Iran will get a nuclear weapon sooner or later, deal or no deal. Short of invasion, there is no way to prevent a nation of that size from building one.
What we can do is cut them off from the world and tell them they won't be welcome back into civilization until they give them up.
Whatever North Korea is doing wrong, they could get a lot of help and a lot of sanctions removed tomorrow if they gave up their small nuclear weapon stockpile.
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.
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.
Self important people sitting around a table have reached a deal, a lot has to happen between now and it actually going into effect... (Congress gets their say, Iran's government actually gets a say, then the UN has to pass it)
Then Iran has to stick to it...
Chances of all that happening? Really low... we shall see... but you may be sorry you are such a fan of Iran...
Yet they shot first and took over parts of other nations.
If your view of that war is so shallow as to being about "who shot first", then you really have no business discussing the subject.
It is far more complex than that.
I don't think there's a clear A started it or B started it answer to '67.
Don't be obtuse, Israel didn't move their forces to the border first, they didn't make threats first, they didn't make demands.
The other nations shouldn't have moved their forces in such a threatening manor, then Israel wouldn't have been forced to defend herself.
When you walk up to someone swinging a bat in a threatening manor, don't be shocked when the other person punches you first, they can't afford to wait to be hit by the bat, they won't get a chance to fight back.
If the Turkish Kurds tried to leave Turkey would try to force them to stay
Then that is a flaw of Turkey. It would be disrespecting the Kurds human rights of self-determination.
In other words, "more of the same actions that brought Iran to the table in the first place" is a perfectly fine "other option", you're just too dense to see it.
Either way Iran is already agreeing to not pursue a bomb
I could agree to give you a million dollars. Doesn't mean it is going to happen.
Who started the '67 war is ambiguous, Israel fired the first shot and it's plausible the Arab states were only bluffing.
Nonsense, it is quite clear. Given the size of Israel and the lack of ability to defend in depth, they had to take the troops on their borders as a serious threat.
It was a defensive war for them, they clearly didn't set out to take over other nations.
The US army doesn't even have 500k active troops.
Reserves, national guard, etc. You also have the ready reserve and can spool up forces given a year's notice. We went in unprepared and you see the results of that.
The problem with that is the moment you give the Iraqi Kurds their own nation the Kurds in Turkey and Iran start wondering why they shouldn't get the same. Instead of a Sunni revolt in Iraq you might get a Kurdish revolt in Turkey and Iran.
And why shouldn't they?
This is a perfect example of the stupidity of even our own government. We revolted against England, the founding fathers were traitors and terrorists of their day. Had they lost, history would have written about them that way. They won, so it didn't.
Yet today, the US Government doesn't recognize that part of the US could vote to leave the union. We even had a civil war over it. So what the US Government is saying is that just because we did it to England doesn't mean we can do it to them.
Nonsense, pure and utter nonsense. If people want to leave as a group and vote, that is their right. Look at Scotland, if they want to leave Great Britain, that is their right, and amazingly, it appears that England would respect the choice.
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.
Sure thing, the out is simple. Dismantle the nuclear weapons program, stop supporting terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist.
Do those, all sanctions go away.
When you do something wrong, you're supposed to admit it, then say you're sorry, then promise you'll never do it again, then ask for forgiveness.
You're supposed to teach your children this stuff, shame that nations led by adults have such a hard time with it.
There is no shame in saying you're sorry when you're wrong. Iran might well find a lot of support in Europe if they came clean, the US wouldn't be in any position to push on Iran if they did. Nor would we have any need to.
What terms would you be able to convince the Iranians to agree to?
Far better than this... Give me control of the US military, Iran will either be much more humble and comply with the will of the world, or... they'll be much more humble and comply with the will of the world.
You seem to think they get a say...
Note: I'm referring to the current idiots in charge over there, not the average Iranian person. Most of whom I'm sure wouldn't hurt anyone and just want to live their lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Then that is really sad and it speaks poorly to the human race...
If 20 cents worth of power is of concern to you, then you have bigger problems in your life that you should be concerned about...
To repeat, what better options do we have?/quote>
Leave them in place and let them work over time.
Iran will get a nuclear weapon sooner or later, deal or no deal. Short of invasion, there is no way to prevent a nation of that size from building one.
What we can do is cut them off from the world and tell them they won't be welcome back into civilization until they give them up.
Whatever North Korea is doing wrong, they could get a lot of help and a lot of sanctions removed tomorrow if they gave up their small nuclear weapon stockpile.
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.
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.
Self important people sitting around a table have reached a deal, a lot has to happen between now and it actually going into effect... (Congress gets their say, Iran's government actually gets a say, then the UN has to pass it)
Then Iran has to stick to it...
Chances of all that happening? Really low... we shall see... but you may be sorry you are such a fan of Iran...
Yet they shot first and took over parts of other nations.
If your view of that war is so shallow as to being about "who shot first", then you really have no business discussing the subject.
It is far more complex than that.
I don't think there's a clear A started it or B started it answer to '67.
Don't be obtuse, Israel didn't move their forces to the border first, they didn't make threats first, they didn't make demands.
