Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Iran deal, good deal, or bad deal?
#1
Great! America gives Iran a pass at making bombs and the Ruskies give them the means to deliver. Its all going according to plan. Maybe I should check into selling bomb shelters. Smiley_emoticons_smile
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#2
I was going to post something about this in the New Cold War thread. The deal isn't even done but Russia decides to provide the Iranians with high tech, anti-aircraft weaponry? That way, if the whole deal falls apart and we (and/or Israel) decide to bomb the hell out of Iran instead, now they'll be able to shoot down our aircraft...

Thanks and fuckyouverymuch, Putin/Russia!

That and the recent close encounter between one of Russia's fighter jets and a US reconnaissance plane. Russia is running this train wreck.
Commando Cunt Queen
Reply
#3
Ruskies are just doing what the U.S. does. We don't hold the monopoly on shit stirring.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#4
(04-14-2015, 11:45 AM)username Wrote: I was going to post something about this in the New Cold War thread. The deal isn't even done but Russia decides to provide the Iranians with high tech, anti-aircraft weaponry? That way, if the whole deal falls apart and we (and/or Israel) decide to bomb the hell out of Iran instead, now they'll be able to shoot down our aircraft...

Thanks and fuckyouverymuch, Putin/Russia!

That and the recent close encounter between one of Russia's fighter jets and a US reconnaissance plane. Russia is running this train wreck.

Watch House of Cards by any chance? There is part of the storyline involving Russia which is probably just about spot on as to how they operate.

This in all woven together uncomfortably... Remember the Russian reset? Yeah, that will be coming back to bite candidate Clinton because it never happened. Even Bush was naive to initially trust Putin... but he at least corrected himself later in his presidency. Clinton during her tenure, and the overall Obama policy towards Russia can be viewed as nothing other than an utter failure. Putin has no fear of the US, or respect for our President.

So we have essentially capitulated our position to Iran (deal or no deal), so Russia is taking advantage of the opportunity. The sale of the missile system helps boost their flagging economy - and would make it much more difficult for any force to fly in and 'delay' the Iranian nuclear program. Probably the richest irony is Obama stabbed our allies in the back and pulled out missile defense commitments from eastern Europe to appease Russia... now Russia is putting missiles in Iran.

The administration seems to be on the wrong side on this one, evidenced by Congress likely having veto-proof majorities to block any deal Obama may try to make on Iran. It's really inexplicable... before negotiation they remove the only option that will stop their program in its tracks (military force), essentially promise removal of crippling economic sanctions, and agree to not remove the highly enriched product and equipment.

Seems a lot like Peace for Our Time to me.
Reply
#5
I don't watch House of Cards.

I'm curious...would you (any of you) advocate bombing the hell out of Iran to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon? I just don't see, short of war, how we can prevent a country intent on developing nuclear weapons from doing so. Witness: North Korea.

We can sanction until the cows come home but it hasn't slowed Iran down in their pursuit of developing a weapon or nuclear capabilities. The only real benefit of having an "agreement" with Iran is it might slow them down a bit and/or force them further in to hiding to the extent that IAEA inspections occur. I don't think sanctions are set to be loosened unless/until Iran demonstrates compliance with its end of the deal.

But, either congress or the Ayatollah could seemingly nuke the deal entirely so it may well BE an exercise in futility.

If Israel wants to take the lead in fighting a war in Iran, perhaps we could provide some support to our ally but I'm one of those Americans that is war weary. I'm not really interested in dropping bombs on Iran. That said, we could just continue our sanctions (I don't really care much about Iran's economy either) but we shouldn't kid ourselves that those are really hindering Iran's nuclear pursuits.
Commando Cunt Queen
Reply
#6
(04-14-2015, 01:08 PM)username Wrote: I don't watch House of Cards.

I'm curious...would you (any of you) advocate bombing the hell out of Iran to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon? I just don't see, short of war, how we can prevent a country intent on developing nuclear weapons from doing so. Witness: North Korea.

We can sanction until the cows come home but it hasn't slowed Iran down in their pursuit of developing a weapon or nuclear capabilities. The only real benefit of having an "agreement" with Iran is it might slow them down a bit and/or force them further in to hiding to the extent that IAEA inspections occur. I don't think sanctions are set to be loosened unless/until Iran demonstrates compliance with its end of the deal.

