View Full Version : Lets Make a Deal....with Iran
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/14/iran-world-powers-agree-to-nuclear-deal/
Our fearless leader woke up early this morning to announce the completion of a deal with Iran concerning its nuclear program.
The deal includes a compromise between Washington and Tehran that would allow U.N. inspectors to press for visits to Iranian military sites as part of their monitoring duties. However, access at will to any site would not necessarily be granted and even if so, could be delayed,...
I don't guess we have any reason to distrust a people that march through their streets chanting "Death to America" while burning our flag. Great negotiating there, SOS Kerry.
Voodoochild
07-14-15, 06:49
The UN is involved you say... We'll then I guess we can declare world peace has been accomplished. It's the same BS we had with Iraq. We want to inspect your facilities... Iraq would simply stall them out or outright refuse them. I suspect this will be much the same thing and Iran knows it.
Now we want to sell arms to them...
Business_Casual
07-14-15, 06:54
I like his veto threat - as if that pussy Boehner would even schedule a vote against Mao Tse Barack.
Straight Shooter
07-14-15, 07:07
Shit in this country just gets worse and worse.
What does anybody expect from a former community organizer? All he's worried about now, is his "Legacy" at the expense of everything this country once stood for.. The Iranians will have a bomb within the next year or so, this deal won't stop anything. The shitstain in chief doesn't know it yet, but he just got played by the Iranians, And Kerry, well, he's just too damn stupid to figure it out. This is what you get when literally beg these people negotiate with you, so that your "Legacy" looks good...
Spurholder
07-14-15, 08:05
I like his veto threat - as if that pussy Boehner would even schedule a vote against Mao Tse Barack.
That whole "I'll veto it" business is ridiculous - he's only vetoed 4 bills since he's been the President. What is our Republican-led Congress doing?
Confusion for the masses.
Averageman
07-14-15, 08:50
That whole "I'll veto it" business is ridiculous - he's only vetoed 4 bills since he's been the President. What is our Republican-led Congress doing?
Confusion for the masses.
Let him eat this one and veto it, so with control over both houses that veto threat really doesn't mean anything now does it?
This might go back and prove that once again; we have one party with two names if this foolishness slides through.
KalashniKEV
07-14-15, 08:50
I don't guess we have any reason to distrust a people that march through their streets chanting "Death to America" while burning our flag. Great negotiating there, SOS Kerry.
Isolating Iran has created far more problems than it has solved.
I predict in a year or two American businesses will be conducting all manner of commerce with the Islamic Republic of Iran... including weapons.
Being that the Iranian backed PMF/HaS is currently the only effective tool against ISIS, there could be a net positive effect on regional stability.
Sure Israel and the Magic Kingdom won't like it, but the days are numbered for the Apartheid regime in Tel Aviv, and the House of Saud is currently facing a reform-or-die situation (along with all the other GCC countries).
Mauser KAR98K
07-14-15, 09:36
Isolating Iran has created far more problems than it has solved.
I predict in a year or two American businesses will be conducting all manner of commerce with the Islamic Republic of Iran... including weapons.
Being that the Iranian backed PMF/HaS is currently the only effective tool against ISIS, there could be a net positive effect on regional stability.
Sure Israel and the Magic Kingdom won't like it, but the days are numbered for the Apartheid regime in Tel Aviv, and the House of Saud is currently facing a reform-or-die situation (along with all the other GCC countries).
How was your flight back from Geneva?
^ What you did there? I observed it lol
We should just liberate Iran, 2003 style. Their little experiment has gone on long enough, put the Pahlavi family back in power.
Mauser KAR98K
07-14-15, 10:37
We should just liberate Iran, 2003 style. Their little experiment has gone on long enough, put the Pahlavi family back in power.
Oddly enough, this deal has shades of Iraq written all over it.
Oddly enough, this deal has shades of Iraq written all over it.
Iraq should've been another Korea or at least a Bosnia with a multinational SFOR for a decade or two. We'll be back.
Doc Safari
07-14-15, 11:01
You guys need to look at this and all other dealings with Islamic nations from the standpoint that Obama wants to enable Islamic regimes.
I predict the truth will eventually come out that we've actually been supplying ISIS.
Isolating Iran has created far more problems than it has solved.
I predict in a year or two American businesses will be conducting all manner of commerce with the Islamic Republic of Iran... including weapons.
Being that the Iranian backed PMF/HaS is currently the only effective tool against ISIS, there could be a net positive effect on regional stability.
Sure Israel and the Magic Kingdom won't like it, but the days are numbered for the Apartheid regime in Tel Aviv, and the House of Saud is currently facing a reform-or-die situation (along with all the other GCC countries).
And I predict Iran will control many of Iraqs oil fields and become wealthy enough to be the next Saudi Arabia who sends the faithful to fight the Great Satan.
sevenhelmet
07-14-15, 13:44
A couple of points:
1.) Burning our flag and shouting "death to America" is something our own citizens do now, apparently. Not sure that's a metric by which a government should be dealt with, but it's certainly a problem.
2.) We cooked our own goose with Iran a long time ago, and they have every reason to hate us. I wouldn't expect this deal to go smoothly.
3.) I think point #1's mainstream acceptance has a lot more to do with our decline than the Iranian nuclear deal.
And finally,
4.) We already ARE back in Iraq with embedded SOF units and some very busy air assets. Lots of ordnance is being employed over there. You just aren't hearing much about it.
KalashniKEV
07-14-15, 13:50
And I predict Iran will control many of Iraqs oil fields and become wealthy enough to be the next Saudi Arabia who sends the faithful to fight the Great Satan.
Iranian terror just doesn't have the same flavor as Saudi terror. There's more talking, less grunting, and even uniforms.
Almost all transnational Jihad is Wahabbist.
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r220/Kalashnikev/ScreenShot2014-07-26at75207PM_zpsb0abd7e5.png
We need a time machine so we can get behind Saddam and spread secular Ba'athism across the Arabian peninsula.
Almost all transnational Jihad is Wahabbist.
I'm sure Hezbollah and GWB disagree.
Former United States President George W. Bush has described the Iranian regime the "world's primary state sponsor of terror"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism
BoringGuy45
07-14-15, 16:44
The only thing that Iran can be counted on, for the time being, is to do what is in their best interests. Groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda are crazy to the point of doing things that will destroy themselves, thinking that Allah wills that they will prevail over more powerful enemies. Case and point: 9/11. While Iran does hold to a strict interpretation of Islam, and is certainly extreme in many ways, they have more common sense and a better grip on reality than most Sunni extremists. Iran would like nothing better than to march across the Middle East, destroy Israel and finish Hitler's work on the Jews, they know they can't right now. The difference between them and ISIS is that ISIS thinks they can take Israel and West now and is willing to do so, whereas Iran, despite all their rhetoric, knows they can't now, but will certainly do so when they can.
However, unless Obama can put down Neville Chamberlain's book on how to deal with dictators, they're going to be at that point soon.
Iranian terror just doesn't have the same flavor as Saudi terror. There's more talking, less grunting, and even uniforms.
Almost all transnational Jihad is Wahabbist.
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r220/Kalashnikev/ScreenShot2014-07-26at75207PM_zpsb0abd7e5.png
We need a time machine so we can get behind Saddam and spread secular Ba'athism across the Arabian peninsula.
The difference will be when Iran joins the nuclear family.
And I too wish we could go back in time and not send April Glaspie to Iraq to discuss the Kuwait problem. He wasn't a nice guy or anything, but Saddam had the closest thing to a secular democracy in the arab world. Of course a LOT of the blame rests with George Bush (41) as well, one of the worst Presidents of the 20th century.
Isolating Iran has created far more problems than it has solved.
I predict in a year or two American businesses will be conducting all manner of commerce with the Islamic Republic of Iran... including weapons.
Being that the Iranian backed PMF/HaS is currently the only effective tool against ISIS, there could be a net positive effect on regional stability.
