Slashdot Mirror
Iran Has Signed a Nuclear Accord
New submitter divide overflow writes: According to the New York Times, 'Iran and a group of six nations led by the United States have agreed to a historic accord to significantly limit Tehran's nuclear ability for more than a decade in return for lifting international oil and financial sanctions against Iran, a senior Western diplomat involved in the negotiations said on Tuesday. The deal, which President Obama had long sought as the biggest diplomatic achievement of his presidency, culminates 20 months of negotiations.' Not everyone approves.
I literally feel nauseous about this Iran deal. I feel nauseous because my daughter’s future is being seriously jeopardized by a deal that lifts sanctions that have been well designed to stop a state sponsor of terrorism from obtaining nuclear weapons, in return for virtually nothing. Somehow, President Obama has convinced his fellow Democrats that infusing Iran with billions of dollars will make the world a safer place. But all it will do is exacerbate Iran’s aggression in the Middle East, and perversely enable western civilization to fund terrorism activities aimed at it.
We have given concessions to a country that has repeatedly lied, hidden, deceived, and repeatedly and boldly declared its intention to wipe out both Israel and the United States. Any member of Congress who votes for this deal must have a death wish. But of course Congress, in typical fashion, gave away its constitutional power to ratify this as a treaty (with 2/3 of Senate support) when it passed the Corker legislation. Assuming the Republican-controlled Congress votes down the Iran deal and the President vetoes it, I cannot imagine that there are enough Democrats (13 Democrats in the Senate and 43 in the House) to join the Republicans in overriding Obama’s inevitable veto.
There’s enough political cover and ambiguity in the agreement that the real risks to U.S. and Israel will become known only incrementally, after the passage of years, and most likely only after President Obama leaves office. By the time the western world realizes what a mistake the Obama Administration has made, it will be too late. I guess that, once again, we have to pass it to reallyfind out what’s in it.
History will be the judge, unfortunately it will probably be written in Nasta'liq script.
Most western-friendly population in the middle-east!
Humm, shall we discuss the half life of Plutonium? More interesting
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
When you said "Not everyone approves" for a second I worried that it was talking about someone who is, oh I dunno, an American and not a foreign politician with a decades-long bias toward keeping the US hostile toward Iran.
And Iran can delay inspectors for 25 days without any consequences as per the rules of the treaty. Deny access for so many days, the go before an arbitration panel that add another so many days, the delay for so many days if the panel rules against them, ... all total 25 days. Only after that can other even consider sanctions.
Plus in ten years they are free to research nukes? This deal is just a publicity stunt for the US. It's a fraud, just like the Clinton administration's deal with North Korea.
This agreement that took years to reach, is all carrot and no stick. Once the other nations release their sanctions (current sticks), they won't put them back on and if Iran continues to make nukes, they still won't reinstate them after the US gives the Iranians 100 Billion+ $ (which they will likely promptly buy arms and weapons systems from China and Russia with)... It is very important to note that 24/7 access does NOT = "unfettered" access... this deal has notice being given to Iran for the when and where they will inspect... (probably days to weeks in advance) UNFETTERED means any time anywhere no notice... HUGE difference. This was a total cave in and we were better off before any deal. Giving up everything to the opponent is not a metric by which you can claim it is a "good deal". Love him or hate him, Bibi was right, this is a very bad deal...
You're rational is the same we followed when arming Afghan jihads against the USSR. That didn't come back to bite us.
Let's look at the great list of broken promises and bullshit by which America exists today as we know it?
None the least of which, the 1953 coup that overthrew Iran's government to install a western puppet and which precipitated the Iranian Islamic Revolution directly,
or the 1990 visit to Saddam Hussein by US Diplomat April Glaspie, who informed him that "The US isn't interested" were he to invade Kuwait, among others.
Considering the sheer volume of lies that the US is built upon, self contradictions with its own Constitution to say nothing of agreements like the Geneva Conventions that it makes pretense of being in accord with but only in semantics, to the UN's failure to reign in "acceptable" war criminals like Israel via US veto?
Considering all that, we're the ones wagging fingers at IRAN, who is at war with nobody but the terrorists that US regime change in Iraq left for the region to absorb?
Wake me from this sea of rhetorical bullshit and Israeli war drums. This deal is better than ANYTHING Israel ever agreed to.
Part of the agreement is that they hand over their spent fuel. My question... what do we do with it?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"You're rational" == "You are rational." Congratulations, you have complemented the poster on his rationality. I suspect you meant "Your rationale..." People should also be aware of the Oxford comma. In closing, I'd like to thank my parents, the Pope and Mother Teresa.
There are no easy choices in the Middle East. But would you rather side with a mildly hostile Iran, or the barbarians of the ISIS "caliphate"? Like it or not, there are no third options.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Hans, Hans, you're breaking my balls!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Part of the agreement is that they hand over their spent fuel. My question... what do we do with it?
Dirty bomb! This one's for you, Putin!
What could possibly go wrong...
Want to really fight ISIS? We'll need Iran and Syria as allies if you actually want to win.
Win? Iran has elections that are relatively free and fair compared to most of the rest of the world and has had relatively peaceful transitions of power since the overthrow of the Shaw. By comparison, Syria uses poison gas to kill innocent civilians and actually created ISIS by unleashing bands of irregular thugs on rebel areas in order to terrorize the population and make them either die, flee or turn towards the Syrian regime for help. As far as I am concerned there is no difference between ISIS and the Assad regime since Assad helped create ISIS rather than simply allow elections. Assad is ISIS.
You are reasoning with a creature that asserts but does not reason. He and his within 5 second +5 'insightful' posse. There is no nuance nor room to argue, it boils down to choose 1 or two. The clue is in the rabidness. How he will respond to multiple comments on this thread. And how he will respond -- with full heat and invective. He is excited about this. Because this issue is meaningful to him. And it's not because Israel is involved, noway, it's because he hates ISIS and so badly wants that 'we' defeat them.
what do you plan to offer the iranians that they will accept?
You're rational is the same we followed when arming Afghan jihads against the USSR. That didn't come back to bite us.
The problem with that was, as soon as they ran off the USSR, we wiped our hands and walked away, ensuring that the people with the best access to guns got to rule the country. Had we stayed and helped them rebuild we could probably have swayed most of the country over to our side and enstilled a more democratic government. Instead we got the Taliban.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I think the core of his argument is:
"With the lifting of economic sanctions, Netanyahu warned, “Iran will get a jackpot, a cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars, which will enable it to continue to pursue its aggression and terror.”"
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm curious what your counterpoint to that statement is. What will Iran do with billions of dollars after 'behaving' for 15 years? Sounds to me like they will have enough cash and immunity to build a bomb. What I think is going on, is, the Obama administration is hoping Iran does not hold true to their agreement and we can faithfully NOT hold up our promise to withhold sanctions.
TK
Because sanctions worked so well on Cuba. Look how fast the Castro government toppled. And Cuba was an island! I'm sure it'll be even easier with a mostly landlocked country like Iran.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The most dangerous thing that could come out of that part of the world is a united empire run by religious fanatics or whose government is influenced enough by fanaticism that it looks away while people within the empire use its resources to cause inflame hatred and commit terrorism. Allowing ISIS to gain control of Iraq and Syria would be less dangerous to America than allowing Iran to gain control of Iraq and Syria because in the first case you have two nations who balance each other instead of one much larger nation trying to unify itself behind a shared hatred.
Iran is already making war against America both directly and by proxy. https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.wsj.com/articles/ir... http://www.nationalreview.com/... Does this deal do anything to end that state of war? Does this deal do anything to prevent Iran from gaining domination in Iraq and Syria? Or does it just prevent America and allies from stopping them?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Only if you want to move Kim Jong Un to Seoul.
