The Iran Nuclear Deal

[deleted126335]

The nukes exist as a means of mutually assured destruction. They could certainly hit major targets in Iran without suffering any casualties, but the real problem is that such an action would result in the whole Middle East wiping Israel off the map. They have between 75 and 400 nuclear weapons, by most defense analyst estimates, and would most likely use them in a wide deployment fashion should any party try to invade or destroy Israel. Personally, I feel we should put sanctions on Israel per the UN nonproliferation agreement, it's ridiculous that we haven't done so or been allowed to perform inspections. Israel isn't special, they should follow the same rules of international law as everyone else.

Israel has never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Iran and North Korea have and broken it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Planktonmd]

Israel has never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Iran and North Korea have and broken it.

So if Iran withdraws from the treaty they should be ok?

 

[deleted126335]

So if Iran withdraws from the treaty they should be ok?

Nope. Just contributing to the discussion with accurate information.

Also Pakistan has signed and broken it. They have directly assisted North Korea and Iran with their nuclear programs.

 

[Planktonmd]

Nope. Just contributing to the discussion with accurate information.

Also Pakistan has signed and broken it. They have directly assisted North Korea and Iran with their nuclear programs.

You know people break treaties all the time, a recent example is what we did to the poor Ukrainians who thought their treaty with the US would protect them against Putin and willingly gave away their Nukes.

 

[mostwanted]

The nukes exist as a means of mutually assured destruction. They could certainly hit major targets in Iran without suffering any casualties, but the real problem is that such an action would result in the whole Middle East wiping Israel off the map. They have between 75 and 400 nuclear weapons, by most defense analyst estimates, and would most likely use them in a wide deployment fashion should any party try to invade or destroy Israel. Personally, I feel we should put sanctions on Israel per the UN nonproliferation agreement, it's ridiculous that we haven't done so or been allowed to perform inspections. Israel isn't special, they should follow the same rules of international law as everyone else.

Israel gets special treatment by having dual US/Israeli citizens as leaders in Congress and main media outlets, whose loyalty lies with Israel instead of what is best for us (US). I think 3 billion dollar/yr we have give to Israel for over 50 years will be much better served if basically every medical student in US graduated debt free.

Seymour Hersh need to be praised for clearly pointing out this is the similar type of fear mongering that led us to the debacle in Iraq and the push is certainly coming from Israel. I don't think any more US soldiers need to die defending any other nation, while they are fully capable.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/06/06/iran-and-the-bomb-seymour-m-hersh

 

[deleted126335]

You know people break treaties all the time, a recent example is what we did to the poor Ukrainians who thought their treaty with the US would protect them against Putin and willingly gave away their Nukes.

Yup. Ukraine was left holding the bag on that one.

 

[Mad Jack]

Israel has never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Iran and North Korea have and broken it.

I'm of the opinion the UN should have trade sanctions against any country (India and Pakistan included) that willfully disregards the international community's intent of nuclear disarmament. Iran happens to fall under that umbrella. I don't think you should get a pass because you're our friend or you've got some smoldering conflict with your neighbors- the international community should be putting pressure on these countries to disarm, regardless of their signing the treaty.

 

[doctalaughs]

I think Iran will eventually get nukes. Technology is moving to fast for containment to keep up. I just hope their hardliners are marginalized by then.

There is no right answer. I know someone doesn't know what they're talking about the second they say they know exactly what to do.

Things like this (and even more extreme what urge says about letting everyone have nukes) is the problem. Evil in this world IS REAL. There are countries/ regimes in this world that are EVIL and we cant take self-effacing, weak, politically-correct stances that this administration has promoted. We are not perfect but there is a world of difference between the US, Israel, Britain etc and places like Iran, N korea. Cant you see that from a moral perspective? Why not let ISIS have some nukes if we extend your argument? Do you think we should have fought Hitler in WW2? Do you think it would have been better if we fought him earlier?

This deal stinks. This is what we should have done: 1. Push for more stringent sanctions unless every single centrifuge and piece of uranium was destroyed unfettered inspections with every american hostage languishing in Iranian prison released.
2. Since they likely wouldn't accept #1 make it CLEAR stated policy that if they do develop a nuke it would mean immediate declaration of war starting with bombing of every military and nuclear facility in their country.

 

[Mad Jack]

Israel gets special treatment by having dual US/Israeli citizens as leaders in Congress and main media outlets, whose loyalty lies with Israel instead of what is best for us (US). I think 3 billion dollar/yr we have give to Israel for over 50 years will be much better served if basically every medical student in US graduated debt free.

Seymour Hersh need to be praised for clearly pointing out this is the similar type of fear mongering that led us to the debacle in Iraq and the push is certainly coming from Israel. I don't think any more US soldiers need to die defending any other nation, while they are fully capable.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/06/06/iran-and-the-bomb-seymour-m-hersh

Personally I'm about keeping the U.S. first. A big step toward getting Iran off of our case would be backing out of supporting Israel. We've got more than enough access to oil via shale reserves, so we don't need to keep a presence in the Middle East that is as robust as it once was. Much of the terrorism we encounter is largely the result of what Muslims feel is our encroachment upon their area of the world. If we back off and pull out of their territory, and stop preferentially backing the Saudis and the Israelis, maybe Iran would be less apt to fund and supply groups that want to bomb the hell out of us.

