracking. It does bring up too many dangerous substances and wastes too much water.

[Cactus-Sack]

"This deal makes murica look like a bitch"

Yeah, everyone in the world thinks America is doveish all of a sudden, despite the three theatres of war and one proxy war the united states is currently involved in, and the past 70+ years of continuous warfare.........

[rufuspaul]

Besides, you are asking for a potential bloodshed as the Iran government doesn't care about their citizens.


Everyone in this thread is saying I shouldn't care about what happens to the citizens of countries (namely Israel) in the region so why should I care about Iran? Do you care about how a suddenly rich and powerful Iran will further aid in the killing of innocent Syrians?

I keep hearing "win-win". Yeah it's a win-win for Iran.

[dunksby]

Everyone in this thread is saying I shouldn't care about what happens to the citizens of countries (namely Israel) in the region so why should I care about Iran? Do you care about how a suddenly rich and powerful Iran will further aid in the killing of innocent Syrians?

I keep hearing "win-win". Yeah it's a win-win for Iran.
Iran is actually the only country fighting alongside Syrian and Iraqi forces against ISIS and other savages in the region gruesomely killing innocent civilians. Other countries in the region such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are responsible for creating and supporting the terrorists,why is it so hard to grasp I dunno.

[rufuspaul]

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20150716_Obama_s_reckless_gamble.html

Here's a nice summation of how I feel about empowering Iran.



The shift has been remarkable. Obama has gone from demanding in 2011 that Assad "step aside" to playing down, earlier this year, the Syrian ruler's use of chlorine gas, since it has "historically not been listed as a chemical weapon." The fragile nuclear talks could not be jostled at apparently any cost.

For years, the Sunni powers called for more aggressive American leadership in Syria. But U.S. support for proxies, such as the Free Syrian Army, proved minimal and unreliable, pushing many recruits toward better-armed, more radical alternatives. Now Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have given up on a U.S.-led response, throwing their support behind a Sunni rebel alliance that includes the Nusra Front, a local al-Qaeda affiliate.

Bystander status looks like America's future in much of the Middle East. The economic payout of the nuclear deal will fund Iranian military activities across the region. And haggling over implementation will continue indefinitely. Just as Obama has been loath to throw away the possibility of a deal by getting tough with Iran, he will be loath to throw away the reality of a deal by getting tough with Iran. And the economic pressure that has influenced Iranian behavior in the past will be gone, with no realistic hope for a "snapback" of sanctions.

The deal amounts to the gradual passing of a leadership baton to one of the worst regimes in the world in the hope that its nature will change. Obama has bet the future of the Middle East, and America's influence in the region, on a play of the lottery.

[IcanzIIravor]

Everyone in this thread is saying I shouldn't care about what happens to the citizens of countries (namely Israel) in the region so why should I care about Iran? Do you care about how a suddenly rich and powerful Iran will further aid in the killing of innocent Syrians?

I keep hearing "win-win". Yeah it's a win-win for Iran.

It is okay to care about Israel. They aren't the only people you should be focused on though. We still supply billions in aid and weapons to Israel. We still shield them in the UN. We still lead the way in helping them fight and contain their enemies. The world is a big place. There are other nations besides Israel to also care about. Iran is helping prop up the legitimate government of Syria. Are you forgetting that? If that government fails you will then have yet another failed state in the region. How is that in Israels interest? They know what they have when dealing with the Assad regime. You prefer the unknown with the weapon caches and chemical caches in that country?

[rufuspaul]

It is okay to care about Israel. They aren't the only people you should be focused on though. We still supply billions in aid and weapons to Israel. We still shield them in the UN. We still lead the way in helping them fight and contain their enemies. The world is a big place. There are other nations besides Israel to also care about. Iran is helping prop up the legitimate government of Syria. Are you forgetting that? If that government fails you will then have yet another failed state in the region. How is that in Israels interest? They know what they have when dealing with the Assad regime. You prefer the unknown with the weapon caches and chemical caches in that country?

From the same op-ed in my last post:



Assad, after a series of military reverses, leads a battered and diminished army, sustained only by Iranian cash and supplies. His collapse - now a distinct possibility - might set off a race for Damascus between al-Qaeda and Islamic State. And the United States - having betrayed its proxies and alienated its allies - would merely be a bystander as a terrorist flag is raised over the capital of a ruined and wretched country.


Syria aside, we've also succeeded in pissing off the Saudis and just about everyone else in the region. But it's a win-win.



There is no evidence that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a Gorbachev-like figure. Iran gives every indication of being an aggressive, revolutionary power. It is rallying, arming, and directing military forces in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. The reported agreement to partially lift the arms embargo against Iran - a dramatic concession - must seem to America's Sunni allies and partners like de facto U.S. recognition of Iranian spheres of military influence across the region. Because it is.

[UK2K]

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20150716_Obama_s_reckless_gamble.html

Here's a nice summation of how I feel about empowering Iran.

How stupid are we?

[QUOTE]National Security Adviser Susan Rice said[B]

[IcanzIIravor]

From the same op-ed in my last post:




Syria aside, we've also succeeded in pissing off the Saudis and just about everyone else in the region. But it's a win-win.

A number of these factions sided with ISIS. We helped arm them thinking it was better to overthrow Assad. What the public fails to realize is none of these factions had the power to feel the vacuum once the Assad regime fell. So we get a power vacuum and a even more destructive civil war. Short term it helps Israel, but long term I can't see how a failed state in Syria helps Israel. It helps AQ, ISIS and other terror factions. Assad and company are once again cold war relics. You can control and predict state sponsored terror. You can't control and predict terror that is not state sponsored.

[rufuspaul]

A number of these factions sided with ISIS. We helped arm them thinking it was better to overthrow Assad. What the public fails to realize is none of these factions had the power to feel the vacuum once the Assad regime fell. So we get a power vacuum and a even more destructive civil war. Short term it helps Israel, but long term I can't see how a failed state in Syria helps Israel. It helps AQ, ISIS and other terror factions. Assad and company are once again cold war relics. You can control and predict state sponsored terror. You can't control and predict terror that is not state sponsored.


