• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Partial deal reached with Iran

Wakeforest22890 said:
Even worse, Saint Chappelle is in France. That damn socialist Hollande
Click to expand...

Aren't you studying for the bar, Mon Ami?

Be sure to shower when you get back to "Merica to make sure that you get all of the puss off of you.
 
Yeah studying for the bar. Got ahead in studying by a few days and was over in France for five days. Good break though for sure. We'll see if it comes back to haunt me.
 
Pretty unlikely that the treaty gets blocked, so I'm curious how the GOP campaigns on this in 2016. They can blame Obama, Kerry, HRC and Dems all they want, but U.S. sanctions alone won't cripple Iran. Still have to get the UK, Germany, Russia, China, and France back on board to pull out of the deal. GOP opposes everything Obama in a knee jerk manner, but in the end you have to come up with workable solutions and alternatives.
 
sailordeac said:
There is not much we can do with Iran at this point except make the best deal we can negotiate. We have little other choice. If Netanyahu doesn't like it, that's his problem. Let us remind ourselves once again: Iran got/will get the bomb for the same reason that everybody else got the bomb: for defense. No one in their right mind actually wants to use atomic bombs. So, if you are not going to attack Iran, and why would you, then there is very little chance of Iran using nuclear weapons.

If there is a subject on which clear thinking is important, then nuclear weapons are it.
Click to expand...

"Take the best deal we can get"? The United States should not be negotiating from a position of weakness.

Iran is not a rational actor acting for defense. It is a theocracy and is the biggest state sponsor of terror. They act for ideological reasons, and their willingness to take economic sanctions and isolate themselves on the world stage shows that. They publicly state that they want to wipe Israel off the map. (A war that the US would be forced to get involved in, FYI.) Iran getting the bomb should not even be a discussion.
 
UNCG Deac said:
"Take the best deal we can get"? The United States should not be negotiating from a position of weakness.

Iran is not a rational actor acting for defense. It is a theocracy and is the biggest state sponsor of terror. They act for ideological reasons, and their willingness to take economic sanctions and isolate themselves on the world stage shows that. They publicly state that they want to wipe Israel off the map. (A war that the US would be forced to get involved in, FYI.) Iran getting the bomb should not even be a discussion.
Click to expand...

Not according to our correspondent Sailordeac. Just a bunch of agrarians looking for a fair shake is all. The nuanced observer knows which repeated threats of mass extermination to take seriously and which ones you just let slide. Nothing to see here. I'm sure the gay community in Tehran just has a hard time staying on top of roofs. Trustworthy fellows, these Mullahs. What could go wrong?
 
Last edited:
sailordeac said:
I am not sure what you mean by this question.

I do not think that the Iranian government would turn nuclear weapons over to any one. Besides, they don't have any to turn over. Please note, no government has ever turned any of its nuclear weapons over to anyone, be they government or private group. I don't know on what basis anyone would assume that they would.

What do you mean by "fundamental Islamic terrorists"?
Click to expand...
Ukraine gave up thousands of nuclear weapons back in the mid 90s
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
i have no idea what's going to happen but I'm pretty sure that what won't happen is that this deal enables Iran to secure a nuclear bomb.

Not much to lose in making doomsday predictions if you're the GOP though I guess since it will be years before anyone finds out if the sanctions work and you can fire up the fan base against those liberals who are trying diplomacy instead of the neocon "let's start another costly war" method without actually having to face whether you are right or not.

Saw a pretty funny article talking about how people blaming Obama for this domestically have conveniently omitted the fact that this deal was also pushed along by most European powers and wasn't just our boy Obummer forging ahead all by his lonesome.
Click to expand...


So true...so unfortunately true.
 
UNCG Deac said:
"Take the best deal we can get"? The United States should not be negotiating from a position of weakness.

Iran is not a rational actor acting for defense. It is a theocracy and is the biggest state sponsor of terror. They act for ideological reasons, and their willingness to take economic sanctions and isolate themselves on the world stage shows that. They publicly state that they want to wipe Israel off the map. (A war that the US would be forced to get involved in, FYI.) Iran getting the bomb should not even be a discussion.
Click to expand...

What does this even mean? Reality is reality. How do you suggest that the US could change its relative position?
 
I just take Ahmadinejad's comments about Israel as saber rattling but I can see how reasonable minds could differ there. I thought ISIS has predominantly been throwing gays off roofs in Syria.

Has ISIS infiltrated Iran en masse? I didn't think ISIS had
a foothold in Iran but I may not be remembering correctly.
 
UNCG Deac said:
"Take the best deal we can get"? The United States should not be negotiating from a position of weakness.

Iran is not a rational actor acting for defense. It is a theocracy and is the biggest state sponsor of terror. They act for ideological reasons, and their willingness to take economic sanctions and isolate themselves on the world stage shows that. They publicly state that they want to wipe Israel off the map. (A war that the US would be forced to get involved in, FYI.) Iran getting the bomb should not even be a discussion.
Click to expand...


What choice does the US have? Negotiate a deal or invade? Surely you are not crazy enough to want to invade Iran. Do you have any idea of what that would mean and how counterproductive that would be? The rest of the world - save Netanyahu - is on board with the deal. What is the US going to do? Embargo Iraq alone? If you want to call that a position of weakness, then call it what you want. The reality of the US situation is the following: if Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons, we cannot ultimately stop them. They have the money, and they have the know how.