 

[Mad Jack]

Things like this (and even more extreme what urge says about letting everyone have nukes) is the problem. Evil in this world IS REAL. There are countries/ regimes in this world that are EVIL and we cant take self-effacing, weak, politically-correct stances that this administration has promoted. We are not perfect but there is a world of difference between the US, Israel, Britain etc and places like Iran, N korea. Cant you see that from a moral perspective? Why not let ISIS have some nukes if we extend your argument? Do you think we should have fought Hitler in WW2? Do you think it would have been better if we fought him earlier?

This deal stinks. This is what we should have done: 1. Push for more stringent sanctions unless every single centrifuge and piece of uranium was destroyed unfettered inspections with every american hostage languishing in Iranian prison released.
2. Since they likely wouldn't accept #1 make it CLEAR stated policy that if they do develop a nuke it would mean immediate declaration of war starting with bombing of every military and nuclear facility in their country.

While North Korea is certainly evil, what basis do you have for saying Iran is objectively evil? They are a dictatorship in all but name, but what makes them worse than any of the other dictatorships we deal with around the world? I'm not saying their government is or is not evil, I'm asking what your objective measure for evil is. Iran is hardly Nazi Germany, comparing them to the Nazis is quite disingenuous.

 

[sleepallday]

How does Israel have anything to do with the discussion of Iran having nuclear weapons? That was one of the worst strawmen I've ever seen in my history of online discussions.

Pakistan is a perfect example of exactly why you don't want a country like Iran having nukes. They have several nuclear weapons being driven around the country in continuously moving unmarked vans. They're literally one bad car accident or a car jacking away from having a nuke go rogue.

As to funding terrorist groups and having an unstable government, I'd love to see how America is anywhere near comparable to Iran in those regards. That isn't propaganda- Iran openly admits to engaging in and funding asymmetrical warfare. Their government had a strong possibility of ending up in the news of the Arab Spring. There is zero American equivalent for either of those, at all, in any way whatsoever.

Tell that to the people of Gaza, when we made sure the Israelis' were restocked and loaded with weapons last year.

sigh....my comment was more about America then Israel. As in we supplied Israel with weapons to help carry out the onslaught against Gaza.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

While North Korea is certainly evil, what basis do you have for saying Iran is objectively evil? They are a dictatorship in all but name, but what makes them worse than any of the other dictatorships we deal with around the world? I'm not saying their government is or is not evil, I'm asking what your objective measure for evil is. Iran is hardly Nazi Germany, comparing them to the Nazis is quite disingenuous.

How about being the worlds biggest state sponsor of terrorism? Is that not evil enough for you? How about the all the weapons, bombs, and rockets they smuggle to Hamas and Hezbollah? How about all of the American soliders that were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan due to Iran's funding?

 

[FollowTheMoney]

sigh....my comment was more about America then Israel. As in we supplied Israel with weapons to help carry out the onslaught against Gaza.

You mean after Hamas attacks Israel by firing mortar rockets into southern Israel trying to kill innocent civilians? Meanwhile, Israel gives Gaza citizens a warning in advance of an air strike to avoid civilian casualties. They are pinpoint air strikes that kill terrorist leaders and command centers. Any civilian casualties are because Hamas uses women and children as shields and they try to set up some of their military equipment and rockets in elementary schools. They are a bunch of cowards.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

Personally I'm about keeping the U.S. first. A big step toward getting Iran off of our case would be backing out of supporting Israel. We've got more than enough access to oil via shale reserves, so we don't need to keep a presence in the Middle East that is as robust as it once was. Much of the terrorism we encounter is largely the result of what Muslims feel is our encroachment upon their area of the world. If we back off and pull out of their territory, and stop preferentially backing the Saudis and the Israelis, maybe Iran would be less apt to fund and supply groups that want to bomb the hell out of us.

I'm sure our presence doesn't make matters any better, but I can tell you these people hate you and will always hate you no matter what. To them you are an infidel and any infidel is an enemy that must be destroyed. These people are mentally insane. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to conceptualize. Not everyone on the planet is a sane rational individual. There is evil in the world and people who are savage barbarians and there is no reasoning with them. That's the flaw with your thought process... you think everyone in the world is exactly like you and that somehow, someway you can get through to people like this. If everyone on the planet was like you, then I could understand your rationale.

 

[Mad Jack]

How about being the worlds biggest state sponsor of terrorism? Is that not evil enough for you? How about the all the weapons, bombs, and rockets they smuggle to Hamas and Hezbollah? How about all of the American soliders that were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan due to Iran's funding?