Want to really fight ISIS?
No, I don't... That is Saudi Arabia's problem, let them spend their money and military on that one.
ISIS is not a state actor, Iran is. Iran is our problem, ISIS is not.
Damn, and I was waiting for their electrical model. Honda is moving forward!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
there are 5 other nations involved in the agree. US Congress does not have any sway over their decision to support the agreement. if congress vote to overrule Obama, all that will happen is the United States becoming diplomatically isolated vis a vis Iran. The Europeans, Chinese and Russians are eager for the deal to work and open up bilateral trade. the zionist backed stooges in congress will not get in the way of that
OMG dude he is talking about the forces fighting ISIS, not ISIS themselves. It is like you see a bone and run with it, without realizing it is your own leg.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Seems weird that this is only 10 years.
It makes sense that it should be about monitoring (in spite of what neo-cons/tea* scream), but, what does not make sense is why 10 years only? Seems like 20 or more would be better.
I suspect that Saudi Arabia will now start THEIR program with Russia's help.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Negotiating a treaty with a country is not the same as "siding with" them. It just means that the countries that sign the treaty agreed on a set of rules of behavior. The alternative to a treaty with Iran isn't "siding against" them, it is having no agreed on rules of behavior, in which case their behavior is unconstrained. So would you rather Iran operate under an international agreement under which they can't have a nuclear program, backed up by inspections and penalties, or would you have them allowed to do anything they want, with no inspections?
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Want to really fight ISIS? We'll need Iran and Syria as allies if you actually want to win.
Why do we have to fight ISIS at all?
Everyone over there hates us, other first world countries won't lend a hand, and in the long run the barbarism of ISIS won't withstand the onslaught of more developed ideas.
Thinking that we will prevent the conflict from coming over here is fantasy storytelling: all our draconian infrastructure didn't prevent the shoe bomber, underwear bomber, or marathon bomber - even when we were warned about those specific threats beforehand.
What's the compelling reason to do anything in the middle east? If the ISIS neighbor countries are good with it, if the European nations think it's none of their business, if it's extremely expensive, if meddling in their affairs will only make them hate us more... why not just ignore ISIS?
What's the benefit in fighting ISIS?
Like it or not, there are no third options.
Nonsense. That is like saying "you're either with us or against us".
You're trying to narrow the choices to two, when there are always options beyond those.
Why? Did either Cuba OR Iran get 'resolved'?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Wait, whom is chanting "Death to %nation%"??!
Iran was free to build a bomb BEFORE this agreement. You think sanctions from a country that was ALREADY sanctioning them to begin with was somehow deterring that? The only thing the sanctions did was drive them closer to Russia. This agreement will give them more incentive to stop building a bomb than those sanctions ever did.
What everyone needs to understand about this deal is that it is NOT about the geopolitics. It is about limiting the ability of Iran to rapidly produce the fuel for a nuclear weapon. Even with the ability to delay an inspector for a short amount of time it still meets the goals (and yes, 25 days is short when compared to the time needed to design, build, test, and implement an uranium processing facility). Iran has long been able to move money on the black and gray markets, though not as easily as if they were part of the open economy, so anything that monitors and limits their nuclear ambitions is better than where the world is now. Once the domestic economy starts to pick up, the economic incentives should be a strong endorsement to maintain the status quo, and not go back to the sanctions regime. A very large part of the Iranian population has spent their whole life under sanctions and restrictions, and I don't imagine that they will through the modernization of their nation away to push for nuclear weapons, and the Supreme leader and company would do well to remember what happens when you have a large, young, dissatisfied population seeing their world tossed to the gutter. Ask the Shah...
The geo-political and economic results from this were not the main goal. Both Israel and the Gulf States are going to have to quickly adapt to Iran becoming a more potent regional political force. They will have the resources to push their agenda in the area, putting them on the same playing field as the Arab League and Israel. Iran is also likely to become a very rapidly growing economy, after years of pent-up demand. Their technical capabilities make them a rival to Israel economically as well as militarily, but there is a real opportunity for those two nations to partner if they can ever get over the animosity.
In the worst case, the U.S. and Israel return to the sanctions regime and punish anyone who violates it. The dollar is the oil of the world economy, and will remain so for a few decades more at least, so the U.S. has tremendous economic power, and the U.N. is not going to step in to help Iran if they are violating the treaty.
If you think an ISIS caliphate would be better than the West than a more positive relationship with Iran, all I can say is that you're mentally ill.
Seek help.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
If inspectors have concerns about undeclared sites, they must submit to Iran a request in writing that explains their concerns. Iran may counter with a proposal for “alternative means” of resolving the issue without actually allowing inspectors to inspect anything. If the inspectors and the regime can’t agree to a solution within two weeks, the dispute gets kicked up to a higher level. In other words, Iran has a license to stall for two full weeks whenever it does something suspicious.
After two weeks, the problem gets handed over to the Joint Commission, a new body whose membership and responsibility is defined in Annex IV to the agreement. Basically, the commission has eight members, one for each of the countries who are party to the agreement, plus the EU. A majority of five commission members may “advise” Iran on how to resolve the inspectors’ concerns. The commission has seven days to address the inspectors’ concerns, after which Iran has three days to implement any recommended measures. So, at minimum, Iran will have 24 days to clean up any suspicious sites before inspectors get a first look.
But what if Iran doesn’t comply with the commission’s requests within three days? Alas, that is a mystery. Section Q ends with the pronouncement that Iran will implement such measures. However, there is a “Dispute Resolution Mechanism” described in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the main body of the deal. This process requires another 50 days — the precise length is difficult to discern from the text, since it involves three separate levels of evaluation. So in practice, Iran may be looking at a minimum of two and a half months before they have to do anything.
And what if the inspectors are still left out in the cold? Then the only option left for the U.S. (or the U.K. or France) is to go to the UN Security Council and try to blow up the entire deal, in accordance with the “snapback” provisions of the deal.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...> Read more
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
No, really.
Iran is already making war against America both directly and by proxy.
Did you really mean to post a link about Iran supplying the Taliban with cash and arms without any irony? Because that's exactly what we did. Just to drive the point home: We supplied them with cash and arms. A billion dollars in cash, and only God and Uncle Sam know how much in other goodies (much earlier.) And regarding your third link, that number is dwarfed by American military suicides. The American Military is responsible for dramatically more American Military deaths than Iran could hope for. You're batting .333, pretty good for baseball, shit for Slashdot.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
+1
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Supporting (or fighting) neither is an option. Nuking both is an option. Carve up the middle east into smaller and smaller bits until the bits no longer threaten anyone else is an option.
There are plenty of options, many would have kept us from giving Iran Nukes like we just did, so that they will help us fight ISIS because we won't actually fight them.
Obama just finished what Jimmy Carter Started.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I'm sure that this will work out at least as well as it did the last time a Dem US president made a deal to "stop the development of nuclear weapons".
I'm sure Japan, South Korea, and others in the region still remember that agreement with pride and joy.
-Styopa
when there are always options beyond those.
No, there really aren't. Iran, the Assad government, and the Kurds are the only serious opposition to the ISIS caliphate right now. The only other option with any reasonable chance of success would be to reinstate the draft in the U.S. and send a massive U.S. invasion force into Iraq and Syria. And I'm pretty sure that ain't happening anytime soon.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
So, what does the agreement say about verification?
Is this another "national technical means" (read: spying) situation? Or does this have some other verification measure(s) that aren't mentioned in TFA?