Debatable, but certainly not by appearing weak. Look, it's obvious Obama dropped the ball on Syria (certainly not the only one, but still). Now he's willing to hand the whole region over to Iran and let them deal with it.

Anyways, I'm done arguing. You, Ridonks and a few others have made some valid, educated points and have given me food for thought. Yet, I still don't like the deal and I don't see my view changing any time soon.

It's pointless anyway. Congress might vote this thing down but they won't be able to override the veto. Congrats Obama, you got your legacy.

[IcanzIIravor]

Debatable, but certainly not by appearing weak. Look, it's obvious Obama dropped the ball on Syria (certainly not the only one, but still). Now he's willing to hand the whole region over to Iran and let them deal with it.

Anyways, I'm done arguing. You, Ridonks and a few others have made some valid, educated points and have given me food for thought. Yet, I still don't like the deal and I don't see my view changing any time soon.

It's pointless anyway. Congress might vote this thing down but they won't be able to override the veto. Congrats Obama, you got your legacy.

Fair enough. I just will never understand how we appear weak when we have Iran sandwiched between Afghanistan and Iraq. Two avenues we can go into that country from and we can easily blockade their ports. If that is weak what do we need to do to appear strong?

[rufuspaul]

Fair enough. I just will never understand how we appear weak when we have Iran sandwiched between Afghanistan and Iraq. Two avenues we can go into that country from and we can easily blockade their ports. If that is weak what do we need to do to appear strong?


Hmmm

[KevinNYC]

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20150716_Obama_s_reckless_gamble.html

Here's a nice summation of how I feel about empowering Iran.

Michael Gerson should know a thing or two about reckless gambles and empowering Iran, especially since as Bush's chief speechwriter he was in charge of crafting the rhetoric that helped scare our country into a massive foreign policy blunder that still reverberates today. His work-- saying opponents of regime change were waiting for a "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud"--helped shutdown necessary debate and presented a gamble of immense proportions as necessary and true. His work-labelling Iraq as Evil and therefore beyond talking to--helped Iran get much closer to a bomb and therefore negotiate a better deal.


Max Fisher: Now that we're here, what grade would you give it?

Jeffrey Lewis: I would give it an A.

Max Fisher: A solid A!

Jeffrey Lewis: I mean, it's hard. There are two pieces to this.

Compared to the deal we could have gotten 10 years ago, if the Bush administration hadn't had their heads up their butts? Not an A! That would have been a great deal!

I remember when they had 164 centrifuges, in one cascade, and I said, "You know what, we should let them keep it in warm standby. No uranium, just gas." And people were like, "You're givin' away the store!"

Max Fisher: We would kill for that now! They got cut down to 5,000 centrifuges, and it's a huge deal.

Jeffrey Lewis: Exactly. And that's been the fundamental experience of this for me. Every six months, the deal we could have gotten six months before looks better.

The nuclear deal we just got is a very good one and is earning praise from a range of arms control experts. What is does not do and what is was never intended to do is solve all our problems with Iran or within the Middle East.


It exceeds or is directly in line with everything in the US fact sheet that was put out [in April]. I thought the US fact sheet was a great deal, and I think this is a good deal.

When I say that, I mean that it's a very good nonproliferation deal. If you want it to focus on the problems with Iran running around in Iraq or Syria, this deal is not for you. If you are focused on the nuclear issue specifically, it's a very good deal.

It makes the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon in the next 25 years extremely remote. It would require a Herculean effort of subterfuge and clandestine activity.

It's important that it puts inspections in place. Inspections are not always designed to catch you red-handed but rather to elicit a response about what it is that you are up to. The threshold for pain is so high that you don't want to break the rules, and I think this puts that in place while also making it extremely difficult to cheat

[KevinNYC]

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Hmmm

[KevinNYC]

Wow, for evidence against the deal, Gerson cites Sen. Lindsay Graham, our nation's preeminent Congressional bedwetter.

Also Gerson is worried about this deal and how it affects Iran's strength especially against the Sunni countries in the region, but nothing has given more power to the Shiites than invading Iraq and replacing its Sunni leader with a Shiite, a Shiite from the Islamic Dawa Party, a Shiite leader not only funded by Iran but someone who lived in Teheran and Damascus and "developed close ties with Hezbollah and particularly with Iran"

[rufuspaul]

Wow, for evidence against the deal, Gerson cites Sen. Lindsay Graham, our nation's preeminent Congressional bedwetter.

Also Gerson is worried about this deal and how it affects Iran's strength especially against the Sunni countries in the region, but nothing has given more power to the Shiites than invading Iraq and replacing its Sunni leader with a Shiite, a Shiite from the Islamic Dawa Party, a Shiite leader not only funded by Iran but someone who lived in Teheran and Damascus and "developed close ties with Hezbollah and particularly with Iran"


Yeah it's all Bush's fault. :rolleyes: If you think that gave Iran power just wait and see once the $$$ flood gates open.

I knew you would respond by attacking Gerson. You libs do it all the time. Attack the messenger. An opinion can't have any validity if it comes from anyone not on the left.

[Droid101]

Yeah it's all Bush's fault. :rolleyes: If you think that gave Iran power just wait and see once the $$$ flood gates open.

I knew you would respond by attacking Gerson. You libs do it all the time. Attack the messenger. An opinion can't have any validity if it comes from anyone not on the left.
Are you saying Lindsay Graham is a credible source?

[nightprowler10]

Example? I think my opinion on this matter is pretty clear. Hint: I think it makes the U.S. look like a little biotch
While I share your concerns that Iran will be doing a lot behind closed and will be doing it better now, your white text is just ridiculous and tells me that you have no idea how the US is seen in the world.

[rufuspaul]

While I share your concerns that Iran will be doing a lot behind closed and will be doing it better now, your white text is just ridiculous and tells me that you have no idea how the US is seen in the world.


I wasn't really serious, hence the white text. I just put that in there to get Dunksby going. Bottom line: I have serious doubts about this agreement. I'll end it at that as it's a completely moot point right now. Congrats to Obama and all his cheerleaders here. You got what you want.

