This deal sounds like a lose..lose for the world...and a win..win for Iran.
I don't get why our state department thinks this is good for America?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/us/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-senate.html?_r=0 -----------
WASHINGTON — Senate leaders have set a showdown vote for Thursday around 3:45 p.m. that could definitively end Republican efforts to derail President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, with the fate of the bill hanging by a handful of Democratic votes.
With a largely partisan divide over the accord — which is uniformly opposed by Republicans and also by a handful of Democrats — it was unclear whether the measure allowing the Senate to move forward on formally disapproving it had the required 60 votes.
“Let’s be clear about who is moving to end debate,” said Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the minority leader, on the Senate floor Thursday morning. “The Republican leader.”
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
Forty-two Democrats have come out in favor of the agreement, but a few of them could peel away and vote Thursday afternoon to end debate on the Republican resolution of disapproval, arguing that the measure deserves a final up-or-down vote. The president can afford only one defection from the ranks of his supporters to ensure the bill is filibustered.
If two Democratic supporters of the deal join the four declared Democrats who oppose it, the resolution would almost certainly pass the Senate. The House would then have to decide whether to take it up and force a presidential veto. Mr. Obama appears to have an ample cushion in the Senate to sustain his veto.
On Wednesday, House Republicans threw another wrench into the vote by claiming that the White House had not disclosed secret side agreements on the deal, and by arguing that Congress did not actually have its agreed-upon review period. . They also declined to vote on a message to disapprove in that chamber, even though it would have easily passed.
House leaders decided that they would instead hold a vote to approve the Iran agreement to try and force Democrats to assert their support for the accord, which has divided many lawmakers who represent districts with sizable Jewish populations from their colleagues who support Mr. Obama.
With a procedural measure failing in the Senate, Mr. Obama will be free to move forward with the agreement, although Congressional Republicans will probably seek new paths to undermine it.
-------
I think it's the best deal we're going to get, that it's not a bad deal, and that nearly anything I can do would be more productive than convincing anyone here of that. Clearly OP knows what he's going to think. If anyone else wants to tilt at that windmill, feel free, but I simply wanted to mention that it's not universally disapproved.
Ouze wrote: I think it's the best deal we're going to get, that it's not a bad deal, and that nearly anything I can do would be more productive than convincing anyone here of that. Clearly OP knows what he's going to think. If anyone else wants to tilt at that windmill, feel free, but I simply wanted to mention that it's not universally disapproved.
I guess I don't get what is actually good about the deal.. I listened to Hilarys explanation, and what I got from it was that, they don't want all that work they put into the negotiations to go for nothing.
I'm reminded of Chamberlain "Peace in our time" speech.
Ouze wrote: I think it's the best deal we're going to get, that it's not a bad deal, and that nearly anything I can do would be more productive than convincing anyone here of that. Clearly OP knows what he's going to think. If anyone else wants to tilt at that windmill, feel free, but I simply wanted to mention that it's not universally disapproved.
Ditto. It's not great, it's what we can expect to get, and throwing it away gaks on our allies that negotiated with us more than it would gak on Iran.
Squidmanlolz wrote: I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.
wow....
When was the last time Israel kidnapped and held US hostages? I suggest you read up on the history of Iran since their Islamic revolution, and their history of supporting terrorists. It might change your opinion.
GG
We got shafted and this reeks of all sorts legacy-building.
Status quo would've been better imo.
Because when high Iranian officials makes it a states policy that the US is the Devil and promises that Israel will cease to exists in 25 years... well then... them.
Squidmanlolz wrote: I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.
wow....
When was the last time Israel kidnapped and held US hostages? I suggest you read up on the history of Iran since their Islamic revolution, and their history of supporting terrorists. It might change your opinion.
GG
You mean the US supported revolution in 1979, right?
Israel is a far worse evil, just look at the apartheid they're enacting. Israel is guilty of taking more innocent lives than Iran, period.
Ouze wrote: I think it's the best deal we're going to get, that it's not a bad deal, and that nearly anything I can do would be more productive than convincing anyone here of that. Clearly OP knows what he's going to think. If anyone else wants to tilt at that windmill, feel free, but I simply wanted to mention that it's not universally disapproved.
This.
I simply cannot fathom the line of thought that we shouldn't accept it because its a gakky deal, when the alternative is no deal at all. Is that illogical to anyone else, or just me? I mean what the people opposed to this deal are *literally* saying is "We think this deal isn't going to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms, so our solution is to invalidate the treaty and continue to do nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms."
Ouze wrote: I think it's the best deal we're going to get, that it's not a bad deal, and that nearly anything I can do would be more productive than convincing anyone here of that. Clearly OP knows what he's going to think. If anyone else wants to tilt at that windmill, feel free, but I simply wanted to mention that it's not universally disapproved.
This.
I simply cannot fathom the line of thought that we shouldn't accept it because its a gakky deal, when the alternative is no deal at all. Is that illogical to anyone else, or just me? I mean what the people opposed to this deal are *literally* saying is "We think this deal isn't going to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms, so our solution is to invalidate the treaty and continue to do nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms."
Ouze wrote: I think it's the best deal we're going to get, that it's not a bad deal, and that nearly anything I can do would be more productive than convincing anyone here of that. Clearly OP knows what he's going to think. If anyone else wants to tilt at that windmill, feel free, but I simply wanted to mention that it's not universally disapproved.
This.
I simply cannot fathom the line of thought that we shouldn't accept it because its a gakky deal, when the alternative is no deal at all. Is that illogical to anyone else, or just me? I mean what the people opposed to this deal are *literally* saying is "We think this deal isn't going to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms, so our solution is to invalidate the treaty and continue to do nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms."
Why do we need this deal.
Explain this.
If Iran wants to get nukes they have the ability to get them and while we can do things to slow down the process we really can't stop them. Not short of a massive military effort that would likely end up being counter productive in the end anyway. If we accept the fact that Iran becoming a nuclear power is inevitable then the best way to handle them is to try to normalize relations with them as much as possible. If we can increase the amount of communication we have with Iran, if we can help increase the transfer of ideas and information, have a greater social and cultural impact on the people of Iran we increase the chances for some kind of meaningful reform away from a hard line theocracy. If we can help push reforms that lead to moderation there's less of a threat of Iran using nukes for religious/idealogical reasons. Nuclear armed countries have thankfully been reasonable enough not to launch nuclear missiles at people for stupid reasons. The more we can do to normalize relations with Iran the less chance there is of Iran being the country to break that pattern. If trying to prevent Iran from ever getting nukes is an exercise in futility than continuing to do it is clearly counter productive. All it does is make it easier for hard line theocrats to stay in power, churn out more anti West propaganda and have them continue to paint us as the big bad boogeyman that's oppressing them.
