I don't really care for using this war argument. It's a scare tactic (and not a very good one) and a false dichotomy. War is not the only alternative. If it is, Obama screwed the pooch pretty good with this one. And, I don't think he did.
This is a really excellent post from txtony and I have yet to read a comment from anyone about it from the Left, Right, Center, or Extreme Lunacy members here. The guys quoted with their opinions are not chopped liver. What's the problem? Is it too long for some of you?
we're in the best of hands folks <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The U.S. Secretary of State is also Ayatollah Khamenei's press secretary: <a href="http://t.co/aSdTeg8uCD">http://t.co/aSdTeg8uCD</a> <a href="http://t.co/q5OurFj2KS">pic.twitter.com/q5OurFj2KS</a></p>— Noah Pollak (@NoahPollak) <a href="https://twitter.com/NoahPollak/status/626512569726042112">July 29, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This whole argument seems pretty stupid. It was a negotiation. Iran won't agree to it unless they feel like they are getting something. The U.S. isn't giving Iran money, they are allowing Iran access to their own money. The U.S. will sell it to their people as the U.S. got the better of the deal, and Iran will try and sell it to their people that they got the better of the deal. The bottom line is that without this agreement, Iran could have a nuclear weapon within 2 years. With this deal they won't get one for at least a decade. All of this other crap is nonsense.
I was suspicious of the MIT report as it was a little too gushing on the deal. I suspected there'd be a bunch of positives and negatives. So I googled about, including the old standby -- wiki. And the only naysayers I can find are Israel, which, understandably, distrusts all things Iran and the political pitbulls looking for pagehits, partisan snipes, or mudslinging. So hats off to the administration here. Looks like they done good.
Yea, I read a number of detailed reports including from group that include former Republican administration and listen to hr of detailed analysis. Hardly comprehensive but still very surprised at how positive they were. This is looking to be one of those where experts are saying one thing and one whole party is saying the complete opposite. It's amazing to witness yet again the position taken based on idelogy and in blatant disregard of experts. Given that most Americans only follow news flash and are sheep to party twitter feeds without ever questioning or learning for themselves, the perception of this deal probably will never reflect anything close to experts opinion.
What I don't understand is what kind of deal do you want? You realize that Russia and China were going to lift sanctions anyway? So the U.S. really didn't have a great negotiating position. I hear everyone saying we should have had hostages freed, and absolute zero this or that...but then there would be no deal. For those that say no deal is better than a bad deal...I wonder if they realize that no deal means that Iran gets to sell oil and import weapons and develop nukes as the sanctions were going to be coming down regardless. Oh the U.S. can keep it's sanctions in place, but that's what Iran was worried about.
Lmao I was just thinking that while reading some posts before this one so reading your post made me lol.
As with everything else, there is no alternative. He doesn't know what he actually wants. But the scary president man said something is good, so better find some tweets that tell him it's bad.
that pretty much sums it up. and if there is no other alternative and something is undeniably good. in that case the president had nothing to do with it and it was from other people's doing. in 7 years obama has done nothing, unless of course it was something bad.
A deal where the Republicans mentally bomb Iran into submission with their steely glare and MASSIVE amount of Feck, Iran trades in the Revolutionary Flag for the Stars and Stripes and then buy a bunch of pickup trucks with Lee Greenwood on repeat and drive off to the Fracking fields to help their new partners basically a fantasy deal that they have had decades to pull off under various regimes and never ever done and will never happen. Foreign policy is hard, it's complicated, nuanced and uncertain, and involves unpleasant realities at times. The current iteration of the Republican party has no tolerance for complication, nuance or reality.
Whats funny to me is the massive wave of conservatives stating that Iran CANNOT be trusted (which is kind of pointless since this isn't a deal based on trust, as has been stated multiple times by the IAEA), yet... We're the government whose CIA ousted their democratically elected leader in the 1950's because he wanted to nationalize their oil :/
Remember the good old, bad old days when our biggest fear was getting annihilated by nuclear weapons by the big bad Soviets? The Evil Empire! What were those words used by the conservative savior in 1987? Oh yeah: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/As6y5eI01XE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty A series of meetings in August and September 1986 culminated in the Reykjavík Summit between Reagan and Gorbachev on 11 October 1986. Both agreed in principle to remove INF systems from Europe and to equal global limits of 100 INF missile warheads. Gorbachev also proposed deeper and more fundamental changes in the strategic relationship. More detailed negotiations extended throughout 1987, aided by the decision of West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in August to unilaterally remove the joint U.S.-West German Pershing 1a systems. The treaty text was finally agreed in September 1987. On 8 December 1987, the Treaty was officially signed by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev at a summit in Washington and ratified the following May in a 93-5 vote by the United States Senate. By the treaty's deadline of 1 June 1991, a total of 2,692 of such weapons had been destroyed, 846 by the U.S. and 1,846 by the Soviet Union. Under the treaty both nations were allowed to inspect each other's military installations. Each nation was permitted to render inoperative and retain 15 missiles, 15 launch canisters and 15 launchers for static display.
It's not just Russia & China, India is absolutely desperate for Iranian oil as well. Japan and South Korea are also big time importers of Iranian oil.
Here is a Washington Post article on some Iranian hard-liners takes. We already know they are not happy about the deal so this is no surprise. The last sentence show what many think would happen if Congress reject the deal. They are ready to blame the US Congress. I would imagine Russian, China, and whoever else want to do business with Iran will jump on the same argument and excuse and would not continue to support any sanction. IOW, sanction already was deemed ineffective against stopping Iran from getting a nuke will most definitely be dead if the deal doesn't fall through and if it's because of US Congress killing the deal. The US Congress has essentially two choices. Vote down the deal and US and Israel is on their own to stop Iran from getting a Nuke with little to no international support. There will be no monitoring program. Strong risk of escalation that can lead to military actions. Vote for the deal and US and the international community can keep a watchful eye over Iran nuclear program. If Iran breaks the deal, US and Israel have the ground for support by the international body. They are in a much better political and legal position to act, even if by themselves. For those that are concern about growing Iran's influence in the region, the priority is dealing with Iranian nuclear weapon ambition. How the US and other countries deal with Iran's influence in the region is a completely separate issue. Getting their nuclear weapon program under watch and off the plate is the critical step. Reining in their influence is something the US and their allies can continue to do based on Iran's current and future actions. And who know what the future hold. If Iranian moderates win out due to a historic agreement that result in an improvement in their economy, in international relationship and their livelihood, we may see a "good" Iran in 20 years. But if moderate lose now, there is little chance of any "good" Iran in the next few decades. Spoiler
Does anyone here seriously believe the deal won't pass eventually? Feel so bad for Iranian citizens who have had no input on this whatsoever. A deal struck with their captors. Iranians are so desperate for sanctions to be lifted, but at the same time this deal cements the seat of their captors for at least another decade. Depressing lose-lose situation, but at least you guys get something out of it and it's a temporary breather for Iranians. The timing of this deal comes years after Iranians have needed it. The only reason it's happening now is because the ayatollahs were running out of money to steal. Also, there is plenty of opposition to this deal aside from Israel, namely every significant Arab country.
Don't know about eventually. Perhaps it's all political theater. The Republicans are dead set against the deal and a number of conservative Democrats are also on edge. It's a high bar to get over the veto limit, but it's far from a given. This is interesting. Do you think that if there is no deal and sanction continue, the Iranian citizens would eventually revolt against their "captors"? Is that a preferred path for you?