Sure Israel and the Magic Kingdom won't like it, but the days are numbered for the Apartheid regime in Tel Aviv, and the House of Saud is currently facing a reform-or-die situation (along with all the other GCC countries).
Agreed. There is very little evidence that Iran is either a suicide state bent on destructing itself against Israel's huge nuclear arsenal or actually planning on building nuclear weapons.
If one imagines it from their perspective: A NPT signatory opening much of its program up to scrutiny while its mortal enemy receives billions of dollars in aid from the U.S. and is allowed to maintain a clandestine, massive nuclear arsenal might be tempted to question the motives and fairness of its opposition.
Add to this crippling sanctions and its easy to see why world support for a deal is fairly high. Yes, Iran opposes our interests in many areas- ironically not in our new 'existential threat' ISIS- but keeping our boot on their neck has to be justified beyond the fact that we simply don't like them.
The only thing that Iran can be counted on, for the time being, is to do what is in their best interests.
The difference between them and ISIS is that ISIS thinks they can take Israel and West now and is willing to do so, whereas Iran, despite all their rhetoric, knows they can't now, but will certainly do so when they can.
Massive contradiction. Saying that Iran generally acts in its own interests describes a state that is inherently rational. Most countries could be described as such, although our own has questionable judgment when it comes to M.E. affairs.
Following up your first comment with the idea that they're going to start a massive war at great cost when/if they achieve parity against a heavily nuclear armed state and the 2nd strongest player in the region is a ridiculous assumption that flies in the face of all logic- if your first statement is to be accepted.
Agreed. There is very little evidence that Iran is either a suicide state bent on destructing itself against Israel's huge nuclear arsenal or actually planning on building nuclear weapons.
If one imagines it from their perspective: A NPT signatory opening much of its program up to scrutiny while its mortal enemy receives billions of dollars in aid from the U.S. and is allowed to maintain a clandestine, massive nuclear arsenal might be tempted to question the motives and fairness of its opposition.
Add to this crippling sanctions and its easy to see why world support for a deal is fairly high. Yes, Iran opposes our interests in many areas- ironically not in our new 'existential threat' ISIS- but keeping our boot on their neck has to be justified beyond the fact that we simply don't like them.
Are you insane? Do you understand Iran doesn't respect basic diplomacy 101?
Do you remember how the Islamic revolution began in Iran? This is the same government that took over our embassy and help Americans hostage for 444 days. Many of the hostage takers became key members of the new government.
There are even allegations that Ahmadinejad was involved in the plotting and planning. Do you really think the new "moderate" prime minister is an actual change of anything?
Iran wants to be a nuclear power. That's it, that's all, it's what they want.
They will say, do or sign anything that get's them to that goal. It's a nuclear version of the Munich Accords and we have our very own Chamberlain willing to give them what they need in exchange for not very much of any consequence.
Suggesting Shia fanatics aren't as fanatical as Sunni fanatics is insane.
PatrioticDisorder
07-14-15, 19:16
Are you insane? Do you understand Iran doesn't respect basic diplomacy 101?
Do you remember how the Islamic revolution began in Iran? This is the same government that took over our embassy and help Americans hostage for 444 days. Many of the hostage takers became key members of the new government.
There are even allegations that Ahmadinejad was involved in the plotting and planning. Do you really think the new "moderate" prime minister is an actual change of anything?
Iran wants to be a nuclear power. That's it, that's all, it's what they want.
They will say, do or sign anything that get's them to that goal. It's a nuclear version of the Munich Accords and we have our very own Chamberlain willing to give them what they need in exchange for not very much of any consequence.
Suggesting Shia fanatics aren't as fanatical as Sunni fanatics is insane.
Apparently people have forgotten Ahmedinejad talking of "wiping Israel off the map with one storm" like 10 years ago, these looney tunes believe they're going to wake up the 12th Imam (who will then wipe the U.S. & Israel out) by starting "great chaos." Anyone who doesn't believe these people are nuts has their head completely in the sand and simply doesn't understand the enemy.
Am I the only one that's to the point where we should just give Iran a nice sized nuclear bomb, along with a PowerPoint presentation on the number and total KT's of warheads we'll rain down on them if they ever use it? :confused:
Apparently people have forgotten Ahmedinejad talking of "wiping Israel off the map with one storm" like 10 years ago, these looney tunes believe they're going to wake up the 12th Imam (who will then wipe the U.S. & Israel out) by starting "great chaos." Anyone who doesn't believe these people are nuts has their head completely in the sand and simply doesn't understand the enemy.
Is that old trope the best we have? What is the official policy of the Iranian government? Did you know that the religious leadership is in charge?
Their official policy is not to develop nuclear weapons. They are engaging in extensive diplomacy in order to be have less heavy-handed restrictions on their funds and economy. In other words, they are carefully acting on their own interests. If every time a U.S. political activist who currently heavily funds the GOP suggested a nuclear first strike on Iran, THEY concluded WE were crazy, we'd be in trouble.
Adelson then imagined what might happen if an American official were to call up an Iranian official, say “watch this,” and subsequently drop a nuclear bomb in the middle of the Iranian desert.
"Then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business.
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Adelson-US-should-drop-atomic-bomb-on-Iran-329641
I know you some of you guys think you have Iran all figured out, but it just isn't the case. Many sources of information are biasing us towards thinking that the sky is falling, Iran is on the cusp of M.E. domination, and they're suicidal but the evidence doesn't support it.
Another preventative war is only justifiable if you use heated rhetoric not grounded in reality, don't care about the importance of the United States actually being a responsible world actor, or have financial or regional interests in getting the U.S. to make another huge mistake.
Oh, and you're almost certainly wrong about what Ahmadinejad actually meant.
In a reminder that Persian rhetoric is not always easy for English-speakers to interpret, a senior Israeli official has acknowledged that Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, never actually said that Israel “must be wiped off the map.”
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/israeli-minister-agrees-ahmadinejad-never-said-israel-must-be-wiped-off-the-map/?_r=0
Are you insane? Do you understand Iran doesn't respect basic diplomacy 101?
.
Not going to address your entire post as it includes a lot of wild assumptions that you cannot verify.
However, as far as diplomacy goes, I think the Iranians are at least as trustworthy as we are at this point.
I know their hardliners, who would like to develop a bomb, are angry about the concessions in the treaty. It is our own U.S. Senate, however, that has threatened to void a diplomatic agreement if they don't like it. Do you not recall the 'open letter to Iranian leaders' where they did just that? Diplomacy 101, indeed. :rolleyes:
We need to stop pretending that we are omnipotent, that we cannot and should not be held to the standards we want others to follow, or that our wars and attack campaigns are always justified, necessary or even helpful to U.S. interests.
However, as far as diplomacy goes, I think the Iranians are at least as trustworthy as we are at this point.
Well I found the problem. You actually BELIEVE Iran when it says something. Not really anything further to discuss.
I won't even get into invading a foreign embassy and taking hostages and equating it with anything we've done with respect to a foreign embassy in the US. Just give you a "WOW!" on that one.
I know you some of you guys think you have Iran all figured out, but it just isn't the case. Many sources of information are biasing us towards thinking that the sky is falling, Iran is on the cusp of M.E. domination, and they're suicidal but the evidence doesn't support it.
Yep, this forum is pretty much clueless when it comes to matters of Islam, military threats and assessments, history of conflict regions and things like that.
I bet you are right, in fact probably everything we "think" we know about North Korea is probably just all propaganda. We will defer to your impressive "evidence" on the matter.
Well I found the problem. You actually BELIEVE Iran when it says something. Not really anything further to discuss.
I won't even get into invading a foreign embassy and taking hostages and equating it with anything we've done with respect to a foreign embassy in the US. Just give you a "WOW!" on that one.
