Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest The Last Don

In The World: Iran

Recommended Posts

Total scumbag, partisan question and innuendo.

 

Not in the least.  CBS News is hardly Breitbart.

 

Considering how one sided this deal was, adding the release of the four would have been an obvious thing to demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely unrelated issues. It was a cheap shot by the reporter. We have plenty of trade deals with other countries that don't require their freeing Americans from their prisons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely unrelated issues. It was a cheap shot by the reporter. We have plenty of trade deals with other countries that don't require their freeing Americans from their prisons.

 

This wasn't exactly a "trade deal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely unrelated issues. It was a cheap shot by the reporter. We have plenty of trade deals with other countries that don't require their freeing Americans from their prisons.

 

It wasn't a cheap shot at all.  Obama's response was cheap if anything.  It was a valid question, Obama could have responded in a much more civil matter addressing the seriousness of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^What the hell is the alternative?  Complain all you want, but until you admit that war is the only alternative you're lying to yourself.  This is the best international agreement we could get.  And that's the only way this gets resolved without war.  Without international partners it would just be the US barking at Iran with absolutely no threat of a bite short of a globally (save Israel) unpopular military action.

 

It's not about defending the agreement itself it's about preventing another unnecessary war.  It's about swallowing your pride and realizing that this agreement saves lives.

 

EDIT - There's no reason that Iran needs to be our enemy in perpetuity.  Frankly, I'm hoping this agreement leads to further collaboration between the US and Iran so that we can gain ourselves a stronger and less morally reprehensible partner in the region.  Our Saudi alliance may be the most uncomfortable aspect of our foreign policy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sums up my thoughts particularly well.  I can't believe people are actually defending this deal.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421289/iran-nuclear-deal-obama-risky

 

"Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional-arms and ballistic-missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations?"

 

Wow.  File that under YGTBFKM.

 

I didn't think anything BHOzo could do would stun me anymore.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^What the hell is the alternative?  Complain all you want, but until you admit that war is the only alternative you're lying to yourself.  This is the best international agreement we could get.  And that's the only way this gets resolved without war.  Without international partners it would just be the US barking at Iran with absolutely no threat of a bite short of a globally (save Israel) unpopular military action.

 

It's not about defending the agreement itself it's about preventing another unnecessary war.  It's about swallowing your pride and realizing that this agreement saves lives.

 

EDIT - There's no reason that Iran needs to be our enemy in perpetuity.  Frankly, I'm hoping this agreement leads to further collaboration between the US and Iran so that we can gain ourselves a stronger and less morally reprehensible partner in the region.  Our Saudi alliance may be the most uncomfortable aspect of our foreign policy...

 

The alternative is to negotiate a better deal. The US could have walked away from the table, proposed a full scale embargo, and gotten serious about military action. As it stood, Iran and Russia knew Obama wouldn't walk away and knew he wouldn't take any military action, so they had little reason to budge on their positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who wants to take bets on who will support this deal first? The religious fundamentalists in Iran led by the Ayatollah or the religious fundamentalists in America led by the GOP? My money is on the Ayatollah. He's less hard core.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^What the hell is the alternative?  Complain all you want, but until you admit that war is the only alternative you're lying to yourself.  This is the best international agreement we could get.  And that's the only way this gets resolved without war.  Without international partners it would just be the US barking at Iran with absolutely no threat of a bite short of a globally (save Israel) unpopular military action.

 

It's not about defending the agreement itself it's about preventing another unnecessary war.  It's about swallowing your pride and realizing that this agreement saves lives.

 

EDIT - There's no reason that Iran needs to be our enemy in perpetuity.  Frankly, I'm hoping this agreement leads to further collaboration between the US and Iran so that we can gain ourselves a stronger and less morally reprehensible partner in the region.  Our Saudi alliance may be the most uncomfortable aspect of our foreign policy...

 

The alternative is to negotiate a better deal. The US could have walked away from the table, proposed a full scale embargo, and gotten serious about military action. As it stood, Iran and Russia knew Obama wouldn't walk away and knew he wouldn't take any military action, so they had little reason to budge on their positions.

 

You say that so nonchalantly.  Just negotiate a better deal!  I wonder why Obama didn't think of that?  They knew that if they walked away from the table it was likely that they would lose Russia and China support and maybe even most of Europe.  We would have been on our own and Iran would have carried on with their nuclear program.  At that point we'd have absolutely no leverage besides threats of war.  I don't understand why anyone thinks this is the better scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^What the hell is the alternative?  Complain all you want, but until you admit that war is the only alternative you're lying to yourself.  This is the best international agreement we could get.  And that's the only way this gets resolved without war.  Without international partners it would just be the US barking at Iran with absolutely no threat of a bite short of a globally (save Israel) unpopular military action.

