Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

BBC article







It's about time


While Republicans object, they seem to not get that no deal means Iran would have a much easier time to get a nuke- 50x as much enriched uranium available, more centrifuges, no inspectors.


There doesn't seem to be much benefit to not making the deal that I can see, and that's why an international coalition- who, by the way, we need to do the sanctions anyway, so if they ever gave up on sanctions we'd have neither treaty nor that limiter- was so in favor of it. So if the US alone doesn't ratify the treaty, it's not like the sanctions are necessarily going to stay up either.

All in all it strikes me as a good deal, and the objections to be fairly questionable.

We won't know if the agreement is a success for another few years at least.

It's an encouraging result at the moment. The P5+1 didn't give up as much as conservatives feared they would.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
We won't know if the agreement is a success for another few years at least.

It's an encouraging result at the moment. The P5+1 didn't give up as much as conservatives feared they would.

This deal gives them a full nuclear arsenal in less then 10 years.

Lol, encouraging.. Are you in the clouds?

After talks were over the day, just 4 days ago Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was going to rallies that were burning flags and chanting death to America and Israel. He said after this deal was reached he would continue to fight against America.

I understand the Republicans' objections. If I understand correctly, inspectors have to apply for permission from Iran if they want to inspect their facilities, and Iran has the choice to grant it and can take up to 2 weeks? Why would you think this is a good deal? This gives them most of the leverage. This adds red tape to the situation and that red tape is in the form of Iran.

It seems like you're saying any deal is better than no deal at all, a position the Democrats are known to accept. This isn't a valid argument and even a less valid reason to make this deal. So yes, the Republicans' objections are well founded.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This deal gives them a full nuclear arsenal in less then 10 years.


Nooo, no it doesn't. It has 15 years of inspectors, plus a reduction in the amount of gear needed to make a bomb.


Also, you do realize that, no restrictions, they could make a bomb in under 6 months, right?



It's like people are just re-writing the deal in their heads to make it the opposite of the reality. Is there a reason you want Iran to have less restrictions to making a nuclear weapon?





My understanding is the inspectors will have more free access than that. They have to let the inspectors there or the deal's off or sanctions pop back on.... but you do realize there's no access right now, right? As in zero? That would entirely be an increase in access? As in you are literally arguing for there to be less access to Iranian nuclear facilities? Significantly less access?

Even that is secondary, it drastically reduces their physical capability to make a nuclear weapon and removes 98% of their fuel stockpile that could go to making such a weapon.



Right now, the lead-up time to bomb is measured in months. With fewer centrifuges and the stockpiles gone, they'd be years away from the time they started. Meaning all the watchers would have to pick up is a multi-year process. And this is not small stuff that can be picked up and moved around, at that, this is significant large facilities.


The centrifuges is easily the big thing here, it means they are physically far further from making a nuke.

Meaning, we're going from months from start with nothing to prevent them from starting but their judgement call, to 2 years from start with watches to show they aren't even trying to start for 15 years.


The "Do nothing" policy- you know, what the Republicans are advocating- saw their lead-up from start to bomb time drop from 5 years to a matter of months. How close do they have to be in terms of bomb lead-up time does it take for people to realize it's not working?

"Well, their centrifuges means they can make the materials for it in a few weeks... but I'm sure the sanctions will work any day now!"

Would that make you happy?



Time-Immemorial, psmith, why do you want Iran to have an easy path to nuclear weaponry with no restrictions?



One, it's a pretty reasonable deal just on it's own, this is a lot of restrictions, they're physically destroying a good amount of expensive equipment here and giving up large amounts of enriched uranium.

And two, if the objections are based on 'we don't want them to have nukes,' then heck yea their objections are downright stupid since the deal actually gets what they want to get via not-having the deal. If 'we don't want them to have nukes' is the reason, then what exactly is the objection to the argument that puts them much further from nuclear weapons?

There's no alternative, no suggested path, just doing exactly what has gotten Iran closer to a nuke for years.





The alternative isn't this or another deal after all, it's literally this or no restrictions whatsoever, and if your entire argument is based on you not wanting them having nukes, then it doesn't help that the other side of the argument has every advantage in preventing that from happening, and the objection side doesn't even have a vague suggestion how to make it happen.

Or it's like people who think any deal is better than no deal.


I'm arguing that access is irrelevant if Iran has at least 2 weeks to stall inspectors, more than enough time to clear out evidence of impropriety.


How, exactly does it do that?


As opposed to the "do anything" policy that the Democrats are known for?


Uh why? You don't think the US could have pushed for tighter restrictions? I feel we gave them a lot of leverage just to say a deal was done.


This is a straw man. First you said this:


No you're claiming we want no restrictions. Which one is it? It's irrelevant really. We want tighter restrictions that doesn't give Iran all the leverage. This idea that any deal is better than no deal, is false.

Originally posted by psmith81992

No you're claiming we want no restrictions. Which one is it? It's irrelevant really. We want tighter restrictions that doesn't give Iran all the leverage. This idea that any deal is better than no deal, is false.


Oh, well your choice is this deal or no deal or a deal that gives Iran more than this, because this is about their limit and they give a heck of a lot in this one.

Iran has no reason to agree to something significantly more restrictive, and as has been abundantly clear, 'staying the course' only gets them closer to a bomb.


What's your pick there?


And/or how do you propose to get this mythological better deal? That seems rather vague in the objections. Vague in the 'completely unaddressed beyond "keep on the sanctions." '. Which has failed.

And, notably, as we are not the only ones involved, eventually the other countries involved will simply make a deal without us if 'keep up the sanctions' is your only option.


Personally, "On-site inspections for 15 years, plus a reduction in equipment so significant it'd multiple their time-to-bomb up to 2 years," strikes me as a rather good deal.



There's a saying, 'perfect is the enemy of good.'


If you're saying that you'll refuse a good deal while waiting for a perfect one, the real-life consequences of that is you do not get any deal.



If all you have as a counter-argument is a vague hand-wavy better deal, then yea, you got nothing, and I stand by "Why do you want them to have no restrictions to getting nukes?", because whether or not that's the intent, that's the practical result of such a stance.




Nope, that doesn't work. These are large facilities, they are not portable, and they're radioactive, you'd be able to tell if they were there anyway.

There are things where one can move in that time, but nuclear reactors are not one of them.


Also, I have been able to find no sources on this two-week thing in the final form of the deal. You couldn't hide stuff even if there was two week warning, but again, I can't find a source on that.


The actual terms of the deal that all the websites keep mentioning are more along the lines of 'access to the facilities 24/7'.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Or it's like people who think any deal is better than no deal.


I'm arguing that access is irrelevant if Iran has at least 2 weeks to stall inspectors, more than enough time to clear out evidence of impropriety.


How, exactly does it do that?


As opposed to the "do anything" policy that the Democrats are known for?


Uh why? You don't think the US could have pushed for tighter restrictions? I feel we gave them a lot of leverage just to say a deal was done.


This is a straw man. First you said this:


No you're claiming we want no restrictions. Which one is it? It's irrelevant really. We want tighter restrictions that doesn't give Iran all the leverage. This idea that any deal is better than no deal, is false. Originally posted by psmith81992
Or it's like people who think any deal is better than no deal.