Well, it was 34 years ago, but IIRC, they had just overthrown the Shah and we wouldn't give him back for them to give him a fair trial and execute him, so I guess they figured they had cause. And a year or so later we were backing Saddam in his war with Iran. About that same time period we were supplying stinger missiles on the QT to the Taliban (nee Mujahdeen) to shot at Russian helicopters.
Two things for sure, our policy is all over the place, and we've backed some winners! But, after all, it is the Middle East.
Also a lot of people think Hassan Rouhani (the moderate President) is running things, few people are even aware Iran has a Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. And if you want to know where he stands, which is difficult as he rarely voices his opinion just read this.
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/sadjadpour_iran_final2.pdf
In his speeches Khamenei regularly mentions many familiar themes of the 1979 revolution: justice, independence, self-sufficiency, Islamic government and resolute opposition to Israel and United States, while rarely mentioning other revolutionary ideals such as democracy and greater government transparency.
Well, it was 34 years ago, but IIRC, they had just overthrown the Shah and we wouldn't give him back for them to give him a fair trial and execute him, so I guess they figured they had cause. And a year or so later we were backing Saddam in his war with Iran. About that same time period we were supplying stinger missiles on the QT to the Taliban (nee Mujahdeen) to shot at Russian helicopters.
Two things for sure, our policy is all over the place, and we've backed some winners! But, after all, it is the Middle East.
Actually the Shah had come to the US for medical attention. In 1974 the shah had been diagnosed with mild form of lymphoma (cancer of the lymph glands) by French doctors, but, regarding the illness as a state secret, the shah informed no one.
In 1979 when the Shah requested to come to the US for his medical condition it made no sense to "consult" with the Iranian government or to "bring them into the decision making process." The United States was a sovereign nation and no other nation had the right to exercise a veto over any person whom the United States wished to admit, for whatever reason.
In Tehran on the Sunday, 21 October, the White House cable was received by Bruce Laingen. It directed Laingen and Precht to inform Barzargan and the PGOI that the shah was being admitted to the United States on "humanitarian grounds" and the U.S. government expected the PGOI to "provide the necessary level of security for Americans in Iran. To both Laingen and Precht, it was clear from the language of the cable that the decision to admit had already been made and that the shah was even then possibly on the way to New York.
The Iranian officials’ reaction was "mixed but generally subdued." Barzargan was "quiet but concerned," indicating an "acceptance of the reality." It was the foreign minister Yazdi, who "dominated the discussion with an explanation of the problems this [the shah’s admittance] would create for the US in Iran."
Yazdi made four salient points: (a) the shah "should receive treatment anywhere but the United States;" (b) if the United States absolutely had to allow the shah in, then he should not be treated in New York City — "anywhere else would be marginally better" — as New York City was the "center of Rockefeller and Zionist influence;" (c) to prove that the shah’s illness was not a "ruse," the officials "hoped that Iranian doctors would be allowed to confirm the validity of the medical findings;" (d) the PGOI expected the U.S. government to obtain prior assurances from the shah that he would not engage in political activities while in America and that he give no "press interviews to further his political interests." Laingen summed up the meeting by noting that, "throughout the discussions [the Iranians], particularly Yazdi, never accepted the shah’s illness as serious." Missing from the memo was an additional Yazdi comment: The Iranian people would not believe the story about the shah’s illness and would import a far more sinister meaning to the event.
Of critical importance to the decision to admit the shah, also missing from the memo was any response whatsoever, explicit or implicit, from the Iranians to Laingen’s request for protection for American citizens in Iran, including those in the embassy. Simply put, the cable reported absolutely nothing to Washington of Iranian comments with respect to the provision of protection to the embassy. Yet, for some reason, Carter and his senior White House advisors have almost all written that Barzargan had "promised" or "guaranteed" or "assured" or otherwise gave a "positive official response" for protection for the embassy. But there was just nothing anywhere in the cable addressing that point.
Regardless of Carter's incompetence, the PGOI failed to respect basic diplomacy from the outset and engaged literally in hostage taking and extortion. This combined with the seizing of a foreign embassy put them pretty much on the same page as North Vietnam as far as the US was concerned with respect to possible diplomacy.
And of course we backed Saddam in his war against Iran. Why wouldn't we? He had the closest thing to a secular democracy at the time.
And yes we supplied the Mujahadeen (which became the Taliban) because we were paying Russia back for Vietnam when they supported our enemies at the cost of US lives.
Of course both of these things are irrelevant to the fact that in 1979 Iran became an Islamic Theocracy and nothing has really changed except some people believe they have a "moderate" President who is actually in charge of anything.
If the Iranian theocracy understood and respected basic diplomacy, we would still be allies with them, perhaps they would be allies in the sense of Saudi Arabia, but still we would call them allies. But that isn't the case, from the first instance of not getting what they want, they resorted to the tactics of a hostile nation and we treated them as such. In addition to seizing the embassy, taking hostages and extortion, Iran went on to engage in state sponsored terrorism.
About the only thing that has actually changed is Iran has become sophisticated enough to "play the moderate" in an attempt to become a nuclear power. Amazingly there seem to be enough people in the US, and more importantly in the current administration, who are foolish enough to believe it.
If anyone thinks that China and Russia make for "worrisome" nuclear players, if anyone thinks that India and Pakistan is a dangerous nuclear flashpoint, then you haven't seen anything yet. Iran will make them look like Switzerland. More importantly, Saudi Arabia will never tolerate a Iranian nuclear state and will demand a comparable nuclear arsenal in order to balance Sunni / Shia influence and power in the region.
France, China and probably Russia will stand in line to assist Saudi Arabia with their nuclear concerns. And when Saudi Arabia and Iran are the new nuclear players, we will wonder why we ever worried about small potatoes like who is running things in Iraq or what ISIS did this week.
Mauser KAR98K
07-15-15, 01:49
I'd like to add that Iran had been suppling enemy fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan in kIlling US service men and women.
The intentions of this administration are alarming. Almost every policy they enact has the opposite results that they use to justify the policy. They empower our enemies, while alienating and betraying our allies. Iran was going to have a bomb, regardless, without an intervention. Now, with the lifting of economic sanctions along with accepting limited access to Iran's nuclear program, they have ensured Iran will get their bomb while putting $100 Billion in there hands. This administration is not happy with stirring turmoil in this country. Now, they are potentially putting the world in a chaotic state by starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
A few things are for sure. Iran cannot be trusted. All three branches of our federal government cannot be trusted.
KalashniKEV
07-15-15, 10:17
I'm sure Hezbollah and GWB disagree.
Former United States President George W. Bush has described the Iranian regime the "world's primary state sponsor of terror"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism
Obviously GWB is going to disagree... the Bush family is a client family of the House of Saud no different than the al Khalifas or the al Sabahs.
I'm sure GHWB disagrees strongly- he reversed our foreign policy and ended support for the parliamentary secular regime in Baghdad in favor of a bunch of bearded maniacs in man-dresses...
(Who also happened to make him filthy rich)
The statement that Iran is "world's primary state sponsor of terror" is completely ridiculous, and was a source of embarrassment at the time that he made it.
Hezbollah is a political party, and you will not find them listed as a threat against the United States in the WTA... because they do not represent any kind of threat to the United States.
http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Unclassified_2015_ATA_SFR_-_SASC_FINAL.pdf
Welcome to realpolitik- only the National Interest counts.
We must continue to act on practical interests, while weighing the second and third order effects of our foreign policy instead of the dumb emotional and ideological distortions that have guided us in the past.
The only thing that Iran can be counted on, for the time being, is to do what is in their best interests.
Brilliant analysis.
Are you insane? Do you understand Iran doesn't respect basic diplomacy 101?
Actually it's far more likely that the United States would renege on the deal.
We don't have a good track record of honoring our commitments.
Suggesting Shia fanatics aren't as fanatical as Sunni fanatics is insane.
I think you've fallen victim to propaganda.
Do some research, still your emotion, and think.
As I said, Shia terror has a different flavor- know the difference and understand which one represents the greatest threat.