It's similar to normalizing relations with Cuba. It doesn't mean that we believe communism and dictatorships are good or condone them, it just shows that we understand that communicating with Cuba, interacting with them on a normal basis will do more to enact positive changes than blockading them and justifying it by portraying them as a much greater threat than they actually are. We're much better off with Cuba as a sugar exporting vacation destination then as a bastion of idealogical communists under a dictatorship that is isolated and producing political refugees for us to take in. The goal isn't to show the world how strongly we disapprove of Castro, the goal is to make Cuba a better nicer neighbor.
Because we as a nation are part of a international community and should show solidarity to our allies?
Maybe as a sorry for the whole removing your democratically elected leader (who was killed) and installing a dictator and allowing him to do what he did because he was like totes bros with Nixon.
If we could just stop giving them a reason to think of us as the great stan I'd be happy.
But I know as well there is nothing that could be said to change minds.
Would someone perhaps prefer ANOTHER war in the Middle East? Iran is at least stable and, while it does fund some nasty groups, not engaged in open aggression anywhere. Their leaders talk tough but they are realists who know Iran is the old man on the block feebly shouting at the kids to get off his lawn.
But I know as well there is nothing that could be said to change minds.
And I think that this is the reason why no one is talking about the deal here. Most of the "it's not great, but it's a good deal to have" crowd and most of the "no deal is best deal" crowd knows that both camps are entrenched and nothing will change the mind of anyone on either side. The few people that did care already talked it out in the politics thread way back when it was actually announced and nothing has changed for anyone involved since then.
Would someone perhaps prefer ANOTHER war in the Middle East? Iran is at least stable and, while it does fund some nasty groups, not engaged in open aggression anywhere. Their leaders talk tough but they are realists who know Iran is the old man on the block feebly shouting at the kids to get off his lawn.
Squidmanlolz wrote: I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.
I think this increases the odds that within 24 months Israel and Iran are at war.
As for the US, this is an opportunity to rebalance relationships away from the Gulf States to a more neutral stance and hopefully exit the heck out.
Alternatively, a brief that "Iran has 24 hours to deliver X and X and X to the Turks or we will set your oil fields on fire" works too.
is it a bad deal? Yes. Is this deal or no deal the only option? Of course not. Should we turn it down? No, except for our people being held.
Most opinions on the deal are not based on reasoned and informed analysis, but instead based on inflammatory rhetoric from the political parties and special interest groups. That is very easy to see when the opinions are split almost perfectly along party lines. There are good things in the deal, there are also bad things in the deal, but neither side is willing to admit to both.
And, as far as Iran's "death to X,Y,Z" comments, well, how long ago, as a nation already with an arsenal of nukes, were we chanting "better dead than red" and other similar sentiments? Look up some nice quotes from Curtis Lemay to see the kinds of things our military leaders believed in.
The only real answer I see to Iran is gradual and eventual moderation among the country's leadership. If this deal buys a little time for that, so be it.
Frazzled wrote: As for the US, this is an opportunity to rebalance relationships away from the Gulf States to a more neutral stance and hopefully exit the heck out.
Yeah, I dunno what picking sides there has done for the U.S., other than make enemies. There's no moral high ground to be won there...that was lost long ago with the Shah and countless other ways.
Squidmanlolz wrote: I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.
As for the US, this is an opportunity to rebalance relationships away from the Gulf States to a more neutral stance and hopefully exit the heck out.
You know that won't happen. Half of the opposition to the deal is solely because we're so deeply in bed with Israel. Even before the details of the deal were announced, one pro-Israel group announced their plans to spend at least $20 million on lobbying against it.
generalgrog wrote: This deal sounds like a lose..lose for the world...and a win..win for Iran.
I don't get why our state department thinks this is good for America?
Could you perhaps elaborate on...why?
I think It's a great deal, with far more access allowed than the vast majority of arms limitations agreements. I've yet to hear a realistic issue from those opposed as to something fundamentally wrong with it and what could have been changed. I'm fairly certain had this same deal been negotiated by the previous administration there would be no such outcry.
It also has to be remembered that this isn't a bilateral US-Iran thing, it has to satisfy many parties in multiple nations. The US sinking it "just because" is likely going to cause other nations to lift their sanctions with a "well, we tried, we got something workable, and the US fethed it" mentality, basically rendering anything the US does in the future pointless and immediately removing any pressure on Iran to negotiate.
Squidmanlolz wrote: I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.
I think this increases the odds that within 24 months Israel and Iran are at war.
As for the US, this is an opportunity to rebalance relationships away from the Gulf States to a more neutral stance and hopefully exit the heck out.
Alternatively, a brief that "Iran has 24 hours to deliver X and X and X to the Turks or we will set your oil fields on fire" works too.
is it a bad deal? Yes. Is this deal or no deal the only option? Of course not. Should we turn it down? No, except for our people being held.
Squidmanlolz wrote: I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.
As for the US, this is an opportunity to rebalance relationships away from the Gulf States to a more neutral stance and hopefully exit the heck out.
You know that won't happen. Half of the opposition to the deal is solely because we're so deeply in bed with Israel. Even before the details of the deal were announced, one pro-Israel group announced their plans to spend at least $20 million on lobbying against it.
We do put a bit too much emphasis on staying in Israel's good graces. We need to act in our country's best interests and Israel will act in there's. More often than not those interests will be at least somewhat aligned but in the instances when they don't it's not a big deal, we're not going to switch from allies to enemies over it. Every country acts in its own self interest that's what foreign policy is all about, communicating/negotiating to help the country further it's best interests. Trying to put other nation's interests ahead of ours usually works out badly for us.
How much are we actually spending? I really don't know.