If we were uninvolved with Israel, and hadn't started a war in Iraq that was completely unnecessary under false pretenses, how much of a threat would Iran be to us? Iran fights us because we are constantly wrecking things in the Middle East. We overthrew their government back in the day, I mean, that's kind of a big deal. If Iran had overthrown our government, don't you think we'd still have a wary eye on them and fight them whenever their troops were in North America? We created this mess by trying to control the Middle East for its oil reserves throughout the 20th century, and now it's coming back to bite us in our collective butts.

I'm sure our presence doesn't make matters any better, but I can tell you these people hate you and will always hate you no matter what. To them you are an infidel and any infidel is an enemy that must be destroyed. These people are mentally insane. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to conceptualize. Not everyone on the planet is a sane rational individual. There is evil in the world and people who are savage barbarians and there is no reasoning with them. That's the flaw with your thought process... you think everyone in the world is exactly like you and that somehow, someway you can get through to people like this. If everyone on the planet was like you, then I could understand your rationale.

I have many Iranian friends, and nearly married a half-Iranian. I'm pretty well versed on how things are on the ground. The average people in Iran actually don't hate America, despite what the media would have you believe. Their leadership plays up the propaganda to try and get blame shifted to the United States, but most people on the street level see it for what it is. They're not stupid, and they aren't barbarians. Their leaders may be nuts, but most Iranians are people like you and I.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

If we were uninvolved with Israel, and hadn't started a war in Iraq that was completely unnecessary under false pretenses, how much of a threat would Iran be to us?

Yes, the Iraq war was a mistake. However, that is a hypothetical question that cannot be answered one way or another.

Iran fights us because we are constantly wrecking things in the Middle East. We overthrew their government back in the day, I mean, that's kind of a big deal. If Iran had overthrown our government, don't you think we'd still have a wary eye on them and fight them whenever their troops were in North America? We created this mess by trying to control the Middle East for its oil reserves throughout the 20th century, and now it's coming back to bite us in our collective butts.

The 1979 Revolution, which ousted the pro-American Shah and replaced him with the anti-American Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, surprised the United States government, its State Department and intelligence services, which "consistently underestimated the magnitude and long-term implications of this unrest". Six months before the revolution culminated, the CIA had produced a report, stating that "Iran is not in a revolutionary or even a 'prerevolutionary' situation." On November 4, 1979, the revolutionary group Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, angered that the recently deposed Shah had been allowed into the United States, occupied the American embassy in Tehran and took American diplomats hostage. The 52 American diplomats were held hostage for 444 days. In Iran, the incident was seen by many as a blow against American influence in Iran and the liberal-moderate interim government of Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, who opposed the hostage taking and resigned soon after. Some Iranians were concerned that the United States may have been plotting another coup against their country in 1979 from the American embassy. In the United States, the hostage-taking was seen as a violation of a centuries-old principle of international law that granted diplomats immunity from arrest and diplomatic compounds sovereignty in the territory of the host country they occupy. Considered a pivotal episode in the history of Iran–United States relations, political analysts cite the crisis as having weighed heavily on Jimmy Carter's presidency and run for reelection in the 1980 presidential election. In Iran, the crisis strengthened the prestige of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the political power of those who supported theocracy and opposed any normalization of relations with the West. The crisis also marked the beginning of U.S. legal action resulting in economic sanctions against Iran, further weakening ties between Iran and the United States.

I have many Iranian friends, and nearly married a half-Iranian. I'm pretty well versed on how things are on the ground. The average people in Iran actually don't hate America, despite what the media would have you believe. Their leadership plays up the propaganda to try and get blame shifted to the United States, but most people on the street level see it for what it is. They're not stupid, and they aren't barbarians. Their leaders may be nuts, but most Iranians are people like you and I.

Yes, many people in Iran are secularized and I agree with you on that point. However, their leadership and their "hard liners" are insane. Honestly, that is the real problem here.

 

[deleted126335]

I'm of the opinion the UN should have trade sanctions against any country (India and Pakistan included) that willfully disregards the international community's intent of nuclear disarmament. Iran happens to fall under that umbrella. I don't think you should get a pass because you're our friend or you've got some smoldering conflict with your neighbors- the international community should be putting pressure on these countries to disarm, regardless of their signing the treaty.

Israel is a nation of seven million surrounded by many times that number that would glory in its destruction. I can't think of a more compelling case for a nation having nukes.

"Now, some people believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster, others believe in the international community -- it's a fiction."
- George Will

 

[Mad Jack]

Yes, the Iraq war was a mistake. However, that is a hypothetical question that cannot be answered one way or another.



The 1979 Revolution, which ousted the pro-American Shah and replaced him with the anti-American Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, surprised the United States government, its State Department and intelligence services, which "consistently underestimated the magnitude and long-term implications of this unrest". Six months before the revolution culminated, the CIA had produced a report, stating that "Iran is not in a revolutionary or even a 'prerevolutionary' situation." On November 4, 1979, the revolutionary group Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, angered that the recently deposed Shah had been allowed into the United States, occupied the American embassy in Tehran and took American diplomats hostage. The 52 American diplomats were held hostage for 444 days. In Iran, the incident was seen by many as a blow against American influence in Iran and the liberal-moderate interim government of Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, who opposed the hostage taking and resigned soon after. Some Iranians were concerned that the United States may have been plotting another coup against their country in 1979 from the American embassy. In the United States, the hostage-taking was seen as a violation of a centuries-old principle of international law that granted diplomats immunity from arrest and diplomatic compounds sovereignty in the territory of the host country they occupy. Considered a pivotal episode in the history of Iran–United States relations, political analysts cite the crisis as having weighed heavily on Jimmy Carter's presidency and run for reelection in the 1980 presidential election. In Iran, the crisis strengthened the prestige of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the political power of those who supported theocracy and opposed any normalization of relations with the West. The crisis also marked the beginning of U.S. legal action resulting in economic sanctions against Iran, further weakening ties between Iran and the United States.