The intentions of this administration are alarming. Almost every policy they enact has the opposite results that they use to justify the policy. They empower our enemies, while alienating and betraying our allies.
Iran was selected to be the regional power during the Bush administration- that's why all our policies sought to disenfranchise and disempower the Sunnis. That is why we cleansed Baghdad of nearly all Sunnis during OPN FaQ/BSP. We butchered Iraq and served it up to Iran on a plate- something Iran was unable to do during the Iran-Iraq war when we actually supported secularism.
That much was intentional.
The unintentional piece, and perhaps the greatest blunder of any war... ever... by anyone... was the genesis of ISIS in response.
Understand, without emotion, the roots of terror and why 9/11 happened. Then examine who our true allies and enemies are, based on actions, not words.
Your brain might be surprised...
How many times does the US have to play the fool to Iranian "agreements" - when they never honored (and their religon decrees that lying to the infidel is acceptable if it forwards Muslim interests) ANY PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS??
Spurholder
07-15-15, 12:11
Hezbollah is a political party, and you will not find them listed as a threat against the United States in the WTA... because they do not represent any kind of threat to the United States.
http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Unclassified_2015_ATA_SFR_-_SASC_FINAL.pdf
Someone better call Lurch and straighten him out, then. Hezbollah's still listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization per State.
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
Welcome to realpolitik- only the National Interest counts.
Agreed.
Add "Bismarck - the real brand from 1871-1890" and you'd have a great t-shirt.
Actually it's far more likely that the United States would renege on the deal.
We don't have a good track record of honoring our commitments.
If Iran simply failed to honor a commitment in 1979 I'd have a different opinion. As for the US, how many times have we attacked a foreign embassy on our soil and taken hostages?
I think you've fallen victim to propaganda.
Do some research, still your emotion, and think.
While it is true the Iranians haven't flown planes into buildings, that doesn't mean they won't. I first learned what a Shia (moderate) Iranian was back in about 1980 when a girl in my class told me how her family drowned her older sister in the swimming pool because she was having sex with western men.
Sounds like the same kind of "Islamic Insanity" that the Sunni practice.
Here is a wonderful pic of Iranian insanity.
http://40.media.tumblr.com/afe42fecc870f5d05ad842655cba0f58/tumblr_mwnt4pKSuf1s7e5k5o1_1280.jpg
Iranian child soldiers head to the front during the Iran-Iraq War, where they would be utilized in human wave attacks against fortified Iraqi positions. c. 1980s
KalashniKEV
07-15-15, 13:44
As for the US, how many times have we attacked a foreign embassy on our soil and taken hostages?
We did, once in our history, cast off the chains of the oppressor... were there any Embassies attacked?
I know there was terrorist activity taking place under the cell name, "Sons of Liberty."
Did any of them go on to hold office, like Ahmadinejad?
Oh... yes... the second President of the United States... John Adams.
What was your point?
While it is true the Iranians haven't flown planes into buildings, that doesn't mean they won't.
You could say the same thing about Putin.
(In fact, I'll bet Putin is probably closer to actually doing it.)
So basically they are only a few thousand dead Americans behind Saudi Arabia and maybe a few hundred behind our other "historical allies."
Iranian child soldiers head to the front during the Iran-Iraq War, where they would be utilized in human wave attacks against fortified Iraqi positions. c. 1980s
While nearly every country has employed child soldiers at different times, I fear that if Americans of today were placed in a similar situation of existential destruction, they would simply give up.
We did, once in our history, cast off the chains of the oppressor... were there any Embassies attacked?
I know there was terrorist activity taking place under the cell name, "Sons of Liberty."
Did any of them go on to hold office, like Ahmadinejad?
Oh... yes... the second President of the United States... John Adams.
What was your point?
So now we are equating colonial independence with a radical Islamic takeover? Ok, here is the first problem, Iran wasn't a colony of the US as we were a colony of England. We had an embassy in Iran due to our diplomatic relationship with that country, we didn't have the same kind of positive relationship with England. Seeing the point now?
Also Iran didn't seize US hostages from the US embassy because we were trying to deny them their revolution, independence or disarm them as England was doing. Iran seized US hostages to extort us into turning our ally over to his enemies when he came to the US for medical treatment.
And NO, during the US revolution not a single embassy was attacked. That is because we weren't considered a sovereign, independent nation that would necessitate the existence of an English embassy. We were nothing more than another colony of the crown.
You could say the same thing about Putin.
(In fact, I'll bet Putin is probably closer to actually doing it.)
So basically they are only a few thousand dead Americans behind Saudi Arabia and maybe a few hundred behind our other "historical allies."
I think Putin cares about the kind of retaliation that would follow a Russian 9-11 style of attack. That wouldn't be a war on Federation Terrorism, that would be a war declared against the Russian Federation. I do NOT think Iran has similar concerns about retaliation. I think Iran would be willing to engage in a first strike against the US or Israel at the first opportunity and wouldn't really care about the cost of such an attack. This is why they send their children to war to fight in human waves.
While nearly every country has employed child soldiers at different times, I fear that if Americans of today were placed in a similar situation of existential destruction, they would simply give up.
Children sacrificed in wave attacks is not a good thing.
KalashniKEV
07-15-15, 15:00
Ok, here is the first problem, Iran wasn't a colony of the US as we were a colony of England.
Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. is laughing in his grave.
:)
Also Iran didn't seize US hostages from the US embassy because we were trying to deny them their revolution, independence or disarm them as England was doing.
Gholamreza Takhti is now laughing in his grave.
(Just stop now... I really don't think you have a clue in the world what you're talking about.)
I think Putin cares about the kind of retaliation that would follow a Russian 9-11 style of attack. That wouldn't be a war on Federation Terrorism, that would be a war declared against the Russian Federation.
Yup. Putin would never carry out a dirty terrorist attack like that... except for the few times that he's actually done it... which is every couple of years...
KalashniKEV
07-15-15, 15:05
Children sacrificed in wave attacks is not a good thing.
Children sacrificed in any way is never a good thing.
Saddam went in because he wanted to strike his enemy while they were still disorganized, and in chaos. He even had the backing of the United States AND the USSR.
They pulled together quickly and did everything possible and everything imaginable.
In the end, the war was fought to a stalemate... and hostilities remained dormant for many years.
Victory was not achieved for the Islamic Republic of Iran until 20 May 2006.
Whiskey_Bravo
07-15-15, 15:21
Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. is laughing in his grave.
:)
What does Kermit have to do with us being a colony of England? Yes, Kermit tried to help the Shaw regain power, but that doesn't change with Steyr said does it?
Gholamreza Takhti is now laughing in his grave.
(Just stop now... I really don't think you have a clue in the world what you're talking about.)
WTF man. Now we are talking Olympic medal winners of the 60s?
Yup. Putin would never carry out a dirty terrorist attack like that... except for the few times that he's actually done it... which is every couple of years...
What terrorist attack has Putin carried out in the US?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-american-detainees/index.html
Americans are still being held by Iran. They are being discussed on the "sidelines", but their release is not part of the nuclear "agreement".
Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. is laughing in his grave.
:)
Iran was more of an English colony than one of the US if you are talking about Boot/Ajax. But more importantly, coups and other efforts to support a favorable government are still a far cry from being a colony. We partnered with England and got some secured deals on oil but to the best of my knowledge we didn't collect taxes from Iran or induct their citizens into our military force. Using your example, South Vietnam was a US colony as well.
Gholamreza Takhti is now laughing in his grave.
(Just stop now... I really don't think you have a clue in the world what you're talking about.)
Right back at you. The Shah, which we supported may have repressed the Iranian people, but again we are still a long way away from a colony. We support the Saudi Royal Family, is Saudi Arabia a US colony in your mind?
Yup. Putin would never carry out a dirty terrorist attack like that... except for the few times that he's actually done it... which is every couple of years...
