Deal Reached In US-Iran Negotiations

[kallipolis]

Are you implying that the US aerial surveillance (etc.) is completely useless?

That's … VERY thick.

If Benvolio were military personnel, his commanding officers wouldn't tolerate this kind of defeatism, which is: undermining of military morale and hence punishable; in event of war, court martial would deliver that he'd deserve a bullet.

Well written....and accurate...

...it's not just satellite, and aerial surveillance...there's sufficient human intelligence feeding directly from Iran to keep The West abreast of developments in Iran's nuclear "energy" programme...Israel's Mossad has its finger on the pulse, well aware that Iran is still years away from producing a nuclear weapon...

...and, there are bunker busting bombs readily available...needing arming codes that the United States with holds, for the present.. to the Israeli Air Force should the need ever arise...to destroy Iran's nuclear "energy" plants...

 

[kallipolis]

and, of course the Iranian ayatollahs are not crazy to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. They know full well what the response will be...mutual self destruction is not an option for Israel, or Iran.

 

[T-Rexx]

If Benvolio were military personnel, his commanding officers wouldn't tolerate this kind of defeatism, which is: undermining of military morale and hence punishable...

Republicanism is, by nature, remarkably defeatist and surprisingly anti-American.

America can't overcome its dependence on fossil fuels, we can't deal with climate change, we can't fix the hole in the ozone layer, we can't protect/clean up the environment, we can't care for our sick, we can't accomodate immigrants, we can't negotiate with our enemies, we can't repair our infrastructure, we can't treat women, poor people, blacks, Muslims, or gays as though they were human.

America can't do anything. We are a hopeless failure, if you believe the Republicans.

 

[bankside]

and, of course the Iranian ayatollahs are not crazy to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. They know full well what the response will be...mutual self destruction is not an option for Israel, or Iran.

Well now that Obama has TOTALLY SCREWED THINGS UP WITH ISRAEL BY OCCASIONALLY DISAGREEING WITH ITS PRIME MINISTER THUS PROVING HIS INDIFFERENCE TO ISRAEL'S VERY SURVIVAL, don't count on bibi to share what the Mossad knows about iran's intentions. Obama has caused Israel to let the Iranians nuke the US homeland without lifting a finger. BENGHAZI BENGHAZI ABORTION GAY PEDOPHILE TAXES TAKING OUR GUNS!!!

Whoo! Sorry about that. I think I ate something funny.

 

[Benvolio]

Republicanism is, by nature, remarkably defeatist and surprisingly anti-American.

America can't overcome its dependence on fossil fuels, we can't deal with climate change, we can't fix the hole in the ozone layer, we can't protect/clean up the environment, we can't care for our sick, we can't accomodate immigrants, we can't negotiate with our enemies, we can't repair our infrastructure, we can't treat women, poor people, blacks, Muslims, or gays as though they were human.

America can't do anything. We are a hopeless failure, if you believe the Republicans.

No we have vastly different goals. You hate America and Americans and wish to replace them with a different country and people--except the real estate.

 

[T-Rexx]

No we have vastly different goals. You hate America and Americans and wish to replace them with a different country and people--except the real estate.

You are saying that xenophobia is an American value.

You cannot abide an America that is not lilly white and fundamentalist Protestant.

And you claim that I do not love America, because I do not share your racist values. You are quite correct that I would not love an America that is as intolerant, bigoted, and inhumane as you desire.

 

[Benvolio]

You are saying that xenophobia is an American value.

You cannot abide an America that is not lilly white and fundamentalist Protestant.

And you claim that I do not love America, because I do not share your racist values. You are quite correct that I would not love an America that is as intolerant, bigoted, and inhumane as you desire.

So, you hate Americans and think they are evil. We get it.

 

[Vitamin]

So, you hate Americans and think they are evil. We get it.

No Ben. Just you.

 

[Benvolio]

No Ben. Just you.

You lie. The liberals on this forum make it clear every day that they hate Reublicans, Christians, businessmen, corporations, etc. and anyone who does not agree 100% with liberal dogma.

 

[bankside]

I do hate republicans who intend to use the law to discriminate in favour of heterosexual Christian marriages. I do hate Christians who wish to use the law to impose their private religious morality on the rest of us.

I have no problems with Christians who go about their faith in private and leave the rest of us to go about ours or to go without. If asked I might think their faith is misguided but I hardly hate them and I'd insist that they be left alone in their homes and places of worship.

I have no problem with republicans being able to make their case in the public square for given policies on the economy, or what to do about a pipeline. But when they insist on imposing someone else's private morality? Of course hate is the proper response! It's survival!

 

[otters]

You lie. The liberals on this forum make it clear every day that they hate Reublicans, Christians, businessmen, corporations, etc. and anyone who does not agree 100% with liberal dogma.