I keep on hearing $150 Billion getting thrown around, but as far as I can tell that is just the money that we have frozen through sanctions that will get released. Giving Iran their own money back seems a little different than the US handing over our own money.
How much are we actually spending? I really don't know.
I keep on hearing $150 Billion getting thrown around, but as far as I can tell that is just the money that we have frozen through sanctions that will get released. Giving Iran their own money back seems a little different than the US handing over our own money.
No no I meant on the bill. Sorry I was replying to this and a post got in before mine.
You know that won't happen. Half of the opposition to the deal is solely because we're so deeply in bed with Israel. Even before the details of the deal were announced, one pro-Israel group announced their plans to spend at least $20 million on lobbying against it.
How much are we actually spending? I really don't know.
I keep on hearing $150 Billion getting thrown around, but as far as I can tell that is just the money that we have frozen through sanctions that will get released. Giving Iran their own money back seems a little different than the US handing over our own money.
No no I meant on the bill. Sorry I was replying to this and a post got in before mine.
You know that won't happen. Half of the opposition to the deal is solely because we're so deeply in bed with Israel. Even before the details of the deal were announced, one pro-Israel group announced their plans to spend at least $20 million on lobbying against it.
I've been posting about this in the political junkie thread for weeks.
Feth, I sat through 2 hours of a Senate oversight committee on this issue, reporting my findings back to dakka and you've got the nerve to say that nobody's talking about this!
My blood pressure is going off the chart
A few points:
1) Iran is getting nuclear power anyway - it's inevitable. Better to give the moderates something to hang their coat onto too. And the deal gives the USA and its allies monitoring ability.
2) Iran is not friendly to US interests, but regime change, given the mess the Middle East is in, would make things worse. Better the devil you know.
3) If this deal collapsed the USA would lose a lot of credibility, and Europe would wash its hands of this and push on with trading with Iran regardless.
4) If the worst came to the worst i.e military action, the USA could hold up its hands and said it tried diplomacy. Iran didn't play ball, we've got no choice.
"Iran's supreme leader: There will be no such thing as Israel in 25 years"
Thanks Obama
How is that our problem?
This. We don't owe anything to any of the nations in the region.
While I support a plan of action that allows the region to steer its own course, you can't ignore the fact that Israel is nothing if not a troublemaker, to it's neighbors and to those who blindly support it.
I am against it, we are in a position of strength yet we are giving one of the bigger violators of humans rights a $150 billion dollars of frozen money. The same country that bank rolls Hamas and other terror groups and supports blowing up buses of children for the hell of it. Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table. And who exactly is going to be doing the inspections? Last I heard it wasn't us. What do we get out of the deal besides pissing off our allies? Not one thing that I can see
Col. Dash wrote: I am against it, we are in a position of strength yet we are giving one of the bigger violators of humans rights a $150 billion dollars of frozen money. The same country that bank rolls Hamas and other terror groups and supports blowing up buses of children for the hell of it. Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table. And who exactly is going to be doing the inspections? Last I heard it wasn't us. What do we get out of the deal besides pissing off our allies? Not one thing that I can see
Saudi Arabia And the other Gulf states.
Should I go on with a list of Nations your Country supports in the middle east who have Human rights violations? The Sauds pour Billions, BILLIONS (more than western nations commit to international aid by an order of magnitude) to promote extremist wahabist teachings - with money funneled to terror groups with designs on the west?
In your version of the world the US is only leveling the playing field in this strategic area.
"Iran's supreme leader: There will be no such thing as Israel in 25 years"
Thanks Obama
How is that our problem?
This. We don't owe anything to any of the nations in the region.
While I support a plan of action that allows the region to steer its own course, you can't ignore the fact that Israel is nothing if not a troublemaker, to it's neighbors and to those who blindly support it.
I both ignore and refute that. However, it does not impact my question. The US needs to protect its own interests, not any other nation at all. It is not an obligation of the US to protect Israel, any more than the US is obligated to protect Iran when Israel kicks its teeth in.
Col. Dash wrote: I am against it, we are in a position of strength yet we are giving one of the bigger violators of humans rights a $150 billion dollars of frozen money. The same country that bank rolls Hamas and other terror groups and supports blowing up buses of children for the hell of it. Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table. And who exactly is going to be doing the inspections? Last I heard it wasn't us. What do we get out of the deal besides pissing off our allies? Not one thing that I can see
Saudi Arabia And the other Gulf states.
Should I go on with a list of Nations your Country supports in the middle east who have Human rights violations? The Sauds pour Billions, BILLIONS (more than western nations commit to international aid by an order of magnitude) to promote extremist wahabist teachings - with money funneled to terror groups with designs on the west?
In your version of the world the US is only leveling the playing field in this strategic area.
best to get off your high horse.
Britain supports SA as well. Without GB there would be no SA, no Gulf states.
People keep bringing up the hostages as a reason to oppose this deal, because it didn't include the hostages.
This is a nuclear deal, not a hostage deal. Successfully negotiating and implementing this deal opens the door to further diplomatic efforts, like the hostages. Refusing this deal slams that door shut, as it proves to Iran's leadership that the US cannot be trusted to make good on any future deals.
Not every deal can or should have everything one side wants. The political mentality that we have to get everything we want every time, all the time, is why we have government shutdowns (and the expenses involved in preparing for them even when they don't actually happen) turning into a regular thing now.
Tannhauser42 wrote: People keep bringing up the hostages as a reason to oppose this deal, because it didn't include the hostages.
This is a nuclear deal, not a hostage deal. Successfully negotiating and implementing this deal opens the door to further diplomatic efforts, like the hostages. Refusing this deal slams that door shut, as it proves to Iran's leadership that the US cannot be trusted to make good on any future deals.
Not every deal can or should have everything one side wants. The political mentality that we have to get everything we want every time, all the time, is why we have government shutdowns (and the expenses involved in preparing for them even when they don't actually happen) turning into a regular thing now.
Thats a nonsensical argument. they could have been added as a requirement starter for even having talks.
Where is the money related to nukes?
Where is the opening of weaponry purchases related to nukes?
Oh they aren't....well look over there!
Now the administration could go to them backchannel and say "release them now or we won't support the agreement" or even to"your ships may start sinking" (and sink some).
Squidmanlolz wrote: I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.