The other nations shouldn't have moved their forces in such a threatening manor, then Israel wouldn't have been forced to defend herself.
When you walk up to someone swinging a bat in a threatening manor, don't be shocked when the other person punches you first, they can't afford to wait to be hit by the bat, they won't get a chance to fight back.
If the Turkish Kurds tried to leave Turkey would try to force them to stay
Then that is a flaw of Turkey. It would be disrespecting the Kurds human rights of self-determination.
In other words, "more of the same actions that brought Iran to the table in the first place" is a perfectly fine "other option", you're just too dense to see it.
Either way Iran is already agreeing to not pursue a bomb
I could agree to give you a million dollars. Doesn't mean it is going to happen.
Who started the '67 war is ambiguous, Israel fired the first shot and it's plausible the Arab states were only bluffing.
Nonsense, it is quite clear. Given the size of Israel and the lack of ability to defend in depth, they had to take the troops on their borders as a serious threat.
It was a defensive war for them, they clearly didn't set out to take over other nations.
The US army doesn't even have 500k active troops.
Reserves, national guard, etc. You also have the ready reserve and can spool up forces given a year's notice. We went in unprepared and you see the results of that.
The problem with that is the moment you give the Iraqi Kurds their own nation the Kurds in Turkey and Iran start wondering why they shouldn't get the same. Instead of a Sunni revolt in Iraq you might get a Kurdish revolt in Turkey and Iran.
And why shouldn't they?
This is a perfect example of the stupidity of even our own government. We revolted against England, the founding fathers were traitors and terrorists of their day. Had they lost, history would have written about them that way. They won, so it didn't.
Yet today, the US Government doesn't recognize that part of the US could vote to leave the union. We even had a civil war over it. So what the US Government is saying is that just because we did it to England doesn't mean we can do it to them.
Nonsense, pure and utter nonsense. If people want to leave as a group and vote, that is their right. Look at Scotland, if they want to leave Great Britain, that is their right, and amazingly, it appears that England would respect the choice.
Nonsense, Israel is no threat to Iran.
Besides the fact that Israel has no border with Iran, Israel is far too small to be a real threat to anyone.
You say that as if the solution isn't clear. It is, but sadly so many people can't see it.
Someone has to go first to build trust. It can't be the US for various reasons, so Iran has to go first.
If they are so peaceful, they should follow the route of South Africa. Simply dismantle their nuclear program without conditions.
Then we can start to build trust. If the removal of the nuclear program is conditioned on so many things, then there can be no trust.
Israel could have peace tomorrow if they stopped treating Palestinians the way certain other people treated the Jews in the past.
That is a lie. It sounds good and people want to believe it, but is a lie,
The people leading the Palestinians don't want peace, they want to remove Israel and take all the land for themselves.
Yes, that government wasn't doing what the U.S. wanted them to do,
You'd think they would learn from history. Do what we want and you can have your little country.
Yea, that isn't very diplomatic and it probably doesn't sound very nice either, but when you peal the Orange, that is what you find inside.
Your failure to hear better options isn't due to the lack of such options, it is due to a failure of you to hear them.
Better options have been provided, you need only to listen.
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.
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.
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.
Except that Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm, and then we killed him.
Except, he didn't actually disarm. Had he done so, he would have been fine.
Just agreeing to do something isn't the same as actually doing it.
Gaddafi also agreed to disarm, and turned over the Lockerbie bomber. We killed him too.
No, we didn't, his own people did. Once he turned over the bombers, we largely left him alone.
Historically, there has not been much benefit to acceding to American demands.
Nonsense, have we bombed Japan and Germany recently? How about South Africa? Cuba?
We actually have no interest in bombing anyone, we simply want everyone to play nice.
Iran isn't playing nice.
Until you overplay your hand.
Perhaps... but the US has a rather large and well stocked hand to play the game with... Iran, not so much...
There is already no trust between the actors, this is why the agreement is a joke.
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.
It only works if you actually offer an out.
Sure thing, the out is simple. Dismantle the nuclear weapons program, stop supporting terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist.
Do those, all sanctions go away.
When you do something wrong, you're supposed to admit it, then say you're sorry, then promise you'll never do it again, then ask for forgiveness.
You're supposed to teach your children this stuff, shame that nations led by adults have such a hard time with it.
There is no shame in saying you're sorry when you're wrong. Iran might well find a lot of support in Europe if they came clean, the US wouldn't be in any position to push on Iran if they did. Nor would we have any need to.
What terms would you be able to convince the Iranians to agree to?
Far better than this... Give me control of the US military, Iran will either be much more humble and comply with the will of the world, or... they'll be much more humble and comply with the will of the world.
You seem to think they get a say...
Note: I'm referring to the current idiots in charge over there, not the average Iranian person. Most of whom I'm sure wouldn't hurt anyone and just want to live their lives.
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.
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.
Isolating Iran certainly hasn't worked up until now.
Says whom?
They wouldn't even be at the table talking about it if it weren't for that. Do more of it, it works the majority of the time.