[IcanzIIravor]

Yeah it's all Bush's fault. :rolleyes: If you think that gave Iran power just wait and see once the $$$ flood gates open.

I knew you would respond by attacking Gerson. You libs do it all the time. Attack the messenger. An opinion can't have any validity if it comes from anyone not on the left.

Pointing out the guy is a hawk puts some perspective on what he is saying. It doesn't mean he does not have valid points though. This is a clash between hawks and people who take a more moderate approach to the Middle East. Hawks see it strictly as a black and white issue, while people who are cautiously optmistic about the agreement understand that while Iran will most likely break the deal, this is the best option to keep the alliance in tact.

The best thing that could happen for Iran is the USA to be the only nation to have walked from the table. Iran will need years, not months to recover from the sanctions. They will have to walk a fine line to be at a point they could thumb their noses and it not immediately tank their shitty economy. Gives us time to go in and verify or change our previous assessments, done through limited intel and speculation. It also gives us time to formulate contingency plans with our allies for when Iran does violate the agreement.

[rufuspaul]

Are you saying Lindsay Graham is a credible source?


Not a fan of the Senator from the state below mine but I'd say he's more credible than you.

[rufuspaul]

Pointing out the guy is a hawk puts some perspective on what he is saying. It doesn't mean he does not have valid points though. This is a clash between hawks and people who take a more moderate approach to the Middle East. Hawks see it strictly as a black and white issue, while people who are cautiously optmistic about the agreement understand that while Iran will most likely break the deal, this is the best option to keep the alliance in tact.

The best thing that could happen for Iran is the USA to be the only nation to have walked from the table. Iran will need years, not months to recover from the sanctions. They will have to walk a fine line to be at a point they could thumb their noses and it not immediately tank their shitty economy. Gives us time to go in and verify or change our previous assessments, done through limited intel and speculation. It also gives us time to formulate contingency plans with our allies for when Iran does violate the agreement.


You've made some well thought out, valid points without resorting to insults and baiting. I appreciate that. :cheers:

[Droid101]

Not a fan of the Senator from the state below mine but I'd say he's more credible than you.
You'd be wrong about that.

[IcanzIIravor]

You've made some well thought out, valid points without resorting to insults and baiting. I appreciate that. :cheers:

Just remember the long game. Iran wants nukes as a security blanket from us doing to them what we did to Iran. We don't want them getting nukes, but we aren't in a position to overthrow their government at this time. In order for us to ever get in that position without trying to go in by ourselves we need to keep out allies on-board with us. At the moment they want to negotiate and get eyes on Iran's capabilities. Only option is to negotiate as best a deal as we can when everyone we need wants a deal. If Iran breaks the deal we have a decided advantage because we did give them this chance. Just imagine how worse Iraq would have been if we went into it without the UK, Australia and others helping out. Our allies play a HUGE role in our flexibility.

[rufuspaul]

you watch way too much fox news, dumb ass senior citizen


Not at all true. I never watch Fox News and can't stand to hear it when I'm in a business that has it on. I don't like to be yelled at, lectured to. Believe it or not I get most of my news from PBS, NPR and print and online newspapers. I'm also a fan of Al Jazeera America. :lol

[Dresta]

How stupid are we?



We are funding terrorism. That used to be called treason.
:oldlol:

The US has been funding terrorism whenever it has suited them for decades: in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, in Albania, in Bosnia, in Libya, in Syria, not to mention all the enabling of Saudi Arabia, where American money has gone to fund their cultivation of grassroots Wahhabism. It is pretty much the MO of the CIA.

This inevitably ended up biting the US in the arse, as anyone with a brain should have known it would from the start.

From 1999:


Other members of al-Quaeda remain overseas. Afghan veterans now linked to bin Laden have been traced by investigators to Pakistan, East Africa, Albania, Chechnya, Algeria, France, the US and Britain.

At least one of the kidnappers in Yemen was reported to have fought in Afghanistan and to be linked to al-Quaeda. Despite reports that bin Laden was effectively funded by the Americans, it is impossible to gauge how much American aid he received. He was not a major figure in the Afghan war. Most American weapons, including Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, were channelled by the Pakistanis to the Hezb-i-Islami faction of the mujahideen led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Bin Laden was only loosely connected with the group, serving under another Hezb-i-Islami commander known as Engineer Machmud. However, bin Laden's Office of Services, set up to recruit overseas for the war, received some US cash.

But according to one American official, concentrating on bin Laden is a mistake. 'The point is not the individuals,' he said last week. 'The point is that we created a whole cadre of trained and motivated people who turned against us. It's a classic Frankenstein's monster situation.'

Others point out that the military contribution of the 'Arabs', as the overseas volunteers were known, was relatively small. 'The fighting was done by the Afghans and most of them went back to their fields when Kabul fell to the mujahideen,' said Kamaal Khan, a Pakistani defence analyst. 'Ironically, the bulk of American aid went to the least effective fighters, who turned most strongly to bite the hand that fed them.'


http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/17/yemen.islam


And still, despite all this, and despite 9/11, the imbeciles in charge have not learnt their lesson, repeating the same mistakes in Libya and Syria - utter clowns they are (unless the aim is actually to make the US more of a target, and an easier one too, so as to justify the ubiquitous surveillance and other usurpations of privacy and individual liberty they have dragged through the legislature over the past decade and a half).

I'd like to believe that it's just a remarkable amount of ineptitude, and not something more sinister, but that is looking less and less likely, especially considering the recently released US intelligence documents that considered the rise of Islamic terrorism in Syria to be a strategic asset.

[Patrick Chewing]

Believe it or not I get most of my news from PBS, NPR and print and online newspapers. I'm also a fan of Al Jazeera America. :lol


https://media0.giphy.com/media/gl0qCmIqfEJoc/200_s.gif

[rufuspaul]

Dick Cheney has to be the most shameless politician in history.


http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/thumbs%20up_zps4ukq8jxb.jpg

[UK2K]

Just remember the long game. Iran wants nukes as a security blanket from us doing to them what we did to Iran. We don't want them getting nukes, but we aren't in a position to overthrow their government at this time. In order for us to ever get in that position without trying to go in by ourselves we need to keep out allies on-board with us. At the moment they want to negotiate and get eyes on Iran's capabilities. Only option is to negotiate as best a deal as we can when everyone we need wants a deal. If Iran breaks the deal we have a decided advantage because we did give them this chance. Just imagine how worse Iraq would have been if we went into it without the UK, Australia and others helping out. Our allies play a HUGE role in our flexibility.