I'm guessing you are talking about Georgia, Ossetia, Ukraine, Crimea, etc? That isn't much different from hammering down Hungary in 1956. Not exactly the same thing as the 9-11 attacks or a nuclear first strike against the US. Nobody thinks Putin is a "great guy" but he knows he isn't going to be nuked over Georgia, Ossetia or the Crimea. In fact he knows the worst thing he faces is sanctions.
Children sacrificed in any way is never a good thing.
Saddam went in because he wanted to strike his enemy while they were still disorganized, and in chaos. He even had the backing of the United States AND the USSR.
They pulled together quickly and did everything possible and everything imaginable.
In the end, the war was fought to a stalemate... and hostilities remained dormant for many years.
Victory was not achieved for the Islamic Republic of Iran until 20 May 2006.
Not sure what any of that has to do with Iran and their willingness to do anything, including sacrifice children to achieve their goals.
Right now, and here is where you may have a point about a difference between Sunni and Shia muslims, Iran is presenting a "moderate" President to the world along with claims of wishing for a better relationship and having only peaceful aims with respect to their nuclear program. Some people are even believing it.
The reality is, Iran is still an Islamic Theocracy with a supreme leader whose name rarely gets mentioned on the news, and that Islamic religious leader is still dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the US.
I'll take nutless leadership for $200......
What is your problem with Israel?
I'm assuming he'll spout the same leftist rhetoric as usual, with the "apartheid state" line.
I'm just here waiting for Bibi Netanyahu to decide enough is enough, and make an attempt on the Iranian facilities. A deal like this has made it a question of when, not if.
We did, once in our history, cast off the chains of the oppressor... were there any Embassies attacked?
I know there was terrorist activity taking place under the cell name, "Sons of Liberty."
Did any of them go on to hold office, like Ahmadinejad?
Oh... yes... the second President of the United States... John Adams.
What was your point?
You could say the same thing about Putin.
(In fact, I'll bet Putin is probably closer to actually doing it.)
So basically they are only a few thousand dead Americans behind Saudi Arabia and maybe a few hundred behind our other "historical allies."
While nearly every country has employed child soldiers at different times, I fear that if Americans of today were placed in a similar situation of existential destruction, they would simply give up.
Dat absurd moral equivalence, doe.
Isolating Iran has created far more problems than it has solved.
Yes, and embracing them by bending over like a b!tch is going to be much better.
I predict in a year or two American businesses will be conducting all manner of commerce with the Islamic Republic of Iran... including weapons.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it will be a good thing for the country as a whole.
Being that the Iranian backed PMF/HaS is currently the only effective tool against ISIS, there could be a net positive effect on regional stability.
We are being played for fools. ISIS is horrible. Iran isn't much better. Iran doesn't have much interest in stopping ISIS. In fact, ISIS being a thorn in our side serves as a useful distraction for Iran to continue pursuing nuclear capability and regional dominance.
Sure Israel and the Magic Kingdom won't like it, but the days are numbered for the Apartheid regime in Tel Aviv, and the House of Saud is currently facing a reform-or-die situation (along with all the other GCC countries).
[/QUOTE]
I hate the Saudis more than anyone, but your smear of "apartheid regime" is laughable at best, vile at worst.
I guess it's "apartheid" to allow Israeli Arabs to run for and hold office, be supreme court judges, and even generals in the military.
Yeah, damn those apartheid racists!! Oh, I'm sorry,are there any Muslim/Arab countries with Jews in positions such as these? No? That's odd....
I'm assuming he'll spout the same leftist rhetoric as usual, with the "apartheid state" line.
I'm just here waiting for Bibi Netanyahu to decide enough is enough, and make an attempt on the Iranian facilities. A deal like this has made it a question of when, not if.
If they're going to do it they're going to have to do it soon. It's my understanding that Iran has a deal with Russia to buy missiles to defend their nuclear sites, once the sanctions get lifted. If they get them installed before the Israelis strike, it'll make things much more difficult..
Doc Safari
07-16-15, 09:51
I'm just here waiting for Bibi Netanyahu to decide enough is enough, and make an attempt on the Iranian facilities. A deal like this has made it a question of when, not if.
I think Saudi Arabia and some of the other gulf states are going to be considering some "actions" as well, even if it's only to let Israel's bombers overfly their airspace.
KalashniKEV
07-16-15, 17:25
Iran was more of an English colony than one of the US if you are talking about Boot/Ajax.
I am indeed talking about that.
Whenever you wind the spring, you don't get to stand around with a stupid look after it lets go. Same thing with the rise of ISIS.
But more importantly, coups and other efforts to support a favorable government are still a far cry from being a colony.
True, there was no British equivalent of the SAVAK.
But then your statement about taxes???
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make... surely not that colonialism was worse than despotism?
We support the Saudi Royal Family, is Saudi Arabia a US colony in your mind?
Quite the opposite- for 12 years we were at the service of the Saudi crown.
I'm guessing you are talking about Georgia, Ossetia, Ukraine, Crimea, etc?
More than just that.
How many American citizens has Putin killed? British?
Has anyone ever retaliated?
What is your problem with Israel?
Being for the national interest is very different than being against Israel.
I am indeed talking about that.
Whenever you wind the spring, you don't get to stand around with a stupid look after it lets go. Same thing with the rise of ISIS.
True, there was no British equivalent of the SAVAK.
But then your statement about taxes???
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make... surely not that colonialism was worse than despotism?
My point was that Iran didn't quite qualify as a colony, certainly not a US colony. As an example of a true colony, look at India when it was under British rule. It existed to support England at the expense of almost everyone. We didn't quite have the same arrangement with the Shah.
Quite the opposite- for 12 years we were at the service of the Saudi crown.
More than just that.
How many American citizens has Putin killed? British?
Has anyone ever retaliated?
Being for the national interest is very different than being against Israel.
Guess you are going to have to enlighten me. How many Americans has Putin killed, especially in acts of terrorism? I'm assuming we are talking about more than journalists killed in conflict zones.
The UN is currently voting on the Iran Nuclear Deal.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2553565088001/un-security-council-votes-on-iran-nuclear-deal/?#sp=watch-live
Congressional Democrats acknowledge Iran deal will be tough sell on Capitol Hill (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/19/congressional-democrats-acknowledge-iran-deal-will-be-tough-sell-on-capitol/)
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee, told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that she hopes fellow congressional Democrats will support Obama’s nuclear deal but “the jury is out.”
“I certainly hope so,” she said. “I believe it's our one opportunity. You can't ignore the fact that you have Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany all aligned. … It is very likely that, regardless of what we do, these nations will drop their sanctions at some point.”
Russia is chomping at the bit to sell missiles to Iran, and Iran would love to use our money to get it done. Contrary to popular belief, Donald Trump is not the biggest circus in town.
KalashniKEV
07-20-15, 09:46
As an example of a true colony, look at India when it was under British rule.
Ummm... so when did the secret police hook a car battery up to Gandhi's nuts, knock all his teeth out, and wipe out the rest of his cell?
I think I'm starting to understand the point you're trying to make... but your analogies are terrible.
Maybe stick to the US if that's what you know better?
Did the British have an equivalent to the SAVAK in the colonies?
Guess you are going to have to enlighten me. How many Americans has Putin killed, especially in acts of terrorism?
Putin kills with complete impunity, because he knows aint nobody gonna do shit.
He doesn't care what it says on your passport. If you oppose his will, you die.
Russia is chomping at the bit to sell missiles to Iran, and Iran would love to use our money to get it done. Contrary to popular belief, Donald Trump is not the biggest circus in town.
GD and Raytheon are chomping at the bit too... and I'm sure they'd rather have our missiles anyway.
http://fortune.com/2015/07/17/iran-nuclear-deal-arms/
Ummm... so when did the secret police hook a car battery up to Gandhi's nuts, knock all his teeth out, and wipe out the rest of his cell?
I think I'm starting to understand the point you're trying to make... but your analogies are terrible.
