Iran Nuclear Deal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Bismark wrote:
…

[/quote]

Biz,

I get all that. Britain and France had nuclear weapons and were allies of the US under NATO and enemies with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Seems to be OK to talk about our dealings during the Cold War to justify this instance, but if we talk about the Cold War to justify the support of Afghan rebels to counter the Soviet threat, somehow we’ve become the creators of Al-Qaeda . . . but I digress.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Where did I write that there was no reason to be concerned about the prospect of Iran joining the nuclear weapons club?[/quote]

I believe it was here, in this section I quoted:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Fears that a nuclear Iran would carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or transfer nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist organizations are not only misplaced, but are red herrings.[/quote]

You said yourself “fears…are misplaced, but are red herrings…”

If I somehow misinterpreted this, please explain how.

Are you dishonest or daft? Because you can’t even seem to follow your own argument.

142

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I’m about the most intellectually honest member of this board.
[/quote]
I would totally agree with this. If nothing else you are honest as the day is long. I never have to question where I sit with you.

He ain’t got no PhD, he’s just a student.[/quote]

Ignoring a preponderance of evidence contrary to one’s predetermined conclusion Is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. If Angry truly believes that treaties under Article II of the constitution are the only source of international law, he is either intentionally ignoring the vast and unanimous literature that demonstrates otherwise, or he is a fool. I don’t believe he is a fool, far from it. So I logically have to conclude the former.
[/quote]
I think your overreacting to his position. It’s just really not a big deal, he is expressing his opinion and frustration.

[quote]

No, I don’t have a doctoral degree (yet), but I do have a BA in International Relations and am currently pursuing an MA in Security Studies. It’s curious that you would bring up my credentials (or lack thereof) as if doing so somehow debases my arguments, yet you are unwilling to learn the very basics of the topic at hand. It’s frustrating to put on my pads to play football only to have you sodomize yourself with a cricket bat on the fifty yard line while you declare that you’ve scored a touchdown. [/quote]

I don’t really care about your credentials, I was just correcting his misconception. You should be honored he thought you were a PhD, that was a compliment. It had nothing to do with what you said or your ‘argument’.

143

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
loppar, so what do you think, we’re on the wrong side in the international terrorism war? I don’t see the Iranians suddenly becoming an ally. You are saying both sides are our enemies as is evident…what should the US do in regards to the spread of international jihad by both sides?[/quote]

Ironically, Iranian geopolitical interests perfectly match US interest in the ME, yet this is complete anathema to the US policy makers, partially due to immense lobbying from the Gulf states.

So you have a situation where the ISIS, what remains of Al-Qaida and an assortment of terrorist groups are actually fighting GWB’s “Axis of evil” countries, which shows that there’s something wrong with US foreign policy.

This is very much evident when events on the ground both in Iraq and Afghanistan develop on their own and place Iran and US on the same side.

So there’s no love there, just mutual self-interest. But like I said, with Iranian leaders you could cut a deal, however repulsive they are.

In Iraq you have a tacit understanding that they’re fighting against the common enemy, although the word “alliance” is avoided under any circumstances. So the nominal US ally is the “Iraqi Army” which is de facto a shia sectarian army controlled by Iran.

Now, any idea of a US-Iran rapprochement in Iraq and ME is general is met with hysteria by the Saudi/Gulf states who are currently engaged in a ground war (supposedly war against terrorism?) from their air-conditioned tanks against Yemen shias.

Also, the US of A allowed the newly reemergent pro-islamist Turkey to start bombing one the few admirable people there - left wing secularist Kurds (I know socialism is a dirty word here, but in ME being a Kurd socialist means you’re for gender equality, direct democracy and that you’re 1300 years ahead of everyone in the Gulf theocracies) under the pretense that they’re bombing ISIS, whom they’re covertly backing.

So either the US foreign policy is hopelessly naive, prone to manipulation by powerful lobbies or hopelessly cynical. I’d venture to say it’s the former.

