If Iran deal fails, it's time to face reality

[Benvolio]

The pro-Israel biases become more apparent each day.

Trouble is, being pro-Netanyahu is considered to be pro-Israel, but very few things on this entire planet can be farther from the truth. I agree that Netinyahu is perhaps Israel's worst enemy anywhere in the world. The pro-war, at any cost, approach guarantees, more than anything else, that Israel will be targeted for the utmost amount of devastation and annihilation...as HUGE factions of the world will be on the "other" side.

Biblical prophesy may indeed be entirely correct. Going for war on Iran no matter what, could precipitate the conflagration that ends humanity as we know it. RUSSIA, A HUGE POWER IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, WOULD *NOT* BE ON "OUR" SIDE.

It seems unlikely that Russia would enter a mahor war tto help Iran. Why would they? They could lose millions of people with nothing to gain.

 

[Brian Smith]

If the likes of Netanyahu continue controlling Israel, then we ought to be prepared for a scenario in which other world powers are actually intervening, with military force, against Israel. As much as I admire Israel, as a culture, it would be hard to stand by them when they are in the wrong. If Israel doesn't change course soon, they could end up in a lot of trouble.

 

[pausanias_usa]

. . . Iran . . . would have the ability, if a fanatic government rose to power, to rapidly create one, virtually overnight.

IF? We are already there. I'm afraid it will indeed have consequences, but IF anyone is left alive there after the nuclear war, at least they'll be able to be rid of the theocracy.

 

[JordanFrank]

My understanding is that even if they abide by the agreemant, they will be free in ten years to go ahead with their bomb. It now appears that leading Jewish leaders, including Schumer, will vote against the deal. Obama's pro muslim, anti Israel biases become more apparent each day.

They may "be free in ten years (?) to go ahead with their bomb", but that's not a forgone conclusion. Situations change, governments change, attitudes change (especially those of the young), who know what will be important to the Iranians as a decade's (or more) time passes. They may reflect and see the "evil of their ways" and abandon any pursuit of massive destructive weapons and decide that embargoes and shit really do suck.

But in 2025, if Iran somehow happens to piece together their little la bomba, you have permission to give a big "I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO, BITCH!" to me.

I also think that Chuck Schumer's better angels will prevail to advise and guide him to the saner side of the issue.

I won't even address your third sentence of nonsense....

Peace, dude!

 

[Benvolio]

Continuance of the sanctions is the better, safer alternative.

 

[kallipolis]

Continuance of the sanctions is the better, safer alternative.

The West needs the military cooperation of Iran to defeat Islamic States....that's one of the reasons why The West is resuming its relationship with Iran....

From Syria, through Iraq, to Afghanistan the Middle East is a disaster filled with warring factions....Libya remains a quagmire of warring tribes.....

 

[Brian Smith]

Iran's government seems interested enough in dealing with Daesh. I think we ought to avoid falling into narcissistic illusions that we somehow control or ought to control what happens in their region. It's bad for our global relations to act that way, and it ultimately weakens us.

I see Hassan Rouhani as a potential ally specifically because his first loyalty is toward his country, not toward an ideology. He intuitively understands the way his people tick, and he seems like a leader who might actually succeed in restoring Iran's international credibility.

The thing is, we have until about the middle of 2017 to make sure that Rouhani's people understand that he is really on their side.

 

[Brian Smith]

The thing is, if we undermine Rouhani now, then the same thing could happen as did with the Weimar Republic. The Weimar Republic was a moderate government. Although there were other factors surrounding the fall of the Weimar Republic, such as "leave-it-alone liquidationism" (today reborn as "austerity"), but the reasons for such a radical shift to extremist ideology was the failure of the international community to lend credibility to the Weimar Republic's moderate government, thereby leading to their collapse.

Rouhani losing credibility could be equally disastrous. If Iran's economy folds more severely than it already has under Rouhani and Iran is still not being treated as a respected partner in international relations, there could be serious trouble. I'm not saying the situations are the same, but this moment in Iran's history is pivotal. How the international community behaves could affect whether or not Iranian youth, 20 years from now, are able to live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, going nicely to their mosques, and not driving the rest of us berserk.

 

[Kulindahr]

And damned Chuck Schumer (NOT one of my favorite Democrats, not even close), wants WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Schumer loves making people into victims, whether Iran or Americans. He'd be lost without being able to throw power around.