Maybe stick to the US if that's what you know better?
Did the British have an equivalent to the SAVAK in the colonies?
You are mistaking two things.
A colony, which is what I'm talking about.
A brutal regime, which is what you are talking about.
A colony can also be a brutal regime, but not always.
Colonies have to pay taxes, tributes or otherwise provide part of their domestic production and / or material wealth to the mother nation. The example I provided was India prior to their independence from England.
Colonies need not be a terrible thing, technically Canada is still part of the crown even if the relationship has evolved over time.
This began when you suggested Iran was a "colony" of the US and that really isn't the case. One might argue Iran was a puppet government of the UK, and to a lesser extent, the US (Boot/Ajax) but that doesn't make them a colony. And it wasn't quite a puppet government, but the Shah (like most non religious leaders) did have a harsh rule. It likely qualified as a brutal regime, but I think most middle eastern leaders qualify.
Putin kills with complete impunity, because he knows aint nobody gonna do shit.
He doesn't care what it says on your passport. If you oppose his will, you die.
Ok, again. Please provide examples. I don't think he's Gorby, he was former KGB. But I'm not familiar with all the Americans Putin has killed.
Not that I am surprised, but the UN endorsed the Obama/Kerry Iran nuclear deal. It doesn't make much sense to me that the UN is voting on it before Congress approves it, but who am I kidding, Congress will probably let it slide with no action anyway.
UN Security Council endorses Iran deal, Tehran diplomat lashes out at US (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/un-security-council-endorses-iran-nuclear-deal/?intcmp=latestnews)
While it is true the Iranians haven't flown planes into buildings, that doesn't mean they won't. I first learned what a Shia (moderate) Iranian was back in about 1980 when a girl in my class told me how her family drowned her older sister in the swimming pool because she was having sex with western men.
Sounds like the same kind of "Islamic Insanity" that the Sunni practice.
So, is your entire argument going to consist of blocks of text with no source listed and these kind of anecdotal accounts that allow you to simply assign ANY possibility as probable?
Just because they haven't doesn't mean that they won't and a bunch of cherry-picked historical blurbs is hardly compelling as a case for the United States to renege on a treaty it just signed that grants us the non-proliferation we supposedly seek.
What's at stake here is international law and the value of diplomacy. You pay lip service to the idea of it while laying a fantastical groundwork to justify any action for the United States. A judicious and subjective look at our own history in the last fifteen years, the consequences and the lack of accountability, would serve you and our leadership well.
So, is your entire argument going to consist of blocks of text with no source listed and these kind of anecdotal accounts that allow you to simply assign ANY possibility as probable?
Just because they haven't doesn't mean that they won't and a bunch of cherry-picked historical blurbs is hardly compelling as a case for the United States to renege on a treaty it just signed that grants us the non-proliferation we supposedly seek.
What's at stake here is international law and the value of diplomacy. You pay lip service to the idea of it while laying a fantastical groundwork to justify any action for the United States. A judicious and subjective look at our own history in the last fifteen years, the consequences and the lack of accountability, would serve you and our leadership well.
My "entire argument" consists of much more than that. If you want to read it, it's there. But it's wasted on you. Go tell your fairy tale of diplomacy with a country that has a religious supreme leader that considers Israel and the US to be "the great satan" to somebody else.
If we were discussing diplomacy with a country that was a "Christian" theocracy and wished to bring about all the things necessary for the second coming I'm sure you'd be able to follow that logic train and the inherent problems with forming a relationship with said country including making them a nuclear power and removing an arms embargo.
But let me make this easy, feel free to ignore my uninformed post and believe whatever drivel you wish. I know when I'm wasting my time.
Spurholder
07-21-15, 08:47
What's at stake here is international law and the value of diplomacy.
Interesting perspective.
http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/pending/
Let's give a football stadium full of money and voluntary inspection compliance to a nation that unapologetically supplied arms and men to directly kill American soldiers.
What a great idea.
What could possibly go wrong?
You can always count on Iran to be Iran, including the vehement opposition to Israel and the U.S.
It's past time to remove their leadership, and their nuke sites.
The United States said on Tuesday it was very disturbed by anti-U.S. hostility voiced by Iran's top leader after a nuclear deal, as both countries' top diplomats sought to calm opposition to the accord from political hardliners at home.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran's nuclear programme was "very troubling".
"I don't know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that's his policy," he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television.
"But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it's very disturbing, it's very troubling," he added.
Ayatollah Khamenei, the highest authority in Iran, told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were "180 degrees" opposed to Iran's, in a Tehran speech punctuated by chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-disturbed-iranian-leaders-criticism-deal-121454843--finance.html
KalashniKEV
07-21-15, 10:34
You are mistaking two things.
A colony, which is what I'm talking about...
OK... I think I get it now... you appear to be waaaaay dialed in on the Webster's-dictionary-definition of a colony and failed to understand the relationship I was referring to.
It appears from your other posts that you also fail to understand the roots of the 1979 Revolution as well.
I guess you were surprised when it happened?
Ok, again. Please provide examples. I don't think he's Gorby, he was former KGB. But I'm not familiar with all the Americans Putin has killed.
Quinn Lucas Schansman for one, that wasn't too long ago... and he also stole that football ring from that guy.
Putin does what he wants.
Iran will do what they want as well.
Isolation only makes this worse. You can't win if you withdraw from the game.
... a country that has a religious supreme leader that considers Israel and the US to be "the great satan" to somebody else.
This post is a perfect example of why engagement with the Iranian government is so critical, and why Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the NeoCons are crapping in their pants right now.
By isolating Iran, we not only allowed those two Evil countries to control the narrative within our own debate, but we also allowed the Mullahs of the Guardian Council to control the debate within Iran.
"Death to America" works great when a plane ticket to visit your sister in Canada costs 1/3 of your annual salary due to sanctions and your mom can't get the meds she needs to survive... but what about when "The Great Satan" is right across the table engaged in discussions and your guy has the full blessing of the Supreme Leader?
How does that slogan play to a bright young kid who wants to study abroad but can't because of political BS vs. one who gets his degree in America and goes back to work for an American company in Iran?
How does religious conservatism play to a working class kid who's told everything in his life sucks because of American imperialism and gets handed a Koran vs. a working class kid who gets handed a smartphone and gets on his hustle?
The world is changing. The power balance is shifting. We can't bury our heads in the sand. We can't act stupefied when the obvious occurs.
OK... I think I get it now... you appear to be waaaaay dialed in on the Webster's-dictionary-definition of a colony and failed to understand the relationship I was referring to.
It appears from your other posts that you also fail to understand the roots of the 1979 Revolution as well.
I guess you were surprised when it happened?
Specific words have specific meanings. Had you started in with "propped up" government and "brutal regime" you'd have gotten nothing but agreement from me.
But it is that "failed to get on the same page" that prompted my comments, not a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues. Indeed I knew everything you referenced regarding Iran and I posted plenty of information to support that the Carter administration probably should have seen it coming.
Quinn Lucas Schansman for one, that wasn't too long ago... and he also stole that football ring from that guy.
Putin does what he wants.
Iran will do what they want as well.
Isolation only makes this worse. You can't win if you withdraw from the game.
MH17 was messed up. But we've seen that before with KAL007. Still a far cry from the deliberately targeting of Americans that I was looking for.
And isolation doesn't always make things worse, we'd have done well to isolate Hitler at Munich rather than give him everything he wanted.
This post is a perfect example of why engagement with the Iranian government is so critical, and why Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the NeoCons are crapping in their pants right now.
By isolating Iran, we not only allowed those two Evil countries to control the narrative within our own debate, but we also allowed the Mullahs of the Guardian Council to control the debate within Iran.
"Death to America" works great when a plane ticket to visit your sister in Canada costs 1/3 of your annual salary due to sanctions and your mom can't get the meds she needs to survive... but what about when "The Great Satan" is right across the table engaged in discussions and your guy has the full blessing of the Supreme Leader?