And on an unrelated note - no, Iran did not "sign" the agreement. Anymore than the US did. They "initialed" it (read: the negotiators on all sides agreed to hand this back to their respective governments for ratification/whatever)....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
He and his within 5 second +5 'insightful' posse.
I'm curious about what you said.
Is this something you've noticed anecdotally, or do you have a screen scraping program that loads and interprets slashdot conversations? (Or something else?)
I'd be very interested in statistics about this sort of thing. Anything that throws light on how certain subjects get modded up, correlations of moderator accounts that don't post, and so on.
There's a lot of activity here that seems anecdotally suspicious. It'd be nice to know whether this is due to random clustering or some type of organized push.
Do you have any statistical support?
Yes, there is a Third option - get the fuck out.
There will NEVER be peace in the Middle East - ever. Those people have been at each others throats for a couple of millennia.
I say - FUCK'EM! If they want to keep these ancient tribal animosities going and act like primitives, then who are we to interfere.
Actually, we do NOT need either Iran and esp. not Assad (which is really what you mean).
CONgress screwed up when they forced O to cut a deal with assad. It is obvious now that Russia and Syria were hiding their chemical and biological weapons.
In addition, I used to think that O was crazy to do little to stop ISIS.
However, it is now becoming clear what is happening. We are working with Iraq on ISIS eastern front, along with Syria's and Iraq's Northern Kurdish groups. Basically, we are pushing ISIS towards western and southern Syria, which is where Assad is. ISIS is destroying Assad. Once that is over, we will obviously swoop in and destroy ISIS, and then put in more of a strong gov. to hold this together.
Once Assad is gone, then Iran is limited to damage in the middle east. There is no easy way to get weapons to Libya or parts of Israel anymore.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Nuking both is an option.
Oh yes, because that certainly won't start WWIII.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Because you have caused it by conquering Iraq and destabilising Syria. And now we have to take all the refugees you have caused.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
It's nice to see peaceful resolutions to problems instead of war.
Although little Bibi is fuming mad - and spewing more fear-mongering rhetoric than ever - whilst suggesting that Israel attack Iran anyway.
At least most of the world is still interested in peace.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
Saudi Arabia would be playing quite a funny game then. With their money they're just funding ISIS and helping them acquire weapons. If they go at war with ISIS, will they still be funding them?
No, I don't... That is Saudi Arabia's problem, let them spend their money and military on that one.
Oh, Saudis have already been spending their money on ISIS.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Well said
I didn't say it was a good option. I said it was an option.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
No, there really aren't.
Yes, there really are, you just can't see beyond your narrow point of view.
None of the above are required, ISIS is not a threat to the US, they are not a state actor and are mostly annoying to the region.
Saudi Arabia has a large and well funded military, they can deal with this one.
What possible use are nukes for Iran anyway? Their ability to manufacture a large number of them or deliver a lot of them at once over any distance (especially intercontinental) makes them less than useful.
Any actual use of them against the US or Israel would result in a retaliation that would seriously threaten the existence of Iranian civilization as its now known. Any US president in office when an American city was targeted by an Iranian nuke who did not turn Iran into the world's largest open air supply of Trinitite might seriously be deposed if not lynched in the streets like Mussolini.
I've read that the Israelis have a standing threat that if Israel is targeted by a nuke, they are retaliating against all major Arab capitals and Mecca, regardless of who's at fault. Ironically or not, the Israelis do collective punishment like nobody since Imperial Rome.
They might get some short-term mileage out of stunts with the Straits of Hormuz, but it only works if they are willing to risk a catastrophic retaliation from which recovery is all but unlikely except on geological timelines. And the more serious their threat, the more likely they might face a preemptive strike. Even a conventional preemptive strike would force them to either capitulate or go nuclear. If they capitulate, they lose and future threats will go nowhere. If they go nuclear? Game over. All your base are glassed over.
It was a Captain who hung the banner, not Bush. Just saying ... that you're lying out your ass.
Oh fuck off. Even North Korea, a genuinely nutty state, represents at best a regional threat. The Great Powers remain essentially untouchable, and for fuck's sake, Iran has several nearby nuclear states (China, Pakistan, India, Israel and Russia) who possess arsenals of one form or another. The whole point of the plan is that the signatory powers (all of which are nuclear states themselves) will have probably a year or more from Iran going into technical breach to mount a response.
Christ all fucking mighty, grow up. Iran does not represent a meaningful threat to the US, and any future existential threat it may represent to Israel is countered by the fact that if it ever mounted a nuclear attack on Israel or Saudi Arabia, the Iranian state, and probably millions of Iranians, would be killed in turn.
MAD works best when the parties don't view a nuclear apocalypse as an event ushering in God's judgment upon men and the rewarding of the holy.
Perhaps you have missed the increasing capability, payload and range, of the missiles in the possession of minor powers. Intercontinental is no longer, or soon will no longer be, a Great Powers exclusive.
A small regional limited nuclear exchange will be a greater environmental catastrophe than all the SUVs, disposable water bottles, and cow farts combined.
Your list of nuclear power is short, a regional nuclear arms race is about to begin.
In 1914 Serbia was considered only a regional threat.
Nuking both is an option.
Oh yes, because that certainly won't start WWIII.
No, but it will end the suspense of when it's going to start.
Obama's big triumph is that it probably won't be him who needs to deal with it.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Those who think we need to choose between ISIS and Iran, just as those who say the only alternative to the current deal with Iran is war -- are being dangerously simplistic. Sort of reminds me of the whole Democrat-Republican dynamic here in the USA of late. It's one line of BS or another -- both of which turn out to be politically motivated; that is, in the self-interest of the politician. I'm tired of hearing how: "This is Bush's fault" and "No, it's Obama's fault" At some point it's our fault. For listening to overly simplistic arguments, believing them, then picking a side. ...often followed by calling each other names.
Sad is what it is.
Sad and dangerous.
If You Take Out Saddam, I Guarantee, It Will Have Enormous Positive Reverberations on the Region
Netanyahu - Peacemaker
Netanyahu is a warmongering idiot. All he ever seems to do is passive-agressively invent reasons/excuses to stir up more shit and more reasons to use military force against muslims and steal more land.
I'm not suggesting the muslims are white as snow either but it boggles my mind why the US keeps sending money/arms to Israel and automatically backs them up no matter how blatantly they make trouble.
Israel is like the irritating little kid in the school playground that makes everyones lives hell, and only avoids getting a well-deserved pasting because he has a giant brother and knows to never go anywhere alone.
Iran has stopped executing gays, apostates, critical bloggers and insubmissive women. They will no longer threaten to annihilate Israel or support suicide bombers. Finally Iran can rejoin the league of civilized nations. It has to be true, because how else could the sanctions against Iran be lifted?
And then when that "more democratic government" did something we didn't like, we would have overthrown it and installed a dictator instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
That is because they are trying to fight Iran, and they are using ISIS to do it.
If Iran was removed as a threat, their support for ISIS would go away.
That is just to fight Iran, remove the threat from Iran and that support goes away.
It is far more complicated over there than you probably know.
I think the original intent was more along the lines of 'what have we been trying to do in each region?' and Obama doing them.
Cuba - a lot of people have wanted the sanctions removed for a loooong time(they made sense when Cuba was tight buddies with the USSR, but it makes no sense any more, and the sanctions are just as responsible for the destitute populace as the dictatorial regime).
Iran - a lot of people have wanted more amicable relations between Iran and the west. Iran is one of the main powers against the US/West, and any improvement in our relations - if they're lasting - is a step in the right direction. There's obviously no panacea, and it won't happen overnight, but both sides get to walk away from this deal with something they want. Iran gets to play a bigger role in regional economics, and the West reduces the nuclear capabilities of the biggest rogue-element in the world today.