Also, I think Israel is making a big strategic mistake with their fixation on Iran. As Begin cut a deal with the Egyptians in Camp David and resolved the southern border issue, so I firmly believe Israel could cut a deal with Iranians about Lebanon. Of course, this would probably be a tortuous task taking many years through intermediaries but from a pragmatical standpoint it would help Israel focus of the West Bank and Gaza where their main security challenges lay.

144

[quote]loppar wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve always thought it would be a good idea to cut a really horrible deal with a terrorist state. Wait what?
[/quote]

You mean Saudi Arabia? You know, the country from where the 9/11 bombers came from?

Like I said, despite Iran being an oppressive dictatorship, the guys running it are sane and rational. Amoral, ruthless, murderous, but sane.

Assad for example is also sane. That’s why despite all the bloodshed he unleashed in Syria, he hasn’t touched Israel in some sort of Wagnerian “you’re all going down with me” scenario. Because he wants to stay in power, which for him is the only scenario to stay alive.

When you have a sane adversary, you can cut a deal with him. You may hate him, but if you find a common interest, or a common enemy, you can close a deal.

With Saudis and Pakistanis you cannot find any common grounds because the Hadith say that you are an infidel and all bets are off. Especially since your erstwhile enemies are your allies, now with the added bonus of a fully fledged NATO member Turkey covertly supporting ISIS.

Anyway, check this out guys, I’m sure it will piss you off immensely:

[/quote]

I agree 100% that Saudi Arabia is a loathsome place. I don’t agree with that alliance necessarily except, perhaps out of necessity. Meaning, that as terrible as they are, they are willing to give us a toe hold in the ME, which is useful to us. It is not a labor of love, but of convenience, I suspect.
I do not know all the in’s and out’s of our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and I am sure they would rather see us burn, but their greed for our money has proved useful to us.
That does not mean we need to pursue a relationship with Iran, per se. They are sworn enemies by their own choice (I am speaking of the country’s leadership of course). They pose no national interest to us, other than the promise that they will not do something horrifically evil which is a poor basis on which to build a relationship.

145

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Fears that a nuclear Iran would carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or transfer nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist organizations are not only misplaced, but are red herrings.

[/quote]

Then why have an agreement at all? If we have nothing to fear? We had no agreement with the British and the French when they produced an actual bomb and no, we didn’t have anything to fear from them either.

And after all, Iran says it’s not going to produce a nuclear devise so why not just believe them? Since there’s nothing to fear after all…[/quote]

Excellent point. If they pose no threat then there was no need for the agreement. However, I am not totally opposed to a negotiation, I am opposed to this agreement. The problems I have as previously stated are the lack of information regarding the IAEA’s inspections, the 24 days (or so) lag time on inspections and the lack of U.S. oversight, the fact that Iran is a large country and true oversight and management of said nuclear program is next to impossible to truly manage, the insecurity of the snap-back option, the extremely disproportionate gains each side receives, the strength Iran has at the negotiating table and their ability to walk away once they feel secure in their gain, and my general distrust of Russia and China in this context of this agreement.
I think our European brothers and sisters vision is clouded by dollar signs. They have way more interest in Iranian oil than we have. Their energy costs are double ours and bringing that down will be a boon to their industry and to their people. Once that door is open, are they really willing to close it should Iran violate terms of the agreement to the detriment of their own economies? It will be a hard sell to a country to say “Iran violated the JCPOA, so to the detriment of your own economy reestablish sanctions”. That’s going to be a tough sell, which gives room for Iran to violate the smaller terms of the agreement with virtually no repercussions.
The JCPOA reeks of desperation to get any deal done rather than getting a good deal. done

146

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Your posting history and the Iran-Contra affair come to mind. The alternative to diplomacy presents the United States with a daunting dilemma: war or containment. The costs and risks of both exceed those of the nuclear deal, which was informed by realism, not idealism. When it comes to international security, only a fool would allow principles to win over pragmatism. [/quote]

Negotiating with a terrorist regime is a bad idea. Allowing Obama to do the negotiating makes it even worse. He couldn’t even free the four hostages that Iran currently holds. Giving Iran 150 billion dollars is probably the dumbest and most dangerous thing a President of the US has ever done. Like I said he’s either too inexperienced to understand (much like you), too stupid to understand (again like you), or he’s playing for the other side (possibly like you).

