"The deal of the century for Iran" while the rest of us lose -- Netanyahu

[Jludo]

It is never a good deal when one side simply cannot be trusted. What they say publicly or promise has nothing to do with their real intent, as voiced over and over by their leadership. Here is 34 years of Iranian history in 2 minutes:

That video was complete and absolute trash, the history of Iran goes back more than 34 years. There's a reason the ratings are disabled and comments censored.

 

[pudly]

John Bolton (former UN Ambassador for the U.S.) read the treaty and makes the following points:

• Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium.
• It bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program)
• Iran has broken the psychological momentum and effect of the international economic sanctions. [That is, once you've eased sanctions, it will be hard to gain buy-in again if needed.]

 

[jamil]

I think I lean towards Libertarian01's position...Let them design and build whatever they can come up with on their own. Just realize that the US will defend itself by any and all means at their disposal to ensure any threat to their interest(s) are stopped.

The bad thing is, we really don't have the stomach to stop the threats anymore.

Well, we are pretty good at drawing lines not to cross.

 

[Jerchap2]

So, using what passes for logic in Jerchap world, we should not be negotiating with anyone. That's rational.

This is a preliminary agreement between Iran and the negotiating nations and, as far as I can see, there are no serious drawbacks to this deal, as it stands now. The inspectors will be allowed in and the one plant they have that could be capable of producing plutonium will no be allowed online. I guess in Jerchap world we should just start a war? Maybe not do the adult thing and talk it over till we reach a mutually agreeable solution to a perceived problem? No wonder no-one wants to deal with Americans on the right.

In my world, one does not "negotiate" with psychopaths or allow them to obtain nuclear weapons. Their leadership has stated their intentions, and they are terrorist in nature. To believe otherwise is naive at best and very dangerous at worst.

 

[Jerchap2]

That video was complete and absolute trash, the history of Iran goes back more than 34 years. There's a reason the ratings are disabled and comments censored.

It covered what has happened since radical jihad Islam has taken power. The quotes are accurate. They are not to be trusted.

 

[Jludo]

In my world, one does not "negotiate" with psychopaths or allow them to obtain nuclear weapons. Their leadership has stated their intentions, and they are terrorist in nature. To believe otherwise is naive at best and very dangerous at worst.

Source the 'leadership's intentions' please. in your world do we start a war with north Korea to prevent their nuclear weapon?

 

[Jerchap2]

John Bolton (former UN Ambassador for the U.S.) read the treaty and makes the following points:

• Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium.
• It bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program)
• Iran has broken the psychological momentum and effect of the international economic sanctions. [That is, once you've eased sanctions, it will be hard to gain buy-in again if needed.]

An accurate analysis, IMHO. Or as I posted earlier:

 

[mrjarrell]

An accurate analysis, IMHO. Or as I posted earlier:

Too bad for you that this graphic is just fiction and not what the brokered interim deal involves. Keep parroting the talking points, tho. You look more and more rational every time you post it or something similar.

 

[Magneto]

http://theulstermanreport.com/2013/11/24/valerie-jarretts-green-light-deal-for-iranian-nukes/

 

[Notavictim646]

So How is it that Iran is a sovereign nation but needs the permission of other nations to develop Nuclear power? What is wrong with allowing them to do as they please with the assurance that if they attack us or any of our interests, we will turn Tehran into a glass parking lot?
I do not believe we can trust the Iranians, and it is naive to believe that they will abandon their nuclear ambitions simply because we have a piece of paper between us. A nuclear Iran is not a matter of if, but of when. The question is, will they respect us enough to behave? If BHO is still in office, I expect not.

The problem for Israel is that we Clearly do not have the Stomach to support them.

 

[printcraft]

Well, we are pretty good at drawing lines not to cross.

We didn't build those lines........... those are someone else's lines.......

 

[Jludo]

I vote we impose harsh sanctions on any nation not willing to abide by the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It covered what has happened since radical jihad Islam has taken power. The quotes are accurate. They are not to be trusted.

Yeah, but what it didn't cover prior to 1979 was....

-Iran was a democracy before the Shah came back into power
-The Shah was placed back on the throne by the US/British
-The Shah was a dictator, in every sense of the word, with secret police, torture, and kidnappings
-The Shah was diposed a full year before the US Embassy was stormed
-After the Shah was "de-throned" the US Embassy worked to get him back into power
-The Iranian govt, at that time asked the US to leave
-The US refused
-The Iraninans stormed the Embassy

Not seeing the issue... they said GTFO and we refused. Next step, MAKE them leave.

 

[Jerchap2]

Obviously there are different world/foreign policy views here that each feels is logical and correct, and no amount of discussion will change some people's minds. So be it. My view is that Iran leadership cannot be trusted. Period. I normally do not think we should interfere with other sovereign countries, but standing by and allowing self-professed lunatics and terrorists to have the destructive power of nuclear weapons and the world war scenario that would result from their use is, to me, unacceptable.

The so-called moderate Iranian leader Hassan Rouhani said just last August that, "Israel is a wound on the body of the world of Islam that must be destroyed."

WaPo reference: Iranian president?s comments on Israel are latest flashpoint in war of perceptions

Israel is an ally, and the ONLY stable democracy in that part of the world.

Do we abandon our long-time ally? Do we allow lunatics to acquire immense destructive power? I say NO.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Obviously there are different world/foreign policy views here that each feels is logical and correct, and no amount of discussion will change some people's minds. So be it. My view is that Iran leadership cannot be trusted. Period. I normally do not think we should interfere with other sovereign countries, but standing by and allowing self-professed lunatics and terrorists to have the destructive power of nuclear weapons and the world war scenario that would result from their use is, to me, unacceptable.