Yes, many people in Iran are secularized and I agree with you on that point. However, their leadership and their "hard liners" are insane. Honestly, that is the real problem here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of IranMohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name "Operation Boot") and the United States(under the name TPAJAX Project).[3][4][5][6]

Mossadegh had sought to audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now BP) and to change the terms of the company's access to Iranian petroleum reserves. Upon the refusal of the AIOC to co-operate with the Iranian government, the parliament (Majlis) voted to nationalize the assets of the company and expel their representatives from the country.[7][8][9] Following the coup in 1953, a government under General Fazlollah Zahedi was formed which allowed Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran (Persian for an Iranian king),[9] to rule the country more firmly as monarch. He relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[7][8][9][10] In August 2013, 60 years after, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda.[11][12] The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."

 

[Mad Jack]

Israel is a nation of seven million surrounded by many times that number that would glory in its destruction. I can't think of a more compelling case for a nation having nukes.

"Now, some people believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster, others believe in the international community -- it's a fiction."
- George Will

Those nukes should be out in the open and monitored just like any other nation, and we should be limiting the supplies with which they could build new weapons in the mean time, just as we want from Iran.

 

[deleted126335]

You treat your friends differently than you treat your enemies.

 

[Planktonmd]

How about being the worlds biggest state sponsor of terrorism? Is that not evil enough for you? How about the all the weapons, bombs, and rockets they smuggle to Hamas and Hezbollah? How about all of the American soliders that were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan due to Iran's funding?

Your facts are a little bit confused...
Iran is a Shia theocracy that is aiming to build a Shia empire and for that reason Iran would not fund the Sunni afghani radicals or the Sunni Iraqi insurgents, the funding for these guys comes from sources that we consider allies like the Saudis for example, in addition to drug trafficking and other illegal activities.
Iran does fund Hezbollah because it is a Shia militia that works directly under the Iranian leadership, it is practically a division of the Iranian revolutionary guard.
As for Hamas, it used to receive funding from Iran through the Syrian regime but all that stopped after Hamas denounced the genocide committed in Syria by Assad the protegee of Iran.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Things like this (and even more extreme what urge says about letting everyone have nukes) is the problem. Evil in this world IS REAL. There are countries/ regimes in this world that are EVIL and we cant take self-effacing, weak, politically-correct stances that this administration has promoted. We are not perfect but there is a world of difference between the US, Israel, Britain etc and places like Iran, N korea. Cant you see that from a moral perspective? Why not let ISIS have some nukes if we extend your argument? Do you think we should have fought Hitler in WW2? Do you think it would have been better if we fought him earlier?

This deal stinks. This is what we should have done: 1. Push for more stringent sanctions unless every single centrifuge and piece of uranium was destroyed unfettered inspections with every american hostage languishing in Iranian prison released.
2. Since they likely wouldn't accept #1 make it CLEAR stated policy that if they do develop a nuke it would mean immediate declaration of war starting with bombing of every military and nuclear facility in their country.

1) I don't think "evil" is real. I think it's a personal interpretation.
2) I didn't say we should give anyone anything. Certainly not nuclear weapons to ISIS.
3) Defeating Germany and Japan with the rest of the allies was the most important thing we've ever done, and it makes me very proud. That was an amazing feat. I wish we hadn't dropped the nuclear bombs though. It was unnecessary, devastating to civilians, and regimes like Iran are happy to throw it in our face.
4) Most analysts are surprised at the concessions we got from a regime that considers us satanic. In any event,you should send an email to the state department about tougher sanctions. You'll need to contact the Russians and Chinese too because they aren't on board. Maybe you can make it happen though.
5) Declaring war on Iran and bombing every military institution with the resulting loss of millions of civilian lives could very easily and rationally be considered "evil" by a lot of people.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Your facts are a little bit confused...
Iran is a Shia theocracy that is aiming to build a Shia empire and for that reason Iran would not fund the Sunni afghani radicals or the Sunni Iraqi insurgents, the funding for these guys comes from sources that we consider allies like the Saudis for example, in addition to drug trafficking and other illegal activities.
Iran does fund Hezbollah because it is a Shia militia that works directly under the Iranian leadership, it is practically a division of the Iranian revolutionary guard.
As for Hamas, it used to receive funding from Iran through the Syrian regime but all that stopped after Hamas denounced the genocide committed in Syria by Assad the protegee of Iran.