DPRK/South Korea - a lot of people have wanted an end to the Korean War(or, 'resolved'). For so many different reasons. Human rights issues in the DPRK, eliminating civilian casualties, relaxing the DMZ, reunification of the peninsula, removal of a brutal dictator, avoiding massive loss of life should fighting resume...the list goes on. If Obama 'resolved' the Korean War like he has the other areas, that'd be pretty sweet. My point being: the thing 'to do' for the Korean War is to 'resolve' it.
That's how I read the GP comment, anyways. It is ambiguous though...
Sure, "not everyone agrees", and in particular conservative Republicans are foaming at the mouth, but... The thing is, for all their talk about how this agreement is going to be a disaster for America, I have yet to hear those on the right propose anything that sounds remotely like a workable alternative to the current deal. Say we end up with the deal stopped cold by congress, which could well happen, what then? Sanctions continue, and Iran no longer feels any reason not to go ahead with work on a bomb. Why wouldn't they? How would we stop them? Military force?? Don't make me laugh, that ain't gonna happen. So what's left, increasing the severity of the economic sanctions? We're pretty much doing all we can in that area now, and indeed it has brought Iran to the bargaining table. You want to just toss away the one chance we have to make a deal? It seems to me that if you're going to just say "well, screw that!" in regard to the current agreement, you have to have a better alternative in mind, and I mean something that stands a chance of working. We've got a deal, it's better than what we've had with sanctions in place, why not go with it? If Iran decides to cheat, well, that's the time to start talking tough. All I see now is people wanting to throw away this deal because, well, it might make Obama look good. And it might, but what else is there? I'm waiting to hear of any other plan of action that sounds remotely feasible.
Now the warmongers in both governments can block the deal, so the heads of state can say "Well, we tried" and things continue on as "normal."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
that the U.S. is the biggest shit-head bully on the globe.
Don't fight them, ignore them. Even if we squashed them, a new group of radicals will form to replace it. Trying to fix the M.E. is playing unwinnable Whack-A-Mole.
If we ignore them, they'll eventually ignore us. It may take a generation or two for them to forget about us, but it will happen if we just have the patience.
The M.E. will be a mess with us or without us (cue U2 tune). Let's stop pretending we can fix it. After we've failed 25 times what makes you think #26 is the trick?
Table-ized A.I.
so kindly explain to me please, why the White House Press Office felt the need to issue a CORRECTION?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
That all sounds very nice, but the reality is quite different.
Having an agreement and rules only matter if everyone follows them. You speak of penalties, but Iran likely doesn't fear those and they lack teeth anyway.
You're rational is the same we followed when arming Afghan jihads against the USSR. That didn't come back to bite us.
The USSR seemed to have done a pretty good job of keeping Afghanistan under control, building housing, schools, educating women, etc. They were less brutal than GWB, and more competent. (Although anybody is more competent than GWB.)
It's Middle East, dude. When you sign an agreement with the like of Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran, you will be bound by it terms, but they won't. Agreements with the infidels simply don't count: there is a long tradition of that kind of thing. So, Iran's behavior will be unconstrained with or without an agreement, and the US/Europe/Russia will have neither desire nor guts to enforce it. To think otherwise is a dangerous illusion.
Why do we have to fight ISIS at all?
Haven't you seen the pictures of the hooded ISIS "warriors" where they forgot to cover up their US Army tattoos?
Everybody else in the world has.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Saudi Arabia has a large and well funded military, they can deal with this one.
You mean the same Saudi Arabia that's funding their fellow ISIS Sunnis in their fight against the Shia in Syria and Iran? Yeah, they're dealing alright.
Continued sanctions would slow the Iranians more than this deal. Now they will have a better funded program and several weeks of notice to prep a site before allowing the inspectors in, such delays are built into the terms of the treaty and there seems to be no cost to playing such games. They will play the military site / national security card as they have already done, and it will be even more effective to do so under this treaty.
We have this treaty for one reason only. The current administration wanted a "win" on their record. When crap hits the fan in the future they will blame it on the other guy. Its just like the corporate CEO who manages the company for this quarter's financial statement. Five or ten years down the road will be some other CEOs problem. I guess the President is learning some management skills with his on-the-job executive training.
I agree, which is why I support boycott, divestiture and sanctions against Israel.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I bet we can solve this real fast if we just send the Pope to meet with Iranian Supreme Leader ...
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
And don't forget Ronald Reagan sent arms to Iran. Not only that, he sent them a cake, baked in the shape of a key.
Apparently, by baking Iran a cake, Reagan was demonstrating that he had no religious objections to terrorism.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Isn't that like saying getting hit by a truck will end the suspense of when you're going to die?
"Ending the suspense" of when WWIII is going to start is not really a desirable outcome unless you're a religious fanatic and you're waiting for Armageddon.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Well, OF COURSE the Archangel Michael is going to want Armageddon.
Archangels, so impatient.
Please.
That's just political posturing and propaganda.
And what is the purpose of propaganda and political posturing? To persuade, to foster public support and political will to take a specific action in line with the posturing and propaganda. I get sick of people just waving this off - talk of genocide - as a if it were just a mere insignificant cultural manifestation.
Only because Carter thought an Ayatollah Dictator was better than a regular dictator.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I just want to say it's about damn time. I remember seeing videos from the 50's where they had jet-powered Buicks. Impractical because of the high exhaust temperatures, but a well-executed Nuclear Accord would be perfect.
You mean this photograph that was shopped to include the mythical tat?
That's weak trolling even for /.
Because idiots like you take random sound-bites with no context as your sole source of news when it comes to anything related to government.
Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people! We just need more nuclear weapons!
Why do we want to fight ISIS though. I know the media has brainwashed conservative USAians to hate conservative religious fundamentalist who believe in family values and the right to bear arms. These guys are also known as Muslims, but why should the USA and ISIS be enemies. On a strict policy line, ISIS is much more in common with the USAian founding fathers than the current governing body does. I am just curious, because I am old school. I remember a time when the USA supported the Mujahedeen against the Godless commies. However just like the stance on homosexuals, the media has managed to turn public opinion 180 degrees around. No longer are the Mujahedeen our friends. Now they are our enemies, and homosexuals are our friends. 10 years from now who will we hate, and who will the media convince the public to like. Historically the USA has sided with the Sunni. Apparently that is changing. 5 years from now we might sucking Irans's dick and bombing Saudi. The tide of enemies and friends change over time in the USA. One thing is for certain is that the change of public opinion will not be organic. Instead it will be created by our media manipulators who will not tell us their real motives for changing the story. There can be no freedom when you dearest beliefs and convictions are the product of media propaganda.
Well, I am going to watch sports center now because I am thinking too much, and I am pretty sure that is illegal in the USA.
Odd because you appear to be reducing an extremely complex situation to utter triviliaties here. "Remove the threat from Iran and that support goes away"!!!!! Yeah!!!!!! USA! USA! USA!
Do you *ever* read what you write?
"other first world countries won't lend a hand"
Gee, thanks. I guess the rest of us who could absolutely describe ourselves as not just First World but also Western (that would be Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the French and the British) might as well just fuck off and let you massive-cocked swinging-balled Yank pricks fuck it up on your own, right? Like we should have done in Iraq? The French had the right idea there - pity none of the rest of us fucking listened to them.
