Obama The Iran Deal We Should Have Done

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Bengal B, Jul 17, 2015.

Page 28 of 43
  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    I don't blame you for not wanting to address my comments. You have no logical objections whatsoever.
     
    red55, Sep 9, 2015
    #271
  2. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    47,986
    Likes Received:
    22,994
    I addressed you comments on the subject of Americans held prisoner in Iran by calling your comments rationalizations. There are no reasons that could be considered logical to abandon our people when to make it a point would be something the Iranians would likely agree to because it would cost them nothing.
     
    Bengal B, Sep 9, 2015
    #272
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    We don't have to trust them. If they break the deal, the sanctions go back on and our military options have never been off the table. The internal pressure for sanctions relief has been immense for the Iranians so the Iranian people are going to expect that money to be spent in Iran, not in Lebanon and Yemen.

    Iran is a factor in the middle east, there is no getting around it. They are mortal enemies with Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Gulf States, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. They are friends with Syria. This is not a middle east solution and nobody has claimed this. But keeping Iran without a nuclear weapon will definitely a factor in preventing a world war from starting there.

    Indeed. We made successful treaties with the Soviets and we watched them like a hawk, too.
     
    red55, Sep 9, 2015
    #273
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    There no reasons that you're willing to accept because you don't think things through and you run on emotion, just like Shane.
    • It is an international deal and we have allies and Russians and Chinese involved. It ain't all about us.
    • It would have scuttled the deal. We did not allow Iran to add new conditions and we could not either.
    • The prisoners are still being negotiated for. If the deal had fallen through, the prisoners would have been done for.
    • It would create more hostage taking situations. Think about it for goddamned once.
    Now address these issues specifically or STFU.
     
    red55, Sep 9, 2015
    #274
  5. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    47,986
    Likes Received:
    22,994
    It is about us and the best interests of the USA, Not Russia or China. We have our interests and they have theirs and the two don't always coincide.

    It would not have scuttled the deal. I would have been by far the easiest point for the Iranians to concede and it wouldn't have cost them a damn thing.

    The prisoners are still being negotiated for because we didn't make it a point before agreeing to negotiations in the first place. If the deal had fallen through those prisoners would have already been released and back in the USA.

    If Iran or anybody else wants to take hostages they are going to do it regardless. The best we can do is to advise American travelers to the region not to put themselves in bad situations like those idiots who were hiking near the Iranian border. Idiots or not, they are Americans.
     
    Bengal B, Sep 9, 2015
    #275
  6. Winston1

    Winston1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    7,423
    You're assuming there will be enough support from the other signatories to re-establish the sanctions. Certainly a major breach would cause reaction but what about a creeping series of breaches?
    You're also very optimistic that the regime will listen to the people. They didn't in 2009 when there was threat of unrest. I have concerns that like most tyrannies this regime will be more responsive to its plans, wants and needs than to their subjects'. It wouldn't surprise me that the great majority of the money will be put into broadening their influence in the Muslim world, destabilizing Sunni regimes and arming themselves.

    Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Of course Iran is and will be a factor. Likewise they are needed if a equitable solution is ever found. My concern is that the president sees them as the only positive tool to use. He has allowed them too much influence in Iraq and Syria. He seems to be siding more with Iran than Saudi in Yeman. I have seem reports (not from Fox or RW sources) that say the U.S. foreign policy professionals are worried about his tilt to Iraq.

    My premise is that the treaty's approval is our only realistic option. I do believe we could have negotiated a better deal including the release of Americans held in Iranian jail. Observation of the reports on the talks lead me to believe the president and Sec Kerry wanted the deal too much and allowed Iran to take advantage.
     
    Winston1, Sep 9, 2015
    #276
  7. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    37,754
    Likes Received:
    23,932
    Bet you if they had been holding a few comrades prisoner that Putin would have got them back first.
     
    shane0911, Sep 9, 2015
    #277
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    They would be if they had to be re-established. But the snapback provision means that the existing sanctions will go back automatically if they break the agreement.

    They ignore internal unrest at their peril. There has already been one popular revolution there and several periods of insurrection and street rioting. There is simmering unrest within. The people will expect that money to be spent at home. The more of a taste of western goods and influences that Iranians acquire has great potential of making Iran a lot less islamist place. They were once the most westernized and educated of all muslim nations. Our greatest expert is our culture and Iranians have been sucking it up just like everybody else.

    There are still sanctions on them for their support of Hezbollah and there are still some weapons prohibitions, which is why their military is so poorly provided and with obsolete equipment. But yes, they will have a priority to replace a lot of 50-year-old jets and tanks. But they will not be having a nuclear weapon. They are still no military threat to us or to Israel.

    How has he done that? They have been funding Syria for long before Obama came to office. And there is not much he can do about the Iraqi Shiites being friendly to Iranian Shiites. That has been going on for centuries. In fact that is an area where we share a common interest. The Iraqi Sunnis became ISIS and Iraq is at war with them and friendly to the Iraqi Shia, as we are.

    Source? Be specific in your objection. I have seen zero evidence that Obama is supporting Iran in Yemen. Iran isn't even a player except to fund their pet militias that fight Sunnis. We fund our pet militia's to fight Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and support them with airpower. Saudi Arabia funds its pet militia's to fight Shiites in Yemen and support them with airpower. Our national best interests are not always aligned with Saudi Arabia who has done ziltch to help us fight AQAP. Everybody is doing their own thing in Yemen, which is no man's land right now.

    I agree that the treaty had to happen. I disagree that the Iranians took any advantage. They had to give up their nuclear program and submit to foreign inspectors to get back their own money and to have sanctions relief. And if they falter, the sanctions go back on. The Iranians really, really don't want that to happen.

    I don't see how we lose. If they break the agreement we still have all of our options on the table including military action or more sanctions. Israel is not a party to the agreement. They still have all of their options on the table.
     
    red55, Sep 9, 2015
    #278
  9. HalloweenRun

    HalloweenRun Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    7,481
    Likes Received:
    4,967
    Back in the day, some guys in Lebanon took some Soviets hostage. The entire cell ended up dead, dismembered, mouth full, and dumped on a doorstep. Quickly.
     
    HalloweenRun, Sep 9, 2015
    #279
  10. Tiger in NC

    Tiger in NC There's a sucker born everyday...

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    Even if you do not trust the President, there are hundreds if not thousands of other officials in our own government and in the government of our allies who are also part of this equation. So it's not about just trusting one man, it's about trusting that this gaggle of people who have been negotiating this deal have covered the bases necessary to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. For all of our debate about the merits of the deal, I haven't heard anyone indicate that a nuclear Iran would benefit the world. So, there is unanimity about preventing Iran from getting a bomb, just the mechanism for making that happen is in debate. If Iran does not adhere to the tenets of this agreement, I fear the next step will be war. That said, if so, we can go to our allies and say that we've exhausted every means to maintain peace and ask them to join a coalition for taking out their program militarily.
     
    Tiger in NC, Sep 9, 2015
    #280
Page 28 of 43

Share This Page