Anyone trying to wipe Israel off the map will be wiped off the map themselves. Don't confuse empty bluster for domestic consumption with actual foreign policy. Nikita Khrushchev threatened to bury the US (not Israel), and, unlike Iran, he had the means to do it. Yet, we traded with the Soviet Union. Please note: Israel sold arms to the ayatollahs when Iraq invaded Iran. Reality check: Iran has no means, interest or reason either to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, or to invade it.

I have not the vaguest idea how you can claim that the government of Iran is not rational in its foreign policy. As for supporting terrorist groups, lots of countries have done that, even the US. None of them has given any of these groups or anybody else nuclear weapons. Paranoid delusions are hardly a substitute for rational analysis in foreign policy.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Not according to our correspondent Sailordeac. Just a bunch of agrarians looking for a fair shake is all. The nuanced observer knows which repeated threats of mass extermination to take seriously and which ones you just let slide. Nothing to see here. I'm sure the gay community in Tehran just has a hard time staying on top of roofs. Trustworthy fellows, these Mullahs. What could go wrong?
Click to expand...

I see you have not run out of straw to build strawmen and then throw bullshit at them. You must have a big spread there fella. ;)
 
Last edited:
sailordeac said:
I am not sure what you mean by this question.

I do not think that the Iranian government would turn nuclear weapons over to any one. Besides, they don't have any to turn over. Please note, no government has ever turned any of its nuclear weapons over to anyone, be they government or private group. I don't know on what basis anyone would assume that they would.

What do you mean by "fundamental Islamic terrorists"?
Click to expand...

While nobody has ever turned a complete device to another nation, state to state proliferation has definitely happened.

The US heavily assisted the UK and France nuclear weapons programs, France established the Israeli program, Israel shared expertise and material with South Africa's rogue program (and very likely tested a device together) and China shared material and expertise with Pakistan which then turned around and gave that (through the A Q Khan network) to DPRK, Libya and Iran.

In short, proliferation is a very real threat and has a long history (and the biggest offenders are weapon states who kind of see themselves above the rules until it comes back to bite them in ass. If the US and France could undo Israel's program for example, they would do it so fast your head would spin. That was a catastrophic proliferation error.
 
vadimivich said:
While nobody has ever turned a complete device to another nation, state to state proliferation has definitely happened.

The US heavily assisted the UK and France nuclear weapons programs, France established the Israeli program, Israel shared expertise and material with South Africa's rogue program (and very likely tested a device together) and China shared material and expertise with Pakistan which then turned around and gave that (through the A Q Khan network) to DPRK, Libya and Iran.

In short, proliferation is a very real threat and has a long history (and the biggest offenders are weapon states who kind of see themselves above the rules until it comes back to bite them in ass. If the US and France could undo Israel's program for example, they would do it so fast your head would spin. That was a catastrophic proliferation error.
Click to expand...

Is there a long-term multinational de-proliferation effort?
 
Vad, you are describing cooperation between states, not out right gifts of nuclear weapons; and gifts, or purchases, not cooperation is what terrorist groups need. Having said that, proliferation is a problem, always has been, and will remain with us for a while. If a country is truly determined to acquire nuclear weapons and they have the money to do it, then ultimately, short of invasion, they probably cannot be stopped. Unfortunate but true.
 
TownieDeac said:
Is there a long-term multinational de-proliferation effort?
Click to expand...

Yes. The heart of it is the NPT, which is primarily monitored by the IAEA. Every nation on earth with the exception of India, Pakistan, Israel and South Sudan are signatories.

It was violations of this treaty which triggered the sanctions against Iran to begin with.

The only signatory of the NOT to ever build a weapon after signing was DPRK (who "withdrew" from the treaty).

South Africa had a weapons program, but they gave it up to join the NPT shortly before the end of apartheid (long believed the motivation was they did not want there to be a "black bomb" - God only knows what they think of Obama having the US Arsenal at his fingertips.)
 
sailordeac said:
What choice does the US have? Negotiate a deal or invade? Surely you are not crazy enough to want to invade Iran. Do you have any idea of what that would mean and how counterproductive that would be? The rest of the world - save Netanyahu - is on board with the deal. What is the US going to do? Embargo Iraq alone? If you want to call that a position of weakness, then call it what you want. The reality of the US situation is the following: if Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons, we cannot ultimately stop them. They have the money, and they have the know how.

Anyone trying to wipe Israel off the map will be wiped off the map themselves. Don't confuse empty bluster for domestic consumption with actual foreign policy. Nikita Khrushchev threatened to bury the US (not Israel), and, unlike Iran, he had the means to do it. Yet, we traded with the Soviet Union. Please note: Israel sold arms to the ayatollahs when Iraq invaded Iran. Reality check: Iran has no means, interest or reason either to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, or to invade it.

I have not the vaguest idea how you can claim that the government of Iran is not rational in its foreign policy. As for supporting terrorist groups, lots of countries have done that, even the US. None of them has given any of these groups or anybody else nuclear weapons. Paranoid delusions are hardly a substitute for rational analysis in foreign policy.
Click to expand...

You are too far down the rabbit hole to help if you think that Iran should get nuclear weapons. I hope the Democrats run with your message in 2016.
 
Yeah I mean heaven forbid Democrats not abandon rational thought simply because Americans are stupid and can be fear-mongered into anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top