France Alarmed at Obama's Iranian Capitulation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]loppar wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The problem with Iran is the same problem with any other dictatorship. There is too much power concentrated in too few hands. The Iranian people as a whole may be rational but they have a handful of people who have so much power they can make irrational decisions that affect everyone else.

They have not started a war is a ridiculous rationalization. In their history the Persian have started a lot of wars and the Ayatollahs want to reclaim their former glory as a major empire. In recent history they have spread violence far and wide including into this hemisphere.

[/quote]

Bullshit. The people running Iran - the inner circle of the religious/security apparatus are behaving more rationally that Vladimir Putin, for example. Barring differences in size, Iran seems more like USSR in terms of foreign policy.

They are a brutal dictatorship no doubt, but their actions make sense. For example, the whole Ahmadinejad presidency was one big fiasco, so allowing Hassan Rouhani to become president was a sign that they desperately need a compromise.

Iran have their hands full - inflation, staggeringly high levels of youth unemployment and the economy in tatters. People are tired of the sanction and they want change, not least towards increased Westernization. This may sound ridiculous, but there is a fundamental shift going on in Iran, and like all dictatorships (East Germany, USSR come to mind) they want to placate the population without relinquishing political control.

Not only that, but they have to fight a proxy war in Yemen against the Saudis and fight for Shia interests in Iraq, where we’re witnessing US and Iran being on the same side, albeit without acknowledging it. Increased belligerency of Erdogan in Turkey and Turkish belligerency in the west part of the shia crescent are also a pressing concern, hence the de facto capitulation in Lausanne.

Any action against the US of A or Israel is as far as from their possible as possible. Because these guys want to stay in power and stay alive.

[/quote]

Careful, Loppar. If you make too much sense on this thread, you risk accusations of being a Nazi sympathiser. [/quote]

I am sick a tired of your Gestapo debate tactics.
[/quote]

What are you Goering to do about it?
[/quote]

Draw a Maginot line in the sand. [/quote]

Shouldn’t be too hard to find a way around that.
[/quote]

No, probably not for a master-race debater.
[/quote]

Four types or people on these forums.

The master race debaters,

the master race baiters,

the master debaters, and

the masturbators.

I try to stay in the third category most of the time, but do find I like to try on one of the other three hats ever so often.

242

this is either a 3 or a 4:

well, what do you think? They might not need to use a shipping container after all.

found this: It may be about ISIS, but Iran could possibly pull this off as well:

http://www.blackoutusa.com/vsl/index.php

244

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
this is either a 3 or a 4:

well, what do you think? They might not need to use a shipping container after all.

found this: It may be about ISIS, but Iran could possibly pull this off as well:

http://www.blackoutusa.com/vsl/index.php

[/quote]

The Center for Security Policy is kind of like the Hammer Advisory Board. They have a vested interest in identifying practically everything as a possible nail.

245

Huh. Clare Lopez surmises that Iran has a nuclear bomb, based on an anonymous tip that Iran might have a copy of some blueprints of a Chinese bomb that some Libyans may have bought from some dude in Pakistan.

Sounds incontrovertible.

246

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
this is either a 3 or a 4:

well, what do you think? They might not need to use a shipping container after all.

found this: It may be about ISIS, but Iran could possibly pull this off as well:

http://www.blackoutusa.com/vsl/index.php

[/quote]

Nah, can’t be. We have all kinds of assurances from Pat Buchanan, his friends, allies and all the other really smart folks that this can’t be.[/quote]

We agree.

247

And lulz at “Blackout USA”.

Hey! Fellow Patriot! Introducing the New and Improved Y2K! Now with Muzzlums!

Don’t be one of those losers in a FEMA camp!

Buy your generator and freeze-dried food TODAY!

250

So, the consensus was my articles were pure # 4 !

How about this one: Iran celebrates the framework of a nuclear deal.

Still waiting to hear from Biz about how if the Soviets were wrong for waging total war in Afghanistan, than how our “nation building” turned out to be a total bust there as well…Two sides to the war coin, each came up empty.

251

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, the consensus was my articles were pure # 4 !