I'm arguing that access is irrelevant if Iran has at least 2 weeks to stall inspectors, more than enough time to clear out evidence of impropriety.


How, exactly does it do that?


As opposed to the "do anything" policy that the Democrats are known for?


Uh why? You don't think the US could have pushed for tighter restrictions? I feel we gave them a lot of leverage just to say a deal was done.


This is a straw man. First you said this:


No you're claiming we want no restrictions. Which one is it? It's irrelevant really. We want tighter restrictions that doesn't give Iran all the leverage. This idea that any deal is better than no deal, is false.

I put Q99 on ignore, he/she is delusional and a big time waster. Its like talking to a brick wall.

Again, can we please cut out the no-value posts just attacking other members?

Originally posted by Q99
Oh, well your choice is this deal or no deal or a deal that gives Iran more than this, because this is about their limit and they give a heck of a lot in this one.

Iran has no reason to agree to something significantly more restrictive, and as has been abundantly clear, 'staying the course' only gets them closer to a bomb.


What's your pick there?


And/or how do you propose to get this mythological better deal? That seems rather vague in the objections. Vague in the 'completely unaddressed beyond "keep on the sanctions." '. Which has failed.

And, notably, as we are not the only ones involved, eventually the other countries involved will simply make a deal without us if 'keep up the sanctions' is your only option.


Personally, "On-site inspections for 15 years, plus a reduction in equipment so significant it'd multiple their time-to-bomb up to 2 years," strikes me as a rather good deal.



There's a saying, 'perfect is the enemy of good.'


If you're saying that you'll refuse a good deal while waiting for a perfect one, the real-life consequences of that is you do not get any deal.



If all you have as a counter-argument is a vague hand-wavy better deal, then yea, you got nothing, and I stand by "Why do you want them to have no restrictions to getting nukes?", because whether or not that's the intent, that's the practical result of such a stance.




Nope, that doesn't work. These are large facilities, they are not portable, and they're radioactive.

There are things where one can move in that time, but nuclear reactors are not one of them.
You are saying that it's either the current deal or no deal. That's not necessarily true. Also, the mythical deal I'm talking about would shorten the "wait time", or at least start imposing sanctions if Iran refuses to allow initial inspections and/or drags the process, etc. There were many options that may have been discussed had the democrats not been so eager to just make a deal.


Your lack of tolerance to those who disagree with you and bring up valid points while doing so, is making us conservatives look bad. I suggest you stop.

Hard to attack someone who you can't talk to, and saying someone is delusional/time waster is not attacking anyone.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Delusional

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

Originally posted by psmith81992
You are saying that it's either the current deal or no deal. That's not necessarily true. Also, the mythical deal I'm talking about would shorten the "wait time", or at least start imposing sanctions if Iran refuses to allow initial inspections and/or drags the process, etc. There were many options that may have been discussed had the democrats not been so eager to just make a deal.


Your lack of tolerance to those who disagree with you and bring up valid points while doing so, is making us conservatives look bad. I suggest you stop.

I never said I was conservative. I suggest you get your facts in order. And cut out the self righteous attitude, no one is a fan.

This coming from someone who blocks anyone who doesn't agree with them. That's pretty hysterical. And let's be honest, you are conservative..

The inspection lead times and other intel

"If the committee decides in a vote to reject the Iranian reservations, Iran will have three days to arrange the inspectors' visit to the suspicious facility. The inspectors who would be allowed access to the nuclear facilities and the suspicious sites in Iran will come only from states with which Iran has diplomatic relations. "

Three days after a vote, longer with no vote.

Three days does not strike me as particularly too long to grant.

Originally posted by Q99
Ok, found the inspection lead times

"If the committee decides in a vote to reject the Iranian reservations, Iran will have three days to arrange the inspectors' visit to the suspicious facility. The inspectors who would be allowed access to the nuclear facilities and the suspicious sites in Iran will come only from states with which Iran has diplomatic relations. "

Three days after a vote, longer with no vote.

Three days does not strike me as particularly too long to grant.

I don't understand. I read that Iran has up to 14 days to grant inspections..

Originally posted by psmith81992
This coming from someone who blocks anyone who doesn't agree with them. That's pretty hysterical. And let's be honest, you are conservative..

I take it, you think you know me cause you been posting here for what 2 weeks? You don't.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I take it, you think you know me cause you been posting here for what 2 weeks? You don't.

Sure thing Papi, don't get defensive.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Sure thing Papi, don't get defensive.

Now your just being stupid and trolling. You thought you knew me, you don't. Don't even try, junior.

Time-Immemorial's definition of 'time waster' is someone who disagrees with him and posts evidence that shows him wrong.

Apparently having his arguments blown out of the water repeatedly- not just by me, I think most people here can do so pretty easily- is a waste of his time

Psmith, you bring up good arguments at times and seem to argue in good faith. T-I doesn't.


Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't understand. I read that Iran has up to 14 days to grant inspections..

Yeeea, I'm guessing that someone was feeding you bad intel.




Keep in mind also this is a multi-national effort agreed upon by multiple nations, Germany, Russia, and so on, it's not just the Democrats, we need those other countries on board for a deal to work, it comes after a many-year effort, and no one has actually suggested what could be done to get this better deal when the longer there's a wait, the closer Iran gets and the more *we* would likely have to concede to get a deal.

Stalling is not automatically to our favor.

If someone had a concrete plan for a better deal, that'd be another thing, but the Republicans haven't presented one.


And now that we have this one, even if you think it's not perfect, it definitely seems to me to get us a very good chunk of what we want for a pretty reasonable price.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hard to attack someone who you can't talk to, and saying someone is delusional/time waster is not attacking anyone.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Delusional

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

Now you are being ridiculous- that was clearly an attack with no other purpose in the thread. You'll get an official warning if you keep this up.

Likewise, let's cut out this arguing. Take it to PM rather than derail the thread.

Fine

Mr. Obama, you've done it again

Originally posted by Robtard
Mr. Obama, you've done it again

Actually Kerry did it. But it was a bad deal, so who you giving props too?

What did he do again? Create the largest income inequality gap in history? Oh whoops wrong thread.

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-deal-look-does-problems-remaining-042703362.html
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-4-fatal-flaws-the-iran-deal-12551

These ARE interesting points, minus the one mentioning the Ayatollah.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Actually Kerry did it. But it was a bad deal, so who you giving props too?

Obama, I thought that was obvious with the sign.

Funny he could not get us back the American journalists in prisoned in this deal, Obama and Kerry are weak negotiators.

Don't worry, you'll have dumb people give Obama credit because he's in office, but then switch the blame to Bush when it comes to economics.

If they'd be unable to move things like nuclear reactors in the 2 weeks notice for inspections..well, then why is notice even necessary at all? Isn't the point of an inspection to catch someone off guard, so you get an idea of how they operate normally, as opposed to how they operate when they know someone is stopping by? That sounds more like a tour then an inspection if they have 2 weeks notice.