I was watching Fox News, and it sounds like there are a couple guys who know how we could straighten that all out with some bombs and "boots on the ground."

 

[FollowTheMoney]

1) I don't think "evil" is real. I think it's a personal interpretation.
2) I didn't say we should give anyone anything. Certainly not nuclear weapons to ISIS.
3) Defeating Germany and Japan with the rest of the allies was the most important thing we've ever done, and it makes me very proud. That was an amazing feat. I wish we hadn't dropped the nuclear bombs though. It was unnecessary, devastating to civilians, and regimes like Iran are happy to throw it in our face.
4) Most analysts are surprised at the concessions we got from a regime that considers us satanic. In any event,you should send an email to the state department about tougher sanctions. You'll need to contact the Russians and Chinese too because they aren't on board. Maybe you can make it happen though.
5) Declaring war on Iran and bombing every military institution with the resulting loss of millions of civilian lives could very easily and rationally be considered "evil" by a lot of people.

1.) Yeah, and anti-social personality disorder is not real either huh?
2.) Yeah, but your argument is therefore flawed in principle if you would not allow ISIS to have a nuclear weapon.
3.) No it was necessary, without that atomic bomb being dropped on Japan they would not have surrendered. You are dreaming if you think otherwise.
4.) What concessions did you hear about on the Huffington Post, Slate, or MSNBC? There were no concessions. Their nuclear program is fully intact, they will now have access to billions of dollars to use for their nuclear program and proxy wars in the Middle East against the United States and Israel. Meanwhile, any inspection allows them 24 days to delay and inspectors do not have access to wherever they want to go. To add insult to injury, we did not even get our 4 hostages back. Are you kidding me? This deal is a complete and utter joke that makes us look like a naive laughing stock. Either Obama is the biggest idiot on the face of the planet or he is the most evil person on the face of the planet. It's one of the two.
5.) You can destroy their nuclear facilities without civilian casualties and Israel will go ahead and do that. If they can conduct an airstrike in the Gaza Strip and kill high ranking terrorists in Hamas and destroy command centers without civilian casualties they can definitely take care of Iran's nuclear facilities.

 

[Mad Jack]

You treat your friends differently than you treat your enemies.

We could potentially turn some of those enemies into friends or neutral parties if we approached things correctly and didn't treat them like hopeless monsters. Ideally, we should have no enemies. Rately in American politics do people ask, "why do these people dislike us and how can we change that?" A nuclear deal may be the first step in the right direction for having an Iran that doesn't want us nuked into oblivion.

 

[deleted171991]

1.) Yeah, and anti-social personality disorder is not real either huh?

Bingo! That's just another name for the angry male adolescent. Probably invented by PC females who haven't had those hormones rage inside. Sorry, couldn't let this one slide.

By the way, who were you responding to?

 

[FollowTheMoney]

Your facts are a little bit confused...
Iran is a Shia theocracy that is aiming to build a Shia empire and for that reason Iran would not fund the Sunni afghani radicals or the Sunni Iraqi insurgents, the funding for these guys comes from sources that we consider allies like the Saudis for example, in addition to drug trafficking and other illegal activities.
Iran does fund Hezbollah because it is a Shia militia that works directly under the Iranian leadership, it is practically a division of the Iranian revolutionary guard.
As for Hamas, it used to receive funding from Iran through the Syrian regime but all that stopped after Hamas denounced the genocide committed in Syria by Assad the protegee of Iran.

http://www.understandingwar.org/report/irans-proxy-war-against-united-states-and-iraq

 

[FollowTheMoney]

Bingo! That's just another name for the angry male adolescent. Probably invented by PC females who haven't had those hormones rage inside. Sorry, couldn't let this one slide.

By the way, who were you responding to?

Pooh, who said evil does not exist. By the way, Pooh I am sorry for being aggressive and getting worked up over these political discussions with you. I don't mean to do it in a malicious way or anything.

( FFP I am almost wondering if you are just always waiting in the shadows looking for the opportunity to shove the dagger in my side)

 

[gascopper]

It is fair for everyone to have modern weapon technology but this isnt about fairness, its about maintaining an advantage.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of IranMohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name "Operation Boot") and the United States(under the name TPAJAX Project).[3][4][5][6]

Mossadegh had sought to audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now BP) and to change the terms of the company's access to Iranian petroleum reserves. Upon the refusal of the AIOC to co-operate with the Iranian government, the parliament (Majlis) voted to nationalize the assets of the company and expel their representatives from the country.[7][8][9] Following the coup in 1953, a government under General Fazlollah Zahedi was formed which allowed Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran (Persian for an Iranian king),[9] to rule the country more firmly as monarch. He relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[7][8][9][10] In August 2013, 60 years after, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda.[11][12] The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the current regime in Iran. I thought you were referring to the 1979 revolution when Khomeini took over. Sorry.

 

[Mad Jack]

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the current regime in Iran. I thought you were referring to the 1979 revolution when Khomeini took over. Sorry.