How does that slogan play to a bright young kid who wants to study abroad but can't because of political BS vs. one who gets his degree in America and goes back to work for an American company in Iran?
How does religious conservatism play to a working class kid who's told everything in his life sucks because of American imperialism and gets handed a Koran vs. a working class kid who gets handed a smartphone and gets on his hustle?
The world is changing. The power balance is shifting. We can't bury our heads in the sand. We can't act stupefied when the obvious occurs.
Saudis have been free to come to the US for decades, didn't stop them from being the number one supporter of Wahabi and it sure didn't stop several Saudi national from flying planes into buildings.
The ONLY reason the Saud family helps as at all, to the limited extent they do, is we support their position of power. We have nothing similar to offer the Iranian supreme leader, he is securely in power and Iran will not be changing from an Islamic Theocracy to anything else in the future.
The only real question is will Iran be an Islamic theocracy with a supreme religious leader or will Iran be an Islamic theocracy with a supreme religious leader who has a nuclear capacity.
Spurholder
07-21-15, 15:12
Well, here's a big fat surprise...color me shocked :rolleyes:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/john-kerry-calls-iran-supreme-leaders-vow-defy-u-s-n395606
Outlander Systems
07-21-15, 15:55
Let's give a football stadium full of money and voluntary inspection compliance to a nation that unapologetically supplied arms and men to directly kill American soldiers
This.
If one were sucked out of 2005 and plunked down in 2015, you'd think it was some bizzaro, parallel universe. It's like opposite day, every day.
This.
If one were sucked out of 2005 and plunked down in 2015, you'd think it was some bizzaro, parallel universe. It's like opposite day, every day.
Which is opposite of what we did to support their enemies from the 1950's through the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's. They're not supposed to remember that?
I'm not in favor of this deal or capitulating to Iran (which is exactly what Obama is doing), but a lot of this problem is one of our own making. :(
KalashniKEV
07-21-15, 16:31
If one were sucked out of 2005 and plunked down in 2015, you'd think it was some bizzaro, parallel universe.
You'd have to go further back than that... we slaughtered Iraq and delivered it to the Ayatollah in the Spring of 2003.
I believe it was in May that we dissolved all previously functioning government entities and formally disenfranchised the Sunnis, in favor of an Iranian puppet regime.
Yes... a cursory google search reveals that it was 23 May...
Well, here's a big fat surprise...color me shocked :rolleyes:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/john-kerry-calls-iran-supreme-leaders-vow-defy-u-s-n395606
Gee isn't that interesting. Seems it's damn near EXACTLY what I've been talking about for a few pages now, only a couple people here are claiming I seem to know "very little" about the subject in question and I don't understand all of the issues involved.
You'd have to go further back than that... we slaughtered Iraq and delivered it to the Ayatollah in the Spring of 2003.
I believe it was in May that we dissolved all previously functioning government entities and formally disenfranchised the Sunnis, in favor of an Iranian puppet regime.
Yes... a cursory google search reveals that it was 23 May...
Do you have a number in mind as to how many Americans they have to kill in recent history before you don't want to shake hands with them?
Well, here's a big fat surprise...color me shocked :rolleyes:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iran-nuclear-talks/john-kerry-calls-iran-supreme-leaders-vow-defy-u-s-n395606
WEIRD :|
Do you have a number in mind as to how many Americans they have to kill in recent history before you don't want to shake hands with them?
Six Million more?
No, wait....that's the number of Jews they're always talking about killing...
I bet it would be a lot easier to accomplish with Nukes...
Six Million more?
No, wait....that's the number of Jews they're always talking about killing...
I bet it would be a lot easier to accomplish with Nukes...
Except the Iranians claim that never actually happened. According to the last guy Ahmadinejad, President from 2005 until 2013, the entire holocaust was a zionist hoax. But that was like 100 years ago...or at least 2 years ago...certainly they have a sane, normal and rational leadership NOW that we can successfully negotiate with in good faith.
KalashniKEV
07-22-15, 08:45
Gee isn't that interesting. Seems it's damn near EXACTLY what I've been talking about for a few pages now, only a couple people here are claiming I seem to know "very little" about the subject in question and I don't understand all of the issues involved.
Think about how this is being received by everyone who had a meeting or a call last week around lifting the sanctions.
Iranian business interests have seen the cash at the end of the tunnel. The Iranian people are ready for the sanctions to be lifted.
The "Death to America" message will quickly become obsolete when we are once again involved in economic and cultural exchange. Sure, it'll never go away, but we still have people in this country waving confederate flags and hating gays.
Do you have a number in mind as to how many Americans they have to kill in recent history before you don't want to shake hands with them?
Believe me, I know exactly where you are coming from- I wear a memorial bracelet for a brother who was killed fighting Iranian backed Shi'ite Militia. I also partnered with and mentored a 100% Shia fighting force in 2008... Imam Ali posters everywhere and all. In 2005-06 I trained an AQI infiltrated Sunni fighting unit.
Today we have our weapons to the IA going directly to HaS/PMF with pictures of the Ayatollah wallpapered right onto the side of the HMMWV:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9rA8QQRPHd0/VWV5HxIy-EI/AAAAAAAARF0/vwwd9FWNpM4/s1600/f-anbar-b-20150528.jpg
We must craft a foreign policy that aligns with the national interest. We can not allow ourselves to be put into a position of vulnerability again where our Soldiers are getting killed by both Saudi and Iranian proxies to benefit Israel and all we get out of it is debt, weaker global position, and increased vulnerability.
Stopping ISIS is a global imperative. Doing what we need to do is going to piss off some Evil people.
Oh well.
Think about how this is being received by everyone who had a meeting or a call last week around lifting the sanctions.
Iranian business interests have seen the cash at the end of the tunnel. The Iranian people are ready for the sanctions to be lifted.
The "Death to America" message will quickly become obsolete when we are once again involved in economic and cultural exchange. Sure, it'll never go away, but we still have people in this country waving confederate flags and hating gays.
Believe me, I know exactly where you are coming from- I wear a memorial bracelet for a brother who was killed fighting Iranian backed Shi'ite Militia. I also partnered with and mentored a 100% Shia fighting force in 2008... Imam Ali posters everywhere and all. In 2005-06 I trained an AQI infiltrated Sunni fighting unit.
Today we have our weapons to the IA going directly to HaS/PMF with pictures of the Ayatollah wallpapered right onto the side of the HMMWV:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9rA8QQRPHd0/VWV5HxIy-EI/AAAAAAAARF0/vwwd9FWNpM4/s1600/f-anbar-b-20150528.jpg
We must craft a foreign policy that aligns with the national interest. We can not allow ourselves to be put into a position of vulnerability again where our Soldiers are getting killed by both Saudi and Iranian proxies to benefit Israel and all we get out of it is debt, weaker global position, and increased vulnerability.
Stopping ISIS is a global imperative. Doing what we need to do is going to piss off some Evil people.
Oh well.
As one of the few people around who's actually been shot at by the IRGC, I don't believe we'll ever be able to work with the Iranian government cooperatively.
That being said, the Iranian people as a whole aren't our enemies and most of the problems we have with their government are of our (and the UK's) own making. We can hate them for the enhanced IED's our troops were getting hammered with in Iraq, but expecting them to do things other than in their own best interests based on the history they have with us, would be disingenuous.
We don't have to like it, but we should at least understand it. :(
The "Death to America" message will quickly become obsolete when we are once again involved in economic and cultural exchange. Sure, it'll never go away, but we still have people in this country waving confederate flags and hating gays.
I don't think we are ever going to agree on the intentions of Iran, for that we will just have to see.
That said, you have amazing faith in a Muslim theocracy that regularly chants "death to America."
