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.
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.
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 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....
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....
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 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?
psmith
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.
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.