Seriously, learn the slightest fucking thing you're talking about. Syria is a shitstorm. We - meaning "first world countries", meaning the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, France etc. - funded each and every group that fought against Assad. Unfortunately one of those groups was ISIS and we are now fighting ISIS, in Syria, while attempting to balance this against opposition to al-Assad's regime. Most other "first world countries" decided not to get openly involved in that, and instead rightly or wrongly focused on trying to funnel arms and money to Kurdish fighter groups. In Iraq, the acknowledged Iraqi government has requested aid, and as a result there are no issues with nations who despite fucking empty-headed shits like yourself remain America's firm allies committing resources to the bombing campaigns that characterise what we might laughably call the Western "strategy". The idea that America is somehow going into it alone in the company of a pack of third-world ragheads says a lot more about your attitude towards the world (and your education) than anything else.
Yeah, drive them closer to a Russia that has had numerous differences with the USA, UK, France and Germany and is even operating under sanctions from the UK, France and Germany itself, and yet which has acted entirely in accord with the USA, UK, France and Germany in negotiations around the Iranian nuclear programme. The only things the sanctions - backed by Russia and China along with the USA, UK and France (and Germany) - did was seriously fuck up the Iranian economy and help pressure them back to the negotiations, and cause untold and unquantified ramifications to the economies of the Middle East in particular and the rest of the world, which may have been significant or may have been entirely unimportant. Were the sanctions necessary? Who the fuck knows? We'll never know. But they were an agreement between the 5+1 and personal experience tells me they certainly hurt the Iranians. The facile statement that they "[drove] them closer to Russia" is just that - facile.
There are several possible outcomes from this deal, none of which is worse than not doing a deal at all.
That said, if Iran is serious in its claim that it doesn't want nuclear weapons and only wants peaceful nuclear technology, it should sign and ratify the various nuclear test ban treaties.
It's easy to see how many slashdotters have no clue about international relationships or history, and how many are simply naive.
I don't know why adults even hang around here anymore.
If N.Korea has nukes, why do you think that Iran does not? It has 4-5x the size (pop, GDP) and by comparison with NK would already have them if it wanted. Pakistan is another comparable.
This is at best an agreement not-to-test, slowing? development of fission-fusion warheads. Just what do you think heavy water reactors are for? Canada sells CANDU tritium for US warhead refreshing.
ISIS controls territory larger than many nations, a population in the millions, and income and wealth that put it in the top 50% of nations.
Bin Laden killed thousands of Americans with a few hundred people and a few million dollars. You seriously want to claim the ISIS isn't a threat to the US?
Also, why do you hate Arabs? Is a sectarian genocide against a Muslim subgroup OK, when after WWII the world swore "Never forget, never again"?
Seriously, it's as if he wants to destroy the country intentionally. Everything he does seems so self destructive. Look at where we were before and after him, both from our 18 trillion dollar debt and our world standing. Shortsighted and lies....Maybe if we just hug all the bad guys, they will leave us alone. I'm sure if you plug in his strategy to and game theory model, it's a lose lose.
Nope. Iran has a ballistic missile program. They don't need enough nukes to wipe the U.S., just threaten New York or Washington.
Israel...total domination over the Sunni countries in the mid-east? How?
Idiot....
Netenyahu is a hero, it's people like you that lead to WW2 and the next WW. INetanyahu would have prevented WW2, and he is trying to prevent WW3. This smells very similar to France and Germany in the 30s. WAKE UP! If your immune system is as it ignorant as yourself, you would not be here right now.
Now you're just being a fucking idiot. How about you do a little research into what the Shah and his merry little band of secret police did in Iran, WITH THE BACKING AND TRAINING FROM THE US; US backed dictators always seem to be the worst, most sadistic sociopaths we can find.... and you complain the Iranian people finally had enough and had a revolution against one of our depots? Seriously... learn some fucking history.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
One of the first AC posts that really needed to be modded up to 11. You have succinctly explained the biggest problem in the United States today.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Not to mention the Saudis who WILL now go ahead with a nuclear program of their own.
Bet they are negotiating with the Pakistanis right now
you sure are gullible
I'm batting 1.000 with your mom.
Good thing our US government is not at all influenced by religious fanatics who would, let's say, deny things like evolution or global warming. Oh wait...
Bin Laden was never a serious threat to the US either and he got exactly the reaction he wanted out of us, wasting our money and energy on a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with Bin Laden. That said I still mourn for and with all of the people affected by 9/11 but for the US as a whole it was more like being stung by a big wasp than being attacked by a swarm of killer bees.
Obama just finished what Jimmy Carter Started.
What has transpired in Iran was started back in 1953 when the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh.
I could not agree any more with anything anyone is saying than this. You hit the nail on the head with everything you said, and you said everything I could want to say. 3
What really frustrates me is the fact that quite a large number of our citizens are more likely to believe Israel's leaders than our own, who (along with John Bolton and others who should be charged with war crimes for what they've done in the past) before the details were even released said it was a bad idea, indicating that they just don't want a deal made with Iran at all and likely just want them bombed out of existence.
Iran, Saudi Arabia and ISIS are all wayyyyy different brands of Islam and have quite different forms of belief and would all war with each other long before they warred with anyone else.
"We will continue to fund ISIL."
What the fuck context does one need to come to the conclusion that he was specifically referring to FUNDING a loose conglomerate the West has basically publicly condemned as terrorists??
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
**That should read "...wasn't specifically referring..."
Are you really that fucking stupid?
Go on, give me that amazing leap of logic that concludes that anyone watching that entire address MISHEARD HIM.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
So they had to give up valid scientific research and a desire to protect themselves (MAD), because we fucked their economy so hard they eventually cried 'mercy'?
Yeah sounds like the good old west is helping people out again! Well done everyone!
landlocked
I do not think this word means what you think it means
Reread that carefully. The Shah was in power before the coup too. How do you think that worked? Read it very carefully.
The communists of the USSR did a pretty good job of decapitating the existing Afghan government in an invasion, depopulating the Afghan countryside, driving large numbers of refugees into neighboring countries, putting out booby-traps hidden in toys for children, and using Afghanistan to test its new "yellow rain" mycotoxin (poisonous substances produced by fungi) weapons on the population, and generally engaged in mass slaughter themselves.
But I guess you're just here to admire the bridges the communists built. Such fine bridges, eh?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You have a very "European" outlook towards Israel (the Jewish state). What a pity.
The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Did you really mean to post a link about Iran supplying the Taliban with cash and arms without any irony? Because that's exactly what we did.
Actually no, that didn't happen. The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet-Afghan war so the US couldn't have supplied them. The Taliban formed during the Afghan civil war following the Soviet-Afghan war, and was still going on when the US invaded in 2001. The US was aided by the Afghan Northern Alliance which was fighting the Taliban.
Your treatment of American military suicides isn't really fair or honest either. Treating deliberate armed violence against US service members by either Iran itself or Iranian supplied militias as being inconsequential is bizarre nonsense. If you want to go down that route you should be able to give us a detailed rational explanation of why the US should have ignored 3,000 casualties on one particular day which plunged it into war when it should have instead stopped all traffic deaths which were more that 10x that amount. No, I'm not talking about 9/11, I'm talking about Pearl Harbor. So please explain why it makes more sense to try to stop all random accidents across the country instead of going to war against the attacker - the Empire of Japan. Once you do that then we can talk about suicides.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Israel has been known to have nukes for decades. Israel has never used them on anybody, nor has it publicly threatened to do so. Israel has a decades-long track record of not threatening any nation that has not previously attacked it.
Israel does not regularly lead its people in chants of "Death to {anybody}", does not hang homosexuals in public, does not regularly promise to remove other nations from the surface of the Earth, etc (all things that Iran DOES). Iran, unlike Israel, is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism having sponsored attacks on every continent but Antarctica, and has sponsored entire terror armies in places like Yemen, Iraq, and Syria and sponsored the Palestinian terrorist groups that regularly fire rockets at civilians (a war crime) from launch points shielded by civilians (another war crime).