We don't need to negotiate to do that.

That's where the whole argument falls apart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

We know what they have, so thats obviously not the motivation behind the deal.

If you read up on the story of how this virus was implanted in Iran's computer system, it really is fascinating, and shows Israel is way better at this sort of stuff than we are.

http://www.businessinsider.com/stuxnet-was-far-more-dangerous-than-previous-thought-2013-11

^^ Good article, but I watched a documentary on it. Really, it's impressive.

[bladefd]

Everyone in this thread is saying I shouldn't care about what happens to the citizens of countries (namely Israel) in the region so why should I care about Iran? Do you care about how a suddenly rich and powerful Iran will further aid in the killing of innocent Syrians?

I keep hearing "win-win". Yeah it's a win-win for Iran.

Do you have any idea what would happen if Iran opened up their nuclear bomb program? If they were to open it in hiding, where would they open up the program?

You don't seem to understand the enrichment process uranium/plutonium has to go through and purification. Nuclear bomb grade uranium requires 90% enrichment while nuclear powerplant is 2% enrichment. HUGE difference in the 2, and it requires huge facilities. You need massive amounts of water to purify and enrich even 1 pound at Uranium-235 at 90% levels. These facilities would be instant red flag - remember the deal says that IAEA can do inspections in ANY FACILITY including military facilities.

IAEA and all the nations will have the power to inspect any mines, enrichment facilities, anything in Iran. As an extra, Iran must also turn over all book records of past, present, and future of imports/exports of anything that is necessary to make a nuclear bomb.

The moment they find something is the moment that the deal shuts down, and Iran goes back to sanctions. I expect sanctions to be significantly worse if the deal falls through by Iran's doing.

I still am waiting to hear a better solution from you. Is it continuing sanctions forever? Maybe going to war with them? USA and all our allies, including Russia/China, began heavy sanctions against Iran in 2006. 9 years of heavy sanctions (USA had sanctions on Iran since the late 70s and very heavy sanctions since 95) so you can't say "We didn't wait long enough"

[ThePhantomCreep]

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/thumbs%20up_zps4ukq8jxb.jpgAre you referring to the Congressional Republicans who spent billions in a foolish and futile attempt to impeach Clinton over a BJ? Yeah, they were asshats.

I think it's great that Cheney, one of the scumbags responsible for the disastrous Iraq War, is criticizing the soundness of this foreign policy decision. It's like a seal of approval that it was a good deal. :cheers:

[dunksby]

Do you have any idea what would happen if Iran opened up their nuclear bomb program? If they were to open it in hiding, where would they open up the program?

You don't seem to understand the enrichment process uranium/plutonium has to go through and purification. Nuclear bomb grade uranium requires 90% enrichment while nuclear powerplant is 2% enrichment. HUGE difference in the 2, and it requires huge facilities. You need massive amounts of water to purify and enrich even 1 pound at Uranium-235 at 90% levels. These facilities would be instant red flag - remember the deal says that IAEA can do inspections in ANY FACILITY including military facilities.

IAEA and all the nations will have the power to inspect any mines, enrichment facilities, anything in Iran. As an extra, Iran must also turn over all book records of past, present, and future of imports/exports of anything that is necessary to make a nuclear bomb.

The moment they find something is the moment that the deal shuts down, and Iran goes back to sanctions. I expect sanctions to be significantly worse if the deal falls through by Iran's doing.

I still am waiting to hear a better solution from you. Is it continuing sanctions forever? Maybe going to war with them? USA and all our allies, including Russia/China, began heavy sanctions against Iran in 2006. 9 years of heavy sanctions (USA had sanctions on Iran since the late 70s and very heavy sanctions since 95) so you can't say "We didn't wait long enough"
Good post, repped.

[IcanzIIravor]

We don't need to negotiate to do that.

That's where the whole argument falls apart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

We know what they have, so thats obviously not the motivation behind the deal.

If you read up on the story of how this virus was implanted in Iran's computer system, it really is fascinating, and shows Israel is way better at this sort of stuff than we are.

http://www.businessinsider.com/stuxnet-was-far-more-dangerous-than-previous-thought-2013-11

^^ Good article, but I watched a documentary on it. Really, it's impressive.

That happened in 2010 and even did we were left speculating on the damage it caused. Now we can get eyes into these facilities for a more accurate assessment. We also get to verify any physical changes made on the inside of these facilities, which also helps towards any future campaigns to target them.

[Dresta]

Are you referring to the Congressional Republicans who spent billions in a foolish and futile attempt to impeach Clinton over a BJ? Yeah, they were asshats.

I think it's great that Cheney, one of the scumbags responsible for the disastrous Iraq War, is criticizing the soundness of this foreign policy decision. It's like a seal of approval that it was a good deal. :cheers:
It wasn't over a bj you thick partisan piece of shite: it was about his committing perjury and obstruction of justice, not to mention his habit of abusive behaviour towards women, and then, when they dared to go public, hiring dodgy people to scare them off or ruin their reputations. Oh, and he also unilaterally rocketed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan (the only one in the region) in order to distract from the Lewinsky case.

Nor were Republicans particularly keen on impeachment: Gingrich and Bill Archer (two of the most powerful Republicans in the House) were almost perpetually in his corner, and Clinton was great at buying Republican votes by simply giving them what they wanted policy-wise. And yet not a single Democrat broke from the herd and voted him guilty, in a remarkably shameful willingness to ignore facts for the sake of partisanship (he was, by the facts, as obviously and provably guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice as someone could be). I wonder, based on your comments, whether you were even alive during Clinton's presidency?

What morons like you don't realise is that Reagan, Bush Snr, Clinton, Bush Jnr, and Obama, all have far more in common than otherwise (in their actions; their rhetoric differs, which is what confuses poor souls like yourself). Actually, Clinton was the only one to cut spending and the welfare state, things that if done by a Republican, you'd be calling them evil - when will you learn to think for yourself you sad little sheep-man?