Col. Dash wrote: I am against it, we are in a position of strength
In what sense? Sure, we have strength, that's *why* Iran is negotiating at all. That said, what further concessions would you have them make in regards to their program short of simply having them abandon it, that our other negotiating partners would also see as necessary?
yet we are giving one of the bigger violators of humans rights a $150 billion dollars of frozen money. The same country that bank rolls Hamas and other terror groups and supports blowing up buses of children for the hell of it.
Sure that money could finance all sorts of things. Lets not forget that the US has its own history in the region with far more spent on similarly unsavory groups. Nobody is saying that the Iranians are saints, but it's not like the US hasn't spent far more resources doing far more harm and funding groups that also do terrible things. Such is also a secondary issue, the negotiations were about the Iranian state's nuclear capabilities, not the Iranian state's regional shadowgames.
Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table.
Because, again, it's a separate issue. Trying to bundle everything into a single agreement is usually a great way to get a negotiation to fail.
And who exactly is going to be doing the inspections? Last I heard it wasn't us.
The IAEA will be doing the inspections. It's not a directly bilateral agreement between the US and Iran, so it's not going to be The US state department sending just US inspectors.
What do we get out of the deal besides pissing off our allies? Not one thing that I can see
Insurance against Iran developing nuclear weapons and the ability to turn to the world and say "we tried the diplomatic route" if they renege on the agreement and force must be used instead. We get to remove antagonizing pressures in the region, and the like? That seems to be what we went into these negotiations for in the first place. I mean, what is there to really "get" if we're not ostensibly looking to extort anything here?
"Iran's supreme leader: There will be no such thing as Israel in 25 years"
Thanks Obama
How is that our problem?
This. We don't owe anything to any of the nations in the region.
While I support a plan of action that allows the region to steer its own course, you can't ignore the fact that Israel is nothing if not a troublemaker, to it's neighbors and to those who blindly support it.
I both ignore and refute that. However, it does not impact my question. The US needs to protect its own interests, not any other nation at all. It is not an obligation of the US to protect Israel, any more than the US is obligated to protect Iran when Israel kicks its teeth in.
Col. Dash wrote: I am against it, we are in a position of strength yet we are giving one of the bigger violators of humans rights a $150 billion dollars of frozen money. The same country that bank rolls Hamas and other terror groups and supports blowing up buses of children for the hell of it. Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table. And who exactly is going to be doing the inspections? Last I heard it wasn't us. What do we get out of the deal besides pissing off our allies? Not one thing that I can see
Saudi Arabia And the other Gulf states.
Should I go on with a list of Nations your Country supports in the middle east who have Human rights violations? The Sauds pour Billions, BILLIONS (more than western nations commit to international aid by an order of magnitude) to promote extremist wahabist teachings - with money funneled to terror groups with designs on the west?
In your version of the world the US is only leveling the playing field in this strategic area.
best to get off your high horse.
Britain supports SA as well. Without GB there would be no SA, no Gulf states.
No high horse mounted. I thought it went without saying that our own teeny tiny meddling in minor affairs may have some small significance in that region.
Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table.
Because, again, it's a separate issue. Trying to bundle everything into a single agreement is usually a great way to get a negotiation to fail.
but you can bundle releasing hundreds of billions of dollars. Nonsense.
No high horse mounted. I thought it went without saying that our own teeny tiny meddling in minor affairs may have some small significance in that region.
Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table.
Because, again, it's a separate issue. Trying to bundle everything into a single agreement is usually a great way to get a negotiation to fail.
but you can bundle releasing hundreds of billions of dollars. Nonsense.
If I recall correctly, that money was frozen as a direct response to Iran's nuclear program, and was always a factor in the "carrot/stick" part of the negotiations, much of which has already been earmarked for development and infrastructure projects. It'll cost at least that much to re-develop Iran's petroleum production industry, which seemingly everyone wants to have happen.
Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table.
Because, again, it's a separate issue. Trying to bundle everything into a single agreement is usually a great way to get a negotiation to fail.
but you can bundle releasing hundreds of billions of dollars. Nonsense.
If I recall correctly, that money was frozen as a direct response to Iran's nuclear program, and was always a factor in the "carrot/stick" part of the negotiations, much of which has already been earmarked for development and infrastructure projects. It'll cost at least that much to re-develop Iran's petroleum production industry, which seemingly everyone wants to have happen.
The EU wants Iranian oil. If we accept that Iran wants a functional nuclear power and will eventually have one and that the EU will sooner or later go back to buying Iranian oil it's really in our best interests to try to make sure that a nuclear armed Iran is pushed to moderation and reform as much as possible and that won't happen if we continue to isolate them. Moreover, if the EU are going to drop their sanctions then it makes any sanctions we choose to impose on our own ineffective. If we're not going to attack them miltarily and we can't hurt them enough to matter economically and we can't stop them from ever going nuclear then we should make the best deal we can to make the transition to a nuclear Iran as safe as possible.
Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table.
Because, again, it's a separate issue. Trying to bundle everything into a single agreement is usually a great way to get a negotiation to fail.
but you can bundle releasing hundreds of billions of dollars. Nonsense.
If I recall correctly, that money was frozen as a direct response to Iran's nuclear program, and was always a factor in the "carrot/stick" part of the negotiations, much of which has already been earmarked for development and infrastructure projects. It'll cost at least that much to re-develop Iran's petroleum production industry, which seemingly everyone wants to have happen.
Hey its a side issue. Money is just money. The treaty was just nuke monitoring for release of sanctions.
Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table.
Because, again, it's a separate issue. Trying to bundle everything into a single agreement is usually a great way to get a negotiation to fail.
but you can bundle releasing hundreds of billions of dollars. Nonsense.
If I recall correctly, that money was frozen as a direct response to Iran's nuclear program, and was always a factor in the "carrot/stick" part of the negotiations, much of which has already been earmarked for development and infrastructure projects. It'll cost at least that much to re-develop Iran's petroleum production industry, which seemingly everyone wants to have happen.
The EU wants Iranian oil. If we accept that Iran wants a functional nuclear power and will eventually have one and that the EU will sooner or later go back to buying Iranian oil it's really in our best interests to try to make sure that a nuclear armed Iran is pushed to moderation and reform as much as possible and that won't happen if we continue to isolate them. Moreover, if the EU are going to drop their sanctions then it makes any sanctions we choose to impose on our own ineffective. If we're not going to attack them miltarily and we can't hurt them enough to matter economically and we can't stop them from ever going nuclear then we should make the best deal we can to make the transition to a nuclear Iran as safe as possible.
