04-22-2015, 10:17 AM
(04-22-2015, 08:26 AM)Maggot Wrote: 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.
.............That was a mouthful!
Have you read the published terms, Maggot? I have. I'd be interested in you pointing out specifically what conditions we caved in on because, as far as I can see, what you say didn't come to be did, in fact, come to be.
I think you imagine rainbows and lollipops everywhere you look, when in fact, it's just change you're seeing.
You were opposed to the US negotiating with Iran at all, before any terms or agreements were ever even made known. It seems to me like your opposition towards diplomacy and policy changes with Iran stems from your view of Iran as an eternal evil nemesis with whom we should always maintain the same adversarial position, and Israel as a white-hatted good guy to whom we should always offer unquestioned support and acquiesce, and Obama as some traitor whose every action in office should be regarded as a failure no matter what.
I think it's much more complex and deeper than that, and we as a country should never be stuck in the past and unwilling to view countries and their leaders objectively. We need to consider country-specific and regional foreign policy in today's terms -- we, America, don't control the world and it's not pansy-like to acknowledge that fact realistically and embrace positive change in terms of foreign relations.
We gained from this deal with Iran. We now have influence over Iran's WMD capabilities, we have reliable inspection/monitoring capabilities, and we have ensured at least a year's advance notice before Iran would be capable of launching a bomb. We would have none of that without the deal. We would continue to have only have Netanyahu feeding us bad intel about Iran's nuclear proliferation.
In 10 years, we'll know where Iran stands in terms of its nuclear capacity and we'd be in the dark about that without the deal. We've lifted sanctions in exchange for the deal, appropriately so IMO.
I don't think there was any deal that could have been reached that you would have been able to view as a good one.
We're not married to Iran and skipping hand-in-hand with the Ayotollahs through a bed of poppies as a result of this deal -- not by a long shot. But, we gained more security, they gained an improved economic forecast, and we each gained the ability to benefit from improved relations.
That doesn't mean we're always gonna be on the same page or supporting and trusting of Iran on every front. That's true even today: the US is not happy with Iran's backing of Shiite Houthis in Yemen when we support the Sunni government and its willingness to let us drone al-Qaeda there. However, we are very happy with Iran supporting Iraq's Shiite government in its fight against the Sunni Islamic State.
I don't see anybody being spineless here, just some people having a problem pulling their dug-in-heels out of the ground and taking a step in a different direction.