KalashniKEV
07-22-15, 15:21
...the Iranian people as a whole aren't our enemies and most of the problems we have with their government are of our (and the UK's) own making. We can hate them for the enhanced IED's our troops were getting hammered with in Iraq, but expecting them to do things other than in their own best interests based on the history they have with us, would be disingenuous.
We don't have to like it, but we should at least understand it. :(
Exactamundo.
You can't wind the spring and then stand around looking stupid when it lets go.
I don't think we are ever going to agree on the intentions of Iran, for that we will just have to see.
That said, you have amazing faith in a Muslim theocracy that regularly chants "death to America."
Our fundamental difference is that you believe Iran is not a rational actor.
That's part of the talking points of Israel and Saudi Arabia/ISIS.
That's why it was absolutely essential that we not be allowed to conduct dialogue with them.
That paradigm is now obsolete.
[QUOTE=KalashniKEV;2153595
Our fundamental difference is that you believe Iran is not a rational actor.
That's part of the talking points of Israel and Saudi Arabia/ISIS.
That's why it was absolutely essential that we not be allowed to conduct dialogue with them.
That paradigm is now obsolete.[/QUOTE]
I think they are a rational actor in terms of achieving their fundamentalist Islamic views. Those involved in 9-11 were "rational actors." I just think Iran is a more polished fundamentalist Islamic theocracy than the rest.
Israel, Saudi and ISIS are as irrelevant (or should be) to our dealings with Iran as Iran is irrelevant (or should be) to our dealings with Israel and Saudi. The notion that "Iran is not a threat" because Israel claims they are a threat is truly bizarre.
The true nature of things is not a paradigm. It's not something that can be viewed alternately through the spectrum of politics.
Doesn't matter what Israel, Saudi, John Kerry or even Iran says. Iran either wants us dead or they don't. Everything I've seen suggests the former, they are now getting closer to a means of achieving that goal...with out assistance.
We have a pretty good track record of creating, enabling or laying the groundwork of our greatest new threat. I don't see us doing anything very different with our "deal" with Iran.
KalashniKEV
07-22-15, 16:19
Israel, Saudi and ISIS are as irrelevant (or should be) to our dealings with Iran as Iran is irrelevant (or should be) to our dealings with Israel and Saudi.
Is that soda straw world view what allows you to ignore basic cause and effect?
You're an interesting guy and I always enjoy your responses.
Doesn't matter what Israel, Saudi, John Kerry or even Iran says. Iran either wants us dead or they don't.
Ohhh, polarization??
Is your next step to apply the Cheney doctrine and create further vulnerability to the United States?
Very few things in life are simple enough to see in black and white.
This is a gray area.
Is that soda straw world view what allows you to ignore basic cause and effect?
You're an interesting guy and I always enjoy your responses.
Ohhh, polarization??
Is your next step to apply the Cheney doctrine and create further vulnerability to the United States?
Very few things in life are simple enough to see in black and white.
This is a gray area.
OK, I think we've accomplished what little we are going to actually accomplish with this discussion. Suffice to say, we believe differently.
OK, I think we've accomplished what little we are going to actually accomplish with this discussion.
It has been interesting, nonetheless.
If we were discussing diplomacy with a country that was a "Christian" theocracy and wished to bring about all the things necessary for the second coming I'm sure you'd be able to follow that logic train and the inherent problems with forming a relationship with said country including making them a nuclear power and removing an arms embargo.
But let me make this easy, feel free to ignore my uninformed post and believe whatever drivel you wish. I know when I'm wasting my time.
We can let this hang if you like. You say the exact same thing in every post. Let me boil it down:
Iran's Supreme leader might say reasonable things but he wants to kill us all and is compelled to do so!
We just made them a nuclear power, or at least signed off on this eventuality.
The first item is likely true to a degree but it absolutely ignores the massive differences in power between the United States and Iran, not to mention that we look aside as its nearby mortal enemy maintains an arsenal of nukes that could glassify Iran and beyond. They are not going to abjectly roll over and acquiesce to our whims and wishes. To expect such is foolish and to maintain that's the only thing we should accept is dishonest. What you are then seeking is the further destruction of their economy and constraints on their regional influence but veiling that argument as based on non-proliferation.
Iran could almost certainly build a bomb with materials and technology they have. The consequences would be crushing even if short of an invasion or bombing campaign. This deal ensures a measure of transparency and offers carrots to go along with the constant threats of an invasion or strike.
Diplomacy 101, as you mentioned. You'll never get everything you want. You should stop trying to pretend that a murderous and destructive conflict is justified or mandated by what you know about this enemy. It's breathless and silly.
We can let this hang if you like. You say the exact same thing in every post. Let me boil it down:
Iran's Supreme leader might say reasonable things but he wants to kill us all and is compelled to do so!
We just made them a nuclear power, or at least signed off on this eventuality.
The first item is likely true to a degree but it absolutely ignores the massive differences in power between the United States and Iran, not to mention that we look aside as its nearby mortal enemy maintains an arsenal of nukes that could glassify Iran and beyond. They are not going to abjectly roll over and acquiesce to our whims and wishes. To expect such is foolish and to maintain that's the only thing we should accept is dishonest. What you are then seeking is the further destruction of their economy and constraints on their regional influence but veiling that argument as based on non-proliferation.
Iran could almost certainly build a bomb with materials and technology they have. The consequences would be crushing even if short of an invasion or bombing campaign. This deal ensures a measure of transparency and offers carrots to go along with the constant threats of an invasion or strike.
Diplomacy 101, as you mentioned. You'll never get everything you want. You should stop trying to pretend that a murderous and destructive conflict is justified or mandated by what you know about this enemy. It's breathless and silly.
Jesus christ even when you "get it" you don't "get it."
Iran doesn't think they are going to win a nuclear war.
Iran does know that in a nuclear exchange they will become a glass factory.
THEY DON'T CARE.
THEY DON'T CARE.
THEY DON'T CARE.
They are fundamentalist Muslims who just attacked the great satan in a way never done previously and they believe they will ALL go to their heavenly reward.
Please feel free to continue your discussion about how Iran "give's a damn" with somebody else.
This deal ensures a measure of transparency and offers carrots to go along with the constant threats of an invasion or strike.
Actually, the current deal does not ensure anything remotely similar to transparency into Iran's nuclear program.
Actually, the current deal does not ensure anything remotely similar to transparency into Iran's nuclear program.
FT said a "measure of transparency." The actual amount of transparency might equate to "jack and shit" but at least we got some "jack and shit" assurance which is more than we previously had and as FT pointed out in Diplomacy 101 "you don't get everything you want, something is better than nothing" and truly isn't a little "jack and shit" worth it in the end, even if it means Iran becomes a nuclear power.
After all we got "jack and shit" and unlike "hope and change", "jack and shit" are actually tangible, real things.
FT said a "measure of transparency." The actual amount of transparency might equate to "jack and shit" but at least we got some "jack and shit" assurance which is more than we previously had and as FT pointed out in Diplomacy 101 "you don't get everything you want, something is better than nothing" and truly isn't a little "jack and shit" worth it in the end, even if it means Iran becomes a nuclear power.
After all we got "jack and shit" and unlike "hope and change", "jack and shit" are actually tangible, real things.
And to think, jack & shit only cost us $50 Billion in exchange! :(
This video seems to be making the rounds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3lEO0ty6No
Iran doesn't think they are going to win a nuclear war.
Iran does know that in a nuclear exchange they will become a glass factory.
THEY DON'T CARE.
THEY DON'T CARE.
THEY DON'T CARE.
They are fundamentalist Muslims who just attacked the great satan in a way never done previously and they believe they will ALL go to their heavenly reward.
And yet the Supreme Leader, the members of the Assembly of Experts, or the Council of Guardian, as individuals, or as a group have never felt the need to martyr themselves. Strange is that, it is.
I don't trust them, but I don't think they will mass-suicide. They have this much in common with our leaders: they are all about sending other folks' kids to do their dirty work. They won't risk themselves.
JM .02
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.