As for Cheney: what he thinks about this deal is completely irrelevant to whether it was a 'good deal' or not. Personally, i don't really give a shit: America has far bigger domestic problems to resolve, which, if they continue to be ignored, will make caring about Iran an irrelevancy. America needs to sort itself out, pronto.

[poido123]

*Iran needs funds injection to fast track their nuclear ambitions*

Obama bends over and tells Iran to be good little boys and play nice for 12 months.

Iran laughs at america's stupidity and agrees to "be good", even though nothing has been done to destroy the facilities or open up everything to the inspectors.

Either the American government fully believes that Iran has changed its ways or Obama is giving Iran a loaded weapon for later on.

I don't know what possibly could go wrong with giving a major injection of funds to a known terrorist funding country who so happens to have gone on record for hating America and Israel.

Seems obvious that Obama is evil. Can you guys get rid of him somehow before January 2017?

Everything he does supports the Muslim cause. Get him out!

[LJJ]

I'm also a fan of Al Jazeera America. :lol

Well there you go. Al Jazeera is a dumb propaganda rag even worse than FOX news, and making hit pieces on Iran is one of their core tasks as a propaganda outlet. Their style might be less abrasive but their content is every bit as stupid.


I don't know what to make of this deal. Iran is a silly country. At the end of the day I think the people hit the hardest by the economic sanctions are the anti-establishment people in Iran. That's the idea behind it, isn't it. "If we make things hard on the people we like, there might be a revolt". But for many reasons this isn't going to work in Iran, so after a long time of economic sanctions it's not bad to try another approach. With this deal Iran isn't going to be making any nuclear weapons any time soon, which is good. Iranian business will be doing better, which is good. And Iran did actually bend over pretty deep to get it, which is also good. How nice they will actually play and what effect it has on the political climate in Iran we will have to see.

[KingBeasley08]

*Iran needs funds injection to fast track their nuclear ambitions*

Obama bends over and tells Iran to be good little boys and play nice for 12 months.

Iran laughs at america's stupidity and agrees to "be good", even though nothing has been done to destroy the facilities or open up everything to the inspectors.

Either the American government fully believes that Iran has changed its ways or Obama is giving Iran a loaded weapon for later on.

I don't know what possibly could go wrong with giving a major injection of funds to a known terrorist funding country who so happens to have gone on record for hating America and Israel.

Seems obvious that Obama is evil. Can you guys get rid of him somehow before January 2017?

Everything he does supports the Muslim cause. Get him out!
This whole post is just :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Worry about Tony Abbott aka your George Bush instead of the US. You got no idea what you're talking about

[poido123]

This whole post is just :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Worry about Tony Abbott aka your George Bush instead of the US. You got no idea what you're talking about




Unfortunately, what Obama does directly affects us and our sheep government.

[Droid101]

poido looking dumber than usual today.

[rufuspaul]

The moment they find something is the moment that the deal shuts down, and Iran goes back to sanctions. I expect sanctions to be significantly worse if the deal falls through by Iran's doing.


How do you know this? I expect several of the countries in our coalition will balk, since they will be benefiting financially.

[rufuspaul]

Well there you go. Al Jazeera is a dumb propaganda rag even worse than FOX news, and making hit pieces on Iran is one of their core tasks as a propaganda outlet. Their style might be less abrasive but their content is every bit as stupid.



A very good friend of mine writes a lot of their online content. His stuff is pretty good.

[LJJ]

Ide recommend anyone whose interested in international news and politics to watch all these channels (CNN/BBC, Al Jazeera, RT) and then try and form an opinion on an issue.

All news organisations have their leanings and you should read multiple sources from different areas of the world, but RT and Al Jazeera are straight up dogshit like Foxnews/MSNBC. Might as well start reading Xinhua for "quality news".

[Lakers Legend#32]

Republican Alternative: War

[rufuspaul]

Republican Alternative: War


:rolleyes:

[Droid101]

:rolleyes:
So... what is the Republican alternative then? Because all the rhetoric from Republican House/Senate members sounds like a call to war more than anything else.

[LJJ]

So... what is the Republican alternative then? Because all the rhetoric from Republican House/Senate members sounds like a call to war more than anything else.

I'm guessing the alternative is pretty simple. The alternative would be that for any agreement to lift the major economic sanctions, Iran ceasing all nuclear activity is a non-negotiable requirement. That's the alternative, it would take many more years to be made. Which would also mean many more years of Iran running their nuclear program at 2000% of what this agreement dictates.

[KevinNYC]

*Iran needs funds injection to fast track their nuclear ambitions*

Obama bends over and tells Iran to be good little boys and play nice for 12 months.

Iran laughs at america's stupidity and agrees to "be good", even though nothing has been done to destroy the facilities or open up everything to the inspectors.

Either the American government fully believes that Iran has changed its ways or Obama is giving Iran a loaded weapon for later on.

I don't know what possibly could go wrong with giving a major injection of funds to a known terrorist funding country who so happens to have gone on record for hating America and Israel.

Seems obvious that Obama is evil. Can you guys get rid of him somehow before January 2017?

Everything he does supports the Muslim cause. Get him out!

This is something that a lot of folks misunderstand about the deal.

Yes, the "facilities remain." This gives the Iranian government a way to say "We won."

What that means is the buildings are still there.

However the stuff to make a bomb is mostly removed (http://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8989147/iran-nuclear-deal-myths)from the "facilities that do remain."


Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.

Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms' worth.

Iran will be forbidden from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)

So Iran's capability to create a bomb is greatly reduced.

Secondly, if they do decide to break the deal and kick out the inspectors, the military option is still on the table. If they change their behavior, we still have time to bomb or attack or whatever other decision we want to make before they are able to get a bomb.

[KevinNYC]

The White House has started its campaign. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCF8FJoUAAEpM96.jpg


Curious to see experts weigh in on this.