147

[quote]pat wrote:

I agree 100% that Saudi Arabia is a loathsome place. I don’t agree with that alliance necessarily except, perhaps out of necessity. Meaning, that as terrible as they are, they are willing to give us a toe hold in the ME, which is useful to us. It is not a labor of love, but of convenience, I suspect.
I do not know all the in’s and out’s of our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and I am sure they would rather see us burn, but their greed for our money has proved useful to us.
[/quote]

Which necessity and which toehold are you referring to? Selling them military hardware? Or buying oil from them? How has it proven useful?

They DID see you burn - on 9/11. As far as their “greed for your money”, a LOT of that US money goes into funding terrorism.

All those ISIS volunteers from shitty suburbs of major European cities, all those “lone wolves” including the Boston bomber weren’t radicalized by the ayatollah but by Saudi funded preachers, mosques and propaganda materiel.

So the US of A is actually subsidizing their enemies through Saudi Arabia in the “war on terror”.

On the other hand, how many terrorist acts were committed by radicalized Iranians? None. I don’t thing a term “radicalize Iranian” even exists.

I am not referring to state-sponsored terrorism which the Iranian regime has extensively funded in the past and continues to do so.

148

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
…

[/quote]

Biz,

I get all that. Britain and France had nuclear weapons and were allies of the US under NATO and enemies with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Seems to be OK to talk about our dealings during the Cold War to justify this instance, but if we talk about the Cold War to justify the support of Afghan rebels to counter the Soviet threat, somehow we’ve become the creators of Al-Qaeda . . . but I digress.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Where did I write that there was no reason to be concerned about the prospect of Iran joining the nuclear weapons club?[/quote]

I believe it was here, in this section I quoted:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Fears that a nuclear Iran would carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or transfer nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist organizations are not only misplaced, but are red herrings.[/quote]

You said yourself “fears…are misplaced, but are red herrings…”

If I somehow misinterpreted this, please explain how.

Are you dishonest or daft? Because you can’t even seem to follow your own argument.[/quote]

Apparently not if I have to hold your hand through it. Fears of AN IRANIAN NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE AGAINST ISRAEL and IRANIAN FACILITATED NUCLEAR TERRORISM, points which I made abundantly clear. Your dishonest and selective quoting of my post doesn’t change its substance.

149

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Your posting history and the Iran-Contra affair come to mind. The alternative to diplomacy presents the United States with a daunting dilemma: war or containment. The costs and risks of both exceed those of the nuclear deal, which was informed by realism, not idealism. When it comes to international security, only a fool would allow principles to win over pragmatism. [/quote]

Negotiating with a terrorist regime is a bad idea. Allowing Obama to do the negotiating makes it even worse. He couldn’t even free the four hostages that Iran currently holds. Giving Iran 150 billion dollars is probably the dumbest and most dangerous thing a President of the US has ever done. Like I said he’s either too inexperienced to understand (much like you), too stupid to understand (again like you), or he’s playing for the other side (possibly like you).

[/quote]

The whole “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” spiel is both trite and ahistorical. No less of an eminence than Winston Churchill was willing to sit across from IRA leader Michael Collins and negotiate. Let us not forget Reagan’s dispatch of former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane to Tehran to urge Iran’s assistance in freeing U.S. hostages in Lebanon and to seek a broader political dialogue with the Islamic
revolutionary regime. Or the 1,500 TOW missiles and components for its U.S.-built Hawk air defense system that the US provided. The political prisoners in Iran were rightfully perceived as a separate issue. Had the US made their release contingent on a successful deal, Iranian leverage would have been increased, as would their incentives for conducting similar behavior in the future. Have you actually read the 159 page JCPOA, or are you content with offering uninformed criticisms? Again, what viable policy alternative to you propose? It’s not enough to criticize. You have to offer a cogent alternative path for American foreign policy. No critic in this thread has been able to do so thus far. The challenge is not
picking a great course that delivers acceptable benefits at a reasonable cost and risk, but selecting a marginally less bad one with slightly fewer or less worrisome downsides than the others.