 

I think I already said pretty clearly on this thread that regime change should be the express mission of our foreign policy towards Iran.  Whether it's worth a shooting war, I don't know, but honestly, yes, better that than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, hey, a bunch of Israel-backed groups are planning a protest. Shocker.

I know, evil, right? :evil: Such chutzpah to challenge Dear Leader.

 

At this point I think Netanyahu is regretting not officially endorsing Romney in 2012, as has been rumored to have been considered and might have made a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know, evil, right? :evil: Such chutzpah to challenge Dear Leader.

 

Anyone can voice their opinion through protest, but let's not pretend that this is some bipartisan event. Looking at the sponsors, it's right-wing groups connected with Israel and GOP-backed groups. Again, none of these groups had/have any ideas that would lead more stability and peace in the region.

 

If Israel and Iran have conflicts with one another, they need to work it out. After several decades of interventionism in that part of the world, haven't we learned yet that we're better off disengaging? Almost everything we do there leads to tenfold problems down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At this point I think Netanyahu is regretting not officially endorsing Romney in 2012, as has been rumored to have been considered and might have made a difference.

 

First off, Romney was defeated soundly. An endorsement from Jesus himself may not have made a difference. Even putting Florida and Virginia in his column do nothing to change the outcome.

 

Second, perhaps I'm reading your post wrong, but the assumption seems to be that all American Jews blindly support Netanyahu and every action that the current right-wing Israeli government takes, therefore his backing of one candidate would make a difference. I'm not sure I agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Israel and Iran have conflicts with one another, they need to work it out. After several decades of interventionism in that part of the world, haven't we learned yet that we're better off disengaging?

 

 

what a stupid thing to say.  "they need to work it out".  Like Israel is just any other country, who cares if they win or lose, right?  Just sort it out...  Israel is our only real ally in the middle east (Saudi's are questionable) and letting them fall victim to terrorist attacks undermines generations of efforts to stabilize the area. 

 

If you say America should disengage, then why bother leading the negotiations or even participating at all?  Just let Russia or China assume the role as new world leader, see how that works out in terms of human rights, environmental protection, trade deals, natural resources, on & on & on... 

 

The US cannot afford to sit back idly on any of these negotiations or let nations "work it out".  The results would be disastrous for the US and the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^What the hell is the alternative?  Complain all you want, but until you admit that war is the only alternative you're lying to yourself.  This is the best international agreement we could get.  And that's the only way this gets resolved without war.  Without international partners it would just be the US barking at Iran with absolutely no threat of a bite short of a globally (save Israel) unpopular military action.

 

I think I already said pretty clearly on this thread that regime change should be the express mission of our foreign policy towards Iran.  Whether it's worth a shooting war, I don't know, but honestly, yes, better that than this.

 

In 1953, we decided we didn't like Iran's democratic secular regime because they nationalized the oil industry so we did 'regime change.' They (justifiably) rebelled against the figurehead we forced on them, and unfortunately we got the current extremist regime as a result. Any regime change we force will cause a worse regime, as has been proven time and time again in the history of post-WWII US foreign policy. It make things worse for us and causes the reasonable people over there to dislike us. In the long run CIA-style 'regime change' could lead to Israel (and us) getting nuked off the face of the earth, just as likely as this deal you hate so much. A shooting war would delay the inevitable no longer than this deal does, because guess what? After we hang the "mission accomplished" banner, the insurgency will begin, and we'll get crazies who are even crazier than the ones we have now. How can you not see that, after watching the events of the past ten years?

 

We (and the USSR, to be fair) are the cause of middle eastern instability, through our meddling. The only way to stop it is to stop the meddling. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again.

 

The best way to have lasting regime (and cultural) change is to engage with the people that live there. Same with Cuba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the outcome, Iran will eventually have its nuclear weapon.  And none of the hot air from either side of the aisle will prevent that.  Of course other regional powers may have different ideas and take independent steps to alleviate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US cannot afford to sit back idly on any of these negotiations or let nations "work it out".  The results would be disastrous for the US and the world

 

The Middle East took care of its own matters for 5,000 years before the United States came along (despite brief and occasional meddling from Europe and later the USA and Russia). They will carry on long after we've suffered our inevitable decline.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what a stupid thing to say.  "they need to work it out".  Like Israel is just any other country, who cares if they win or lose, right?  Just sort it out...  Israel is our only real ally in the middle east (Saudi's are questionable) and letting them fall victim to terrorist attacks undermines generations of efforts to stabilize the area.