But, either congress or the Ayatollah could seemingly nuke the deal entirely so it may well BE an exercise in futility.

If Israel wants to take the lead in fighting a war in Iran, perhaps we could provide some support to our ally but I'm one of those Americans that is war weary. I'm not really interested in dropping bombs on Iran. That said, we could just continue our sanctions (I don't really care much about Iran's economy either) but we shouldn't kid ourselves that those are really hindering Iran's nuclear pursuits.

You should watch it, it's very well acted.

Funny you should bring up North Korea... because a similar framework 'deal' helped them (along with duplicity from China) to get their nukes. They agreed to a deal, then cheated, lied, and made a bomb anyway. They are also selling missiles and payload technology to Iran to help them along.

An airstrike stopped Iraq from developing their nukes way back, so I think military action can limit the ability of a country to continue. That said, I think we are way past that point with Iran. I don't think they will honor any agreement, and the one currently under negotiation is weak anyway. Unfortunately it's only a matter of time now no matter what happens.

And that is a very bad thing for Israel, Saudia Arabia, and everyone else in the neighborhood. I'm one who takes consistent rhetoric at face value - and Iran has not wavered for decades on who it hates and what it wants to do to those it hates.

When they get their weapons, they will deploy - or attempt to deploy - them against their 'enemies'.
Reply
#7
The sanctions have worked, why would they be so adamant about rescinding them if they were not? Years ago Irans centrifuges were targeted by Israel with United states backing. Everyone knows Israel has nuclear devices but they have not used them no matter how much they were bombed. Iran on the other hand would use them in a heartbeat their record proves it. A divisive strike to their centrifuges would slow them as it did before but if they gain access to anti missile rockets as sophisticated as the Russian ones they WILL be unstoppable. I do not see how they can prove their worth with the rhetoric that they spew. How can anyone expect them to do anything but what they expressly state when not recognizing Israel or any other country that they deem unacceptable?
Sanctions do work.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#8
Sanctions are totally screwing with their economy, no doubt. But they have and will continue their nuke program (although bombing the hell out of them in addition to the sanctions could slow them down). And cause even more US hatred in the region.
However, IF a deal is reached, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they pulled a N. Korea. No good answer as far as I can see.

Still, fuck Russia.

ETA: I gather a large part of the Iranian population apparently supports a deal and would definitely like to see sanctions lifted to improve their own miserable lives. If this all falls apart, the Iranian leadership can tell their people "hey, we tried...death to Americans"!
Commando Cunt Queen
Reply
#9
Iran wants Iraq badly and I think the current U.S. administration has no problem with that as long as its done piecemeal. A trade that I'm sure was talked about. Iraq has no say in the matter their soldiers run away. Iran currently runs military operations there now anyways.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#10
(04-14-2015, 04:24 PM)Maggot Wrote: Iran wants Iraq badly and I think the current U.S. administration has no problem with that as long as its done piecemeal. A trade that I'm sure was talked about. Iraq has no say in the matter their soldiers run away. Iran currently runs military operations there now anyways.

Seemingly. The whole region is a hot mess. Starting with toppling Saddam, I can't see any benefit resulting from all of our varying interventions over there (and in fact, things have gotten worse in many ways). Yayyyy, we helped create ISIL!!!

While on the one hand, I want to see ISIL wiped off the map, on the other hand I just want the U.S. to stay out of this mess and let them bomb each other to death. However, while I'm not sure we need to continue to intervene, as a nation, we bear some responsibility for a lot of the instability over there now. I don't think the history books are going to look kindly on U.S. foreign policy in that region for the last 15 years. Not at all.
Commando Cunt Queen
Reply
#11
I think the nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Iran is a very good thing. The P5+1 negotiated a better deal than I'd expected.


Remember Netanyahu's cartoon bomb that he presented to the UN a couple of years back; the one he used to try to convince the world yet again that Iran was only 10% or one year away from nuclear bombing capabilities?
[Image: netanyahu_un_bomb_cartoon_2012_09_28.jpeg]



Well, looks like the White House is trolling Netanyahu a bit in response to his unconventional attempts to thwart the US from negotiating with Iran and other top world leaders. This is posted on the White House website.
[Image: CCF18IHW4AIqCC7.jpg]
Reply
#12
(04-18-2015, 10:39 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I think the nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Iran is a very good thing.