Iran has regularly promised to remove both Israel and the US from the Earth (only achievable with nukes) while claiming it does not want nukes (like Hitler kept claiming not to want war...) and building a nuclear program that is only useful for nukes and an ICBM program that will be of no use with conventional warheads.
Go and tell your Mullah bosses that your attempt to masquerade as a civilized Westerner and slime the Jews and "The Zionist Entity" have failed.
Today marks the start of the world's first nuclear war. The war is now inevitable, the only question now will be: when is the first detonation?
With this "deal", Mr Obama has put the nail in the coffin of nuclear arms control - the US and NATO clearly have no will to enforce any non-proliferation or arms limitation treaties. Now the enemies of Iran, who have for decades depended upon their American allies to defend them have been kicked in the teeth and signaled that the US is no longer a reliable security partner - they will all have to rush to get their own nukes. Within the next few years Eqypt, Saudi Arabia and others will have nuclear weapons. The Chinese and Russians are probably similarly re-calibrating all their previous estimates of what they can get away with, so it should be no surprise if Mr Putin and China up their sabre rattling and territory grabbing. This is far worse than the worst of Jimmy Carter's insane incompetence.
The Iranian Mullahs NEED a nuclear war to bring about their vision of their religion, and THAT is something deterrence cannot deal with. Deterrence depends on all parties NOT wanting war.
Remember this day. In a few years when you witness mushroom clouds rising over major western cities, be sure to thank Mr Kerry and Mr Obama just as those British supporters of Neville Chamberlain were forced to witness the bombing of London and recall their gullible former leader and his promise of a diplomatic breakthrough that he claimed would deliver "peace in our time".
Jew hatred went out with your hero Mr Hitler. And no, the standard cowardly post-WWII Jew-hater tactic of claiming to only hate Israel, while not being a Jew hater, is no more valid than it ever was (you guys would not hate Israel if it was not run by Jews).
The only "occupation" that needs to end is the Palestinian/Muslim occupation of Israel. Israel existed thousands of years before Islam existed (Islam is about 7 centuries younger than Christianity which is thousands of years younger that Judaism and Israel). There is simply no logical or rational way that any Palestinian (a nationality Yasser Arafat himself on "60 Minutes" admitted was invented in the 1970s) claim on the land, or any Muslim claim on that land can preempt the Jewish claim. The Muslim claims on Jerusalem and Israel are as fantastically absurd as any claim some crazy Mormon might try to make on Mecca (AFAIK no Mormon would make such a claim, but its an equivalent absurdity)
The taliban didn't exist only in name. They were formed out of mujahideen - the very same people you merkins have armed and funded. You are directly responsible for the civil war in Afghanistan and for taliban.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Apparently in your mind, an actual nuclear war with millions of dead people is better than keeping sanctions in place and working towards the day when the Iranian people might return to sanity and re-join the civilized nations????
You must be a crazy fanatic posting from Tehran and dreaming of the paradise that will be ushered in by global bloodshed.
The best option for those of us in the West would have been for Obama to have embraced the green revolution in Iran and to have encouraged the youth of Iran to throw-off the tyranny of the Iranian revolutionary Muslim fanatics (who have murdered and oppressed far worse than the Shah who they arose in opposition to) with at least as much enthusiasm as he (Obama) embraced the "Arab Spring" in the rest of the Middle East (at least during the time when that helped his friends in the Muslim Brotherhood).
Given that Obama turned his back on the civilized youths of Iran who wanted to be free, the next best option was to ratchet UP sanctions to simultaneously weaken the religious fanatics running that regime and to buy time.
Given that Mr Obama failed on this too, the next best option was to keep sanction in place as-is.
The single most insanely stupid thing to do is to cut a deal that actually legitimizes the Iranian nuke program, takes the sanctions off of the Iranian ICBM program, opens the money spigot to let BILLIONS of dollars flow into that country, removes sanctions from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces and the Iranian intelligence service that backs terrorist groups, and removes limits on Iranian access to international arms vendors for anti-aircraft defense systems, aircraft, and other military tech - but this is precisely the insanity President Obama has selected.
You forgot to mention that they have murdered the babies in incubators and used children blood to make bread.
Fact is, Germany is full of refugees from Afghanistan now since you merkins have decapitated their government, bombed their weddings and killed people left and right. Also fact is that all the infrastructure Afghanistan has left now was built by the Soviets.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I don't see how a few tens of thousands quickly running a region into the ground and with such abysmal popular support would require a draft or any US intervention at all. Our volunteer army could handle them easily if it were ever needed, most of ISIS is the remains of Iraq's old army isn't it? They didn't last very long last time.
Remember that Iran hasn't shot down a civilian passenger airplane and gave everyone involved in the shootdown medals for their achievement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
The Pro and anti Isreali lobbies will be strong.
Your treatment of American military suicides isn't really fair or honest either.
No, the American Military's treatment of the enlisted isn't fair or honest. They make them commit atrocities in the name of freedom. Then they kill themselves. Or maybe they come home and make some other people's lives miserable. Or maybe they do that, and then kill themselves. A lot of them come home and become cops, and you know how that goes... poorly.
Once you do that then we can talk about suicides.
No, we can talk about suicides now, when on average they kill more U.S. soldiers than anything else. You don't think the single most common cause of death amongst our military is worthy of discussion? You would make a shit general.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Let's rephrase your shit shall we?
Nope. Israel has a ballistic missile program. They don't need enough nukes to wipe out Iran, just threaten Tehran or Cairo.
Iran....total domination over the US-led Israel in the mid-east? How?
From what i have seen during my short life. Israeli jews and israeli jew sympathetic jews keep sitting on their high horse. There will be no peace coming from that position.
The penalties are a return to sanctions, which have crippled the Iranian economy.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The US could indeed nuke Syria and Iran, in the same way that Obama could stick a piece of celery up his nose and say he's Napoleon.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The communists of the USSR did a pretty good job of decapitating the existing Afghan government in an invasion, depopulating the Afghan countryside, driving large numbers of refugees into neighboring countries, putting out booby-traps hidden in toys for children, and using Afghanistan to test its new "yellow rain" mycotoxin (poisonous substances produced by fungi) weapons on the population, and generally engaged in mass slaughter themselves.
But I guess you're just here to admire the bridges the communists built. Such fine bridges, eh?
Unlike you, I like to talk about things I know something about, so let me take the ones I have particular knowledge about.
First, the "yellow rain" story, which was promoted on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, was discredited by every article published in a peer reviewed journal. The "yellow rain" samples, when analyzed by real scientists, turned out to be normal bee feces. Nature, Science and Scientific American were the most prominent magazines that wrote about it. I was following this in some detail at the time. I met Matthew Meselson at a conference, and I met the WSJ reporter who wrote the editorials. Wikipedia has an article which cites lots of sources.
Second, the "booby-trapped toys" story was also discredited. Some well-funded organization published full-page ads in major newspapers, including the New York Times, with an illustration of a doll that was booby-trapped with explosives. It turned out that the illustration was not a booby-trapped doll from Afghanistan, but a mock-up that the American advertising agency had created to "illustrate" the point. Nobody had a real booby-trapped toy from Afghanistan to prove that the Soviets were doing this.