Blah blah thats great but in not the best deal. We still have hostages. WE should stop the deal until the hostages are released. Or just hold onto the bucks. If needed things need to start happening until those hostages are released.
Ultimately, it's not a bilateral agreement. None of our negotiating partners care about prisoners Iran holds. The leveraging power being exerted was economic, but there's no way that the EU countries and China and Russia were going to make prisoners a deal breaking issue.
If we want to scuttle the deal over that, we can, but making it part of the deal isn't something any of our negotiating partners would really care about, and if we scuttle it over that, then they're simply going to walk away and there will be no leverage over Iran save for going to war over the issue.
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately, it's not a bilateral agreement. None of our negotiating partners care about prisoners Iran holds.
So what? Give a gak about them not I give.
The leveraging power being exerted was economic, but there's no way that the EU countries and China and Russia were going to make prisoners a deal breaking issue.
We keep the money. Suddenly Iran will release them.
If we want to scuttle the deal over that, we can, but making it part of the deal isn't something any of our negotiating partners would really care about, and if we scuttle it over that, then they're simply going to walk away and there will be no leverage over Iran save for going to war over the issue.
Its this binary logic that led to such a crappy deal. As you yourself noted, its not all or nothing. Kerry couldn't negotiate his ass off a toilet seat. Also, scuttle the deal. Who cares? It doesn't actually do anything except give them bank. They build a bomb in six months so what?
Squidmanlolz wrote: I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.
I think this increases the odds that within 24 months Israel and Iran are at war.
As for the US, this is an opportunity to rebalance relationships away from the Gulf States to a more neutral stance and hopefully exit the heck out.
Alternatively, a brief that "Iran has 24 hours to deliver X and X and X to the Turks or we will set your oil fields on fire" works too.
is it a bad deal? Yes. Is this deal or no deal the only option? Of course not. Should we turn it down? No, except for our people being held.
"Iran's supreme leader: There will be no such thing as Israel in 25 years"
Thanks Obama
I look at it as Bible prophecy about Israel pretty much being alone in the world coming to pass. A quick read of these threads coupled with what's happening in the world bears it out more and more.
Squidmanlolz wrote: I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.
Care to explain the logic behind this stance?
Flamebaiting for flamebaiting's sake.
Well I can see how there could be arguments supporting that point, but the way it was put across didn't really convey them. Though the one I'm hearing is giving your enemy a bigger gun than your ally because your ally's been pissing off your enemy too much and you don't want to deal with that crap.
Woo thread derailing! This thread doesn't have much to do with Israel unless we're talking about the effects any talks with Iran would have on the region. Though the other countries have just as much a stake in this should Iran take to swinging its dick about in the wake of this (and the current US administration's stance of trying to clean its hands of the Middle East).
This is a tactical error for Democrats politically long term.
Why? Because this Iranian "Deal" is Obamacare all over again. This deal is even MORE unpopular than Obamacare... Obama, and by extension the Democrats, owns it.
Fair or not, anything that Iran does now will be linked to this deal.
Kinda like, how Iraq is a disaster and Bush/Republicans are still being blamed for it... only 100x worst.
I look at it as Bible prophecy about Israel pretty much being alone in the world coming to pass. A quick read of these threads coupled with what's happening in the world bears it out more and more.
...Sorry, couldn't tell if your point was serious or not, so just defaulted to snide retort.
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately, it's not a bilateral agreement. None of our negotiating partners care about prisoners Iran holds.
So what? Give a gak about them not I give.
They have to be on board for the negotiations to go anywhere.
The leveraging power being exerted was economic, but there's no way that the EU countries and China and Russia were going to make prisoners a deal breaking issue.
We keep the money. Suddenly Iran will release them.
There's no indication of that. We've *been* keeping their money. Likewise, as soon as any of the other nations decide not to play ball, Iran gets access to capital markets again, and while not as nice as getting their funds unfrozen, will work for their economic needs and then the leverage for negotiation of any sort goes out the window.
If we want to scuttle the deal over that, we can, but making it part of the deal isn't something any of our negotiating partners would really care about, and if we scuttle it over that, then they're simply going to walk away and there will be no leverage over Iran save for going to war over the issue.
Its this binary logic that led to such a crappy deal. As you yourself noted, its not all or nothing. Kerry couldn't negotiate his ass off a toilet seat.
Also, scuttle the deal. Who cares? It doesn't actually do anything except give them bank.
Aside from the prisoners thing, what's crappy about it?
As for scuttling the deal, a lot of people care, or we wouldn't have a coalition of six nations negotiating it. We want assurances that Iran won't make nuclear weapons. That was the core aim of the whole thing. Adding prisoners and other secondary or tertiary conditions is what we call "scope creep", and is usually one of the best ways to make a project fail. It's not like the prisoners are going to be taken out and shot just because they weren't included in *this* deal, it's not like their release is permanently off the table or that we don't have other leverage for them.
Nobody is saying the situation is perfect. But from a realpolitk standpoint, there is no better deal that was going to get the OK of all parties involved.
They have to be on board for the negotiations to go anywhere.
Hardly, they are just looking for a reason they can break and start selling them stuff again.
As for it being tertiary, again nonsense. Thats the only tangible issue for the US. Assurances they aren't going to build a bomb are a joke and never worth anything. Further, again if they did so what?
This is a tactical error for Democrats politically long term.
Why? Because this Iranian "Deal" is Obamacare all over again. This deal is even MORE unpopular than Obamacare... Obama, and by extension the Democrats, owns it.
Fair or not, anything that Iran does now will be linked to this deal.
Kinda like, how Iraq is a disaster and Bush/Republicans are still being blamed for it... only 100x worst.
It's an interesting world you live in where access to healthcare for the first time ever to millions of Americans is "unpopular". It was unpopular with the Republican party, to be sure, but real Americans very strongly support it.
They have to be on board for the negotiations to go anywhere.
Hardly, they are just looking for a reason they can break and start selling them stuff again.