The so-called moderate Iranian leader Hassan Rouhani said just last August that, "Israel is a wound on the body of the world of Islam that must be destroyed."

WaPo reference: Iranian president?s comments on Israel are latest flashpoint in war of perceptions

Israel is an ally, and the ONLY stable democracy in that part of the world.

Do we abandon our long-time ally? Do we allow lunatics to acquire immense destructive power? I say NO.

Here's the problem....

Sixty years ago this week, on August 19, 1953, the United States, in collaboration with Britain, successfully staged a coup in Iran to overthrow democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh that a newly declassified CIA document reveals was designed to preserve the control of Western companies over Iran’s rich oil fields.

The Moment the US Ended Iran?s Brief Experiment in Democracy | The Nation#

 

[Jludo]

The so-called moderate Iranian leader Hassan Rouhani said just last August that, "Israel is a wound on the body of the world of Islam that must be destroyed."

WaPo reference: Iranian president?s comments on Israel are latest flashpoint in war of perceptions

Brilliant, if you had read more than 2 paragraphs you'd have realized that article says Iran's president was misquoted.

Here's the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, in context:

The first sign was not a promising one. Iranian state media interviewed Rouhani, whom they quoted as saying, "Israel is a wound on the body of the world of Islam that must be destroyed." While such rhetoric is common among Iran's hard-liners, such as the departing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, it seemed a dramatic departure for Rouhani – and a dispiriting early indication that, despite hopes of peace, his rule may not be so different than his predecessors'.

But, within a few hours, a state TV video of the encounter emerged that appeared to show Rouhani saying something significantly different. According to a translation byAl-Monitor's Arash Karami, who broke the story, Rouhani had actually said this:

Quds day, which is in memorial of Imam [Khomeini], is a day that people present the unity of Islam against any type of oppression or aggression. And in any case, in our region, it is an old wound that has been sitting on the body of the Islamic world, in the shadow of the occupation of the holy land of Palestine and the dear Quds. And this day, in fact, is a remembrance that Muslim people will not forget this historical right and will always stand against oppression and aggression.
​

 

[Jludo]

Obviously there are different world/foreign policy views here that each feels is logical and correct, and no amount of discussion will change some people's minds. So be it. My view is that Iran leadership cannot be trusted. Period. I normally do not think we should interfere with other sovereign countries, but standing by and allowing self-professed lunatics and terrorists to have the destructive power of nuclear weapons and the world war scenario that would result from their use is, to me, unacceptable.

"Self professed lunatics and terrorists"? You kind of just make up whatever you want don't you?
Still waiting on a source

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

To All,

I guess I will be the odd man out here but I don't think it is wise for us to base our policy decisions on what ANY other country thinks. We should base our policy decisions on our own values and principles.

For myself, I believe that Iran is a recognized, sovereign nation that should have the same weapons in its arsenal as all other nations have the right to. If Pakistan, India, Israel, Ukraine, Russia, China, the United States, Great Britian, etc etc etc can have nuclear weapons - then Iran can have nuclear weapons!

It is our hubris at believing we can dictate to other nations what they may and may not use to defend themselves that causes us as many problems as the idiot zealots within those nations.

I guess I may have to stand alone on my island in my bunker believing that if I can have a Barrett .50 caliber rifle then everyone else can too. Silly me!

Regards,

Doug

Doug - as a rule I find your positions to be well thought out and logical. On the face of it, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I find a problem with your logic.

Ronnie Barrett said that every one had the right to buy what they pleased. That much is true.. But he didn't say that anyone had the right MAKE A CREDIBLE THREAT, then do it. And then there IS the right of the storekeeper (international community) to say "hey you can buy it, but not from me - I don't have to sell it to you.".

Iran has behaved like the town drunk/spouse abuser in the international community. "Honey, I'm going to buy / build this and <hiccup> blow your bleeping head off..." What? oh I was just drunk when saying that.... I didn't really mean it. The international community has the same responsibility as the local gun store to consider who they sell stuff to. If you can't live with the consequences, don't sell stuff to somebody. And maybe even encourage your friends not to.

So yes on a macro "Ronnie Barrett" level - they may have the right to buy it. That would be "nations" in general. But the international community may totally be in the right not to sell it to them (Iran specifically, due to their threats) - and it IS their call as to the sanity of the individual nation / person that they are considering selling to. And if they build it on their own - the spouse/potential target is certainly within their rights to take such a threat, followed by the action of building the weapon, as a gravely serious threat, no?

 

[cobber]

Not seeing the issue... they said GTFO and we refused. Next step, MAKE them leave.

And so they "closed" our Embassy (American soil) and made our citizens leave, right?

Well, a year and change later. No problem with holding diplomats hostage...

 

[Kutnupe14]

And so they "closed" our Embassy (American soil) and made our citizens leave, right?

Well, a year and change later. No problem with holding diplomats hostage...

First if all, that "embassies are US soil" belief is a myth. Embassies simply fall under the jurisdiction of the sending nation.
Secondly, yes, that's exactly what Iran did. It closed the embassy... After the US failed to leave, as directed. Following Pearl Harbor the US expelled all Japanese diplomats and closed the embassy. What do you think would happen if they said "no?"
More recently (2011, 2012), Canada and the UK expelled ALL of the Iranian diplomats in their countries.

But if you want the international law justification, Article 9 concerning diplomatic missions allows for the host country to expel any member of a receiving nation, without providing justification.

So it's in one's best interests to scadattle when the host nation says GTFO... Lest you end up a hostage, or lose your presidency to an actor from California.