I think we should also remember that Iran is it's own sovereign nation, and not some subjugated loser the US can just impose anything it wants on.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think we should also remember that Iran is a it's own sovereign nation, and not some subjugated loser the US can just impose anything it wants on.

Yes, it's own sovereign nation that has pledged to wipe Israel off the map. And we CAN subjugate Iran if we wanted to. Don't mistake this deal for weakness.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think we should also remember that Iran is a it's own sovereign nation, and not some subjugated loser the US can just impose anything it wants on.

We subjugated Germany because of bad behavior. We can do it to Iran.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We subjugated Germany because of bad behavior. We can do it to Iran.
Yeah, but you haven't yet. Hence the negotiation. And the compromising.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but you haven't yet. Hence the negotiation. And the compromising.

You're assuming we're compromising because we somehow can't subjugate Iran. Now THAT is presumptuous.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yes, it's own sovereign nation that has pledged to wipe Israel off the map. And we CAN subjugate Iran if we wanted to. Don't mistake this deal for weakness.

I don't think this deal is weakness, I think it shows that the US can be a responsible country dealing with other nations without sabre rattling (though the Republicans tried their best to rattle them anyways).

Originally posted by psmith81992
You're assuming we're compromising because we somehow can't subjugate Iran. Now THAT is presumptuous.

No, I'm not. Jesus Christ. Of course I know the US could win a war against Iran, I'm saying you can't just treat every nation you could potentially win a war against as if you had won a war against them....

I didn't say we could treat every nation the way you're describing, but you're saying Iran "isn't some loser you could subjugate", and that's where you're being presumptuous.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I didn't say we could treat every nation the way you're describing, but you're saying Iran "isn't some loser you could subjugate", and that's where you're being presumptuous.

You're misquoting me.

I said Iran is "not some subjugated loser the US can just impose anything it wants on."

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think we should also remember that Iran is a it's own sovereign nation, and not some subjugated loser the US can just impose anything it wants on.

Originally posted by Surtur
If they'd be unable to move things like nuclear reactors in the 2 weeks notice for inspections..well, then why is notice even necessary at all? Isn't the point of an inspection to catch someone off guard, so you get an idea of how they operate normally, as opposed to how they operate when they know someone is stopping by? That sounds more like a tour then an inspection if they have 2 weeks notice.

Again, not actually two weeks notice.

There is the matter that there's real arrangements that need to be made, some stuff turned off so it can be inspect, travel arrangements so people can get there, etc..


Originally posted by Bardock42
I think we should also remember that Iran is a it's own sovereign nation, and not some subjugated loser the US can just impose anything it wants on.


Right. It is a fairly well-defended stable nation with it's own culture and who, like it or not, acts as a rational actor.

It's not run by an impulsive warlord like some of it's neighbors, and is organized enough that it'd be quite a problem if we did go to war- it'd hurt to fight Iran more than it hurt to fight Iraq.


We made plenty of deals with the USSR back in the day, those deals worked because even though we didn't like each other it was in both side's interests, and this is likely to be no different. What's so different between Iran and the cold war with the USSR?





The former is... half-true. Some loudmouth generals have said that. The official position is they want the government replaced with a Muslim one. We are not talking usage of nukes.

They have shown no intention of actually launching a war over it.

I will also mention that Egypt had a more aggressive stance and actively went to war over it, until we flat-out bribed them to change directions.


And sure, the outcome of a war wouldn't be in doubt. But on the flip side, it's also one that'd cost several times as much as the war with Iraq, because they are a much more formidable foe. Trillions of dollars, tens of thousands of US lives, however many Iranian lives.

Would it be remotely worth it to go to war?

What do we actually want from a war? If it's just 'them not to have nukes,' then we can probably get that from negotiation.

If it's 'for them to not declare war on Israel,' then that's even easier.

If it's 'we want a friendly regime in place,' then... well, I don't think either way is too likely to get that, but in maybe ten-twenty years we may have things warmed up. I'll point to Iraq as a show how we aren't actually that good at making friendly regimes. We can knock over hostile ones, but making a new one that gives us what we want is a lot trickier.


They're hostile, but they're willing to negotiate, and almost certainly that'll include stuff like relations with Israel, where we've already convinced multiple countries to change their stances before.

Originally posted by Q99
We made plenty of deals with the USSR back in the day, those deals worked because even though we didn't like each other it was in both side's interests, and this is likely to be no different. What's so different between Iran and the cold war with the USSR?

Islam, that's the issue some people have.

You do know that the Ayatollah is every bit as influential as the president, right?


That one is more difficult because Israel wouldn't hesitate to wipe them off the map, like Iran is promising to do to Israel.


They will NOT negotiate with Iran. That's being incredibly naive. I still believe the sanctions were weak in a jumbled attempt to get some kind of agreement going.

Originally posted by Q99
Again, not actually two weeks notice.

There is the matter that there's real arrangements that need to be made, some stuff turned off so it can be inspect, travel arrangements so people can get there, etc..

So how many days notice, then?

Thoughts?

Obama caved on every major point here. All the sanctions have been lifted and they will have a bomb within 10 years.

Iran is suing us now

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/iran-court-order-us-50-billion-damages-120026.html

What is awesome is Bibi said he is not honoring this deal.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Thoughts? My thoughts are we need to wait and see what happens.

The main thing about this deal was to get us access and help force limitations on Iran's Nuclear program.

This deal has all the ability to give us that. Now it's time to wait and see.

As it stand though at the very least this shows the US is willing to work with other countries and we're not just going to do what we want when we want at the detriment of all parties involved including the US' own interests.

Because playing it tough in the past has not helped our image and it has not helped topple or stop creation of horrible governments. Even Iraq has seemingly blown up in our face.

Lol, yea and you believe what Obama says, like "Oh you can keep your doctor, and your insurance premiums will go down"

All lies. You are are so easy to fool.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What is awesome is Bibi said he is not honoring this deal.

Netanyahu's probably dick-waving, as to not show weakness in the eyes of Israelis, especially the more conservatives.

But if Israel's not willing to give Iran the chance, maybe it's Israel that needs a heavy-hand instead of Iran.

Originally posted by Robtard
Netanyahu's probably dick-waving, as to not show weakness in the eyes of Israelis, especially the more conservatives.

But if Israel's not willing to give Iran the chance, maybe it's Israel that needs a heavy-hand instead of Iran.

So its dick waving when Bibi does it, but empty threats when Iran talks about wiping them off the face of the earth, as well as the US.

Obama has started a nuclear arms race, SA has had no problem with Israel having nukes, now the Saudi's are going to start acquiring nukes because of Iran.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11617339/Is-Saudi-Arabia-trying-to-get-nuclear-weapons.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/19/world/saudi-pakistan-nuclear-report/

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So its dick waving when Bibi does it, but empty threats when Iran talks about wiping them off the face of the earth, as well as the US.

I meant 'showing toughness and manliness' with "dick waving" there. Not "Bibi wants to nuke Iran".

To your edit/addition: Didn't read the story, but what's your beef with SA having nukes? They're an ally like Israel and I don't see you complaining about Israel's nukes. Also, the deal stops Iran from acquiring nukes.

