Other than Tester and Manchin, all of the others mentioned have strong Jewish constituencies if I'm not mistaken.
The Iran Deal
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
Other than Tester and Manchin, all of the others mentioned have strong Jewish constituencies if I'm not mistaken.
Runnin
Well-known member
All I'm hearing is sour grapes and still not a line of information on the actual deal. So you would rather go to war?
To thethe, perhaps the Iranian people are happy because they are also afraid of their "radical" leaders. I put radical in quotes because I don't see what Iran has done recently that is so radical.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Gotta watch those evil Joos.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Those executions are probably, per capita, not too far from those performed by our "friends" in the Sunni states which you apparently want us to now clasp closer to our bosoms.
As for whether the choices are this deal or war, I dunno. But that is pretty much the narrative that the opponents of negotiation have pushed for years. If we're to take at face value how close Bibi Netanyahu has been to pushing the button on strikes against the Iranian nuclear program, then, yeah, probably so. I guess you disagree?
I've only called the leadership radical. I've mentioned nothing of the Iranian people so I'm really not sure where that comment is coming from.
I'm still amazed how people could even think the Iranian government is not radical.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
What you said that I would take issue with is that they are not logical or rational. Radical? Sure. Irrational? Why do you say that? What's the shelf life of a regime in the region without the support of a major power? A couple of decades, at most? It's been 35 years since the revolution. Would an irrational actor—watching the fate of Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad—still be in power? Like it or not, building a nuclear program is arguably a rational action. Using it is a different story.
Well I have respect for the radicals in their ability to control and plan. I guess one can look at logic as a purely subjective concept. To me they do not think logically because they value different things than I do.
I've laid it out pretty clearly; I wasn't at all opposed to an agreement -- but not this one.
This pact shafts our Middle Eastern allies (not just the Israelis, but the Saudis, Turks, Jordanians, other less key states), it allows (by virtue of the lifting of a ban AND the providing of financial means) Iran to conventionally rearm in ways which the Pentagon explicitly and publicly announced they were against just last week, and it doesn't outline harsh penalties if Iran were to violate the terms.
It's not aggressive, it's not impactful: Iran can still operate their centrifuges, development new nuclear technology, store their old equipment. Do you realize how quickly they could build a bomb with said mechanisms still entirely in place?
You have propped up this flimsy argument of diplomacy v. war. Well, we've gone the diplomatic route now, played our hand -- what happens if Iran doesn't hold up their end of the bargain? Do you really think we can just magically reapply sanctions? I mean, good luck getting the Russians back to that table given the contemporary geopolitical climate. If Iran doesn't toe the line we've just put ourselves in an incredibly perilous position where military engagement suddenly becomes a very distinct possibility simply because there are precious few alternatives.
The bottom line is this: The sanctions were working, we had Iran bent over a barrel, but made massive concessions and expedited the negotiations for some bizarre reason which is almost undoutedly political.
I don't see how anyone in their right mind, considerative of all of the facts and figures, chalks this up as a win.
The only defenses I've seen in this thread are a) Iranians are progressive because a few key figures in their government were educated in Western schools b) Since we have a McDonalds and Iran wants to build a McDonalds we won't bomb each other c) well atleast it wasn't war (which was never going to happen to begin with).
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
To provide evidence that a Shia regime in Iran is radical (per Western morality standards) is not to say that a Sunni regime in Saudi Arabia (or elsewhere) isn't, nor is it to say that I support such regimes on either side of the Islamic divide.
That this is the only deal short of full-on war? Yeah I disagree.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Why should we be doing horrible things and oppressing the Iranians? That's the part I don't get. DOesn't that potentially keep the tyrants in charge? Afterall they can point to America as an enemy.
Runnin
Well-known member
As mentioned, from the GOP/Israel side there was only one option being promoted.
If the deal is window dressing and can be abandoned at any time, isn't promoting more economic activity and cooperation in the region a good incentive for them to keep the peace?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Well, it's awfully hard to prove either way, right? Could the parties have gotten a better deal? We don't know. Would a tough-talking Republican president have gotten more, starting with Iran two years closer to the finish line? I doubt it. What's your alternative?
Your saying "full-on war" implies that there is an efficacious military option short of that.
Obama didn't want to ask too much at the risk of offending the good leaders of Iran.
Do we know that wasn't discussed or on the table? I mean they've negotiated for 24 months. It's also possible they could be released once the deal goes into effect.
I can also imagine the horror story news headlines on the right of OBama putting our national security at risk by letting Iran grow their nuclear program so he could say he rescued the prisoners.
I love how people get mad at Snowden and Wiki leaks for uncovering what our leaders say behind closed doors, and at the same time we naturally assume Obama just ignored the prisoners the entire 24 months of the negotiations.
Obama could had forced Irans hand and walked away if the prisoners weren't handed over.
Why the hell would the prisoners be exchanged once the deal goes into effect? What leverage is there to make sure that happens now?
I'm not sure I'm following the correlation here.
I certainly hope that Obama didn't ignore the prisoners in these negotiations and 100% think they were discussed. But, the bottom line is it wasn't part of the deal agreed to or else it would have been announced by now.