 

Oh, a stupid thing to say, huh? As an ally, other than being the only "democracy" in a part of the world we supposedly care about, what exactly does Israel do for us as an ally? Please cite one example of how our relationship with Israel involves them doing something significant for us. At best, this is a one-sided alliance between two equals. At worst, we're propping up an arguably genocidal, apartheid state for no apparent reason benefitting the United States, which essentially nullifies any of our other supposed military-based humanitarian missions around the world.

 

Regarding "generations of efforts to stabilize the area," that was a pointless endeavor because it all has failed and because there was no ultimate American interest in doing so.

 

Last point on which I think we will agree (or may eventually): Saudi Arabia is no true ally of the United States. Eventually the classified 9/11 documents will be made public and I think there's a good chance that it will be a significantly damaging moment in American-Saudi relations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Israel and Iran have conflicts with one another, they need to work it out. After several decades of interventionism in that part of the world, haven't we learned yet that we're better off disengaging?

 

 

what a stupid thing to say.  "they need to work it out".  Like Israel is just any other country, who cares if they win or lose, right?  Just sort it out...  Israel is our only real ally in the middle east (Saudi's are questionable) and letting them fall victim to terrorist attacks undermines generations of efforts to stabilize the area. 

 

If you say America should disengage, then why bother leading the negotiations or even participating at all?  Just let Russia or China assume the role as new world leader, see how that works out in terms of human rights, environmental protection, trade deals, natural resources, on & on & on... 

 

The US cannot afford to sit back idly on any of these negotiations or let nations "work it out".  The results would be disastrous for the US and the world

all good points. Israel is our best buffer against the nuttiness going on in the Middle East. Think of how out of control jihadism would be without Israel. Well, I guess it really wouldn't. We'd all be part of the caliphate by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
all good points. Israel is our best buffer against the nuttiness going on in the Middle East. Think of how out of control jihadism would be without Israel. Well, I guess it really wouldn't. We'd all be part of the caliphate by now.

 

Can you elaborate on this, please? Specifically how does the existence (or lack thereof) of Israel act as a buffer for the United States? How exactly does its existence make us safer? How is Israel keeping jihadism at bay in the greater Middle East region?

 

Obviously I don't agree with any of that, even in the slightest, but I'd be open to hearing the logic behind the claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

israel a buffer? to what? thats bs. israel is just another trouble making mideast state, same as the rest. and it's a welfare state at that. a usa taxpayer burden. it wouldn't exist without being propped up. their nukes are why iran is so gung ho about this. you want no nukes in the mideast? have israel give their illegal nukes.

 

also, if iran does not make their own nukies they can just buy them off the pakistanis like saudi arabia already has (at the ready stored away in pakistan for them). and i'm sure china, which has cozied up to russian oil, or nk wouldn't mind throwing a little trouble into the mideast either by selling to them. so it will happen regardless. bottom line is this less than ideal deal is the only chance to improve engagement with iran. oh and btw, they do have oil, which now becomes a nice benefit of the deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^What the hell is the alternative?  Complain all you want, but until you admit that war is the only alternative you're lying to yourself.  This is the best international agreement we could get.  And that's the only way this gets resolved without war.  Without international partners it would just be the US barking at Iran with absolutely no threat of a bite short of a globally (save Israel) unpopular military action.

 

I think I already said pretty clearly on this thread that regime change should be the express mission of our foreign policy towards Iran.  Whether it's worth a shooting war, I don't know, but honestly, yes, better that than this.

 

In 1953, we decided we didn't like Iran's democratic secular regime because they nationalized the oil industry so we did 'regime change.'

 

to be clear, we did this coup directly for what is now british petroleum. the brits used the usa like tools as they were incapable of doing it themselves at the time because post-war yadda yadda and they didn't want to be the only ones to get their hands dirty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^What the hell is the alternative?  Complain all you want, but until you admit that war is the only alternative you're lying to yourself.  This is the best international agreement we could get.  And that's the only way this gets resolved without war.  Without international partners it would just be the US barking at Iran with absolutely no threat of a bite short of a globally (save Israel) unpopular military action.

 

I think I already said pretty clearly on this thread that regime change should be the express mission of our foreign policy towards Iran.  Whether it's worth a shooting war, I don't know, but honestly, yes, better that than this.