How about this one: Iran celebrates the framework of a nuclear deal.

Still waiting to hear from Biz about how if the Soviets were wrong for waging total war in Afghanistan, than how our “nation building” turned out to be a total bust there as well…Two sides to the war coin, each came up empty.[/quote]

When dealing with totalitarian regimes, one has to learn how to interpret their “newspeak”.

I’ll copy/paste from the article above:

[quote] In the wake of Thursday’s agreement, several conservative websites published comments from Mehdi Mohammadi, a political analyst, describing the deal as “in no way balanced”.

He said the agreement was a “disaster for Fordo”, referring to a nuclear facility that will remain open but not used for enrichment.

He also said the deal was “vague on the timing of sanctions relief”.

Saeidollah Allahbedashti, an aide to President Hassan Rouhani, denounced claims that he said were undermining the achievements of negotiators.

“The public has proven it can understand the difference between traitors and those who serve” their country, he said at the airport.[/quote]

The conservatives are angry, the president and the ayatollah have had to put their personal weight behind the deal/defeat in order to sell it to the general public. The deal was necessary for them to stave off further problems for the regime and address more pressing geopolitical concerns.

Meanwhile, middle class Teheranites and their ludicrously hot women are celebrating (by drinking shots) this glimmer of hope that may mean Iran’s slow reintegration into the world economy and better living standards.

252

[quote]loppar wrote:

When dealing with totalitarian regimes, one has to learn how to interpret their “newspeak”.

[/quote]

You say this like we don’t have to do the same thing with our own media and current political “leaders”, but I repeat myself.

253

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Who the fuck would trust Iran to adhere to any of this shit ?[/quote]

Neville Chamberlain ?[/quote]

By all qualitative and quantitative accounts, Iran has adhered to the Geneva interim agreement. What critics of a deal fail to understand is that the monitoring mechanisms under such a regime would be stronger than what’s currently in effect.
[/quote]

Oh I believe you, in fact I fear the might hammer of Obama with that whole Syrian red line.

This deal should be written on a napkin and signed with crayons.
[/quote]

Syria was compelled to remove its chemical weapons arsenal - the largest of its kind - from a jihadist beehive. How does Syrian chemical disarmament constitute a failure?

[/quote]

Where to start with this one…
-The Red Line clearly meant military action. The line was crossed, no action.

  • It left the Assad regime in tact, which created a vacuum in the rebel parts which gave rise to ISIS.
    -The Russians brokered the deal.
    -Assad is still gassing his people with chlorine, even recently, because he is not afraid of military action.

Maybe somebody who was there can explain it better:

254

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, the consensus was my articles were pure # 4 !

How about this one: Iran celebrates the framework of a nuclear deal.

Still waiting to hear from Biz about how if the Soviets were wrong for waging total war in Afghanistan, than how our “nation building” turned out to be a total bust there as well…Two sides to the war coin, each came up empty.[/quote]

But the Soviets were commies! Oh I get what your sayin’…

255

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Who the fuck would trust Iran to adhere to any of this shit ?[/quote]

Neville Chamberlain ?[/quote]

By all qualitative and quantitative accounts, Iran has adhered to the Geneva interim agreement. What critics of a deal fail to understand is that the monitoring mechanisms under such a regime would be stronger than what’s currently in effect.
[/quote]

Oh I believe you, in fact I fear the might hammer of Obama with that whole Syrian red line.

This deal should be written on a napkin and signed with crayons.
[/quote]

Syria was compelled to remove its chemical weapons arsenal - the largest of its kind - from a jihadist beehive. How does Syrian chemical disarmament constitute a failure?

Says who? The person who hasn’t demonstrated a modicum of knowledge regarding introductory international relations, nuclear proliferation, or international law? Americans of all political affiliation should want a deal, even if Iran intends to become a nuclear weapon state through a break out or sneak out capacity. Strengthened enforcement and monitoring mechanisms will require an Iranian nuclear program that is more transparent than it has been in many years.[/quote]

Never trust a man willing to gas his own people.