 

[Kulindahr]

Iran's government seems interested enough in dealing with Daesh. I think we ought to avoid falling into narcissistic illusions that we somehow control or ought to control what happens in their region. It's bad for our global relations to act that way, and it ultimately weakens us.

I see Hassan Rouhani as a potential ally specifically because his first loyalty is toward his country, not toward an ideology. He intuitively understands the way his people tick, and he seems like a leader who might actually succeed in restoring Iran's international credibility.

The thing is, we have until about the middle of 2017 to make sure that Rouhani's people understand that he is really on their side.

And the US and Britain have a record of ignoring or toppling sensible leaders in the region.

 

[evanrick]

i really believe democrats cannot stand for war, obamas plan must survive. even if its a necessary war, its not a necessary war. republicans start wars, democrats finish them, and America is less safe and less stable each time. run up the white flag if democrats cannot stand on principle, or we will be labelled opportunists and the establishment will soon learn democrats are tools.

tools can be replaced.

 

[Benvolio]

M

i really believe democrats cannot stand for war, obamas plan must survive. even if its a necessary war, its not a necessary war. republicans start wars, democrats finish them, and America is less safe and less stable each time. run up the white flag if democrats cannot stand on principle, or we will be labelled opportunists and the establishment will soon learn democrats are tools.

tools can be replaced.

Nonsense, [Text: Removed]. Wilson got us into WWI, FDR WWIi, Truman into Korean War, Kennedy/Johnson into Vietnam. Carter tried and failed get the hostages, Clinton got us into Kosovo, Obama into ISIS, and still has not ended Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[Benvolio]

I forgot that democrats started the Civil War to keep their slaves.

 

[TX-Beau]

I forgot that democrats started the Civil War to keep their slaves.

You also forgot that all those Southern racists became Republicans to keep their bigotry because this isn't 1860.

[Text: Removed], I find it strange that you would try to brag about this since it's painfully obvious you would also have been an Antebellum Democrat.

Lincoln Ben, would piss on you.

 

[TX-Beau]

In point of fact the issue of slavery split the Antebellum Democratic party and allowed Lincoln to win the election.

Ben doesn't like history, it contradicts the inventions he's been instructed to disseminate.

 

[Benvolio]

Also Madison started War of 1812, and Polk got us into the Mexicanu War.

 

[TX-Beau]

Also Madison started War of 1812, and Polk got us into the Mexicanu War.

And yet all those racists you love so went Republican because in this era the Republicans are the party of bigots and haters.

 

[Mitchymo]

Actually, the reason the Iran is starting to behave more moderately is that Hassan Rouhani is a centrist candidate, and this isn't just because he has "middle-of-the-road" views. He is actually a competent politician, who has an intuitive understanding behind the reasons and nature of all political factions in his country. He treats his countrymen as his friends. He isn't just a dithering self-proclaimed centrist, but he really genuinely loves his country and his countrymen. I deeply admire Hassan Rouhani.

I actually attribute the current deal not to sanctions but to the political genius of this Iranian politician.

Much better having this Rouhani guy in charge for sure. Its a 100 fold improvement on Ahmedinijihadi (should have been his real name to represent how crackpot he was).

There has to be unfortunately the constant remembrance that whoever the leader is, its the ayatollah who has the upmost power, and he aint a nice guy. Its not suprising that some are sceptical about the possibility this more co-operative Iran with a less maniacal leader is biding time. Lets hope thats not the case.

Personally, i don't think anything is going to stop a WWIII. War is too good for the elite.

 

[frankfrank]

M

Nonsense, [Text: Removed]. Wilson got us into WWI, FDR WWIi, Truman into Korean War, Kennedy/Johnson into Vietnam. Carter tried and failed get the hostages, Clinton got us into Kosovo, Obama into ISIS, and still has not ended Iraq or Afghanistan.

Seriously, am I the only one noticing here that he CONVENIENTLY "forgot" to tell us who started THOSE two wars, hmmm???

 

[Benvolio]

Seriously, am I the only one noticing here that he CONVENIENTLY "forgot" to tell us who started THOSE two wars, hmmm???

I was responding to evanrick's absurd "statement that Republicans start wars, democrats end wars". Of all the wars in US history, only the Spanish American, 2 Iraqs and Afghanistan started during Republican administrations. All other were democrat wars.