Inexperienced? Does anyone here have relevant experience to the topic at hand?
Stupid? I’m not the one who is arguing purely from intuition in a discipline I am completely nescient of, much less have no formal training in.
And to complete the ad hominem trifecta, you imply that my support of the deal is somehow treasonous or seditious. Really, ZEB, there’s no point in debating you. You’re a partisan hack who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject before posting on it. Which is why you resort to attacking me - you are not equipped to address the substance of my arguments. I may as well play chess with a toaster.

150

[quote]Bismark wrote:
ZEB, there’s no point in debating you. You’re a partisan hack who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject before posting on it. Which is why you resort to attacking me - you are not equipped to address the substance of my arguments. I may as well play chess with a toaster.

[/quote]

Hey kid you better check your previous post to me. You began the put downs, I simply responded in kind. As for debating about handing Iran 150 billion and a nuclear weapon to go along with it, it does not take an Einstein (which you are not) to understand that it’s a really bad deal for the US.

Better spread your propaganda elsewhere, I don’t see anyone on this site buying into it.

bye.

151

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
ZEB, there’s no point in debating you. You’re a partisan hack who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject before posting on it. Which is why you resort to attacking me - you are not equipped to address the substance of my arguments. I may as well play chess with a toaster.

[/quote]

Hey kid you better check your previous post to me. You began the put downs, I simply responded in kind. As for debating about handing Iran 150 billion and a nuclear weapon to go along with it, it does not take an Einstein (which you are not) to understand that it’s a really bad deal for the US.

Better spread your propaganda elsewhere, I don’t see anyone on this site buying into it.

bye.[/quote]

Kid? Ok. Age is no guarantee of efficiency. Please, point out where I cast the first stone. You have been unwilling to address the substance of my arguments, likely because you’re simply unable to. Prove me wrong, if you’re up to the task.

If it’s propaganda, it should be easy for such an informed an seasoned observer to refute. You haven’t even made an attempt. You’re content with nescient talking points underpinned by weak argumentation.

152

Biz,

Youth is no guarantee of innovation.

You are not saying much different than professors I had back in college, with their balding grey pony tales and overly grown beards, only trying to repackage the same shit that looked kewl while under the influence of some hallucinogen from Woodstock.

153

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
…

[/quote]

Biz,

I get all that. Britain and France had nuclear weapons and were allies of the US under NATO and enemies with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Seems to be OK to talk about our dealings during the Cold War to justify this instance, but if we talk about the Cold War to justify the support of Afghan rebels to counter the Soviet threat, somehow we’ve become the creators of Al-Qaeda . . . but I digress.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Where did I write that there was no reason to be concerned about the prospect of Iran joining the nuclear weapons club?[/quote]

I believe it was here, in this section I quoted:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Fears that a nuclear Iran would carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or transfer nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist organizations are not only misplaced, but are red herrings.[/quote]

You said yourself “fears…are misplaced, but are red herrings…”

If I somehow misinterpreted this, please explain how.

Are you dishonest or daft? Because you can’t even seem to follow your own argument.[/quote]

Apparently not if I have to hold your hand through it. Fears of AN IRANIAN NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE AGAINST ISRAEL and IRANIAN FACILITATED NUCLEAR TERRORISM, points which I made abundantly clear. Your dishonest and selective quoting of my post doesn’t change its substance. [/quote]

You’re about as bad as that other guy (smh). The first time I quoted your entire post and you denied you posted it. The second time I just quoted the important parts and you accused me of cherry picking from your posts. Cherry picking exactly the same quote you repeated again. So…are there or are there not fears of a nuclear Iran besides in the 2 cases you mentioned and I quoted. Because if not then what else is there to fear? A retaliatory strike? Is that what this agreement is for? To stop a secondary strike? If not, than what?

