Iran-Nuclear-Deal

[Rickshaw]

Iran, major powers reach historic nuclear deal ending 12-year stand-off

 

[sferrin]

Iran, major powers reach historic nuclear deal ending 12-year stand-off

Did anybody doubt Zero would sell the country down the river? How much you want to bet Iran will be refusing to allow inspectors into areas in contradiction to this agreement in no time. Do you want to take that bet? And who do I bet, "Hot Breath" or "Kadija_Man"? Want to make sure I haven't got one of the alternate personalities you know.

 

[fightingirish]

Dear Mods, can we split the "Iran-Nuclear-Deal" posts to a separate topic?

 

[sferrin]

Dear Mods, can we split the "Iran-Nuclear-Deal" posts to a separate topic?

x2. I imagine any discussion of the Iran deal is going to be trolled. No need to see this thread go down the toilet. Should just put the Iran stuff in the Anti-Nuclear Arms Protest thread as it's already been mentioned over there.

 

[Grey Havoc]

No objection here.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Did anybody doubt Zero would sell the country down the river? How much you want to bet Iran will be refusing to allow inspectors into areas in contradiction to this agreement in no time. Do you want to take that bet?

I like my shirt, thank you very much.

 

[mjinnj]

Iran, major powers reach historic nuclear deal ending 12-year stand-off

Did anybody doubt Zero would sell the country down the river? How much you want to bet Iran will be refusing to allow inspectors into areas in contradiction to this agreement in no time. Do you want to take that bet? And who do I bet, "Hot Breath" or "Kadija_Man"? Want to make sure I haven't got one of the alternate personalities you know.

who is zero?

 

[thefrecklepuny]

A childish reference to Obama I guess.

 

[Winston]

Did anybody doubt Zero would sell the country down the river?

I imagine any discussion of the Iran deal is going to be trolled.

I want to avoid a flame war but come on. ;D

 

[sferrin]

Did anybody doubt Zero would sell the country down the river?

I imagine any discussion of the Iran deal is going to be trolled.

I want to avoid a flame war but come on. ;D

Since when did a statement of fact become trolling?

 

[Sundog]

Did anybody doubt Zero would sell the country down the river?

I imagine any discussion of the Iran deal is going to be trolled.

I want to avoid a flame war but come on. ;D

Since when did a statement of fact become trolling?

Yeah, because we all know how successful the Republicans were at stopping them when they were in control. Oh, that's right, the Iran nuclear program greatly accelerated while the Republicans were in control. They were probably planning on stopping it like they were planning on stopping OBL.

 

[marauder2048]

Did anybody doubt Zero would sell the country down the river?

I imagine any discussion of the Iran deal is going to be trolled.

I want to avoid a flame war but come on. ;D

Since when did a statement of fact become trolling?

Yeah, because we all know how successful the Republicans were at stopping them when they were in control. Oh, that's right, the Iran nuclear program greatly accelerated while the Republicans were in control. They were probably planning on stopping it like they were planning on stopping OBL.

I thought the Dems told us the Iranian nuclear program was in fact put into stasis during the last administration?

I wonder if Kerry gave his Iranian counterpart a signed basketball from Michael Jordan.
That definitely sealed the deal with the North Koreans. Yep, they are a pacifist, non-nuclear power now.

 

[Winston]

I think personally it's time to move on from sanctions, since in the end it's the people who suffer from it more than the state. I don't like seeing that as a consequence of politics, so I think it's ignorant to say Obama is betraying his country. What makes you say that?

 

[Rickshaw]

What peaceful alternative is there to sanction? The use of force might attract all the gung-ho wannabes but I bet they won't be leading the charge into Tehran...

 

[sferrin]

What peaceful alternative is there to sanction? The use of force might attract all the gung-ho wannabes but I bet they won't be leading the charge into Tehran...

Why would anybody need to "led the charge into Iran"? :

 

[bobbymike]

What peaceful alternative is there to sanction? The use of force might attract all the gung-ho wannabes but I bet they won't be leading the charge into Tehran...

