because war and oil and tension and fear can be monetized. There will always be those who feel the best solution to a problem is to wipe it off the map and show them that America is the biggest and the baddest and the best. Those are the people that feel Obama is a fag for talking to these people instead of somehow laying down the law. This is the real world. This isn't a giant game of Risk. If there is ever going to be peace it is going to come from people looking each other in the eye and coming to an agreeable understanding. That takes time and the right people sitting at the table. I don't know that this treaty is perfect, but it's a treaty. It's a step in the right direction and maybe it leads to more talk and more cooperation and maybe an even better treaty. People talking is always better than people dying.
Sounds like a quote from Neville Chamberlain. Spelling of name?
It was only time that we hit our first Chamberlain reference. You win!
They knew it was going to happen and rather than getting an Israeli voice at the table, Netanyahu's behavior got them bupkus. as a result he is getting a ton of criticism for that.
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
Because Iran would continue to work on the bomb and would eventually develop it. So it's not like but-for this deal, there was going to be an non-nuclear Iran.
I have no idea if this was a good deal or not. A bad deal is not as good as continuing to work towards a good deal (or the conditions precedent to such a deal, e.g. making things tougher on Iran). I get all that. Frankly, I dont think a single person on this board is qualified to assess the deal. Hell, I think most of Congress is unqualified to assess the deal.
I also dont get the motive for the administration to agree to an obviously bad deal. I dont see what is in it for them (a bad deal is worse for legacy than no deal). And a lot of the criticism is coming from camps that think Obama is the worstest president who evah lived, and who have no idea what it is like to actually negotiate an international security accord and/or deal first hand with Russia, Iran, and Europe. Oh no, the Republicans in Congress and Bibi dont like something Obama did? They must be right!
and raking in money, they will be very reluctant to snap back any sanctions. This deal is about doing financial business with Iran, not about stopping them from doing anything.
RE: RE: I have a brother who lives in Israel with his family
They knew it was going to happen and rather than getting an Israeli voice at the table, Netanyahu's behavior got them bupkus. as a result he is getting a ton of criticism for that.
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
When Israel signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and comes clean about its nuclear weapons program, then maybe it will get a seat at the table.
Actually another doltish comment from you. Please read the context of the reference yo Chamberlain. It had nothing to do with this deal. It was a response to naive general comment which
said it is always wise to negotiate.
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
Absolutely that is a possibility. By "seat at the table" I also mean some sort of input into the process. I'm sure Netanyahu in all of his hubris probably would say he didn't want any. well that's his own folly because the deal was happening with or without him.
One of the bottom lines that is clear is that despite some of the views expressed here, the US and its partners were not necessarily negotiating from a position of strength. deal - ( New Window )
One of the bottom lines that is clear is that despite some of the views expressed here, the US and its partners were not necessarily negotiating from a position of strength. deal - ( New Window )
Thanks Reb. I dont care for Feldman on a personal level (he's a prick -- I know him from my law school and synagogue). But he was also the guy that the last administration sent to Iraq to write their constitution. So he's not just some ivory tower academic who doesnt have a real sense of the forces at play in western Asia.
RE: Anyone invoking the name of Neville Chamberlain
israel has a considerable nuclear arsenal
they are one of the few countries in the world with second strike capacity
they have 5 or 6 subs equipped with nuclear missiles
so if Iraq were to lobbed a nuclear bomb at israel , Iran would be wiped off the face of the earth.
So far Mutual Assured Destruction has kept unstable countries like North Korea and Pakistan from launching nukes , Iran may want regional power and prestige from a nuclear arsenal but in the end they would not be dumb enough to actually use the weapons.
that is the Realpolitik.
Iran was going to pursue nuclear weapons regardless of Saddam
I agree that there really is no way short of military force to prevent them from developing a nuke, but why let them enrich and re-arm themselves in the interim?
to this deal? If there was no deal, couldn't Iran just build a nuclear weapon since they already are subject to sanctions and have no incentive to hold back?
One alternative is to continue the policy that forced Iran to the table in the first place- sanctions and Israeli saber rattling.
But no surprise. This was pre-ordained when Kerry, a JFK wannabe and one of the architects of the "Castro really wanted to play for the Yankees and Ho Chi Minh wanted to run the Parker House but we forced them to become revolutionaries" school of international relations, became Secretary of State.
So, here's the question now. Which of the states from the other religious branch of Islam will get the bomb to counter the Iranians?
to this deal? If there was no deal, couldn't Iran just build a nuclear weapon since they already are subject to sanctions and have no incentive to hold back?
One alternative is to continue the policy that forced Iran to the table in the first place- sanctions and Israeli saber rattling.