154

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
…

[/quote]

Biz,

I get all that. Britain and France had nuclear weapons and were allies of the US under NATO and enemies with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Seems to be OK to talk about our dealings during the Cold War to justify this instance, but if we talk about the Cold War to justify the support of Afghan rebels to counter the Soviet threat, somehow we’ve become the creators of Al-Qaeda . . . but I digress.

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Where did I write that there was no reason to be concerned about the prospect of Iran joining the nuclear weapons club?[/quote]

I believe it was here, in this section I quoted:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Fears that a nuclear Iran would carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or transfer nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist organizations are not only misplaced, but are red herrings.[/quote]

You said yourself “fears…are misplaced, but are red herrings…”

If I somehow misinterpreted this, please explain how.

Are you dishonest or daft? Because you can’t even seem to follow your own argument.[/quote]

Apparently not if I have to hold your hand through it. Fears of AN IRANIAN NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE AGAINST ISRAEL and IRANIAN FACILITATED NUCLEAR TERRORISM, points which I made abundantly clear. Your dishonest and selective quoting of my post doesn’t change its substance. [/quote]
You’re about as bad as that other guy. The first time I quoted your entire post and you denied you posted it. The second time I just quoted the important parts and you accused me of cherry picking from your posts. Cherry picking exactly the same quote you repeated again. So…are there or are there not fears of a nuclear Iran besides in the 2 cases you mentioned and I quoted. Because if not then what else is there to fear? A retaliatory strike? Is that what this agreement is for? To stop a secondary strike? If not, than what?[/quote]

I didn’t deny anything. You turned my specific post (which argued that fears of an Iranian first strike and Iranian facilitated nuclear terrorism were unfounded) into a general one that allegedly argued that there was no reason to be concerned about Iran getting the bomb, period. That couldn’t be further from the case. What you did wasn’t even cherry picking, but blatant intellectual dishonesty.

155

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Biz,

Youth is no guarantee of innovation.

You are not saying much different than professors I had back in college, with their balding grey pony tales and overly grown beards, only trying to repackage the same shit that looked kewl while under the influence of some hallucinogen from Woodstock. [/quote]

Attack the man because you cannot attack his arguments. There isn’t a drop of hippy dippy bullshit in my posts. What I’ve written is not controversial within the diplomatic, intelligence, and national security communities. Quite the contrary, actually.

156

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I didn’t deny anything. You turned my specific post (which argued that fears of an Iranian first strike and Iranian facilitated nuclear terrorism were unfounded) into a general one that allegedly argued that there was no reason to be concerned about Iran getting the bomb, period. That couldn’t be further from the case. What you did wasn’t even cherry picking, but blatant intellectual dishonesty. [/quote]

Ok, 1. why are the fears which you listed about an Iranian first strike & nuclear terrorism unfounded?

  1. Those 2 fears are the worst case scenario. If those are not fears, what are?

  2. What in your opinion was the reason this agreement was necessary if not because of these 2 reasons?

157

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Kid? Ok. Age is no guarantee of efficiency.[/quote]

Really? Want to rethink that statement? Age seems to matter a whole lot.

One cannot drink until the age of 21, vote until the age of 18, drive until the age of 16…and of course One cannot even run for the Presidency until age 35.

How about cabinet posts? Can you see the President elect sitting down with his top advisors saying “now where can we find a really good 18 year old to fill the position of Secretary of State?”.

Now why don’t they do that? Why is age almost a prerequisite for every highly level important government position? Here you go I’ll spell it out for you junior:

E X P E R I E N C E

LOL you are a funny little boy!

Biology of Race
158

My question for those that oppose this deal: If not this, then what?

159

Put pressure on the Russians, Chinese and others to stop Iran from gaining a nuclear weapons program while making it known that if Iran succeeds in getting the bomb, so will Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, Latvia, Saudi Arabia, & others etc.