There's several good books out there that pretty much pin all of our current Iranian troubles to that event. Overthrowing a government isn't something people quickly forget, particularly in a region where grudges can last thousands of years. To say that the Shah we put in place had nothing to do with the current regime is foolish. Prior to our overthrowing their government for oil, Iran had a vibrant, largely secularized democracy.

 

[Planktonmd]

http://www.understandingwar.org/report/irans-proxy-war-against-united-states-and-iraq

There is many problems with this report, it assumes that president maliki is actually a real president and not a puppet in the hands of Iran, and it ignores the fact that the Shia clerics in Iraq have issued a "Fatwa" banning the shia militias from fighting the Americans, because they were facing a common enemy which is the Sunni insurgents.
It's very difficult for an outsider to understand the dynamics of middle east conflicts and this is why we made huge strategic mistakes that are now producing horrible and devastating results.
We have changed the history of that region and unfortunately not in a good way.

 

[doctalaughs]

1) I don't think "evil" is real. I think it's a personal interpretation.

Most people would say a serial killer who tortures his victims is evil. Most would say hitler systemically murdering 10 million people was evil. Most would say the rape and beheading tactics of ISIS is evil. But sure- each to his own "personal interpretation."

On another note, did you read in the "deal" we cut, the Iranians can legally delay 24 days if a site inspection is requested without violating the deal? What kind of idiotic concession is that? The deal isnt' worth the toilet paper it's written on and Obama isn't fooling anyone (except maybe a few people on this board).

 

[GA8314]

Iran is an important country. I don't think they are trying to reestablish the Persian empire. That's fear mongering. Are they exerting themselves in the region, supporting their religious and ethnic brethren? Sure. Can you blame them with the likes of ISIS running around town?
So are the Saudis and the other Sunni states. So is Israel, albeit the Jewish diaspora (in the Middle East) isn't significant, even in Iran where there is a thriving Jewish community.

It can't be business as usual. Making deals is the only way forward. We can't keep pushing people around the way we have been. We can't afford that. Israel and other countries would LOVE for the U.S. to continue draining it's coffers fighting their battles for them. Our policies need to change, for the good of the country.

We should be doing business with the Iranians and everyone else in the Middle East. Perhaps this is a step towards that. Israel, and their supporters won't like that. It is what it is.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

There is many problems with this report, it assumes that president maliki is actually a real president and not a puppet in the hands of Iran, and it ignores the fact that the Shia clerics in Iraq have issued a "Fatwa" banning the shia militias from fighting the Americans, because they were facing a common enemy which is the Sunni insurgents.
It's very difficult for an outsider to understand the dynamics of middle east conflicts and this is why we made huge strategic mistakes that are now producing horrible and devastating results.
We have changed the history of that region and unfortunately not in a good way.

The real question is why did the United States not implement a strong government in Iraq that had equal representation of Shias and Sunnis. That seems to be the most critical mistake we made. We allowed Maliki to ostracize, humiliate, and murder Sunnis which lead to the rise of ISIS. That is certainly true that the enemy of our enemy is our "friend" when it comes to dealing with the Sunnis. Realistically though, what verification is there that this "Fatwa" is taken seriously or genuinely followed by these militias? Regardless, they cannot be trusted and at any point they could renege on this "Fatwa". Unfortunately, we have completely destabilized the Middle East which will have dire consequences moving forward. You are definitely right about that.

 

[deleted126335]

The real question is why did the United States not implement a strong government in Iraq that had equal representation of Shias and Sunnis. That seems to be the most critical mistake we made. We allowed Maliki to ostracize, humiliate, and murder Sunnis which lead to the rise of ISIS. That is certainly true that the enemy of our enemy is our "friend" when it comes to dealing with the Sunnis. Realistically though, what verification is there that this "Fatwa" is taken seriously or genuinely followed by these militias? Regardless, they cannot be trusted and at any point they could renege on this "Fatwa". Unfortunately, we have completely destabilized the Middle East which will have dire consequences moving forward. You are definitely right about that.

Telling the people in that part of the world to practice tolerance, democracy, respect others' beliefs is wasted breath. Whoever is in power seeks to consolidate their power and settle scores with adversaries. We can't make them want our values.

 

[deleted126335]

Iran is an important country. I don't think they are trying to reestablish the Persian empire. That's fear mongering. Are they exerting themselves in the region, supporting their religious and ethnic brethren? Sure. Can you blame them with the likes of ISIS running around town?
So are the Saudis and the other Sunni states. So is Israel, albeit the Jewish diaspora (in the Middle East) isn't significant, even in Iran where there is a thriving Jewish community.

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iran

There were 150,000 Jews in Iran in 1948.