Vox weighs in on (https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/BTFs7MSQ8Us4MNzYfNozp6DZmWw=/1400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3884352/iranDeal_graphics_4_dealorNoDeal.jpg) this White House graphic
https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/BTFs7MSQ8Us4MNzYfNozp6DZmWw=/1400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3884352/iranDeal_graphics_4_dealorNoDeal.jpg[QUOTE]By the White House's own estimate, Iran's "breakout time"

[bladefd]

How do you know this? I expect several of the countries in our coalition will balk, since they will be benefiting financially.

USA would definitely put Iran on the heavy sanctions list. If USA does it, so will most of Europe, Canada, Australia, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and India -- these are the countries that can hurt Iran the most. All of those nations don't need Iran as bad as Iran needs them (maybe except for India but India is trying hard to become close ally to USA so I cannot see India going against the USA).

UN would also put them back on the heavy sanctions list - it would be foolish for Russia & China to go against that and against the USA after USA gave Iran a big chance of redeeming themselves with this deal. It would make both of them look bad on a global level - Russia has no need for anything Iran provides that would make them go against the other UN counter-parts.

You are making it sound as if Iran has large amounts of resources and exports that other countries desperately need & they would all go bankrupt without Iran. The only thing Iran has is oil and natural gas, but EVERY country has been fine without Iran the last 9 years since heavy sanctions began. Lets not lose track of that.

[rufuspaul]

USA would definitely put Iran on the heavy sanctions list. If USA does it, so will most of Europe, Canada, Australia, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and India -- these are the countries that can hurt Iran the most. All of those nations don't need Iran as bad as Iran needs them (maybe except for India but India is trying hard to become close ally to USA so I cannot see India going against the USA).

UN would also put them back on the heavy sanctions list - it would be foolish for Russia & China to go against that and against the USA after USA gave Iran a big chance of redeeming themselves with this deal. It would make both of them look bad on a global level - Russia has no need for anything Iran provides that would make them go against the other UN counter-parts.

You are making it sound as if Iran has large amounts of resources and exports that other countries desperately need & they would all go bankrupt without Iran. The only thing Iran has is oil and natural gas, but EVERY country has been fine without Iran the last 9 years since heavy sanctions began. Lets not lose track of that.


This all sounds well and good but it is all conjecture. The countries you mention might not "need" anything from Iran but they might be very happy with what they are getting and not so keen to give it up. "Come on USA, it's just a few infractions. Let's just give Iran a stern warning and leave it at that."

[Derka]

So Iran's capability to create a bomb is greatly reduced.

Secondly, if they do decide to break the deal and kick out the inspectors, the military option is still on the table. If they change their behavior, we still have time to bomb or attack or whatever other decision we want to make before they are able to get a bomb.

And make no mistake, Israel will never stop thinking of this as an option. Even a whiff of intelligence from one of the many spies I'm certain they have operating in Iran that nuclear weapons research is under way...Israel's not going to wait around for a coalition or ask for help from Europe and the US; they're going to bomb it into oblivion and tell the Iranians exactly what parts of their Jewish asses they may kiss.

[dunksby]

And make no mistake, Israel will never stop thinking of this as an option. Even a whiff of intelligence from one of the many spies I'm certain they have operating in Iran that nuclear weapons research is under way...Israel's not going to wait around for a coalition or ask for help from Europe and the US; they're going to bomb it into oblivion and tell the Iranians exactly what parts of their Jewish asses they may kiss.
They have assassinated like six Iranian nuclear scientists so far too.

[RidonKs]

They have assassinated like six Iranian nuclear scientists so far too.
can you imagine the lengths to which pundits would go ramming down every american throat that the iranian government ASSASSINATED a half dozen innocent israeli civil scientists... were reality the other way around?

[longtime lurker]

All news organisations have their leanings and you should read multiple sources from different areas of the world, but RT and Al Jazeera are straight up dogshit like Foxnews/MSNBC. Might as well start reading Xinhua for "quality news".

Don't ever put the straight up garbage that is Faux news in the same category as those other news networks. Fox news purposely distorts the truth and straight up lies to push it's propaganda. MSNBC definitely leans left but their segments will actually be backed up by facts and research. I don't read AL jazeera but from what people have told me it's similar to the BBC in terms of reporting although I don't doubt they have their slants as well. Fox News is just vile bullshit.

[RidonKs]

you guys know that these organizations can be 'propaganda rags' on some issues, and provide absolutely perfect coverage on others, correct?

that goes especially for international agencies. most every issue fox touches concerning american domestic politics is a red flag. most every issue russia today touches concerning russian nationalism is a red flag, even though their coverage of the united states is pretty good. the same can be said for al jazeera, msnbc, etc.

to a lesser extent you find the same thing with the times, the post, cnn, bbc, all the other national broadcasters throughout the west, etc

[SCdac]

can you imagine the lengths to which pundits would go ramming down every american throat that the iranian government ASSASSINATED a half dozen innocent israeli civil scientists... were reality the other way around?

Oh cry me a river :oldlol: ... If it was clear from intelligence agencies that Iran is creating a nuclear weapon, nobody really gives a shit if Israel does the world's dirty work in a covert operation and puts a cap in an Iranian scientist... We are better off with Iran not having weaponized nukes. It's not like the US hasn't engaged in espionage in Iran before and who knows what other shit.


U.S. officials do not appear to be the least bit disturbed about mishaps to Iran's nuclear and missile programs that include the Stuxnet computer virus that attacked centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear site.

"Whether it's due to technical difficulties, incompetence, or other reasons, some setbacks to Iran's activities are welcome," a U.S. official said on condition of anonymity.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/09/us-iran-usa-idUSTRE7B826I20111209

[RidonKs]

Oh cry me a river ... If it was clear from intelligence agencies that Iran is creating a nuclear weapon
which it isn't, as has been repeated throughout this thread. the evidence for an iranian nuclear program is pretty much restricted to the fact that they're building a bunch of underground facilities, and that it makes sense for them to want one as a deterrent. oh and i guess all the stuff about "wiping israel off the map" is also evidence in your eyes, which i think is somewhat valid. i have no doubt the ayatollah would LOVE a nuclear weapon at his disposal. whether i believe he would use it is another matter.


nobody really gives a shit if Israel does the world's dirty work in a covert operation and puts a cap in an Iranian scientist... We are better off with Iran not having weaponized nukes.
that's really lovely scdac. fk that innocent man who got capped doing his job in the civil service. it's all for the greater good of preventing iranian nuclear capacity. btw, do you have any evidence to support the conviction that those assassinations helped prevent an iranian nuclear capacity? because i can summon a compelling argument that in fact it had the opposite effect, making an iranian bomb more likely.


