I don't know why people are trying to connect the sanctions that the WORLD put on Iran regarding its NUCLEAR activities have anything to do with Iran's CONVENTIONAL weapons and efforts. People are confused, they seem to forget that if a deal isn't reached, China and Russia can essentially lift the sanctions on their own.
The rights idea of negotiating is to threaten the other side unless you get everything you want and then blame the other guy for not working with you. It only works if you are happy with nothing being done.
What in the deal would prevent China and Russia from doing that now? We have no control over what China and Russia (or many other countries) would do with or without this deal.
I assume "we got nothing" is just repeating blindly what was fed, but I was curious to understand if there was a real genuine reason for that statement. It make sense in that if the only thing you want is total capitulation of the other side, than not having that is having nothing. IOW, there was never a deal or agreement to be had. You surrender or we kill you is the only offer.
Sanctions and bombing are not nothing. And surrenders can be negotiated. Basic rules of negotiation. Negotiate from a position of strength, be willing to walk away from the table and make it clear you will. We did none of these things and got a terrible deal as a result. This inspection scheme is a complete joke, even worse than what we had with North Korea, and they violated it and got a nuke. And everyone expects Iran to violate the terms of the agreement. Obama wants to remove all US influence on Middle East and allow Iran to rule it as a regional hegemon. This deal furthers that objective. The world's leading sponsor of terrorism has never been stronger. It's why the Saudis and Israelis are making common cause.
^Guy who is wrong about everything can't make it past first point without self pwn. Libya traded their pointless nuclear program to get sanctions lifted: Basically what your'e saying is that you can't negotiate with tyrants, unless you are George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan, in which case, you can negotiate with tyrants and send them money and or weapons, in Reagan's case.
That, but moreso because Gaddafi did not want to be removed like Saddam was. You can negotiate with tyrants with a viable threat of force, if they have a reason to fear not negotiating. Iran had no such fear. Iran didn't trade their nuclear program, they just pinky swore not to develop weapons with it. Which no one believes.
Nukes have TREMENDOUS value for a minor nation, particularly one situated in the ME. Iran with a nuke would make intervention in the ME much more difficult. It would simultaneously ratchet up tension in the area. All of which works in Iran's favor, and is why they want the nuke. Iran with a nuke would be the preeminent power in the ME, and that has been their goal. What makes you think they don't have value? An analogy would be the smallest thug on the block suddenly acquiring a machine gun. It's a great equalizer for small nations.
Except that Libya was attempting to normalize relations with the US from the 1990's onward, and their nuclear program was a barganing chip the Bush administration was willing to cash in that others weren't. Didn't really work out for Gaddafi though, obviously.
That's exactly the point. We really don't have the ability to demand too much because China and Russia are on Iran's side. If negotiations fail to get a deal, they would just go ahead and start trading with Iran and we'd have no deal and no deterrent on their weapons. People have to be realistic about the strength of our position and leverage given the influence of China and Russia.
He told you that was supposed to be secret The real plan is to for Lockheed/Boeing/ Halliburton to make a killing arming the Saudi's. They needed a stronger regional opponent to be persuaded into spending more.
it's not a secret http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/o...makes-his-case-on-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0
Not only is it amazing to see how Commodore see one sentence and balloon it to all kind of crazy meanings, the wider context of the paragraph is completely lost. The question was about the Iranian people and this was Obama response: Obama clearly want the Iranian people to rise up and take the opportunity to transform their leaders and country to be a "good" country if you will. If that actually happen, that would be great for the world. How can you be against that? I know this has been said before, but it's worth repeating -- what conservative here and hard-liner in Iran has in common - they both don't the deal or any deal for that matter. They both do not want to take any chance for a better tomorrow; they rather kill each other instead.
This couldn't be more true. Strong, conservative leadership would have been intelligent enough to realize this, and savvy enough to utilize it to get the Iranians to back down. Refer to the 2013 Shut-down negotiations for proof. Democrats had no idea what hit them! America!
Not really relevant to this discussion, but you should review the capabilities of chemical weapons. There are chemicals out there that make nukes look tame in terms of ability to exterminate hundreds of thousands of people. Even old school chemicals are much more deadly than conventional weapons. Look at what Saddam did when he attacked those Kurdish villages. Just a few artillery shells (which wouldn't have killed anyone) and whole villages were wiped out. Why would Iran need them? The concern is over their first strike capabilities.
You need to review the facts. Halabja involved exactly no field artillery at all. It was a series of at least 14 separate air strikes coordinated by helecopter. Chemical attacks are basically a terror weapon. Because dispersal depends on wind, they are ridiculously unreliable. Maybe they kill a ton of people, maybe not. Putting a bullet in someone or blowing them up is a whole lot less subject to failure. As with bioweapons, transport and delivery are a b****. And they work a whole lot better on dirt-farming peasants than infantry in MOPP suits. Also, in practical terms, North Korea's ability to murder everybody in Seoul with a billion hardened artillery emplacements and the threat of Chinese involvment are bigger impediments to invasion than their misfiring nuclear weapons that they can't reliably deliver anywhere. They are more "dictator bling" than anything else.
Are you referring to the Halabja chemical attack in Iraq? It was not a few artillery shells, according to the reports the attack was conducted 1st with a barrage of conventional artillery & rockets and the actual chemical attack was conducted by fighter jets. The Iraqi air force flew 14 sorties with each sortie consisting of 7-8 fighters with each fighter capable of carrying 4-5 bombs you are looking at several hundred bombs dropped. If you look at Iran & Iraqi war in which the Iraqis used chemical weapons, the chemical weapon attacks killed close to 30K Iranian & Kurds which sounds like a very devastating weapon but that result was achieve by using 20K chemical bombs, over 54K chemical artillery shells, and 27K chemical rockets. What super chemical weapon are you referring to that's capable of wiping out hundreds of thousands of people?
The little I know about Muslims...is that Sunni's and Shi'ites very much dislike each other. Considering Iran is mostly Shi'ite dominated, I do believe that this will trigger an arms race. Wouldnt be surprised if other Sunni countries/gulf nations decide that its time to pursue their own options.