 

In 1953, we decided we didn't like Iran's democratic secular regime because they nationalized the oil industry so we did 'regime change.'

 

to be clear, we did this coup directly for what is now british petroleum. the brits used the usa like tools as they were incapable of doing it themselves at the time because post-war yadda yadda and they didn't want to be the only ones to get their hands dirty.

 

 

On a related note, the 1954 CIA-backed coup of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala had everything to do with United Fruit. Look how that turned out later (anyone heard of Efrain Rios Montt?).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all good points. Israel is our best buffer against the nuttiness going on in the Middle East. Think of how out of control jihadism would be without Israel. Well, I guess it really wouldn't. We'd all be part of the caliphate by now.

 

Can you elaborate on this, please? Specifically how does the existence (or lack thereof) of Israel act as a buffer for the United States? How exactly does its existence make us safer? How is Israel keeping jihadism at bay in the greater Middle East region?

 

Obviously I don't agree with any of that, even in the slightest, but I'd be open to hearing the logic behind the claim.

At least for now there are checks and balances in the Middle East. The blind hatred by Islamism is kept in check, at least to the degree it can, by Israel's presence--by their strong military and intelligence capabilities which we can always rely on for information, to detect potential nuclear capabilities, etc. be it in Iran or elsewhere. As bad as Islamo-terrorism is (and sadly a growing force), it's at least somewhat tempered by a strong Israel. There are other more intangible benefits by a close alliance with Israel, being the only democracy in the Middle East, but honestly I'm not going to waste my time trying to defend them anymore on this thread. The Israel-haters seem so consumed to just throw them under the bus, and they have a right to that opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At least for now there are checks and balances in the Middle East. The blind hatred by Islamism is kept in check, at least to the degree it can, by Israel's presence--by their strong military and intelligence capabilities which we can always rely on for information, to detect potential nuclear capabilities, etc. be it in Iran or elsewhere. As bad as Islamo-terrorism is (and sadly a growing force), it's at least somewhat tempered by a strong Israel. There are other more intangible benefits by a close alliance with Israel, being the only democracy in the Middle East, but honestly I'm not going to waste my time trying to defend them anymore on this thread. The Israel-haters seem so consumed to just throw them under the bus, and they have a right to that opinion.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, but I don't think the United States needs to go out of the way to support it, particularly to the extent we do financially or politically. This is part of the reason why we are so hated by many in that part of the world. And I also believe that Israel's supposed sharing of intelligence with us wouldn't even be necessary if we weren't so unnecessarily invested in that region in the first place.

 

Last point, in terms of balance of power in the region: Please realize that Iran and Saudi Arabia despise one another. At the moment it's far more likely that one will attack the other before either would go after Israel or the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're already fighting each other by proxy in Yemen, so that's not a huge stretch.

 

That doesn't make it the right idea to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for a toothless and temporary inspection regime.  All it will do is make it critical for the Saudis to develop their own nuclear arsenal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it toothless? Sanctions will resume if Iran denies entry to nuclear facilities to those who are inspecting. Inspections are to occur around the clock at any time. We aren't just taking Iran for their word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/20/iran-s-win-win-win-win-win-nuke-deal.html

 

"Having stood in violation of at least six UN Security Council resolutions over the past decade, it’s a testament to the skills of Iranian negotiators that the agreement they produced wasn’t about ending the Iranian nuclear program but restricting it.  And these restrictions aren’t permanent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If no deal was reached, and China and Russia refused to continue the sanctions, then where would that have left things?  (I'm not being a smart-a##...... genuine question)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, there would not have been a 15-0 vote at the U.N. Security Council to lift the sanctions because we would have voted against doing so.  Now we will need a Security Council vote to reimpose them, which Russia or China could veto in turn.  It's true that Russia and China could have simply ignored the sanctions, but there would have been a greater diplomatic price among those countries who still care about such things.

 

Second, since we still care about international legitimacy, it would have left a future U.S. president much more free to act.  It's true that a treaty is just a piece of paper and there is no physical constraint on a future president taking action to directly root out the Iranian nuclear program, but now it will be us paying the higher price for doing so.  This is what I mean by Obama being so obsessed with getting any deal for the sake of his legacy that he was willing to take a bad one.  Walking away from the table would have left us in a physical position similar to where we are now, but a better political position for Obama's successor (of either party).  He damaged his successor's freedom of action in order to hold up a piece of paper and proclaim peace in our time.  That's ended badly before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...