Yes, and having them on board for the negotiations was the only way to choke off every alternative so Iran would *have* to negotiate. If the other powers feel they did their fair share only for the US to scuttle it for what they would inevitably see as a tertiary issue, will dramatically damage that will to continue to cooperate, and open avenues for Iran to get around US sanctions and then the US's only alternative regarding Iran's nuclear program will be war.
As for it being tertiary, again nonsense. Thats the only tangible issue for the US.
It might be a tangible thing, but was tertiary to the endeavor of ensuring Iran's nuclear program was not capable of producing nuclear weapons.
Assurances they aren't going to build a bomb are a joke and never worth anything.
Ultimately, this is what it comes down to. For those that are convinced that there's no agreement that will be adhered to, then there's no deal that would ever be good enough. I'm not going to change anyone's mind on that.
Further, again if they did so what?
Well, that's another issue entirely, but it has been longstanding US policy to not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. If we're ok with that, then so be it, but that would constitute a dramatic shift in policy.
I look at it as Bible prophecy about Israel pretty much being alone in the world coming to pass. A quick read of these threads coupled with what's happening in the world bears it out more and more.
...Sorry, couldn't tell if your point was serious or not, so just defaulted to snide retort.
This is a tactical error for Democrats politically long term.
Why? Because this Iranian "Deal" is Obamacare all over again. This deal is even MORE unpopular than Obamacare... Obama, and by extension the Democrats, owns it.
Fair or not, anything that Iran does now will be linked to this deal.
Kinda like, how Iraq is a disaster and Bush/Republicans are still being blamed for it... only 100x worst.
It's an interesting world you live in where access to healthcare for the first time ever to millions of Americans is "unpopular". It was unpopular with the Republican party, to be sure, but real Americans very strongly support it.
I look at it as Bible prophecy about Israel pretty much being alone in the world coming to pass. A quick read of these threads coupled with what's happening in the world bears it out more and more.
...Sorry, couldn't tell if your point was serious or not, so just defaulted to snide retort.
They have to be on board for the negotiations to go anywhere.
Hardly, they are just looking for a reason they can break and start selling them stuff again.
Yes, and having them on board for the negotiations was the only way to choke off every alternative so Iran would *have* to negotiate. If the other powers feel they did their fair share only for the US to scuttle it for what they would inevitably see as a tertiary issue, will dramatically damage that will to continue to cooperate, and open avenues for Iran to get around US sanctions and then the US's only alternative regarding Iran's nuclear program will be war.
Inversely, they couldn't negotiate it without US either. No hostages, no one even shows up to talk.
I look at it as Bible prophecy about Israel pretty much being alone in the world coming to pass. A quick read of these threads coupled with what's happening in the world bears it out more and more.
...Sorry, couldn't tell if your point was serious or not, so just defaulted to snide retort.
I'm actually dead serious.
You've got your opinion, I've got mine. The Bible already said Israel was going to have the world turn against it, and it's playing out right before our eyes.
They have to be on board for the negotiations to go anywhere.
Hardly, they are just looking for a reason they can break and start selling them stuff again.
Yes, and having them on board for the negotiations was the only way to choke off every alternative so Iran would *have* to negotiate. If the other powers feel they did their fair share only for the US to scuttle it for what they would inevitably see as a tertiary issue, will dramatically damage that will to continue to cooperate, and open avenues for Iran to get around US sanctions and then the US's only alternative regarding Iran's nuclear program will be war.
Inversely, they couldn't negotiate it without US either. No hostages, no one even shows up to talk.
This is assuming the issue is as relevant to these other nations as the US likes to make it. It's not. Russia and China certainly could have gone on happily not caring if there had never been sanctions or negotiations.
Ouze wrote: I think it's the best deal we're going to get, that it's not a bad deal, and that nearly anything I can do would be more productive than convincing anyone here of that. Clearly OP knows what he's going to think. If anyone else wants to tilt at that windmill, feel free, but I simply wanted to mention that it's not universally disapproved.
Ditto. It's not great, it's what we can expect to get, and throwing it away gaks on our allies that negotiated with us more than it would gak on Iran.
I'd argue the alternative is a repeat of the situation with Cuba, and come on... has that really worked out? For anyone?
They have to be on board for the negotiations to go anywhere.
Hardly, they are just looking for a reason they can break and start selling them stuff again.
Yes, and having them on board for the negotiations was the only way to choke off every alternative so Iran would *have* to negotiate. If the other powers feel they did their fair share only for the US to scuttle it for what they would inevitably see as a tertiary issue, will dramatically damage that will to continue to cooperate, and open avenues for Iran to get around US sanctions and then the US's only alternative regarding Iran's nuclear program will be war.
Inversely, they couldn't negotiate it without US either. No hostages, no one even shows up to talk.
This is assuming the issue is as relevant to these other nations as the US likes to make it. It's not. Russia and China certainly could have gone on happily not caring if there had never been sanctions or negotiations.
Right, so there no deal worthwhile to make. Keep the money.
understand, you think this is a tertiary issue. I think they holding our people is an act of war. Total War. So we're not going to agree ever. Thats fine.
They have to be on board for the negotiations to go anywhere.
Hardly, they are just looking for a reason they can break and start selling them stuff again.
Yes, and having them on board for the negotiations was the only way to choke off every alternative so Iran would *have* to negotiate. If the other powers feel they did their fair share only for the US to scuttle it for what they would inevitably see as a tertiary issue, will dramatically damage that will to continue to cooperate, and open avenues for Iran to get around US sanctions and then the US's only alternative regarding Iran's nuclear program will be war.
Inversely, they couldn't negotiate it without US either. No hostages, no one even shows up to talk.
This is assuming the issue is as relevant to these other nations as the US likes to make it. It's not. Russia and China certainly could have gone on happily not caring if there had never been sanctions or negotiations.
Right, so there no deal worthwhile to make. Keep the money.
understand, you think this is a tertiary issue. I think they holding our people is an act of war. Total War. So we're not going to agree ever. Thats fine.
Fundamental differences in view, sure, and with such views we're never going to convince each other of anything.
