jbg Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 From the looks of it, the U.S. and G5 + 1 have, to quote Paul Simon in the Boxer, given up the store to Iran in exchange for a "pocket full of mumbles." The actual lyrics are better: I have squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles, such are promisesAll lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hearAnd disregards the rest (link) The West has "sqandered (its) resistance" and "hear(d) what (it) wants to hear." Iran gets a fistful of money, which I doubt it will use to improve the life of its people. It will use the funds for furthering their struggle against the West, and in particular Israel. If it violates, the West will have no political will to snap back sanctions. Too much money will be being made to make that possible. Madmen will now have the nuclear keys. My own instinct is that Israel will not just sit there and watch this play out. They may not bomb the reactors. But watch for members of the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council (SCRC, also known as the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution) (link) and possibly Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, Leader of the Islamic Revolution(link) to serve terms for a length determined by the IDF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 My response is the same as post #117 in the "Iran Key To Middle East Peace" in the "Rest of the World" section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Moved to 'The Rest of the World' forum... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Garbage post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Jones Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 I'm sick of Netanyahu and those who talk like him. It's nice to see that these extremists and war propagandists are being marginalized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Moved to 'The Rest of the World' forum... Thanks. I wavered for about 20 minutes and wasn't sure if it focused on the U.S., or "everywhere else." I knew for sure it wasn't Canada. Garbage post. Is that the best you can come up with? I'm sick of Netanyahu and those who talk like him. It's nice to see that these extremists and war propagandists are being marginalized. I didn't listen to Netanyahu's reaction before composing my post. For all I knew he was going to support the agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 It sure has got the GOP boys fired up. One of 'em was on TV a moment ago spouting off about how the deal would allow Iran to produce a nuke in secret. Duh, having IAEA inspectors overseeing their work is sort of a guard against that n'est pas? Oh well, Obama has the veto to keep the unruly kids in line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Why the Obama giving Iran 150 billion? That is insane. Obama will go down in history as the president who paid Iran to build a bomb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Jones Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Oh well, Obama has the veto to keep the unruly kids in line. Actually, Congress can override the veto via a two-thirds vote with both houses voting separately, after which the bill becomes law. So it will come down to a showdown between Obama and the Democrats who receive $$$ from Zionist lobby groups. Many say that Obama has enough Democrats, but it remains to be seen. Even if they're able to get the 2/3 votes, then the U.S. would be left behind as it will be the only country not lifting its sanctions. That will be good news for European companies who have been wanting to start doing business with Iran. It would mean the biggest economy in the world not competing against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Why the Obama giving Iran 150 billion? That is insane. Obama will go down in history as the president who paid Iran to build a bomb. It's a Dem tradition. Clinton paid NK to build a bomb, Iran knew if they played hard ball, Obama's administration would pay for it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Jones Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Why the Obama giving Iran 150 billion? That is insane. Obama will go down in history as the president who paid Iran to build a bomb. Obama is not "giving" $150 billion. He is releasing frozen Iranian funds and revenue and allowing trades to happen which will amount to $150 billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 It's a Dem tradition. Clinton paid NK to build a bomb, Iran knew if they played hard ball, Obama's administration would pay for it all.I could understand the argument that stopping Iran from getting a bomb is impossible and some sort of deal is better than the status quo. I just find galling that Obama has the nerve to claim that the deal will stop Iran from getting a bomb. Iran will do what NK did: pocket the cash, renege on the deal and then exploit Russia/China/US divisions to stop sanctions from getting reimposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Actually, Congress can override the veto via a two-thirds vote with both houses voting separately, after which the bill becomes law. So it will come down to a showdown between Obama and the Democrats who receive $$$ from Zionist lobby groups. Many say that Obama has enough Democrats, but it remains to be seen. Even if they're able to get the 2/3 votes, then the U.S. would be left behind as it will be the only country not lifting its sanctions. That will be good news for European companies who have been wanting to start doing business with Iran. It would mean the biggest economy in the world not competing against them. I would tend to agree with those who say Obama would be able to muster enough support in the congress. If for no other reason than if you scuttle the deal what's next, start bombing Tehran? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Netanyahu does and says what he thinks if best for Israel - good for him. That is why he was elected. I am disappointed that in his rebuttal to this deal that he could have been more specific. He has never stated what kind of deal he would find acceptable that Iran might accept. He has also never stated what he thinks would happen if there was no deal. I have not located anyone who feels that Iran would stop trying to create a nuclear bomb if there was no deal. If Iran continued to develop nuclear technology then someone would have to use force to stop them. That means a war. I would suspect that Netanyahu would love to see the USA and Iran bomb the bejeebers out of each other with Iran coming in a bad third - and Israel ready to clean up what is left. That would be good for Israel. That would not be good for the USA or Canada. I believe that this deal is good for Canada and Canadian interests in the Middle East. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 I could understand the argument that stopping Iran from getting a bomb is impossible and some sort of deal is better than the status quo. I just find galling that Obama has the nerve to claim that the deal will stop Iran from getting a bomb. Iran will do what NK did: pocket the cash, renege on the deal and then exploit Russia/China/US divisions to stop sanctions from getting reimposed. The difference between NK and Iran is, Iran has a lot more resources to carry out their sponsership of terrorism and their desire to see Israel swept into the sea. Within a year Iran will have a nuke and within 3 they will be using the new found clout to expand their borders. The butt load of cash and trading rights they've just been given will aid this greatly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 It's a way better deal than Reagan made with Pakistan, where he allowed them to get the first Islamic bomb in exchange for a place to train al-Qaeda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Jones Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Within a year Iran will have a nuke Hm. How about, if they do have a nuke within a year, I promise to quit from this site. If they don't have a nuke within a year, Netanyahu, are you willing to quit from this site? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Hm. How about, if they do have a nuke within a year, I promise to quit from this site. If they don't have a nuke within a year, Netanyahu, are you willing to quit from this site? I like this bet!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 14, 2015 Report Share Posted July 14, 2015 Pakistan and India got the bomb from Canada, not Reagan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) The deal doesn't give the West 100% every demand they would have liked (ie: dismantling 100% of Iran nuke infrastructure), but making deals like this means some compromises. Still, the deal both prevents Iran from developing a nuke and also prevents war against Iran to stop said nuke. Iran can't develop a nuke if they follow the deal, and if they don't follow the deal then sanctions snap back back and we're back to the same situation we were yesterday with the same options available to the West, such as bombing their nuke development facilities. Obama put it well in his announcement speech: Put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East. Moreover, we give nothing up by testing whether or not this problem can be solved peacefully. If, in a worst-case scenario, Iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today will be available to any U.S. President in the future. The deal also may lead to further warming of Iran-Western relations, which is most certainly in our security interests, especially in Iraq. Saudi Arabia might not like that, Israel might like that, but if it leads to a higher liklihood of more peace in the region then overall it would be a good thing. Iran were once Western allies, and can be again, but repairing almost 40 years of bad relations won't happen overnight. Edited July 15, 2015 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 The butt load of cash and trading rights they've just been given will aid this greatly. What cash have they been given right now? Unless I'm mistaken, the easing of sanctions etc. is gradual and is based on Iran complying to terms of the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 The deal doesn't give the West 100% every demand they would have liked (ie: dismantling 100% of Iran nuke infrastructure), but making deals like this means some compromises.It is not clear to me why any deal was required. Seems to me this was a self centered exercise on the part of Obama to create a legacy except his legacy will likely been how took the shackles off a state known to support terrorism in return for promises that mean nothing (i.e. sure sanctions go back on by Iran will have time to prepare for them when they do). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Hm. How about, if they do have a nuke within a year, I promise to quit from this site. If they don't have a nuke within a year, Netanyahu, are you willing to quit from this site? Thank you for the compliment, but I would hate to deprive you from your favourite pass time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 15, 2015 Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 Why the Obama giving Iran 150 billion? That is insane.Compensation for Operation Ajax? It's about time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 15, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2015 It is not clear to me why any deal was required. Seems to me this was a self centered exercise on the part of Obama to create a legacy except his legacy will likely been how took the shackles off a state known to support terrorism in return for promises that mean nothing (i.e. sure sanctions go back on by Iran will have time to prepare for them when they do). Just like the legacy of a famous British PM is "peace in our times." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.