Why would anybody need to "led the charge into Iran"? :

Once again the Troll at work. There is his position or the position he agrees with (and Hot Breath but I repeat myself) and any other position that disagrees with him makes you a 'Gung ho wannabe" who "won't be leading the charge" (of course what he means is you're a chickenhawk coward).

Always dismissive, always name calling.

Of course this, you're a gung ho wannabe who won't face any danger, attack on anyone who discusses the possible use of or threat of force is just meant to stifle debate. You didn't serve so you don't get an opinion. Logically it is also an attack on any country that has civilian control of the military whose leaders (Like Lincoln, FDR, Obama as examples) never served. The flip side of the coin would be to ask, "If you had a vote only among active duty military personnel, from privates to generals, and they voted to go to war is any war OK?"

 

[Rickshaw]

What peaceful alternative is there to sanction? The use of force might attract all the gung-ho wannabes but I bet they won't be leading the charge into Tehran...

Why would anybody need to "led the charge into Iran"? :

Ah, so what are you proposing as an alternative to sanctions or the use of force? Remember, your nation is at peace with Iran. Surely you're not proposing a surprise attack, a first strike out of the blue?

 

[Rickshaw]

What peaceful alternative is there to sanction? The use of force might attract all the gung-ho wannabes but I bet they won't be leading the charge into Tehran...

Why would anybody need to "led the charge into Iran"? :

Once again the Troll at work. There is his position or the position he agrees with (and Hot Breath but I repeat myself) and any other position that disagrees with him makes you a 'Gung ho wannabe" who "won't be leading the charge" (of course what he means is you're a chickenhawk coward for not agreeing with him).

Always dismissive, always name calling.

Of course this, your a gung ho wannabe who won't face any danger, attack on anyone who discusses the possible use of or threat of force is just meant to stifle debate. You didn't serve so you don't get an opinion.

Actually, I did serve for 10 years between December 1977 and October 1988 in the Australian Army where I was taught that the worst thing possible was for my nation to go to war. What a shame my Prime Minister(s) didn't learn that lesson...

I don't want to stifle debate, I wish to provoke it. To make you have to defend your views, rather than assume that we all accept them. I don't expect you to accept mine!

Logically it is also an attack on any country that has civilian control of the military whose leaders (Like Lincoln, FDR, Obama as examples) never served. The flip side of the coin would be to ask, "If you had a vote only among active duty military personnel, from privates to generals, and they voted to go to war is any war OK?"

Well, I only my own nation's defence forces and I rather think you'd get a shock if you asked that question of them.

So, you going to lead the charge into Tehran? Up front, on the glacis of your tank?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I think Obama make some very sensible arguments in favour of the deal, none of which seem to be refuted logically by his opponents.


1) Many of these sanctions were imposed due to the perceived Iran nuclear weapons program.


""In response to Iran’s continued illicit nuclear activities, the United States and other countries have imposed unprecedented sanctions to censure Iran and prevent its further progress in prohibited nuclear activities, as well as to persuade Tehran to address the international community’s concerns about its nuclear program. Acting both through the United Nations Security Council and regional or national authorities, the United States, the member states of the European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Canada, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, and others have put in place a strong, inter-locking matrix of sanctions measures relating to Iran's nuclear, missile, energy, shipping, transportation, and financial sectors.These measures are designed: (1) to block the transfer of weapons, components, technology, and dual-use items to Iran’s prohibited nuclear and missile programs; (2) to target select sectors of the Iranian economy relevant to its proliferation activities; and (3) to induce Iran to engage constructively, through discussions with the United States, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Russia in the “E3+3 process,” to fulfill its nonproliferation obligations. These nations have made clear that Iran’s full compliance with its international nuclear obligations would open the door to its receiving treatment as a normal non-nuclear-weapon state under The Nonproliferation Treaty and sanctions being lifted."


2) They required broad support from US allies in the region and beyond
3) Iran are now willing to limit their nuclear program and accept inspections
4) Maintaining sanctions imposed specifically when Iran refused talks about its nuclear program would be difficult now Iran have agreed a deal
5) Many US allies will not maintain sanctions in this changed situation, so status quo isn't an option
6) Having inspectors in the country will make it easier to gauge the Iranian nuclear program progress than not having them
7) If Iran don't live up to their requirements under the deal, sanctions can be reintroduced.