I edited

This deal allows them to have conventional weapons in 5 years and ballistic missiles in 8 years. It also allows the to sell oil and weapons on the open market. And will give them instantly almost $140 billion in tied up funds due to sanctions.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This deal allows them to have conventional weapons in 5 years and ballistic missiles in 8 years. It also allows the to sell oil and weapons on the open market. And will give them instantly almost $140 billion in tied up funds due to sanctions.

I wonder what they'll do with all that money in terms of fighting Israel.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This deal allows them to have conventional weapons in 5 years and ballistic missiles in 8 years. It also allows the to sell oil and weapons on the open market. And will give them instantly almost $140 billion in tied up funds due to sanctions.

I'm sorry, are you saying Iran can't even be allowed to have conventional weapons and to sell their oil and weapons like many other countries already do?

Originally posted by psmith81992
I wonder what they'll do with all that money in terms of fighting Israel.

I suspect Israel will strike first as they are not bound by this deal.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm sorry, are you saying Iran can't even be allowed to have conventional weapons and to sell their oil and weapons like many other countries already do?

Not until they stop sponsoring terror and stop chanting death o Israel and America. And stop saying wiping Israel off the map is non negotiable.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Iran is suing us now

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/iran-court-order-us-50-billion-damages-120026.html

Well there is no chance we'd ever pay them any money for these "damages" right? Even Obama isn't that stupid.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well there is no chance we'd ever pay them any money for these "damages" right? Even Obama isn't that stupid.

With Obama in office, anything could happen, like this horrible deal.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Thoughts?

The man is an utter moron.

Originally posted by jaden101
The man is an utter moron.

Based on what? He's coming from a position of defending his nation from 20+ arab nations intent on wiping him out.

Originally posted by jaden101
The man is an utter moron.

And what brings your to this conclusion?

The fact that you two right wing nutters are so quick to jump to his defence is all the argument I need.

Originally posted by jaden101
The fact that you two right wing nutters are so quick to jump to his defence is all the argument I need.

Welp, the idiot left makes my case for me again. Too easy

Originally posted by psmith81992
Welp, the idiot left makes my case for me again. Too easy

And yet you know nothing about my politics.

We'll examine your argument though. "20+ arab countries want to see Israel wiped out"

Well there's only 21 Arab countries anyway and 2 of those have full diplomatic relations with Israel (Egypt and Jordan). So that takes it to 19 and nullifies your shitty premise straight away. The majority that don't have diplomatic relations don't have an agenda either way towards Israel. Saudi Arabia has on several occasions tried to foster negotiations with Israel which have been flat out rejected. Syria has limited relations. Lebanon is considering an non aggression pact with Israel and relations are on the up. 3 of the Arab countries relationships with Israel are inconsequential anyway namely Djibouti, Mauritania and cormoros. The main country of any consequence is Iran which has elected a reformist government and is at least now making its first steps at improving relations on the global stage which is a lot more than can be said for Israel which only ever seems to elect right wing insular and antagonistic regimes or even more extreme right wing openly hostile regimes.

Originally posted by jaden101
The fact that you two right wing nutters are so quick to jump to his defence is all the argument I need.

And the democrats who are speaking out against this deal are right wing nutters as well? CNN even says this is a bad deal.

This begs proof, which you conveniently ignored.

Syria has been anti Israel for the past 50 years. Whether the relations are limited or not right now is irrelevant. Lebanon is the same way. I'm not sure where you are getting your information. You conveniently forgot the majority of the Arab league, not surprising. So yes, my 20+ premise was slightly incorrect, while the majority of your argument lacks any kind of evidence. Not surprising at all. And yea, Israel is going to be antagonistic to those who are seeking its extermination. Good try though

Originally posted by psmith81992
This begs proof, which you conveniently ignored.

Syria has been anti Israel for the past 50 years. Whether the relations are limited or not right now is irrelevant. Lebanon is the same way. I'm not sure where you are getting your information. You conveniently forgot the majority of the Arab league, not surprising. So yes, my 20+ premise was slightly incorrect, while the majority of your argument lacks any kind of evidence. Not surprising at all. And yea, Israel is going to be antagonistic to those who are seeking its extermination. Good try though

Its been said on here before by people like Omega that they consider Iran's threat's mere chest beating and empty words.

Of coarse anything, they ignore that this program will allow them to research advanced centrifuges and this gives them a direct path to a nuke.

Now with the sanction relief and the cash infusion of near $140 billion, this will jump start their economy and allow more funding for R&D.

Saudia Arabia and many other countries are appalled at this deal and will now seek out nukes.

Also there are no snap inspections, Iran will sit on the inspection board and can delay the inspection for up to 24 days. Thus allowing them time to hide, move anything they need to.

After 8-10 years, all this is dead in the water and they will have a nuke.

Originally posted by psmith81992
This begs proof, which you conveniently ignored.

Syria has been anti Israel for the past 50 years. Whether the relations are limited or not right now is irrelevant. Lebanon is the same way. I'm not sure where you are getting your information. You conveniently forgot the majority of the Arab league, not surprising. So yes, my 20+ premise was slightly incorrect, while the majority of your argument lacks any kind of evidence. Not surprising at all. And yea, Israel is going to be antagonistic to those who are seeking its extermination. Good try though

If you're going to claim that 20+ arab countries aim to see Israel wiped out the onus is on you to back up your claim. Your statement is not slightly incorrect. It was a complete fabrication.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And the democrats who are speaking out against this deal are right wing nutters as well? CNN even says this is a bad deal.

What anyone else is or isn't saying about this deal doesn't change your blatant right wing nut politics though does it?

As was most of your post. Sorry, I'll change it to 10. Shifting burden of proof while proving baseless statements...Is that a thing now?


Spoken like a hardcore liberal. Lets not pretend we don't "know" your affiliations. When your first course of action is to scream "right wing nut", we know where you fit in.

Originally posted by jaden101
What anyone else is or isn't saying about this deal doesn't change your blatant right wing nut politics though does it?

So I'm crazy for not wanting a radical nation intent on killing us and Israel? Are you even aware of what you say?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So I'm crazy for not wanting a radical nation intent on killing us and Israel? Are you even aware of what you say?

The fact that you would even make this statement shows how little you know about the way politics is shifting in Iran. You simply see the name 'iran' and instantly conjure up all the demonisation you've been fed over the years as if any government running Iran is indistinguishable from the previous administrations. I'm almost willing to bet, in your mind, there's no difference between Ahmadinejad and Rouhani. Fact is the Rouhani's election is only the first step in a change that will transform Iranian politics over the next 20 years driven by a massive shift in politics amongst the younger generations in Iran. Some are considering this to be Iran's Berlin Wall moment.

I would love to find out where you get your hilariously misinformed sources. And as along as Khomeini is the spiritual leader, Iran will still be Iran. This is just amusing.