But no surprise. This was pre-ordained when Kerry, a JFK wannabe and one of the architects of the "Castro really wanted to play for the Yankees and Ho Chi Minh wanted to run the Parker House but we forced them to become revolutionaries" school of international relations, became Secretary of State.
So, here's the question now. Which of the states from the other religious branch of Islam will get the bomb to counter the Iranians?
The Pakistanis an they already have it.
RE: RE: Anyone invoking the name of Neville Chamberlain
I agree that there really is no way short of military force to prevent them from developing a nuke, but why let them enrich and re-arm themselves in the interim?
Let them? They were already doing it? I dont understand this criticism.
They knew it was going to happen and rather than getting an Israeli voice at the table, Netanyahu's behavior got them bupkus. as a result he is getting a ton of criticism for that.
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
When Israel signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and comes clean about its nuclear weapons program, then maybe it will get a seat at the table.
Absolutely irrelevant to whether they would have had a seat in these negotiations, but enjoy your fixation.
Already making a lot of money on the international market and buying arms from Russia and China? Is that what you're telling me?
enriching uranium and buying arms. They were already doing both things, fairly successfully.
Yes, they were enriching uranium. I meant enrich in the sense of generating wealth, which they currently cannot do. And I'd dispute that they are fairly successful at re-arming - that's the reason they wanted a deal in the first place.
RE: RE: RE: I have a brother who lives in Israel with his family
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
Absolutely that is a possibility. By "seat at the table" I also mean some sort of input into the process. I'm sure Netanyahu in all of his hubris probably would say he didn't want any. well that's his own folly because the deal was happening with or without him.
Stu - It takes two to tango. Bibi certainly has hubris, but this administration treated him poorly from Day 1. IMHO they would have snubbed him, but probably have done it with less enthusiasm which is caused by recent events.
but Bibi had no business addressing Congress and embarrassing the President. He could have handled it differently, now he has pissed off Obama and the deal will go through. I think he hurt Israel
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
Bibi's speech to Congress might've been the tipping point, but his relationship with this admin had gone south well before then.
Quote:
In comment 12370637 GiantJake said:
Quote:
because war and oil and tension and fear can be monetized. There will always be those who feel the best solution to a problem is to wipe it off the map and show them that America is the biggest and the baddest and the best. Those are the people that feel Obama is a fag for talking to these people instead of somehow laying down the law. This is the real world. This isn't a giant game of Risk. If there is ever going to be peace it is going to come from people looking each other in the eye and coming to an agreeable understanding. That takes time and the right people sitting at the table. I don't know that this treaty is perfect, but it's a treaty. It's a step in the right direction and maybe it leads to more talk and more cooperation and maybe an even better treaty. People talking is always better than people dying.
Sounds like a quote from Neville Chamberlain. Spelling of name?
It was only time that we hit our first Chamberlain reference. You win!
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Do nothing was not a long term solution.
Why not?
Because Iran would continue to work on the bomb and would eventually develop it. So it's not like but-for this deal, there was going to be an non-nuclear Iran.
I have no idea if this was a good deal or not. A bad deal is not as good as continuing to work towards a good deal (or the conditions precedent to such a deal, e.g. making things tougher on Iran). I get all that. Frankly, I dont think a single person on this board is qualified to assess the deal. Hell, I think most of Congress is unqualified to assess the deal.
I also dont get the motive for the administration to agree to an obviously bad deal. I dont see what is in it for them (a bad deal is worse for legacy than no deal). And a lot of the criticism is coming from camps that think Obama is the worstest president who evah lived, and who have no idea what it is like to actually negotiate an international security accord and/or deal first hand with Russia, Iran, and Europe. Oh no, the Republicans in Congress and Bibi dont like something Obama did? They must be right!
The biggest surprise is that she actually took a stance!
Quote:
They knew it was going to happen and rather than getting an Israeli voice at the table, Netanyahu's behavior got them bupkus. as a result he is getting a ton of criticism for that.
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
When Israel signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and comes clean about its nuclear weapons program, then maybe it will get a seat at the table.
That is all I am going to say about this.
This doesn't apply to known locations.
14 days for unknown sites is reasonable if our current intelligence and future surveillance is good.
That is all I am going to say about this.
said it is always wise to negotiate.
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
Absolutely that is a possibility. By "seat at the table" I also mean some sort of input into the process. I'm sure Netanyahu in all of his hubris probably would say he didn't want any. well that's his own folly because the deal was happening with or without him.
One of the bottom lines that is clear is that despite some of the views expressed here, the US and its partners were not necessarily negotiating from a position of strength.
deal - ( New Window )
One of the bottom lines that is clear is that despite some of the views expressed here, the US and its partners were not necessarily negotiating from a position of strength. deal - ( New Window )
Thanks Reb. I dont care for Feldman on a personal level (he's a prick -- I know him from my law school and synagogue). But he was also the guy that the last administration sent to Iraq to write their constitution. So he's not just some ivory tower academic who doesnt have a real sense of the forces at play in western Asia.