I happen to think that the idea of holding, what like 4 people, is hardly an act of total war where every bit of strength and means at a state's disposal must be thrown into the effort to destroy and demolish an opposing state. It doesn't seem to be an appropriate use of resources, risk of lives, economic disruption, and I'm sure would not be so readily looked to if the military advantage were not so overwhelmingly one-sided in our favor. Besides, it's not like previous conflicts in the region we've been involved in have typically garnered great results. Additionally, it looks like at least one prisoner might possibly have been legitimately detained engaging in espionage activities.
And the Iranians have their own history and issues here. Four of the six powers negotiating this deal have either invaded and occupied Iran within living memory, worked to undermine and overthrow a democratically elected government, or actively supplied an invading neighbor with weapons and training.
This is a tactical error for Democrats politically long term.
Why? Because this Iranian "Deal" is Obamacare all over again. This deal is even MORE unpopular than Obamacare... Obama, and by extension the Democrats, owns it.
Fair or not, anything that Iran does now will be linked to this deal.
Kinda like, how Iraq is a disaster and Bush/Republicans are still being blamed for it... only 100x worst.
It's an interesting world you live in where access to healthcare for the first time ever to millions of Americans is "unpopular". It was unpopular with the Republican party, to be sure, but real Americans very strongly support it.
Let's be honest here, Whembly, why are such things unpopular? Is it because individual Americans are studying the actual details and checking the facts and researching the situation for themselves, and then using a reasoned and thoughtful approach to form their opinion? Or is it because they just blindly accept whatever rhetoric their politicians/favored news network is spewing at them and telling them to think?
I would bet real money that the majority fall under that second reason.
What are the details on inspections? I have heard a lot of conflicting information on this.
Also does anyone foresee this as the start of an arms race in the Middle East? Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and others are not fans of Iran. I can't see them accepting them as a potential nuclear power in the region unopposed.
This is a tactical error for Democrats politically long term.
Why? Because this Iranian "Deal" is Obamacare all over again. This deal is even MORE unpopular than Obamacare... Obama, and by extension the Democrats, owns it.
Fair or not, anything that Iran does now will be linked to this deal.
Kinda like, how Iraq is a disaster and Bush/Republicans are still being blamed for it... only 100x worst.
It's an interesting world you live in where access to healthcare for the first time ever to millions of Americans is "unpopular". It was unpopular with the Republican party, to be sure, but real Americans very strongly support it.
Let's be honest here, Whembly, why are such things unpopular?
Is it because individual Americans are studying the actual details and checking the facts and researching the situation for themselves, and then using a reasoned and thoughtful approach to form their opinion?
Or is it because they just blindly accept whatever rhetoric their politicians/favored news network is spewing at them and telling them to think?
I would bet real money that the majority fall under that second reason.
A) Doesn't matter... people's opinion do matter. Part of the reason why Trump is leading the polls now.
B) It's also condenscending as it smacks of... :pats pleebs on the head: "We know what's best for you... move along now".
Simply stated, Obama/Kerry want any deal... results be damned.
Alternately, Non-proliferation is a pipe-dream. Pandora's box is open. Nuclear weapons have been made, and as a tool of international power and prestige, they will be sought consequences be damned and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. North Korea is starving to death and that isn't enough to stop the North Korean state from developing nuclear power.
Isolating Iran over this issue has not helped anyone. It's driven Iran into being a rogue state, an international saber rattler, and arguably the most prolific exporter of terrorism in the middle east. We can continue playing the disasterous hand we've been attempting to play for the last 20 years, or we can simply accept that Iran is getting nuclear power one way or another, and unless we're willing to invade them and forcibly take that power away from them, we have to accept and live with a future where Iran is a member of the nuclear club.
I'm not really sure the deal changes much of anything. Say Iran announces tomorrow they have the bomb. The next day they have bombs falling on their heads. The difference being, with the deal, it won't likely just be the US's and Isreal's bombs.
Simply stated, Obama/Kerry want any deal... results be damned.
Alternately, Non-proliferation is a pipe-dream. Pandora's box is open. Nuclear weapons have been made, and as a tool of international power and prestige, they will be sought consequences be damned and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. North Korea is starving to death and that isn't enough to stop the North Korean state from developing nuclear power.
Isolating Iran over this issue has not helped anyone. It's driven Iran into being a rogue state, an international saber rattler, and arguably the most prolific exporter of terrorism in the middle east. We can continue playing the disasterous hand we've been attempting to play for the last 20 years, or we can simply accept that Iran is getting nuclear power one way or another, and unless we're willing to invade them and forcibly take that power away from them, we have to accept and live with a future where Iran is a member of the nuclear club.
Iran became a rogue state when the students took over the embassies. The U.S. and other powers screwed the pooch big time meddling in it's internal affairs prior to that.
I find it so weird that so many people are so concerned about Iranian leadership, but almost ambivalent to Saudi leadership. It produces this weird thing where Iran must be kept under lock and key so their leaders can't do anything bad, but the Saudi's are kept as regional allies, and no-one bats an eyelid at the absurdity of the situation.
Without the deal, there's a really high chance that we'd then stand there watching as a nuclear capable Iran's economy collapsed. I can write out a whole list of reasons that'd be bad, and the top two would be 1) gak explodes 2) people die.
Opening Iran up to trade while removing their capacity for nuclear weapons is a good thing. And probably the biggest strength is that long term, it actually makes the theocracy's hold on Iran much weaker. The J-Curve is a powerful predictor of regime stability, and if you haven't got time to go read about it, the short story is that despotic regimes are quite stable when closed off from the rest of the world, and actually become a lot less stable as they are opened up to the rest of the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spetulhu wrote: Would someone perhaps prefer ANOTHER war in the Middle East? Iran is at least stable and, while it does fund some nasty groups, not engaged in open aggression anywhere. Their leaders talk tough but they are realists who know Iran is the old man on the block feebly shouting at the kids to get off his lawn.
Yep. Iran is engaged in three wars, backing the governments of Syria and Iraq against the rebel factions, and is backing the Houthis in their rebellion against the Yemeni government. All three proxy wars are long term money pits. And the economy Iran wants to keep funding those proxy wars is built around oil, and that's an industry with a pretty crappy medium term ahead of it (and maybe a crappy long term, depending on how things play out).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: The only real answer I see to Iran is gradual and eventual moderation among the country's leadership. If this deal buys a little time for that, so be it.