Reublicans?

Reublicans?

Reublicans?

(Must search for anagrams.)

 

[otters]

Reublicans?

Reublicans?

Reublicans?

(Must search for anagrams.)

Ah! The 1982 movie. Blade Runner must terminate these cursed Reublicans.

 

[Benvolio]

I do hate republicans who intend to use the law to discriminate in favour of heterosexual Christian marriages. I do hate Christians who wish to use the law to impose their private religious morality on the rest of us.

I have no problems with Christians who go about their faith in private and leave the rest of us to go about ours or to go without. If asked I might think their faith is misguided but I hardly hate them and I'd insist that they be left alone in their homes and places of worship.

I have no problem with republicans being able to make their case in the public square for given policies on the economy, or what to do about a pipeline. But when they insist on imposing someone else's private morality? Of course hate is the proper response! It's survival!

Nonsense. You are invariably uncivil to anyone who disagrees with you. That's the liberal way.

 

[Benvolio]

Nonsense. You are invariably uncivil to anyone who disagrees with you. That's the liberal way.

Upon reflection,bankside, is less uncivil than most.

 

[bankside]

Woohoo!

Less uncivil than most!!!!

I might have that made into a t-shirt!

...but I risk not so much resting on my laurels as shredding them.

 

[bankside]

Benvolio let me take you back if not to chamberlain then to bush junior.

Of course my country both participated in, and then ignored, bush's calls for us to join the US in war.

In the first case, we had clear and compelling and verifiable evidence that Afghanistan was harbouring a person responsible for an unjust and illegal act of war against our neighbour and ally. Of course we were there.

In the second case we had only uncorroborated accusations that someone, who had embarrassed bush junior's daddy by failing to die or fall to a coup, was doing something vaguely nasty with potential weapons of mass destruction, that might possibly have been sold to said someone by Donald Rumsfeld in sunnier times.

So of course we said..."ahhh couldn't we just wait a bit to see if this whole weapons inspection team actually turns up some evidence? Or maybe even just a good clue? Nothing special, just basically any shred of anything that might be called a clue. Something velma could work with on scooby doo...no? No, you're going in anyway, right now, before they finish the inspection thingies?? Okay well good luck with that then."

What people forgot then, and what people forget now, is that if there had been any actual evidence, we WOULD have gone into Iraq as well. The whole fucking civilised world was basically saying "just show us the proof and we're in! You know, proof, like in Afghanistan!"

And I say today that Iran is not being given the go-ahead to imperil its neighbours, the process of civilisation is being given a chance to operate there. It will be apparent whether Iran stops any movement toward nuclearisation. If so, success. If not, bombs.

But the Republicans fail to understand that if you can get them to work, treaties are better than bombs.

The lyrics to the song are not "All we are saying is peace at all costs," it's "All we are saying is give peace a chance."

 

[Benvolio]

I could agree with that if the consequences of the understanding not working were not likely to be very serious or catastrophic. As it is, Obama now admits that even with the treaty, the "breakout time" to complete a bomb will be essentially zero in 13 years. http://www.voanews.com/content/obam...-israel-not-part-of-nuclear-deal/2709414.html
On the other hand, the Iranians are increasingly desperate to end the sanctions. Almost simultaneously with the announcement, another Iranian official repeated that Israel will be destroyed. The sanctions should have been continued. It has taken a lot of work to get the sanctions in place and they should not be ended for a mere "chance".

 

[bankside]

The consequences of that understanding are twofold: either Iran plays nicely, or bombs will drop on Iran. The time required to build a nuke goes up substantially when you have missiles raining down on your research facilities. And either of those consequences will have the desired outcome. There isn't an outcome that doesn't work by trying a diplomatic solution first.

 

[Benvolio]

The consequences of that understanding are twofold: either Iran plays nicely, or bombs will drop on Iran. The time required to build a nuke goes up substantially when you have missiles raining down on your research facilities. And either of those consequences will have the desired outcome. There isn't an outcome that doesn't work by trying a diplomatic solution first.

Where did you get the idea that bombs will drop when (not if) Iran cheats? That is not part of the deal, but Israel may conclude that they have no choice. In theory, the sanctions would snap back if violated but, even if true, it takes time for sanctions to begin to hurt.

 

[bankside]

Benvolio, no country signs a deal that specifies when its cosignatories can start dropping bombs.

This treaty is the best rational foreign policy choice for Germany, China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, and Iran. That's all five (FIVE) permanent members of the security council along with Germany, imposing a framework on Iran.

Look forward and anticipate a breach, and then consider what the second-best rational foreign policy choice is for at least some of those countries. And that is likely to be dropping bombs on Iran until they have no weapons research capacity any more. That isn't the sort of thing that gets written into a treaty.