My additions:
8) The sanctions mainly hurt the Iranian people not its leaders
9) Iran has many factions. Some want to normalise relations with other countries, some want jihad. Refusing to make deals with the progressive factions harms their cause, not that of the zealots.
10) The frozen assets belong to the Iranian people. Its not American money.

 

[sferrin]

I think Obama make some very sensible arguments in favour of the deal, none of which seem to be refuted logically by his opponents.

I'm not seeing what's sensible about allowing Iran 24 days to remove contraband from a facility before we get to take a peek. I'm wondering how many drugs the cops would find in suspected drug dens if they had to give 24 days notice. Not many I presume.

 

[sferrin]

Ah, so what are you proposing as an alternative to sanctions or the use of force? Remember, your nation is at peace with Iran. Surely you're not proposing a surprise attack, a first strike out of the blue?

And that's a problem because. . .? Worked with Syria and worked with Iraq.

 

[sferrin]

I don't want to stifle debate, I wish to provoke it. To make you have to defend your views, rather than assume that we all accept them.

Good, let's hear your "reasoning" for why it's a good idea for Iran to have the bomb. Oh right, it won't be going off in YOUR city so it's A-Okay right?

 

[bobbymike]

A deal so good the Saudi might go to war:

Saudi Prince Threatens 'Military Action Without American Support' Against Iran

In the first public criticism of the P5+Iran deal by a member of the Saudi Arabian royal family, Prince Bandar bin Sultan told Lebanon’s Daily Star the deal would allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb and would “wreak havoc in the region." Covered in The Times of London, the prince also told Daily Star, "Saudi Arabia and the Gulf powers are prepared to take military action without American support after the Iran nuclear deal"

Iran and Saudi Arabia are the two leading players in the Sunni/Shia divide and are competing for leadership of the Muslim world. The Sunni Islam Saudi Arabian monarchy fears that the Shia Islam Iranians will employ terrorists in an attempt topple the monarchy and the ruling House of Saud.

Prince Bandar was the Saudi ambassador to Washington for 20 years before returning home to run the country’s intelligence service from 2005-2014. While he is no longer a part of the inner ring of Saudi decision-making, the prince is still a very connected member of the ruling family. The prince would not be conducting interviews without the permission of highest authorities; most likely he was asked to to put himself out there by his uncle King Salman.

The Prince also said that regional powers have lost faith in America:

“People in my region now are relying on God’s will, and consolidating their local capabilities and analysis with everybody else except our oldest and most powerful ally”

The prince was less polite in an op-ed he wrote for the London-based Arabic news Web site Elaph. He compared the Iran nuclear deal made by Obama to the North Korean nuclear deal Bill Clinton made. Bandar suggested that they were both bad deals but Clinton made a bad deal with the best of intentions thinking it was a good deal. Obama on the other hand knew he was making a lousy deal and made it anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/saudi-prince-even-after-deal-military-action-against-iran-still-table-or-without-us

 

[sferrin]

A deal so good the Saudi might go to war:

Saudi Prince Threatens 'Military Action Without American Support' Against Iran

In the first public criticism of the P5+Iran deal by a member of the Saudi Arabian royal family, Prince Bandar bin Sultan told Lebanon’s Daily Star the deal would allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb and would “wreak havoc in the region." Covered in The Times of London, the prince also told Daily Star, "Saudi Arabia and the Gulf powers are prepared to take military action without American support after the Iran nuclear deal"

But see, this is much, much better than going to war. Or something. (Looks like Israel got told to go pound sand too. Gotta love how the Keystone Cops in the White House are doing such a bang up job on the international scene.)

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/two-alternatives-to-the-bad-iran-deal/

By Peter Huessy who has spent his entire adult life studying nuclear proliferation issues. Also sponsors the 'Huessy Breakfast Series http://www.afa.org/AFA/InformationFor/Corporate/HuessyBreakfastSeries

 

[Winston]

I don't want to stifle debate, I wish to provoke it. To make you have to defend your views, rather than assume that we all accept them.