The germ of truth in the story was that, apparently, the Soviets were dropping land mines that had a "butterfly" appearance, and Afghans, including children, would sometimes pick them up and get injured. However, at the same time, the U.S. was also using land mines, and just like the Soviet land mines, people, especially children, would pick them up or walk on them and be injured. That's the purpose of land mines, after all. After the Vietnam war, there were U.S. land mines left over in large areas of Vietnam and other southeast asian countries, which would injure farmers who were trying to cultivate their fields. There was a 1997 treaty to ban land mines, but the U.S. refused to sign it. The U.S. was also supplying land mines to other countries. We're still using land mines in Korea. GWB refused to sign the treaty, but Obama said that he wants to phase out landmines.
I once met a Marine surgeon who volunteered for duty in Iraq, and spent most of his time amputating the legs of Marines who had their feet blown off by Iraqi land mines. We might have all been better off if the U.S. signed the land mine treaty earlier, when Saddam Hussein was still our friend.
The fact remains that after Najibullah invited the Soviets to Afghanistan, they built schools that taught the entire populace, including girls, to read and write. Half of their teachers were women. Many of their doctors were women. They appointed women to positions of authority and responsibility. They built housing, transportation, and a modern infrastructure, at least in Kabul. They were a colonial occupying power, like the British, French, or other colonial powers, and they gave them the benefits (and oppression) of any colonial power. They were a lot more humane than the Belgians.
If the Soviets had remained in Afghanistan, there would be no Taliban. There might not have been a 9/11. We wouldn't have had 2,000 U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan (and 10 times as many permanent injuries). The Soviets knew how to keep the Muslim populations under control -- teach them calculus instead of the Koran. Too bad. We could have had an age of peace.
At least the USSR had a land border with Afghanistan to justify their intervention.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Has re-appeared in the form of Kerry
I agree, which is why I support boycott, divestiture and sanctions against Israel.
There is no chance of Israel (or even the US) creating a non-Muslim united empire across the Middle East.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
That is because they are trying to fight Iran, and they are using ISIS to do it.
If Iran was removed as a threat, their support for ISIS would go away.
Saudi Arabia are funding ISIS in a war against Shia Muslims. I suppose if you "removed" Iran it would take a lot of Shias out of the picture, but they'd still be after those in Syria and Iraq.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I would take a fuckton lot more troops than "a few tens of thousands" to take, hold, and stabilize that region. The U.S. and UK sent in more than 200,000 just to overthrow the government in Baghdad, and even those were completely inadequate numbers to to hold or stabilize the country.
You're talking a caliphate that spans more than a third of Iraq and pretty much all of Syria (and who could potentially run into Turkey and other countries). You would not only have to fight them, but also the Syrian army. Then you would have to hold any ground you won and stabilize a region that's a fucking mess. A very conservative estimate would be at least a million or so boots on the ground and a trillion dollars or more just to feed the starving populace and restore some semblance of services and infrastructure to them. And that's just the SHORT TERM costs.
Oh, and you would also risk setting off WWIII if you overthrew the Syrian government, since Russia and Iran would probably not take to kindly to that.
But, oh yeah, 'MERICA FUCK YEAH!
Both countries are mostly our "enemy" because we've mutually decided to hate each other, rather than because we have any legitimate current grievance. I say mostly, because obviously neither has a terribly good human rights record, but, by way of an example, if I were a woman, I'd rather live in Iran than Saudi Arabia. Infinitely rather.
Iran is considerably closer to being a democracy than many of our allies in that region (if not most of them actually.) Unfortunately, constitutionally they still have an unelected religious body with real power, which needs to be resolved. In the past, our relationship with Iran has actually made that religious body stronger, as every political conflict we've had with them has increased popular support for the hardline anti-democratic elements.
Turning Iran into a friend will take decades. But that's no excuse not to try. It does us no good whatsoever to discourage a country that's more progressive than most of its peers to move forward and closer to our values. To get there, we have to overcome distrust - much of which is entirely legitimate - by both sides.
So while you're right that neither are resolved, Obama has actually taken positive steps towards resolving them which are entirely necessary and which, if we and Iran and Cuba don't fuck things up, are the start of a long journey towards peace.
I'm glad to see it. It's the Obama I supported in 2008, not the Obama we've had as President from 2009 onwards. Perhaps, politically, it would have been better if it were some 2015 equivalent of Nixon (President Buchanan?) who'd done it, but it's still very, very, positive.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
That doesn't mean the war-monger Netanyahu (and by extension, his coat-carriers in the US) won't vaporize half the Middle East giving it their best shot.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No actually they were formed in opposition to the mujahedeen.
some of the members may have been former members of the mujahedeen, but that's still not the same thing as saying that "Taliban = mujahedeen", especially considering the two parties opposed each other and even came into open conflict.
Essentially you're statement is no different from (and just as ignorant as) the ignorant people who try to say that because the man who started the KKK was a democrat, therefore the Democratic party created the KKK.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
If they don't fear sanctions why did they finally come to the negotiating table because of the sanctions, sanctions created specifically for that purpose?
oh right.
you still don't know what youre talking about.
as usual.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The world would have been far better and safer today if that was the case.
Maybe... but those aren't automatic... by the time that happens, Iran will have made much further progress towards a bomb, new people will be in power in various nations, and the interest of the world will have moved on.
Commercial interests will make putting those back on harder, since companies will have reestablished ties, etc.
This idea of "snap back sanctions" is the biggest lie of this deal, and you're eating it up.
How do you propose removing Iran as a threat? Apparently, sanctions didn't do it. Are you advocating invading the place?
And do you think the Saudis absolutely couldn't do better than arm and equip ISIS as a defense measure?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What a break through! Twenty months? Any other country could surrender in a lot less time.
Are you arguing that Israel is not run by religious fanatics at least in part? That their actions are only in self-defense?
One of the core ideas that much of Israel espouses is controlling the territory that Jews controlled about two millennia ago, which strikes me as religious fanaticism. Israel has a number of policies that are against international law, and condones excesses beyond that. These policies seem designed to keep the Palestinians angry (not that I'm condoning Palestinian actions).
Or are you saying that Jews are good and Muslims are bad?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
... boldly declared its intention to wipe out both Israel and the United States.
Please.
That's just political posturing and propaganda. Even IF Iran gets nukes, they would be no threat to the US. And as far as Israel is concerned, they have plenty for retaliation. And it will never get that far. Israel will violate international law like they always do and just bomb the shit out of Iran's nuke labs and stir up a shit load of trouble and then come crying to the US to bail them out of their dickishness.
Sorry, it sounds an awful lot like you are referencing the Israeli bombing of Saddam's Osirak reactor and declaring it as Israeli dickishness. I'm not sure it's really such a bad thing Saddam's nuclear weapons program was taken out 10 years before he invaded Kuwait.
We have given concessions to a country that has repeatedly lied, hidden, deceived,...
That statement can be applied to Israel. I cannot count how many times she has double crossed and screwed over the US.
As an American, I am sick and tired of my government aligning our interests with a rogue state that has no interest in peace in the Middle East - or at least peace by Israel's terms which from her actions means Israel has total domination over the Middle East.
Frankly, with "allies" like Israel, who the fuck needs enemies.
Boo hoo, the world is a bad place and people are mean in it, let me get a tissue for you.
Like it or not, the global economy runs on oil. All the food we grow, the clothes we wear, the homes we live in and the transportation of all of it to where we live depends upon oil for the last couple decades.
Like it or not, the largest supply of easily drilled and refined oil is in the Middle East.
Name a single country in the Middle East that really looks like a great ally based upon it's ideology and past behaviour. None the less, without access to that oil our economies collapse and our people get cold and go hungry. As a result, alliances are made with people that aren't ideal, but none the less enable oil to flow out of the Middle East and into the global economy. Far worse than Israel though would have to be Saudi Arabia's banking of billions in oil dollars and converting into military spending and spreading of Sunni fundamentalist ideology across the region.