Originally posted by jaden101
The fact that you would even make this statement shows how little you know about the way politics is shifting in Iran. You simply see the name 'iran' and instantly conjure up all the demonisation you've been fed over the years as if any government running Iran is indistinguishable from the previous administrations. I'm almost willing to bet, in your mind, there's no difference between Ahmadinejad and Rouhani. Fact is the Rouhani's election is only the first step in a change that will transform Iranian politics over the next 20 years driven by a massive shift in politics amongst the younger generations in Iran. Some are considering this to be Iran's Berlin Wall moment.

Fact: Rouhani just attended a ralley in Tehran 5 days ago where there was chanting death to America and Israel and burning our flags.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iranians-burn-us-flag-chant-death-to-israel/

Anything else you need me to strike down?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Fact: Rouhani just attended a ralley in Tehran 5 days ago where there was chanting death to America and Israel and burning our flags.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iranians-burn-us-flag-chant-death-to-israel/

Anything else you need me to strike down?

That doesn't go anywhere near addressing my point though does it? Your willful ignorance of the changing political landscape of iran still shines through. You clearly have no intent on educating yourself on it either.

Originally posted by jaden101
That doesn't go anywhere near addressing my point though does it? Your willful ignorance of the changing political landscape of iran still shines through. You clearly have no intent on educating yourself on it either.

Hahaha!!!

You said the leadership has changed! I just proved to you it has not!

Nice try backing out though.

Also they are suppressing any change from the younger population.

http://www.renewamerica.com/images/columns/090826huggett.jpg

Its like they have had the wool pulled over and just gave up on everything to praise Obama.

I'd say it's more of screaming "right wing bias" without realizing the hypocrisy or offering anything other than a baseless rebuttal.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I would love to find out where you get your hilariously misinformed sources. And as along as Khomeini is the spiritual leader, Iran will still be Iran. This is just amusing.

Azadeh Moeveni former middle eastern correspondent for Time magazine. An altogether more informed source than you, clearly.

I'm sure she also knows that Khomeini has been dead for 26 years unlike you, apparently.

Lets burn through though since we were, I will settle at nothing but complete destruction of the Iranian sympathizers.

State sponsored terrorism

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2013/224826.htm

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/30-years-terror-sponsored-iran-article-1.1493410

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/axis/terror.html

Originally posted by jaden101
Azadeh Moeveni former middle eastern correspondent for Time magazine. An altogether more informed source than you, clearly.

I'm sure she also knows that Khomeini has been dead for 26 years unlike you, apparently.

You know who I meant. But what's even more amusing is that instead of posting an article or anything of substance, your response was "this person for this magazine". I think we all get where you stand. Your continued ignorance is shocking.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hahaha!!!

You said the leadership has changed! I just proved to you it has not!

Nice try backing out though.

Also they are suppressing any change from the younger population.

The deal just done disproves your assumption. Unless you're implying that the same deal would have occurred under Ahmadinejad which is utter nonsense.

Originally posted by jaden101
The deal just done disproves your assumption. Unless you're implying that the same deal would have occurred under Ahmadinejad which is utter nonsense.

Are you aware this deal is no deal at all but complete BS and political legacy for Obama that he made some deal, regardless if its a good deal.

I have stated over and over all the problems with this bad deal, you IGNORE every one of them and just yap yap yap, saying "OH THEY GOOD NOW!"

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Lets burn though since we were, I will settle at nothing but complete destruction of the Iranian sympathizers.

State sponsored terrorism

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2013/224826.htm

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/30-years-terror-sponsored-iran-article-1.1493410

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/axis/terror.html

And you can't rebut this, although I would LOVE to see you try.

Originally posted by jaden101
Azadeh Moeveni former middle eastern correspondent for Time magazine. An altogether more informed source than you, clearly.

I'm sure she also knows that Khomeini has been dead for 26 years unlike you, apparently.

Sharpshooting a simple mistake does not do anything but highlight your living on a prayer for a win.

The incredible amount of fail in this thread..Just wow.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You know who I meant. But what's even more amusing is that instead of posting an article or anything of substance, your response was "this person for this magazine". I think we all get where you stand. Your continued ignorance is shocking.

My ignorance? An odd statement from someone whose political knowledge of the middle east seems to be hewn from politicians who can't even point the countries out on a map.

I can see your opinion changing drastically once Iran opens up to US and European businesses which is what this deal is the precursor to.

That's an odd statement from someone who lists an obscure source from a magazine without posting ANYTHING of substance. I also doubt you could point Iran out on a map.


Sure, and when they use the $140 billion they'll eventually get to continue doing what they do, you'll be screaming "it was the conservatives' fault!"

Originally posted by jaden101
\

I can see your opinion changing drastically once Iran opens up to US and European businesses which is what this deal is the precursor to.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Lets burn through since we were, I will settle at nothing but complete destruction of the Iranian sympathizers.

State sponsored terrorism

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2013/224826.htm

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/30-years-terror-sponsored-iran-article-1.1493410

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/axis/terror.html

Keep dodging Jaden, this destroys your argument but hey, I'll keep posting it for ya.

IRAN

Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity, including support for Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and for Hizballah. It has also increased its presence in Africa and attempted to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen and Shia oppositionists in Bahrain. Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and its regional proxy groups to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.

Iran views Syria as a crucial causeway in its weapons supply route to Hizballah, its primary beneficiary. In 2013, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of Iraqi Shia fighters to the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown, a crackdown that has resulted in the death of more than 100,000 civilians in Syria. Iran has publicly admitted sending members of the IRGC to Syria in an advisory role. There are reports indicating some of these troops are IRGC-QF members and that they have taken part in direct combat operations. In February, senior IRGC-QF commander Brigadier General Hassan Shateri was killed in or near Zabadani, Syria. This was the first publicly announced death of a senior Iranian military official in Syria. In November, IRGC-QF commander Mohammad Jamalizadeh Paghaleh was also killed in Aleppo, Syria. Subsequent Iranian media reports stated that Paghaleh was volunteering in Syria to defend the Sayyida Zainab mosque, which is located in Damascus. The location of Paghaleh’s death, over 200 miles away from the mosque he was reported to be protecting, demonstrated Iran’s intent to mask the operations of IRGC-QF forces in Syria.

Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), although Hamas’s ties to Tehran have been strained due to the Syrian civil war. Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah conflict, Iran has also assisted in rearming Hizballah, in direct violation of UNSCR 1701. Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Hizballah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran. These trained fighters often use these skills in support of the Assad regime in Syria.

Despite its pledge to support Iraq’s stabilization, Iran trained, funded, and provided guidance to Iraqi Shia militant groups. The IRGC-QF, in concert with Hizballah, provided training outside of Iraq as well as advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of sophisticated improvised explosive device technology and other advanced weaponry. Similar to Hizballah fighters, many of these trained Shia militants then use these skills to fight for the Assad regime in Syria, often at the behest of Iran.

On January 23, 2013, Yemeni authorities seized an Iranian dhow, the Jihan, off the coast of Yemen. The dhow was carrying sophisticated Chinese antiaircraft missiles, C-4 explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and a number of other weapons and explosives. The shipment of lethal aid was likely headed to Houthi separatists in Northern Yemen. Iran actively supports members of the Houthi movement, including activities intended to build military capabilities, which could pose a greater threat to security and stability in Yemen and the surrounding region.