Good, let's hear your "reasoning" for why it's a good idea for Iran to have the bomb. Oh right, it won't be going off in YOUR city so it's A-Okay right?

"[...]We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under." This is a quote from Moshe Dayan which is still considered today, as Israels policy of nuclear deterrence is often called the Samson Option. Why isn't this concerning to you? If Iran's nuclear program is going to be monitored and sanctions are lifted then, I can only speculate these countries have to learn to coexist or at least tolerate the other. Threats such as these have no place in the future if more western countries are going to build a relationship with Iran.

 

[bobbymike]

Iranian parliament already wants to modify the deal

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940427000470

"The parliament will reject any limitations on the country's access to conventional weapons, specially ballistic missiles," Tehran MP Seyed Mehdi Hashemi told FNA on Saturday.

He underlined that restrictions on Iran's access to ballistic missiles are among issues that should be revised in the UN Security Council's draft resolution.

Earlier today, Commander of the IRGC Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari underlined that there are still some concerns lingering about the sum-up agreement reached between Tehran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, France and Britain plus Germany) and the relevant draft resolution to be adopted by the UN Security Council.

 

[bobbymike]

Some CSIS analysis

http://csis.org/publication/few-highlights-deal

 

[sferrin]

I don't want to stifle debate, I wish to provoke it. To make you have to defend your views, rather than assume that we all accept them.

Good, let's hear your "reasoning" for why it's a good idea for Iran to have the bomb. Oh right, it won't be going off in YOUR city so it's A-Okay right?

"[...]We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under." This is a quote from Moshe Dayan which is still considered today, as Israels policy of nuclear deterrence is often called the Samson Option. Why isn't this concerning to you?

Are you serious?

 

[Winston]

Yes, do you have anything to say? Or are you just going to intentionally obtuse?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Israels policy of nuclear deterrence is often called the Samson Option. Why isn't this concerning to you?

That "threat" falls in line with "If you try to kill me, I'll try to kill you right back." And this is considered to be a perfectly reasonable, logical and *legal* position to not only hold, but to express. Look: if you told your neighbor "I'm going to kill you," your neighbor would have a case to bring charges. But if you said "you try to kill me, I'll try to kill you," then there are no charges to be brought.

And Israel lives virtually every day with threats from its neighbors. "Death To Israel" is not a Ben & Jerries ice cream flavor; it's a common enough refrain coming out of the leadership of Iran and elsewhere. Telling these people that if they try to exterminate Israel they'll get a couple nuclear explosions of their very own is not terribly unreasonable.

 

[sferrin]

Yes, do you have anything to say? Or are you just going to intentionally obtuse?

Usually people who are serious don't ask ridiculous questions. Iran is a known sponsor of terrorism. Israel is not. Israel does not threaten "Death to the Great Satan" (the US) on a daily basis. Israel is rational. Any of this getting through?

 

[bobbymike]

Yes, do you have anything to say? Or are you just going to intentionally obtuse?

Usually people who are serious don't ask ridiculous questions. Iran is a known sponsor of terrorism. Israel is not. Israel does not threaten "Death to the Great Satan" (the US) on a daily basis. Israel is rational. Any of this getting through?

Reminds me of the adage

"Disarm Israel's neighbours you have............no more war, disarm Israel you have.........no more Israel.

 

[Arjen]

I would think proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East is something anyone with a slight interest in that part of the world would be worried about.
I consider Israel's worries about most of its neighbours are quite legitimate. I am also deeply worried Israel - and I'm afraid Israel is right about this - judges nuclear weapons are necessary to insure its continued existence. The whole situation is a disaster waiting to happen.

What needs to happen is a diplomatic solution. With the regimes in the region as they are now, this is unlikely to happen. Still, this is what must be tried.

I would appreciate a discussion with more civility.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I would appreciate a discussion with more civility.

Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[Arjen]

About as likely as that diplomatic solution?

 

[bobbymike]

About as likely as that diplomatic solution?

When one side does not recognize the other sides right to even exist that becomes a tough starting point for diplomacy.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Well, that was predictable.