Estimates of the Jewish population in Iran until the census 2011 vary. In mid- and late 1980s, it was estimated at 20,000–30,000, rising to around 35,000 in the mid-1990s.[66] The current Jewish population of Iran is 8,756 according to the most recent Iranian census.[67][68]

The condition of Jews in Iran is difficult to assess objectively. The Islamic Republic uses factions within the Iranian Jewish community to win public relations points with the Western world, but privately many Jews complain to foreign reporters of discrimination. Foreign reporters are asked by the Iranian Jewish community to self-censor their own reports for fear of repercussions on the community.[69] The Islamic government appoints the officials who run Jewish schools, most of these being Muslims and requires that those schools must open on Saturdays, the Jewish Sabbath. Criticism of this policy was the downfall of the last remaining newspaper of the Iranian Jewish community which was closed in 1991 after it criticized government control of Jewish schools. Instead of expelling Jews en masse like in Libya, Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen, the Iranians have adopted a policy of keeping Jews in Iran.[70] The strong public anti-Israel position of the Iranian Jews might be related to their desire for survival and led to their overselling of their anti-Israel positions. Their response to the questions regarding Israel have been outright denial of Israel or staying quiet. An example of the dilemma of Iranian Jews can be observed in this example :"We hear the ayatollah say that Israel was cooperating with the Shah and SAVAK, and we would be fools to say we support Israel. So we just keep quiet about it... Maybe it will work out. Anyway, what can we do? This is our home."[71]

 

[mostwanted]

3.) No it was necessary, without that atomic bomb being dropped on Japan they would not have surrendered. You are dreaming if you think otherwise.

Did you really just say that? That is insane.

Iran is an important country. I don't think they are trying to reestablish the Persian empire. That's fear mongering. Are they exerting themselves in the region, supporting their religious and ethnic brethren? Sure. Can you blame them with the likes of ISIS running around town?
So are the Saudis and the other Sunni states. So is Israel, albeit the Jewish diaspora (in the Middle East) isn't significant, even in Iran where there is a thriving Jewish community.

It can't be business as usual. Making deals is the only way forward. We can't keep pushing people around the way we have been. We can't afford that. Israel and other countries would LOVE for the U.S. to continue draining it's coffers fighting their battles for them. Our policies need to change, for the good of the country.

We should be doing business with the Iranians and everyone else in the Middle East. Perhaps this is a step towards that. Israel, and their supporters won't like that. It is what it is.

Agree.

The real question is why did the United States not implement a strong government in Iraq that had equal representation of Shias and Sunnis. That seems to be the most critical mistake we made.

The most critical mistake was going into the war to begin with based on a bunch of lies. Number one reason for our woes in Middle East is our government's unrelenting support for Israel backed by arguably the strongest political lobby, AIPAC. The US-Israeli relationship is much more parasitic than symbiotic. Considering the national deficit, education debt, and what is in OUR best national interest, I am much more concerned with US's well being.

 

[GA8314]

Did you really just say that? That is insane.



Agree.



The most critical mistake was going into the war to begin with based on a bunch of lies. Number one reason for our woes in Middle East is our government's unrelenting support for Israel backed by arguably the strongest political lobby, AIPAC. The US-Israeli relationship is much more parasitic than symbiotic. Considering the national deficit, education debt, and what is in OUR best national interest, I am much more concerned with US's well being.

I agree 100%.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Pooh, who said evil does not exist. By the way, Pooh I am sorry for being aggressive and getting worked up over these political discussions with you. I don't mean to do it in a malicious way or anything.

( FFP I am almost wondering if you are just always waiting in the shadows looking for the opportunity to shove the dagger in my side)

Don't worry about it cuz I get the same way! When I go back and read my posts I always sound angrier than I meant to... Although I guess sometimes I actually DO mean to...

 

[Pooh & Annie]

1.) Yeah, and anti-social personality disorder is not real either huh?
2.) Yeah, but your argument is therefore flawed in principle if you would not allow ISIS to have a nuclear weapon.
3.) No it was necessary, without that atomic bomb being dropped on Japan they would not have surrendered. You are dreaming if you think otherwise.
4.) What concessions did you hear about on the Huffington Post, Slate, or MSNBC? There were no concessions. Their nuclear program is fully intact, they will now have access to billions of dollars to use for their nuclear program and proxy wars in the Middle East against the United States and Israel. Meanwhile, any inspection allows them 24 days to delay and inspectors do not have access to wherever they want to go. To add insult to injury, we did not even get our 4 hostages back. Are you kidding me? This deal is a complete and utter joke that makes us look like a naive laughing stock. Either Obama is the biggest idiot on the face of the planet or he is the most evil person on the face of the planet. It's one of the two.
5.) You can destroy their nuclear facilities without civilian casualties and Israel will go ahead and do that. If they can conduct an airstrike in the Gaza Strip and kill high ranking terrorists in Hamas and destroy command centers without civilian casualties they can definitely take care of Iran's nuclear facilities.

On the parts of this where I understand you, I disagree. On the rest I probably also do.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Most people would say a serial killer who tortures his victims is evil. Most would say hitler systemically murdering 10 million people was evil. Most would say the rape and beheading tactics of ISIS is evil. But sure- each to his own "personal interpretation."

On another note, did you read in the "deal" we cut, the Iranians can legally delay 24 days if a site inspection is requested without violating the deal? What kind of idiotic concession is that? The deal isnt' worth the toilet paper it's written on and Obama isn't fooling anyone (except maybe a few people on this board).

