<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Iran Is Responsible for More Than 1,000 American Military Deaths Since 9/11 <a href="http://t.co/B8exRsD1dY">http://t.co/B8exRsD1dY</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KillTheDeal?src=hash">#KillTheDeal</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/IranDeal?src=hash">#IranDeal</a></p>— GodHatesFAQs (F.J.) (@MrPolyatheist) <a href="https://twitter.com/MrPolyatheist/status/621008429109391360">July 14, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Thumbs, where do you stand on Saudi financing of terrorism and our ties with them? What about the still-classified sections of the 9/11 Commission Report that, allegedly, implicate members of the Saudi royal family in the financing of the attacks? I'm not trying to deflect or provoke, I'm genuinely curious. The Middle East is a byzantine structure of alliances and back-stabbing, so it feels like we're always in cahoots with some particular devil.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uBvIg_zRgiY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
That's the thing. I haven't heard of any alternative other than war. Is that what Conservative wants? If so, so be it.
Iran has had nearly 4 decades to build a bomb and they haven't done it. They pushed harder to build a nuke under the Shah (our supposed ally) than have under the Islamic Republic....yet for some reason people continue to worry about a bomb. The problem with the anti-Iran people is that they believe every bit of propaganda that has been put out there by the Fox News crowd. Wake up and do some reading and form your own opinions on why things are the way they are with respect to US/Iran relations.
No, I understand the complexity of both your question and the reality of the Mideast. There is only one ally in the Mideast upon whom we can depend -- Israel. All I can say is that the Saudi Arabia and the UAE are more clandesdine and pragmatic about their funding of terrorism. That doesn't make it right, but we can't fight them all at once. The Saudis, and to a lesser extent the UAE, Jordan, etc., are terrified of a nuclear Iran, so they are more malleable.
Modern Iran has not attacked another nation. They have problems controlling their own borders. Attacking anyone except ISIS (a threat to their border) is not a priority. There is this fantasy that has been created by people to portray the Iranians as crazy, comic book character style enemies that have a desire to run their armies all over the Middle East and drop nuclear bombs on everyone.
Their are no permanent allies in the ME, no permanent enemies, just theocracies using us to balance the regional power, keeping their shipping lanes open and their markets profitable. Who do you think is best positioned to oppose ISIS? Who do you think will eventually be their allies against them? What will Iran look like after a decade of more openness, when this generation of old ayatollahs dies off? How do you think the people of Iran would respond if their leadership brought sanctions back on them after they get a taste of prosperity?
Neither the Russians, Iranians, Israelis, and Palestinians are the monsters people think they are. It's beena long time since 1978. Time to try something new besides war which only benefits a few companies and the congressman they bought. I've lost a lot of family and friends to injuries and deaths in afghanistan and iraq. Sick and tired of war hawks in think tanks and lobbying groups telling something-something will be the red line/end of the world/blah blah. This deal wasn't perfect, but that's the price you pay when making a deal or a compromise otherwise it'll be war. If we go to war with iran, I want the draft brought back so everyone wanting war gets to go to the frontlines and show how patriotic they are.
No one should listen to the whining crybabies on the right when this is their standard bearer. Jeb Bush: Obama's diplomatic policy too 'sophisticated', uses 'big-syllable words' “You don’t have to be the world’s policeman, but we have to be the world’s leader – and there’s a huge difference. This guy, this president and Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry, when someone disagrees with their nuanced approach – where it’s all kind of so sophisticated it makes no sense, you know what I’m saying? Big-syllable words and lots of fancy conferences and meetings – but we’re not leading, that creates chaos, it creates a more dangerous world.”
Their "negotiation" goes something like this. USA: Stop your nuclear program. Iran: No. World War III
The sanctions have been a terrible idea in the sense that the Iranian government is still there and they've shown no signs of collapse because of the sanctions. It's pretty much crippled a middle class and their younger generations. Perhaps restoring some dignity to Iran will allow them to soften like the Chinese did with Nixon's ping pong diplomacy and subsequently setting up the circumstances for Deng to make reforms when he took power. That's a very optimistic outlook, and it doesn't discount today's Iran, which is a major state sponsor for terrorism and a highly oppressive government. Americans and the West are sick of military interventions and for good reason. Therefore, the only way for positive change is to gradually restore trade to these isolated regimes and slowly build credibility and dialogue with agreements like these. I would trust N.Korea as far as I could throw Kim. Iran is different because it has a potential future to be a major player in the region and the world, without nukes, just like Turkey or Saudi Arabia. Geopolitically, this deal is a nightmare for a neoCon. Our allies in the Middle East hates it. Iran's allies Russia and China benefit from it. But these have been lines drawn 40 years ago. The endgame then was to make or wait for the other to fall. I don't think we can afford that kind of approach and attitude in today's world. Plus, nuclear technology has been around for a long time. It is getting easier as time passes by. The knowledge is out there, and if a nation as poor and destitute as Pakistan can build the bomb, Iran could do it too if they wanted one at all costs. Maybe they know that 'at all costs' means the west will rip it from their dead cold hands. If they really want it, I've read articles saying less than a year. Same with Japan and S. Korea. Thank the world police...
You ignored the word "possibility" in my post, as opposed to your tacit change to "certainty" -- a cheap liberal tactic you employ, as usual.
The fact that the US didn't negotiate the release of the 3 American hostages in Iran is unforgivable.