It's not like the US hasn't engaged in espionage in Iran before and who knows what other shit.
your last point is especially weak. "its not like the us didn't drop a nuclear weapon on hiroshima to prevent a more bloody ground invasion... so maybe iran should drop a nuclear weapon on israel"

this is a parallel. i am not suggesting iran should drop a nuclear weapon on israel.

[KingBeasley08]

yep the assassinating nuclear scientists is wack. I'm happy the US is finally telling Israel to fck off. Time to reassert ourselves as the world's strongest superpower. I'm gonna be honest. I don't care about all this Middle East nonsense. This ish is Israel's problem, not ours. We need to do what's best for us and thus I'm happy about this deal

About time Israel realizes that the only thing that matters is American interests. So far our interests have mostly matched theirs so no problem but now they b!tching when we go against them. Too bad.

http://i.imgur.com/v31qI5Q.jpg

[RidonKs]

yep the assassinating nuclear scientists is wack. I'm happy the US is finally telling Israel to fck off. Time to reassert ourselves as the world's strongest superpower. I'm gonna be honest. I don't care about all this Middle East nonsense. This ish is Israel's problem, not ours. We need to do what's best for us and thus I'm happy about this deal
if that is your sentiment, you will enjoy this clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHl1JnQoIWQ)

michael sheur, a rather loud opinionated ex-cia analyst, goes off the handle against some poignant questioning by mostly republican committee members

there's also a related clip entitled "israel has no right to exist", which is absolutely true in the same sense "texas has no right to exist" on formerly mexican land. it does not matter who has the "right to exist" because such a right has never been granted to any political entity ever. but that is an entirely separate issue. hope you peep that clip above, its a fun one.

[SCdac]

who cares what you believe or your hunches are or what you find compelling, this isn't a debate, collectively we should just be glad the US and Israel are doing what they have to do to keep Iran's dictator and theocratic regime from having a nuke, be it covert operations of the past or diplomatic agreements of the future. I trust Israeli intelligence alot more than the hunches of some self-loathing American, that should go without saying. And I'm sure Iran dropping a bomb on Israel would just make you giddy with excitement

[SCdac]

Time to reassert ourselves as the world's strongest superpower

Capitulating to Iran is not going to help that happen

[RidonKs]

who cares what you believe or your hunches are or what you find compelling, this isn't a debate, collectively we should just be glad the US and Israel are doing what they have to do to keep Iran's dictator and theocratic regime from having a nuke, be it covert operations of the past or diplomatic agreements of the future. I trust Israeli intelligence alot more than the hunches of some self-loathing American, that should go without saying. And I'm sure Iran dropping a bomb on Israel would just make you giddy with excitement
umm i care and they aren't hunches and i am responding to your points one at a time and getting nothing back so enough of this, i don't believe i will waste my time conversing with you (on these issues) any more.

though i will express the following, in all due respect and honesty.

your last statement is incredibly insulting to me considering i am openly jewish on this website. at the very least i identify strongly with the culture and celebrate the high holidays and enjoy the jewish side of my family. i have visited israel with dozens of other young jewish canadians and made loads of friends. the last thing i want is catastrophe that would upset dozens of people i love and respect. in a similar vein, i think you are underestimating the ripple effect in iran when civilian scientists are picked off one by one. your callous dismissal of those executions, justified in your mind by the super brilliant israeli intelligence community, is really unsettling.

i believe i'll end this post with as polite a **** YOU as i can muster

oh and lastly, i am not an american. nor am i self loathing. interesting you would choose that turn of phrase, given its history as applied to judaism for the last 2000 years. the self loathing jew (or american, different coin same side) is the perfect insult to levy at somebody critical of israeli policies, since antisemite won't exactly cut the mustard.

oh, and **** YOU

[KingBeasley08]

Capitulating to Iran is not going to help that happen
You might want to actually look into this deal. It doesn't make it easier for Iran to get nuclear weapons. Obviously Israel doesn't like the deal but like I said, that's their problem. We're the United States of America, not the United States of Israel

[Nanners]

umm i care and they aren't hunches and i am responding to your points one at a time and getting nothing back so enough of this, i don't believe i will waste my time conversing with you (on these issues) any more.

though i will express the following, in all due respect and honesty.

your last statement is incredibly insulting to me considering i am openly jewish on this website. at the very least i identify strongly with the culture and celebrate the high holidays and enjoy the jewish side of my family. i have visited israel with dozens of other young jewish canadians and made loads of friends. the last thing i want is catastrophe that would upset dozens of people i love and respect. in a similar vein, i think you are underestimating the ripple effect in iran when civilian scientists are picked off one by one. your callous dismissal of those executions, justified in your mind by the super brilliant israeli intelligence community, is really unsettling.

i believe i'll end this post with as polite a **** YOU as i can muster

oh and lastly, i am not an american. nor am i self loathing. interesting you would choose that turn of phrase, given its history as applied to judaism for the last 2000 years. the self loathing jew (or american, different coin same side) is the perfect insult to levy at somebody critical of israeli policies, since antisemite won't exactly cut the mustard.

oh, and **** YOU

damn, ridonks going ham

[SCdac]

umm i care and they aren't hunches and i am responding to your points one at a time and getting nothing back so enough of this, i don't believe i will waste my time conversing with you (on these issues) any more.

though i will express the following, in all due respect and honesty.

your last statement is incredibly insulting to me considering i am openly jewish on this website. at the very least i identify strongly with the culture and celebrate the high holidays and enjoy the jewish side of my family. i have visited israel with dozens of other young jewish canadians and made loads of friends. the last thing i want is catastrophe that would upset dozens of people i love and respect. in a similar vein, i think you are underestimating the ripple effect in iran when civilian scientists are picked off one by one. your callous dismissal of those executions, justified in your mind by the super brilliant israeli intelligence community, is really unsettling.