In late April 2013, the Government of Bosnia declared two Iranian diplomats, Jadidi Sohrab and Hamzeh Dolab Ahmad, persona non grata after Israeli intelligence reported they were members of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security. One of the two men had been spotted in India, Georgia, and Thailand, all of which were sites of a simultaneous bombing campaign in February 2012, according to Israeli intelligence. Both diplomats were subsequently expelled from Bosnia.

On December 29, 2013, the Bahraini Coast Guard interdicted a speedboat filled with weapons and explosives that was likely bound for Shia oppositionists in Bahrain, specifically the 14 February Youth Coalition (14 FYC). Bahraini authorities accused the IRGC-QF of providing opposition militants with explosives training in order to carry out attacks in Bahrain. The interdiction led to the discovery of two weapons and explosives cache sites in Bahrain, the dismantling of a car bomb, and the arrest of 15 Bahraini nationals.

Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody. Iran allowed AQ facilitators Muhsin al-Fadhli and Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and also to Syria. Al-Fadhli is a veteran AQ operative who has been active for years. Al-Fadhli began working with the Iran-based AQ facilitation network in 2009 and was later arrested by Iranian authorities. He was released in 2011 and assumed leadership of the Iran-based AQ facilitation network.

Iran remains a state of proliferation concern. Despite multiple UNSCRs requiring Iran to suspend its sensitive nuclear proliferation activities, Iran continued to violate its international obligations regarding its nuclear program. For further information, see the Report to Congress on Iran-related Multilateral Sanctions Regime Efforts (November 2013), and the Report on the Status of Bilateral and Multilateral Efforts Aimed at Curtailing the Pursuit of Iran of Nuclear Weapons Technology (September 2012).

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Lets burn through though since we were, I will settle at nothing but complete destruction of the Iranian sympathizers.

State sponsored terrorism

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2013/224826.htm

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/30-years-terror-sponsored-iran-article-1.1493410

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tehran/axis/terror.html

And yet despite that, in the last year the US has provided air support to Hezbollah fighting in Syria.

Despite this the US currently shares a military Base in Iraq with Iranian militias

The state.gov article even states that one of the steps in removing a state sponsor of terror from the list is removing sanctions...and what's happening as part of this deal?

Things change. As Iraq is proof of. Once the darling of the west then bombed back to the stone age. Libya was the opposite. Once hated by the west then embraced and then hated again. Cuba. Hated by the US for the better part of 60 years and look what's happening now. The list goes on. Russia, Germany, south Africa, Things.....change.

You really think because they are working with us, because they need our help with ISIS they will stop state funded terror and stop burning our flags and chanting death to America? You cant be that naive.

Russia never was willing to strap bombs to their chest for Jihad.

it's sort of funny to me that americans talk about mid-east geopolitics as if they are israelis

can someone remind me why our primary concern in the mid-east should be the security of israel?

Originally posted by red g jacks
it's sort of funny to me that americans talk about mid-east geopolitics as if they are israelis

can someone remind me why our primary concern in the mid-east should be the security of israel?

We have a German on here who loves to talk about American politics. Never seen you have a problem with it.

Originally posted by red g jacks
it's sort of funny to me that americans talk about mid-east geopolitics as if they are israelis

can someone remind me why our primary concern in the mid-east should be the security of israel? Since Israel is our biggest ally in the middle east?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You really think because they are working with us, because they need our help with ISIS they will stop state funded terror and stop burning our flags and chanting death to America? You cant be that naive.

Russia never was willing to strap bombs to their chest for Jihad.

I don't really think I can give a starker example of how things change than America only a fear years ago condemning Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation and now working with them.

I'll give you some examples of how the political change in Iran is an inevitability
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/the-iran-we-dont-see-a-tour-of-the-country-where-people-love-americans/258166/
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/12/8933915/iran-middle-east

That second article brings an interesting point in that Iran is unlike any other nation in that most arab countries have regimes that are pro western and populations that are anti western and Iran has traditionally had the opposite. A pro western population and an anti western leadership. Seems they are well on the path to having both being pro western. It also makes a point about the Quds day traditions.

I'd post more but it's nearly 5am here.

Originally posted by red g jacks
it's sort of funny to me that americans talk about mid-east geopolitics as if they are israelis

can someone remind me why our primary concern in the mid-east should be the security of israel?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Since Israel is our biggest ally in the middle east?




Clearly people have literally forgotten everything, including our allies, in favor of our enemy.

Originally posted by jaden101
I don't really think I can give a starker example of how things change than America only a fear years ago condemning Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation and now working with them.

I'll give you some examples of how the political change in Iran is an inevitability
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/the-iran-we-dont-see-a-tour-of-the-country-where-people-love-americans/258166/
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/12/8933915/iran-middle-east

That second article brings an interesting point in that Iran is unlike any other nation in that most arab countries have regimes that are pro western and populations that are anti western and Iran has traditionally had the opposite. A pro western population and an anti western leadership. Seems they are well on the path to having both being pro western. It also makes a point about the Quds day traditions.

I'd post more but it's nearly 5am here.

Ill respond tomorrow so you can go to sleep.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Since Israel is our biggest ally in the middle east? yea they are an ally

and allies have geopolitical interests

but so do we

when i read netanyahu's letter... what it sounded like he was really saying to me, if you read between the lines is: "hey, if you ease the sanctions on iran to stop them from getting a nuke, iran is going to benefit economically. which is a security risk for us"

well, sorry israel, but iran developing a nuclear weapon is a security risk for you and us as well, and you don't dictate our foreign policy decisions. because tbh the israelis won't be content with anything other than us launching a war with iran on their behalf. and frankly a lot of us have no interest in fighting israel's wars for them. if they want to topple the regime so bad then let them do it themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/14/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-who-got-what-they-wanted.html

Pretty good analysis of the give and take in the deal's negotiation.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What is awesome is Bibi said he is not honoring this deal.
Which is fine because he's not part of it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/14/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-who-got-what-they-wanted.html

Pretty good analysis of the give and take in the deal's negotiation.

Yup they got everything they wanted.

Total bullshit.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/14/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-who-got-what-they-wanted.html

Pretty good analysis of the give and take in the deal's negotiation.


24 days? Wtf

Oh somehow they will try and convince us that 24 days is a good thing.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Russia never was willing to strap bombs to their chest for Jihad.

Silly comparison considered how many people died in the Soviet Union to advance the Communist agenda.

Originally posted by Bentley
Silly comparison considered how many people died in the Soviet Union to advance the Communist agenda.

Im sure all the people they killed who opposed them thought the same thing.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im sure all the people they killed who opposed them thought the same thing.

So we agree? Good.

Originally posted by Bentley
So we agree? Good.

You agree with my sarcasm, good good, I have taught you well frenchy.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You agree with my sarcasm, good good, I have taught you well frenchy.

Proves you can be right at times

So you think this "deal" is good or bad?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial


So you think this "deal" is good or bad?

It's good for Iran and it has the virtue of being based in cooperation instead of punishment. Other than that, I have little expectations from it.