1)Damien was evil. Rosemary's baby was evil. Hitler and ISIS had/have what you and I can agree are jacked up ideologies. There are lots an LOTS of people who think America is evil. You can't prove them wrong.

2) I doubt that delay tactics will stop us from spying on any and every site we're concerned about. Also, it's not nearly as easy as people seem to think to transport high-grade enriched nuclear material unnoticed.

 

[pgg]

Some people are evil. Some people need killing. I'd rather be on the killing side than the dying side, and I'm not interested in fair fights.

 

[GA8314]

Some people are evil. Some people need killing. I'd rather be on the killing side than the dying side, and I'm not interested in fair fights.

I hear you, but lets face it, we've done a LOT to stir the pot in the middle east. I really feel that we should be more open, diplomatic, friendly, and to engage in trade with other parts of the world, and that includes many of the nations in the middle east.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Some people are evil. Some people need killing. I'd rather be on the killing side than the dying side, and I'm not interested in fair fights.

It's a philosophical point that's not really important when all that matters is survival and hopefully prosperity. Some people do need killing. That doesn't make them "evil." I think killing animals for fun is bad. I think taking available support away from people in poverty is terrible. Some people actually think those things are "evil." I don't agree with that, because I don't think people are evil. It really doesn't matter though.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I hear you, but lets face it, we've done a LOT to stir the pot in the middle east. I really feel that we should be more open, diplomatic, friendly, and to engage in trade with other parts of the world, and that includes many of the nations in the middle east.

Western powers didn't create the ethnic hatred over there, but we made it WAY WAY more lethal.

I completely agree about engagement. I actually saw a video of a woman in Iran holding up an American flag yesterday. Is that even legal?

 

[Mad Jack]

Telling the people in that part of the world to practice tolerance, democracy, respect others' beliefs is wasted breath. Whoever is in power seeks to consolidate their power and settle scores with adversaries. We can't make them want our values.

You realize that Iranian society was democratic, secular, and completely absent of extremism before we overthrew their government in the 50s, right? It's not like they are incapable of democracy and tolerance.

 

[doctalaughs]

1)Damien was evil. Rosemary's baby was evil. Hitler and ISIS had/have what you and I can agree are jacked up ideologies. There are lots an LOTS of people who think America is evil. You can't prove them wrong.

2) I doubt that delay tactics will stop us from spying on any and every site we're concerned about. Also, it's not nearly as easy as people seem to think to transport high-grade enriched nuclear material unnoticed.

I doubt even more it will be easy or even possible to reverse the lifting of sanctions without ABSOLUTE proof they are in violation of the deal. And with a 24 day delay to inspect other sites that absolute proof will be impossible. Again- the facts of this "deal" show we gave them everything for basically Obama to say he "got a deal" (with zero benefit to us).

With regards to Israel they provide us a huge amount of intelligence on the ground in the middle east. They fight the same terrorist organizations we do and spend about 75% of the 3 bill/yr in loans/aid we give them buying military hardware and services from US corporations. Not such a bad deal when you look at how much money we spend funding the iraqi/afghani/libyan forces (trillions) for very questionable results. When you look at it that way our investment in Israel is the best one we've ever made in the middle east.

 

[GA8314]

Western powers didn't create the ethnic hatred over there, but we made it WAY WAY more lethal.

I completely agree about engagement. I actually saw a video of a woman in Iran holding up an American flag yesterday. Is that even legal?

I agree. The religious intolerance is extraordinary. I can't possibly even relate or grasp it entirely. It's obviously real, but clearly it manifests during periods of instability. Via our ACTIONS of regime change (in Iraq and Syria), the U.S. has caused a great deal of this mayhem. Perhaps it's all part of a plan to destabilize Israel's enemies? I say that tongue in cheek. I'm not at all attacking Israel or any other nation here. But, cooler heads need to prevail. In Israel, fear sells and gets people elected. Fear funds the coffers of the important Israel lobbies. But, is it real? There are always "ifs", but I just hate the fear mongering. It leads to too much suffering in reality.

 

[GA8314]

I doubt even more it will be easy or even possible to reverse the lifting of sanctions without ABSOLUTE proof they are in violation of the deal. And with a 24 day delay to inspect other sites that absolute proof will be impossible. Again- the facts of this "deal" show we gave them everything for basically Obama to say he "got a deal" (with zero benefit to us).

With regards to Israel they provide us a huge amount of intelligence on the ground in the middle east. They fight the same terrorist organizations we do and spend about 75% of the 3 bill/yr in loans/aid we give them buying military hardware and services from US corporations. Not such a bad deal when you look at how much money we spend funding the iraqi/afghani/libyan forces (trillions) for very questionable results. When you look at it that way our investment in Israel is the best one we've ever made in the middle east.

I think you are oversimplifying the U.S.'s relationship with Israel. You do point out an aspect of the military industrial complex which may be part of the problem, however. Follow the money. There's big business in fear. Fear leads to arms sales. Chaos leads to the deployment of arms, which leads to more arms sales etc. etc. I think this is a problem, but not one with an easy, practical, solution.