It doesn't just help it, it actively encourages moderation.
Vaktathi wrote: And the Iranians have their own history and issues here. Four of the six powers negotiating this deal have either invaded and occupied Iran within living memory, worked to undermine and overthrow a democratically elected government, or actively supplied an invading neighbor with weapons and training.
Well, there's that part too. The Iranians actually negotiating with people that have heavily messed up their lives before (overthrowing a democratic government to prop up a despot instead) is actually a great victory in itself. And as was already pointed out, making a deal means you have justification for harsher measures - maybe even for war - if they break it. But in reality Iran is still the weakest BIG player around the Persian Gulf. Saudi-Arabia is much more powerful, Turkey is a NATO member and Israel is a special snowflake (and also very much more powerful, and already a nuke nation). Hell, global superpowers like Norway and North Korea have bigger military budgets and they are jokes compared to real spending!
Iran really is the old man on the block, shouting at the kids to get off his lawn. Telling him you'll talk to the kids will calm him down.
This is a tactical error for Democrats politically long term.
Why? Because this Iranian "Deal" is Obamacare all over again. This deal is even MORE unpopular than Obamacare... Obama, and by extension the Democrats, owns it.
It is the same as Obamacare, in that any deal, no matter the details, is a vote loser because voters get just as silly and negative about international negotiations as they do about changes to healthcare.
And it's the same, because in both cases the Republicans committed to absolutely opposing the bill long before the details of either were known.
But in both cases, the long term effects will be negligible. The foundations of both ACA and the Iran deal are solid, and ultimately neither will have any lasting effect on the electorate. In the short term it gets the Republican true believers excited, but that's hardly difficult to achieve these days. Those guys get excited over Obama letting Alaska change the name of one of its own mountains.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: Iran became a rogue state when the students took over the embassies. The U.S. and other powers screwed the pooch big time meddling in it's internal affairs prior to that.
That's true, but once you realise 'rogue state' has no meaning beyond 'America doesn't like this country', it's also really meaningless.
Hah, the Saudis are our "allies" like the Pakistanis are our "allies". I know it doesn't get mentioned much here as you say but it's definitely been mentioned at least a few times before.
Ouze wrote: Hah, the Saudis are our "allies" like the Pakistanis are our "allies". I know it doesn't get mentioned much here as you say but it's definitely been mentioned at least a few times before.
Yeah, 'allies'
But it's very funny that no-one bats an eyelid at those countries not just being allowed open trade with the rest of the world, but you build actual working military treaties with them. But then insist that Iran must be closed off from trade with the rest of the world, possibly forever.
sebster wrote: I find it so weird that so many people are so concerned about Iranian leadership, but almost ambivalent to Saudi leadership. It produces this weird thing where Iran must be kept under lock and key so their leaders can't do anything bad, but the Saudi's are kept as regional allies, and no-one bats an eyelid at the absurdity of the situation.
The Sauds didn't depose a Western puppet, and actively worked against movements sympathetic to the group that did depose a Western puppet. Specifically they made certain that oil producing regions remained under Saud, and therefore Aramco, control.
dogma wrote: The Sauds didn't depose a Western puppet, and actively worked against movements sympathetic to the group that did depose a Western puppet. Specifically they made certain that oil producing regions remained under Saud, and therefore Aramco, control.
Sure, I think the Iranian revolution is probably still the context most Americans view Iran through. But I really doubt the Saudi's support for and dependence on Aramco is really that much of an issue for most pundits in this thread. That kind of reality matters at the State dept, not so much on dakka.
Sure, I think the Iranian revolution is probably still the context most Americans view Iran through. But I really doubt the Saudi's support for and dependence on Aramco is really that much of an issue for most pundits in this thread.
Maybe not directly, but it certainly influences how the Iranian state and the Saudi state are characterized. Iran essentially kicked out Westerners, while Saudi Arabia accepted them as customers.
sebster wrote: I find it so weird that so many people are so concerned about Iranian leadership, but almost ambivalent to Saudi leadership. It produces this weird thing where Iran must be kept under lock and key so their leaders can't do anything bad, but the Saudi's are kept as regional allies, and no-one bats an eyelid at the absurdity of the situation.
The Sauds didn't depose a Western puppet, and actively worked against movements sympathetic to the group that did depose a Western puppet. Specifically they made certain that oil producing regions remained under Saud, and therefore Aramco, control.
Most of the 9/11 Hijackers (15 of 19) were Saudi Arabians. Try again.
sebster wrote: I find it so weird that so many people are so concerned about Iranian leadership, but almost ambivalent to Saudi leadership. It produces this weird thing where Iran must be kept under lock and key so their leaders can't do anything bad, but the Saudi's are kept as regional allies, and no-one bats an eyelid at the absurdity of the situation.
The Sauds didn't depose a Western puppet, and actively worked against movements sympathetic to the group that did depose a Western puppet. Specifically they made certain that oil producing regions remained under Saud, and therefore Aramco, control.
Most of the 9/11 Hijackers (15 of 19) were Saudi Arabians. Try again.
And? That doesn't mean that the Saudi government sponsored or supported their actions.
Well, considering that we attacked Iraq and wasted 5000 American and 1.5 million Iraqi lives on even less evidence, and with less justification, I think one should not consider "well, the Saudis didn't do X, Y and Z!" when our own nation is guilty of some/all of those things as anything to brag about. Or to even attempt to use as a serious point of debate.
This is an interesting series of comments from Admiral Ace Lyons on the way we have missed several opportunities with Islamic fundamentalism over the years and a fairly scathing indictment of obama.
Relapse wrote: This is an interesting series of comments from Admiral Ace Lyons on the way we have missed several opportunities with Islamic fundamentalism over the years and a fairly scathing indictment of obama.
I could probably write a lengthy paper I why he is wrong but I will just sum it up.
1. Never trust somebody that stands to profit on their advice. Or in other words Mr. Lyons profits off the conflict between the U.S. and the Middle East and likely will say a do anything to keep that paycheck coming.
2. "Islam is a political movement disguised as a religion." Lol wut? If that doesn't smack of agenda I don't know what does.
3. The Neoconservative model for foreign policy needs to go and die in a hole somewhere. Perpetual war + perpetual fear = profit is not how I want my country ran.
them.