Here's the thing: The deal does what people have been wanting from Iran from decades- an agreement not to make nuclear weapons.

It also has checks to ensure that's happening, and an immediate reduction in capacity which makes it significantly more work to get to nukes even aside from checks. It's not just talk and watching, it's actual demonstrated action in the proper direction.


And yet, now that it's actually happening, people are having sour grapes about it when, in large part, if it'd happened under someone else's watch, it'd be trumped to high heavens about having stopped Iran's 'nuclear ambitions'.

Note that Iran has never shown signs of wanting nukes *that* much, but wanted the option on the table for discouragement, and wanted their civilian nuclear program which lets them use their oil for sale rather than self-use, and makes them more resistant to Saudi Arabia meddling with prices (one of the things about oil is you can hurt an oil producing country by flooding the market).

Now they feel with this deal, they're reasonably safe without nukes, and now *we*- and our allies- don't have to worry about them having nukes.

Not only is it something of a win-win, it's exactly what people like George W. Bush wanted during his term.


Will it solve all problems with Iran? Of course not. But it's a deal that, due to being backed by a bunch of major world powers and with a rapid snap-back of sanctions should they reneg, that they're unlikely to break, and that could lay groundwork to future deals.

The endgame here is to hopefully shift them from 'hostile enemy' to 'wary neutral,' which would solve a lot of problems.

Originally posted by psmith81992
24 days? Wtf


24 days unless there's a vote by the council at which point it drops to 3 days.


This was in the prior article I linked to you.

3 days, shit, how are they even going to get there logistically in that short a time...

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yup they got everything they wanted.

Total bullshit.
You either didn't read or read with the aim of confirming what you already wanted to believe rather than what was on the page.

Iran gave up a lot more than we expected them to. It's not a perfect deal, but it's intellectually dishonest to say this was the Iranian coup that some people were predicting it would be. The only really troublesome part of the deal is how much time Iran has to prepare for an inspection, but this is much better than what the Iranians actually wanted: which was a total prohibition of ANY inspections of military facilities at any time.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You either didn't read or read with the aim of confirming what you already wanted to believe rather than what was on the page.

Iran gave up a lot more than we expected them to. It's not a perfect deal, but it's intellectually dishonest to say this was the Iranian coup that some people were predicting it would be. The only really troublesome part of the deal is how much time Iran has to prepare for an inspection, but this is much better than what the Iranians actually wanted: which was a total prohibition of ANY inspections of military facilities at any time.

I read it, and it gave them everything they need/want.

Show me any concession. There are no snap inspections, there will be a Iranian sitting on the inspection council and it can take 24 days to inspect. Almost a month time is plenty to hide/move things to a new facility.

Speaking of Russia, anyone hear the BS they pulled in regards to trying to find out about that shot down plane? They aren't cool with a tribunal finding out if Russia did it, it would be "untimely" and "counterproductive".

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I read it, and it gave them everything they need/want.

Show me any concession. There are no snap inspections, there will be a Iranian sitting on the inspection council and it can take 24 days to inspect. Almost a month time is plenty to hide/move things to a new facility.

Isn't it funny how people like Time are saying they got 'everything they need/want,' and how horrible that is, when we got what we want, namely, them providing guarantees that they won't make a nuke and actual physical reductions in their capacity to do so.


Also, I'll repeat again that major nuclear facilities are not mobile, and with a vote from a council, the lead time drops to 3 days.


If they were going to sneak-build a nuke, they could've done it during the last several years, where they have had the capacity and where we have no inspectors and they have all their centrifuges. They don't need to break most of their centrifuges and get rid of their uranium to build a nuke, that's actually counter-productive.


It's like people think Iran is some sort of 'they will automatically do what we don't want' thing rather than a power with it's own self-interests. This deal makes absolutely no sense if Iran is trying to make a nuke.

Originally posted by Q99
It's like people think Iran is some sort of 'they will automatically do what we don't want' thing rather than a power with it's own self-interests. This deal makes absolutely no sense if Iran is trying to make a nuke.

I used to belong to a board filled with conservatives and by and large they firmly believed that Iran was controlled by lunatics that only wanted to nuke Israel and the US, consequences be damned, because they wanted to die a glorious death and meet Allah. Their words, not mine.

This was back in 2005-6 iirc, back when there was talk of target-bombing Iran's supposed secret nuclear weapons facilities, I'm afraid people still have that mindset of Iran (eg this thread). The loons praying for death.

Originally posted by Robtard
I used to belong to a board filled with conservatives and by and large they firmly believed that Iran was controlled by lunatics that only wanted to nuke Israel and the US, consequences be damned, because they wanted to die a glorious death and meet Allah. Their words, not mine.

This was back in 2005-6 iirc, back when there was talk of target-bombing Iran's supposed secret nuclear weapons facilities, I'm afraid people still have that mindset of Iran (eg this thread). The loons praying for death.

So Iran is not controlled by Lunatics?

http://news.yahoo.com/death-america-deal-america-irans-khamenei-102333305.html

What world do you live in?

Today on NPR Netanyahu claimed that Iran's ultimate goal was world domination. Like no joke, he claimed that Iran's actual goal is the total conquest of the world starting with Israel. The guy is a joke.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So Iran is not controlled by Lunatics?

http://news.yahoo.com/death-america-deal-america-irans-khamenei-102333305.html

What world do you live in?

See what I mean? Anyhow.

The opening paragraph of your story:

"Tehran (AFP) - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's distrust of the United States loomed over nuclear talks for years but Iran's supreme leader ultimately did a deal because it served the nation's interests."

Sounds reasonable to me. A man going against his own personal beliefs for the greater good of the masses.

So funny you take those slight words as "Oh we good now"


He did the deal cause it favors him, not anyone else, How is this unclear!?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Today on NPR Netanyahu claimed that Iran's ultimate goal was world domination. Like no joke, he claimed that Iran's actual goal is the total conquest of the world starting with Israel. The guy is a joke.

Guy sounds dangerous actually.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Today on NPR Netanyahu claimed that Iran's ultimate goal was world domination. Like no joke, he claimed that Iran's actual goal is the total conquest of the world starting with Israel. The guy is a joke.

Yes Bibi is bad and the President of Iran is good now.

I swear you are just ignorant on purpose.

Has Bibi made threats to wipe anyone off the face of the earth?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So funny you take those slight words as "Oh we good now"


He did the deal cause it favors him, not anyone else, How is this unclear!?

You posted a story that didn't support your "they're lunatics" belief. Sorry.

"Hardliners in Tehran, brought up on chants of "Death to America", have repeatedly voiced opposition to the quest for a deal with a power derided as the "great Satan" ever since the Islamic revolution of 1979.

But to the millions of Iranians born since the overthrow of the US-backed shah, the international isolation and fear of war borne of the 13-year nuclear standoff have stalked their lives.

Khamenei heard both audiences but the overriding factor that led him to the deal announced in Vienna on Tuesday, was the need to end the sanctions that have pulverised Iran's economy, analysts say."