That's how I viewed it too but because of all the bad reactions I was seeing from so many different people I thought I must have missed something or completely failed to comprehend what I had read about it.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#13
They may have been 'trolling' Netanyahu, but he was right and they knew it.

But instead of supporting our ally and negotiating from a position of strength, the administration outright lied in order to pursue their own agenda and alienated our staunchest ally in the region.

As an added bonus from the negotiated deal, Iran now gets a missile defense system that makes it more difficult for any country - including the US - to deal with them if and when they go rogue.

That part of the world is just as dangerous, however Iran basically gets sanctions lifted AND has increased their defensive capabilities. What does the rest of the world get? Zilch. They keep their equipment, and can reverse any neutralization of material in a matter of weeks.

Yeah, that's great diplomacy. Thanks Obama.
Reply
#14
Recently on my facebook page, there was a story by one of the major news networks about the theory that George W. Bush, in effect, created ISIS.
I knew I would ruffle a lot feathers, so I just added a short comment saying that President Bush did a great job creating a terrorist group known as IS.
Well, all the Repubturds came on and blasted me...O.K. it was expected so I will go wash my mouth out with soap for the insult to all of you conservatives. So sorry~ however, this theory works for me....Of course, I don't believe in genocide, but at least the terrorism was confined to specific areas and they were killing each other. Ironically, now a lot of these people just lost their lives on a migrant ship which capsized. They were just trying to get away from all of the ongoing violence and killing in their respective countries and they will continue to kill each other for all eternity. The US and Europe is going to be so crowded with all of the refugees (?) who try to escape the atrocities happening in their countries. Now, with terrorists planting cells throughout our planet, don't think there is a "safe" place to go, but there are certainly safer places than Mid-East and Northern and Eastern Africa....
Traditionally, the US has always supported Israel, and Iran is never to be trusted, but again, it is the old saying that applies, keep your friends close, and your enemies closer....Israel has done some things in recent months that makes me question true intentions about ending the fighting, plus bombing of schools, etc....bothered me quite a bit...
Reply
#15
(04-21-2015, 08:39 PM)Jimbone Wrote: They may have been 'trolling' Netanyahu, but he was right and they knew it.

What? The White House knew that Netanyahu was right? Smiley_emoticons_skeptisch

I don't know who you talk to in the White House Jimbone, but I believe that the White House and Netanyahu really do have a profound and sincere disagreement in regards to the Iran negotiations.

-We know that Netanyahu was not right about Iran being only 3 to 5 years away from being a nuclear state when he made that claim in 1992.

-We know that Netanyahu was not right in his 1995 book, “Fighting Terrorism,” when he again said that Iran was on 3 to 5 years away from being a nuclear state.

-We know that he was wrong again when he told Congress in 2002 that Iraq’s nonexistent nuclear program was in fact so advanced that the country was now operating “centrifuges the size of washing machines.”

-We know that it was misleading in 2012 when he told the United Nations that Iran was right on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon (a claim that was contradicted by Israeli intelligence which concluded that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons”).

Obviously, IMO, the White House knows at least as much as "we" (the literate general public) know when it comes to the nuclear capabilities of Iran, and the accuracy of Netanyahu's claims and predictions.

Still, the US is Israel's staunchest ally. We protect them in a region where they are surrounded by their enemies. We hand them 3.5 billion USD per year for defense. We contribute to their Iron Dome and national security. We don't insist that they make their nuclear arsenal available to international inspections like we do for other countries, etc...

Are they our allies? Yes, I do believe so. I don't think we should turn our backs on Israel, and I do think we should look to re-strengthen our diplomatic relationship with Israel.

But, the US's relationship with Israel should not be made or broken on the condition that we believe everything that Netanyahu himself claims. And, Benjamin Netanyahu shouldn't be dictating US or European foreign policy. I'm glad the P5+1 leaders are stronger than to let him do so.

IMO, the Iran deal is good for everyone, including the people of Israel. I understand why it's opposed by Netanyahu and some US Republicans -- differences of mindsets, opinions, and motivations. Understood.