It's really, really easy to point how many terrible consequences and actions 'allies' represent in global politics. Try taking the next step though and proposing better alternatives. Most specifically, is the Middle East situation better or worse if Iran acquires nuclear weapons? For bonus points, give a decent assessment of whether continued sanctions against Iran is a better alternative to this deal.
Or you could just stay in your corner masturbating about how everything is terrible, your choice.
What, the only real democratic country in the mideast? Yeah, who needs that? Kings, dictators, and theocracies all the way!
Of course, what no media even talks about, is that Iran would have had *one*, and only one use for ->having- (not using) a nuke: MAD.
1. Iran would never nuke Jerusalem, which is holy to all Muslims, as well as Jews and Christians.
Would Westboro Badtaste Church want to nuke Jerusalem, if they allowed gays to worship
at the Wailing Wall?
2. The US state of New Jersey is bigger than Israel. At one point, Israel is 17 mi wide (go look it up).
Dropping a nuke *anywhere* in Israel means that Jerusalem would get fallout, at the least.
3. Dripping a nuke in Israel would also hit the Palestinians, who the Iranians consider friends.
4. Considering the jet stream, guess where the fallout would continue to (hint: a country ruled
by an Ayatollah).
5. Notice that there's a small border area with Israel, that's called Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. Sort of
keeps armies from coming through to invade Israel.
Therefore, MAD with Israel would have been the only reason. So, those who don't like the idea, and think we should force regime change in Iran (I mean, it worked *so* well in Iraq), I'd expect each and every one of you to line up to enlist in the US Army, as infantry, to be ground troops for the invasion and conquest of Iran.
Otherwise, shut up.
mark
do we get our drone back?
... boldly declared its intention to wipe out both Israel and the United States.
Please.
That's just political posturing and propaganda.
Yeah, that and a whole lot of funding of terrorist groups. But whatever, I guess...
Even IF Iran gets nukes, they would be no threat to the US. And as far as Israel is concerned, they have plenty for retaliation.
Um, what? Did you just say it's ok if Israel gets nuked because they can just nuke Iran back? This is a whole new level of fucktardedness, by a few orders of magnitude. Just, wow....
And I bet if this did happen you'd be all over whining about how Israel retaliated.
And it will never get that far. Israel will violate international law like they always do and just bomb the shit out of Iran's nuke labs and stir up a shit load of trouble and then come crying to the US to bail them out of their dickishness.
We have given concessions to a country that has repeatedly lied, hidden, deceived,...
That statement can be applied to Israel. I cannot count how many times she has double crossed and screwed over the US.
From what I've seen so far, I'm guessing it's because you can't count very high. Can you actually cite what you're referring to with this, or are you just repeating some unfounded drivel you read on some hate-related web site?
As an American,
DAMMIT! Arrrgh! Why?
I am sick and tired of my government aligning our interests with a rogue state that has no interest in peace in the Middle East - or at least peace by Israel's terms which from her actions means Israel has total domination over the Middle East.
Frankly, with "allies" like Israel, who the fuck needs enemies.
Seriously, the only country in the entire region which doesn't support terrorist groups or have "Death to America" rallys and is actually hugely supportive of the USA, and so many other reasons Americans should be supporting them I can't count (and I can count quite high, thanks), and idiots like you just go on spouting lies and badmouthing them and calling them the worst country in the region? WTF? Did an Israeli kick your dog or something and you just can't let it go?
Arm both sides to maintain a stalemate and wait for them to kick the fight out of each other?
Sounds like a viable third option to me. Worked during Iran/Iraq, now _that_ was a good war.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The Saudis paid for the Paki nuke program, based on the agreement to sell them one when it becomes politically expedient.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Iran immediately after the revolution would have been a threat if they had nukes. A bunch of young, uneducated religious fanatics with very little to their names other than a hate on (for in some cases legitimate reasons - see Operation Ajax) for the West. Now though, those guys are old men. They have wives, children, grandkids, positions of power, comfortable existences. They aren't going to throw that away for the brief satisfaction of seeing something go boom in the night, before the retaliatory strike turns it all into so much plasma.
If you want to know where nuclear terrorism is more likely to come from, look to Pakistan. Depending on how things go over the next decade or two, there's a non-zero chance of a hardline islamist revolution there. Then you're back to young, uneducated fanatics who've had shitty lives, blame a western-allied government for it, and are willing to die as long as they get to strike back. Even if not, their intelligence service has been in bed with the extremists for years. Pakistan already has nukes, and despite everyone's assurances, how much are you willing to wager that either their military or someone else's can destroy them before they fall into the wrong hands?
How do you propose removing Iran as a threat? Apparently, sanctions didn't do it.
You ask a question then remove one of the options outright without any consideration.
That isn't being very transparent, now is it?
Sanctions were working just fine, they brought Iran to the table. Once at the table, Iran should have been informed that when they decide to clearly dismantle their nuclear weapons program, then sanctions will go away.
That it seems to take 6 months and 100+ pages of some complex deal indicates that Iran isn't serious, they are just playing for time and trying to do as little as possible.
It didn't take some complex deal and a bunch of other stuff to get South Africa to dismantle their program, they figured out that it was not in their best interest to be removed from civilization.
This "deal" is anything but.
You guys were funding genocidal islamist assholes like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar during that war, giving them more money than any moderates by far. And the reason why these guys were fighting the Soviets (or rather, their own socialist government backed by Soviets) was not because they wanted democracy - it's because they wanted sharia, and were disgusted by such socialist innovations as mixed-gender schools and male gynecologists. What would possibly make you believe that once they kicked the Soviets out, they would listen to your attempts to "instill a more democratic government"?
Taliban was founded and expanded by the more fundamentalist islamist mujahideen warlords. Which is exactly the type that US and Pakistan had spent most funds on supporting during the war. The label didn't exist back when you did that, but the ideology very much did, and you were perfectly okay at using it to strike a blow at the Soviets even if that meant islamization of the country.
No, the American Military's treatment of the enlisted isn't fair or honest. They make them commit atrocities in the name of freedom. Then they kill themselves.
No, what actually happens is the vast majority of them fight the war in a law abiding manner under difficult conditions and then people on your end of the political spectrum label most things they do as atrocities regardless of what the facts are. What is worse is that people on your end of the political spectrum have a bad tendency to ignore genuine, even massive atrocities committed by the enemy. And that is before you get to the rejoicing in soldier deaths and suicides, or calls to murder officers. (Time for the revolution?) There was a brief period of sanity there after 9/11, but that faded away long ago.
A lot of them come home and become cops, and you know how that goes... poorly.
Most of them do fine with that, but see my previous answer.
No, we can talk about suicides now, when on average they kill more U.S. soldiers than anything else. You don't think the single most common cause of death amongst our military is worthy of discussion? You would make a shit general.
The suicide rate isn't a particularly useful metric for determining if military action is warranted. If you want to argue that then why not start with something smaller, like ending deaths in bathtubs before doing any more bank robbery investigations. Suicide prevention is a useful topic in terms of taking care of the soldiers, not on military strategy.
You would make a shit general.
I would indeed, specifically a "shit hot" general. Thanks!
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The point I was making is that a hot WWIII seems inevitable now.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
It seemed inevitable in the 1960s, too.
So inevitable in fact, that in schools they trained kids for how to react when the bombs started dropping. Yet somehow, it turned out that the monstrous Soviets, who we were told "did not love their children as much as Americans do" turned out to actually be human beings to the great surprise and disappointment of political hawks.
You are welcome on my lawn.