That is all I am going to say about this.
It's a requirement to mention him in these threads, even in passing. 'Peace in our time' is also acceptable.
Anyone know when the decade of chaos is supposed to commence?
they are one of the few countries in the world with second strike capacity
they have 5 or 6 subs equipped with nuclear missiles
so if Iraq were to lobbed a nuclear bomb at israel , Iran would be wiped off the face of the earth.
So far Mutual Assured Destruction has kept unstable countries like North Korea and Pakistan from launching nukes , Iran may want regional power and prestige from a nuclear arsenal but in the end they would not be dumb enough to actually use the weapons.
that is the Realpolitik.
But no surprise. This was pre-ordained when Kerry, a JFK wannabe and one of the architects of the "Castro really wanted to play for the Yankees and Ho Chi Minh wanted to run the Parker House but we forced them to become revolutionaries" school of international relations, became Secretary of State.
So, here's the question now. Which of the states from the other religious branch of Islam will get the bomb to counter the Iranians?
Quote:
to this deal? If there was no deal, couldn't Iran just build a nuclear weapon since they already are subject to sanctions and have no incentive to hold back?
One alternative is to continue the policy that forced Iran to the table in the first place- sanctions and Israeli saber rattling.
But no surprise. This was pre-ordained when Kerry, a JFK wannabe and one of the architects of the "Castro really wanted to play for the Yankees and Ho Chi Minh wanted to run the Parker House but we forced them to become revolutionaries" school of international relations, became Secretary of State.
So, here's the question now. Which of the states from the other religious branch of Islam will get the bomb to counter the Iranians?
The Pakistanis an they already have it.
Quote:
is a drama queen and a dolt.
That is all I am going to say about this.
It's a requirement to mention him in these threads, even in passing. 'Peace in our time' is also acceptable.
Anyone know when the decaDde of chaos is supposed to commence?
have a field day
Let them? They were already doing it? I dont understand this criticism.
Quote:
In comment 12370739 Don in DC said:
Quote:
is a drama queen and a dolt.
That is all I am going to say about this.
It's a requirement to mention him in these threads, even in passing. 'Peace in our time' is also acceptable.
Anyone know when the decaDde of chaos is supposed to commence?
Doubling down on someone else's poorwaze Qa comment. The thread police deciding that some references cannot be made even when appropriate.
Nope. It's a corollary of Godwin's Law.
is Bomb bomb bomb Iran. Diplomacy is for pussies
Quote:
In comment 12370841 schabadoo said:
Quote:
In comment 12370739 Don in DC said:
Quote:
is a drama queen and a dolt.
That is all I am going to say about this.
It's a requirement to mention him in these threads, even in passing. 'Peace in our time' is also acceptable.
Anyone know when the decaDde of chaos is supposed to commence?
Doubling down on someone else's poorwaze Qa comment. The thread police deciding that some references cannot be made even when appropriate.
Nope. It's a corollary of Godwin's Law.
Link - ( New Window )
And comparing this to Munich is absurd.
enriching uranium and buying arms. They were already doing both things, fairly successfully.
If this can help begin a reset of our relations with Iran, that would be a good thing indeed.
Quote:
In comment 12370668 Stu11 said:
Quote:
They knew it was going to happen and rather than getting an Israeli voice at the table, Netanyahu's behavior got them bupkus. as a result he is getting a ton of criticism for that.
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
When Israel signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and comes clean about its nuclear weapons program, then maybe it will get a seat at the table.
Absolutely irrelevant to whether they would have had a seat in these negotiations, but enjoy your fixation.
Quote:
Already making a lot of money on the international market and buying arms from Russia and China? Is that what you're telling me?
enriching uranium and buying arms. They were already doing both things, fairly successfully.
Yes, they were enriching uranium. I meant enrich in the sense of generating wealth, which they currently cannot do. And I'd dispute that they are fairly successful at re-arming - that's the reason they wanted a deal in the first place.
Quote:
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
Absolutely that is a possibility. By "seat at the table" I also mean some sort of input into the process. I'm sure Netanyahu in all of his hubris probably would say he didn't want any. well that's his own folly because the deal was happening with or without him.
Stu - It takes two to tango. Bibi certainly has hubris, but this administration treated him poorly from Day 1. IMHO they would have snubbed him, but probably have done it with less enthusiasm which is caused by recent events.
Bibi's speech to Congress might've been the tipping point, but his relationship with this admin had gone south well before then.