But, to insist that "they knew he was right" -- in reference to the White House's (and the five other global leaders') view of Netanyahu's stance on negotiating with Iran -- makes no sense to me at all.

So, why do you think that the leaders of the US, Russia, China, France, Germany and the UK negotiated a deal which conflicts absolutely with Netanyahu's stance if "they knew he was right"?
Reply
#16
(04-21-2015, 08:39 PM)Jimbone Wrote: the administration outright lied in order to pursue their own agenda


What did they outright lie about in order to pursue what agenda?
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#17
Iran sponsors terrorism, Israel does not the United States will be signing a pact with blood and this reminds me of the Carter days when he was dreaming that the world was filled with lollipops and rainbows. It didn't work. Iran has promised to destroy America and Israel in fact they still do. How can anyone ignore that? No matter how its worded or how its portrayed in the press the meat of the matter is still Iran will succeed in building a bomb. People say that Christians in the U.S. are fanatical, it pales in comparison to the dictates of the Mullahs in Iran and that cannot be denied.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#18


Israel terrorizes people the same way the United States does. The only reason they haven't invaded another country like the US has is because they haven't got the kind of power we do.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#19
The problem I have with the negotiations and how they came to be so one sided with the Iranians. At the beginning we had a list of actions that was needed in order for the sanctions to be removed. Inspections, guarantees on nuclear proliferation and centrifuge outputs. None of that came to be, the Iranians made demands and the U.S. spine broke. Now I hear there is a 50 billion "sign on" bonus they have been offered. Tell me is there any reasoning in the negotiators minds or are they all going in on this thing with the mindset of caving to their demands. I do not see one thing that the U.S. received from the meetings, all I see is coddling by politicians.
America has become a nation of pansies with false dreams of hope as other nations laugh and make demands that our constitution uphold.
Tell me where in the constitution does it say that foreign nationals deserve the warm and fuzzy blanket of the constitution that supposedly protects Americans but today seems to have become a burden to the powers that be in their search for historical immortality.


hah.............That was a mouthful!
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#20
(04-21-2015, 10:07 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: So, why do you think that the leaders of the US, Russia, China, France, Germany and the UK negotiated a deal which conflicts absolutely with Netanyahu's stance if "they knew he was right"?

My guess would be since there is no way to stop Iran now, the 5+1 figure they should at least make some money via the deal. Once the sanctions lift, everyone stands to benefit financially from being able to sell goods into the Iranian market again. The optimist in me wants to believe they want to lift sanctions to make it easier to get in and disrupt their program a la some sort of program like Stuxnet again... but I'm not betting the house on that.

Meanwhile, Iran has been backing Hezbollah and providing them with money, means, and weapons they have consistently used to attack Israel. So I think Israel is correct to continue to raise the alarm bell on the Iranian nuclear program.

(04-21-2015, 10:07 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: But, to insist that "they knew he was right" -- in reference to the White House's (and the five other global leaders') view of Netanyahu's stance on negotiating with Iran -- makes no sense to me at all.

While I don't speak to anyone at the White House anymore, I do pay attention to administration officials when they change their story. Or when they come out and flat admit they were lying. So I'm not insisting on something, I'm merely going by what Energy Secretary Moniz told us. And I'll agree, it doesn't make any sense to me why they would lie or endeavor to contradict our ally either.

Emphasis mine on the salient issue that the US and Israel shared similar - if not the same - estimates on weapons grade material production.

"Speaking to reporters and editors at our Washington bureau on Monday, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged that the U.S. has assessed for several years that Iran has been two to three months away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. When asked how long the administration has held this assessment, Moniz said: "Oh quite some time." He added: "They are now, they are right now spinning, I mean enriching with 9,400 centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000. Plus all the . . . . R&D work. If you put that together it's very, very little time to go forward. That's the 2-3 months.

Here is the puzzling thing: When Obama began his second term in 2013, he sang a different tune. He emphasized that Iran was more than a year away from a nuclear bomb, without mentioning that his intelligence community believed it was only two to three months away from making enough fuel for one, long considered the most challenging task in building a weapon. Today Obama emphasizes that Iran is only two to three months away from acquiring enough fuel for a bomb, creating a sense of urgency for his Iran agreement. "


http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/20...e-a-secret
Reply