The Supreme Leader of Iran shouted “Death to America” a week ago, that is all I need to know about where he stands. If you think they will abide by the conditions of this agreement, then your gullibility is unprecedented. You are suggesting that a country who had openly suggested about eradicating Israel will respect international laws ?

[/quote]

Not to mention, the agreement lasts for either 10 or 15 years, after which, Iran is free to pursue any and all types of enrichment, bomb making, whatever. The agreement is hedging their bets that Iran will somehow become a rational party between now and then.
Even if they stick by every letter of the agreement, they will be free to do what they want by most 15 years. That’s not really that long from now. It sounds like a long time, but it will go by quicker than we think.
The agreement also does nothing to stem the fears in the region, all of which will likely go nuclear pretty soon, if for no other reason just to keep up. Which means, even if we keep Iran from getting a bomb for 15 years, we’re still going to end up with a nuclear arms race in the ME, granted in slow motion maybe, but a far more dangerous place nonetheless.

My confidence in Iran following the letter of the agreement is low. They may do it for a few years to get on their feet, then say ‘fuck you’ once they stabilize themselves.

256

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, the consensus was my articles were pure # 4 !

How about this one: Iran celebrates the framework of a nuclear deal.

Still waiting to hear from Biz about how if the Soviets were wrong for waging total war in Afghanistan, than how our “nation building” turned out to be a total bust there as well…Two sides to the war coin, each came up empty.[/quote]

But the Soviets were commies! Oh I get what your sayin’…[/quote]
Actually Biz was the one who made the comment in some thread in regards to a comment by chicken who said we should bomb the enemy all to hell to which Biz responded “how’d that work out for the Russians?”. To which I replied " the Russians brutalized the Afghans and fueled a popular uprising. We on the other hand attempted to “nation build”… So what went wrong? What should we have done? And how did we screw up?". Best of my knowledge Biz probably has me on ignore or some shit…

257

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Huh. Clare Lopez surmises that Iran has a nuclear bomb, based on an anonymous tip that Iran might have a copy of some blueprints of a Chinese bomb that some Libyans may have bought from some dude in Pakistan.

Sounds incontrovertible.[/quote]

Yep, that was the sum total of everything in that article. You didn’t miss a thing.[/quote]

What, you were expecting me to summarise every last bit of fluffery in that article? Sorry, I had more important things to do.

All I will say is that Clare Lopez’ standard of what she considers “evidence” is so abysmally low, I can only surmise that she is a creationist.

259

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Actually Biz was the one who made the comment in some thread in regards to a comment by chicken who said we should bomb the enemy all to hell to which Biz responded “how’d that work out for the Russians?”. To which I replied " the Russians brutalized the Afghans and fueled a popular uprising. We on the other hand attempted to “nation build”… So what went wrong? What should we have done? And how did we screw up?". Best of my knowledge Biz probably has me on ignore or some shit…[/quote]

Assuming he’s not ignoring you, Genghis, I imagine Bismark will reply in his own time, but my only comment would be that the biggest difference between our adventure in Afghanistan and that of the Soviets was that whereas they were trying to prop up a pre-existing puppet regime that nobody wanted, we were trying to create a puppet regime that nobody wanted from scratch.

What went wrong? What should we have done? Well, we might have started by looking at what happened to the Russians, who were kicked out of Central Asia with their tails between their legs by a bunch of starving brown people armed with Enfield rifles, rope guns and the occasional CIA arms shipment, who didn’t take kindly to bunch o’ lousy foreigners occupying their country and trying to tell them what to do.

And the Russians’ biggest problem was not looking at what happened to us, who were kicked out of Southeast Asia with our tails between our legs by a bunch of starving brown people armed with AK-47s, RPGs and the occasional truck bomb, who didn’t take kindly to a bunch o’ lousy foreigners occupying their country and trying to tell them what to do.

In other words, we not only failed to learn from our own mistakes, we failed to learn from the mistakes of someone else who failed to learn from our mistakes. And the mistake is the same mistake we’ve been making since the 1950s: nation-building where the people don’t want the kind of nation we’re building.

It hurts our pride to admit maybe, but democracy ain’t for everybody. Especially if it’s the kind of democracy that has to be installed by brute force.