Again, sounds like the actions of someone who is using reason and not acting like a lunatic.

Anyway, the ball is in Iran's court now. If they want to be productive members of the world community they have an opportunity to do so. Conservatives should realize that this deal is great for America in terms of foreign policy capital: if Iran does start agitating and causing major trouble and welching, we have the mechanisms in place to restore sanctions, and we'll have even more diplomatic legitimacy to do so than before.

This Neville Chamberlain all over again..

Originally posted by Robtard
You posted a story that didn't support your "they're lunatics" belief. Sorry.

"Hardliners in Tehran, brought up on chants of "Death to America", have repeatedly voiced opposition to the quest for a deal with a power derided as the "great Satan" ever since the Islamic revolution of 1979.

But to the millions of Iranians born since the overthrow of the US-backed shah, the international isolation and fear of war borne of the 13-year nuclear standoff have stalked their lives.

Khamenei heard both audiences but the overriding factor that led him to the deal announced in Vienna on Tuesday, was the need to end the sanctions that have pulverised Iran's economy, analysts say."

Again, sounds like the actions of someone who is using reason and not acting like a lunatic.

You are aware that talk is cheap right? And actions speak louder then words.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes Bibi is bad and the President of Iran is good now.

I swear you are just ignorant on purpose.

Has Bibi made threats to wipe anyone off the face of the earth?
Dude, do you ever even try to understand my posts?

I never said he wants to wipe any country out, though he's talked about military action against Iran much more candidly than Iran has ever talked about attacking Israel.* My point is that Netanyahu is engaging in blatant hyperbole and making ridiculous claims to try to shore up his crumbling position.


*You should understand that there's a big difference between some bearded Revolutionary Guard hick talking about "wiping Israel from the map" and Netanyahu actually meeting with his security aides to plan out preemptive strikes on Iran.

I actually laughed out loud at this. Thats hysterical.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dude, do you ever even try to understand my posts?

I never said he wants to wipe any country out, though he's talked about military action against Iran much more candidly than Iran has ever talked about attacking Israel.* My point is that Netanyahu is engaging in blatant hyperbole and making ridiculous claims to try to shore up his crumbling position.


*You should understand that there's a big difference between some bearded Revolutionary Guard hick talking about "wiping Israel from the map" and Netanyahu actually meeting with his security aides to plan out preemptive strikes on Iran.

Yes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just some bearded hick..

And where is the prisoner release???? Funny no one will talk about this.

Hassan Rouhani is the president of Iran now.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You are aware that talk is cheap right? And actions speak louder then words.

Would actions be the deal going through?

Originally posted by Robtard
Hassan Rouhani is the president of Iran now.

Lol, oh big difference.

This is silly arguing with sympathetics.

You guys sit here and deny state sponsored terror and and like Iran is this honest nation when they lied about their programs before.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just some bearded hick..

And where is the prisoner release???? Funny no one will talk about this.
The former president of Iran? Why are you even talking about him?

I'm in agreement with you on that. I think if there's one thing I'm really disappointed is that we didn't work the prisoners into the deal. My hope is that this agreement opens the door to more negotiations. Whenever Americans are seized on trumped up charges by authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes it's always in the aim of provocation and leverage when tensions are high. When tensions reduce, as they should after this deal, a country like Iran can quietly work out releasing the prisoners without losing face.

Mark my words though: threatening Iran wouldn't get those people free, only negotiations can.

They didnt have to threaten.. It could have been in the deal that we want our people released as part of this deal. Im pretty sure thats a small price to pay for getting nuclear power.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
They didnt have to threaten.. It could have been in the deal that we want our people released as part of this deal. Im pretty sure thats a small price to pay for getting nuclear power.
Yes and no.

Could they have worked it into the deal? Sure.

Would it have complicated the process? Definitely. It could have even dragged the deal out so long that it would fail.

Unless Iran executes them tomorrow without warning, there's still a good chance of getting them back. If anything those chances are better than ever now that we have this deal and we have a working relationship with Iran.

Tell me exactly why you think this is a good deal, no political bullshit, because I don't see it.

Iran's been an ally to the US before and while it won't go back to the pre-revolution days, having them as a tentative ally is better than an enemy.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Tell me exactly why you think this is a good deal, no political bullshit, because I don't see it.
I don't know what you count as "political bullshit." I'm going to guess it means "anything I might say that isn't in agreement with your views," but I'll answer nonetheless.

I think the deal is good because it at least places some restrictions on what Iran can do that weren't there before, holds Iran to some accountability, and opens the door for further engagement. If we'd pressed harder, taken a lot more risk, we might have gotten Iran to agree to somewhat better terms, but I think people who hold this view are underestimating Iran's sense of its own dignity. There's that old phrase that you can only bend a tree so far before it breaks, and that applies to Iran.

We have to remember, a long, long time ago Iranians controlled 40% of the world's population. They're very proud people and they don't like being humiliated. The very fact that through sanctions we got them to the table and got them to sign an agreement that limited their own capacity and opened them up to international inspections is a massive victory. If you were only going to accept complete capitulation from Iran as a good deal, then there was no way of your avoiding disappointment and there's not much for us to discuss.

I guess I will go along with you then as I am tired now, and just hope for the best.

Watching Obama's speech now, he says the same things every time. Can't he change his tune, its like a broken record.


"peace, freedom, strength, blah blah blah..."

Its the same speech just spun for a new topic.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Watching Obama's speech now, he says the same things every time. Can't he change his tune, its like a broken record.


"peace, freedom, strength, blah blah blah..."

Its the same speech just spun for a new topic.

Every time I see a speech by any president be they republican or Democrat it automatically translates in my head as

AMEEERICAAAAA! **** YEAH! COMIN' AGAIN TO SAVE THE MUTHAFUKIN' DAY YEAH!

Other factors:

A lot of our leverage on the deal comes from other countries agreeing to sanctions. If it becomes clear we won't deal, then some of those are going to drop out, because they do want Iranian oil. So wait long enough and we'll lose a big chunk of our bargaining power, Iran will get *most* of what they get from the deal, for no gain on our part.


Iran has a good reason to be more open for a deal on the individuals held there once they have this deal demonstrating good faith.

Also, even if they change their mind down the road, with the deal the sanctions auto-snap back on, we don't need to reform the coalition, and we'll have had a look at their major facilities, giving us a better idea on how to deal with things if they come up at *that* point.


Like Obama said (and note how Time dismisses him completely, even though Obama specifically addressed most of this stuff), if you can think of a scenario where a US president would be better in 12 years without this deal than with, whether Iran sticks with it or not.

It's one thing to decry this deal, but the options appear to be,
1) Wait til our allies bug out on it and rather than it being a multinational deal, it'll be a just-us deal with a lot less leverage and the US having lost face.

2) Force. And if force was such a good idea, then why did no prior presidents go for it, why don't most of the other world powers think so, what's the game plan there, what do we hope to gain, is it at all worth the cost? Heck, right now, no deal, could they nuke-up before the war is done?

3) This deal.



And another point: North Korea has a nuke with, like, 1/30th the economy. Sanctions cannot stop someone from nuking up.