i believe i'll end this post with as polite a **** YOU as i can muster

oh and lastly, i am not an american. nor am i self loathing. interesting you would choose that turn of phrase, given its history as applied to judaism for the last 2000 years. the self loathing jew is the perfect insult to levy at somebody critical of israeli policies, since antisemite won't exactly cut the mustard.

oh, and **** you

why don't you just keep blathering on about how Israel has no right to exist and is the evil incarnate and all that bullshit, that seems to be what you're most interested in, not expressing your Judaism...what's unsettling is your hatred for Israel coming from somebody who supposedly "identifies with the culture"... riiiight... you sound like the racist who says "hey, I have black friends and a black relative, I can't be racist"... So when you went to Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv, and Haifa, I'm assuming you were walking around telling every Jew they have no right to exist in their own sovereign country? I'm assuming you were grilling all the Israelis about the poor Iranian scientists they murdered? I'm assuming you cringed in fear when you had to meet an Israeli soldier who *gasp* works to protect their country? the gall of that soldier!

By all means, I'd rather you be hostile than some punk ass bitch who sugercoats every single aggression towards Jews and/or Israel and then has the audacity to say "but but but, I'm Jewish". That doesn't mean shit, if anything it makes it worse. Many Jews collaborated with Nazis and other anti-Jewish forces and, naturally, they get no sympathy.

[NumberSix]

Don't ever put the straight up garbage that is Faux news in the same category as those other news networks. Fox news purposely distorts the truth and straight up lies to push it's propaganda. MSNBC definitely leans left but their segments will actually be backed up by facts and research. I don't read AL jazeera but from what people have told me it's similar to the BBC in terms of reporting although I don't doubt they have their slants as well. Fox News is just vile bullshit.
This post might have been realistic if this was like 8 years ago.

Fox is definitely biased. There's no question about that. Nobody claims they aren't clearly on a side.

Your talking points are outdated though. It used to be true that comparing MSNBC and Fox was false equivalence. If you go back to Bush's second term and maybe the first half of Obama's first term, MSNBC was more balanced than Fox. Go back like 12-15 years and you could even argue MSNBC was center-right. That's all true.

This is 2015 though. MSNBC is easily the worst and most biased of the 3 big cable news networks. MSNBC does still have people who are reasonable like Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews. They have their sides, but they're reasonable. Most of Even Rachel Maddow despite being completely in the tank for one side is reasonable enough. Outside of them, the majority of the rest are straight up social justice warrior level. I don't know if you watch all 3 on a regular basis, but MSNBC has gotten really bad.

[Godzuki]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/middleeast/iran-us-relations-khamenei/index.html


sure Iran is harmless and misunderstood :oldlol:

[RidonKs]

This post might have been realistic if this was like 8 years ago.

Fox is definitely biased. There's no question about that. Nobody claims they aren't clearly on a side.

Your talking points are outdated though. It used to be true that comparing MSNBC and Fox was false equivalence. If you go back to Bush's second term and maybe the first half of Obama's first term, MSNBC was more balanced than Fox. Go back like 12-15 years and you could even argue MSNBC was center-right. That's all true.

This is 2015 though. MSNBC is easily the worst and most biased of the 3 big cable news networks. MSNBC does still have people who are reasonable like Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews. They have their sides, but they're reasonable. Most of Even Rachel Maddow despite being completely in the tank for one side is reasonable enough. Outside of them, the majority of the rest are straight up social justice warrior level. I don't know if you watch all 3 on a regular basis, but MSNBC has gotten really bad.
chris hayes is good, he's just rachel maddow but male and (allegedly) straight, but more or less the same point of view. he's a better interviewer i'd say. there are definitely personalities on msnbc who can compare to like o'reilly and hannity. al sharpton for one. chris matthews is straight up puke worthy. but in spite of the extremes, it's the overall orchestration that lets fox news take the cake. even the morning show is peppered with propaganda.

but we can all agree: thank god for shep smith

[NumberSix]

chris hayes is good, he's just rachel maddow but male and (allegedly) straight, but more or less the same point of view. he's a better interviewer i'd say. there are definitely personalities on msnbc who can compare to like o'reilly and hannity. al sharpton for one. chris matthews is straight up puke worthy. but in spite of the extremes, it's the overall orchestration that lets fox news take the cake. even the morning show is peppered with propaganda.

but we can all agree: thank god for shep smith
There's nobody on Fox that is in the same realm as Alex Wagner, Al Sharpton, Melissa Harris Perry, Krystall Ball, etc... They're on the same tier as the former Fox version of Glenn Beck.

I think the problem is people that don't really watch Fox form their opinions based on clips or quotes they read from other sources. Fox is different in that their tone is a lot less serious. I get the impression that people who don't actually watch fox think its a stuffy super serious network, and it actually isn't. More often than not, the tone is very jokey, sarcastic and light hearted.

The biggest difference though is that people speak a lot more freely on Fox than CNN or MSNBC. Probably a byproduct of people on the right generally not being concerned about political correctness whereas people on the left these days seem to be constantly walking on eggshells trying to not say anything remotely insensitive. I tend to prefer people who speak more loosely like Fox or the young turks, regardless of what side of the spectrum they stand on.

[RidonKs]

fair enough. sounds like you sit through a lot more of that garbage than i care to. the young turks have really started to annoy me. i think cenk's brief stint at msnbc went right to his head.

that's actually a rare interesting point you make about the comedic/sarcastic tone on either network. i do not interpret that difference in tone as a matter of the left walking on eggshells and the right stomping on cities, such as you do. but it is interesting nonetheless.

[KevinNYC]

There's nobody on Fox that is in the same realm as Alex Wagner, Al Sharpton, Melissa Harris Perry, Krystall Ball, etc... They're on the same tier as the former Fox version of Glenn Beck.

This is hilarious.

Call me when Alex Wagner starts crying in front of a blow up of the Constitution or when Krystall Ball pretends to be John Boehner pouring gasoline over someone.

I don't believe you really believe this.