The Iran deal

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:29 am

Ah, so your "better deal" is really Unconditional Surrender. I agree that WOULD be better, but I don't see it as a genuinely practical or achievable demand to make at this point. Maybe you'll get it at the end of the War you want to start?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:44 pm

Minardil wrote:Ah, so your "better deal" is really Unconditional Surrender. I agree that WOULD be better, but I don't see it as a genuinely practical or achievable demand to make at this point.

To quote Yoda, that is why you fail.

If you begin negotiations with the assumption that your goals cannot be achieved, they will certainly not be achieved. Although in Obama's case, I have major doubts about the goals that had been set.

Maybe you'll get it at the end of the War you want to start?

Obama has run down the clock on the military option for stopping Iran, although even Obama has stated on record that taking out Iran's nuclear installations through airstrikes would not have led to war. He changes his tune every other Friday so people forget fast, but Google remembers all.

War's going to happen anyway, of course. The deal sets up just the right conditions to provoke one. And the USA will inevitably get dragged into the Shi'ite - Sunni confrontation as it escalates.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby The Heretic » Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:23 pm

Storyteller wrote:
Minardil wrote:Maybe you'll get it at the end of the War you want to start?

Obama has run down the clock on the military option for stopping Iran, although even Obama has stated on record that taking out Iran's nuclear installations through airstrikes would not have led to war. He changes his tune every other Friday so people forget fast, but Google remembers all.

Minitru must be failing at its job, much to the chagrin of the bootlicks.
Room 101 for google.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:59 am

To quote Yoda, that is why you fail.

If you begin negotiations with the assumption that your goals cannot be achieved, they will certainly not be achieved. Although in Obama's case, I have major doubts about the goals that had been set.


OR, sometimes parties to a deal deliberately make impossible demands as a tactic to kill the deal. "Poison Pills" they're called, demands which the one party knows the other will never agree to, CAN NEVER agree to, and by holding these demands to be non-negotiable, the one party is able to blame the other for ruining everything. Take the Arabs for example, and their demands that Israel return to pre-1967 borders, that they allow for unrestricted right of return for all displaced "Palestinians" AND THEIR DESCENDENTS, that the new Palestinian State have all of East Jerusalem including the Old City and the Temple Mount to be their capital, that all Isreali settlements be dismantled etc, all of these are poison pills. Israel would never agree, COULD never agree, to these terms, and by making these demands and sticking to them, the Arabs have shown that they are not serious about negotiating a peace agreement, and they have shown that they prefer the current conflict to continue.

Your demands demands are full of these poison pills, because you want War with Iran, AND you are too much of a coward to just admit it.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:00 am

To quote Yoda, that is why you fail.

If you begin negotiations with the assumption that your goals cannot be achieved, they will certainly not be achieved. Although in Obama's case, I have major doubts about the goals that had been set.


OR, sometimes parties to a deal deliberately make impossible demands as a tactic to kill the deal. "Poison Pills" they're called, demands which the one party knows the other will never agree to, CAN NEVER agree to, and by holding these demands to be non-negotiable, the one party is able to blame the other for ruining everything. Take the Arabs for example, and their demands that Israel return to pre-1967 borders, that they allow for unrestricted right of return for all displaced "Palestinians" AND THEIR DESCENDENTS, that the new Palestinian State have all of East Jerusalem including the Old City and the Temple Mount to be their capital, that all Isreali settlements be dismantled etc, all of these are poison pills. Israel would never agree, COULD never agree, to these terms, and by making these demands and sticking to them, the Arabs have shown that they are not serious about negotiating a peace agreement, and they have shown that they prefer the current conflict to continue.

Your demands demands are full of these poison pills, because you want War with Iran, AND you are too much of a coward to just admit it.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:41 am

It could be argued, and is being argued, that Iran threw in these poison pills themselves and we went in and swallowed them anyway.

The deal is not a good deal and just because it's a deal doesn't make it better than no deal.

It is, best I can tell, Iran setting all terms of engagement and the entirety of the Western World permitting them to do it. The tail is wagging the dog.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10562
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Tue Aug 25, 2015 7:01 am

Don't worry guys, you're going to get your war.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Tue Aug 25, 2015 7:05 am

hamlet wrote:It could be argued, and is being argued, that Iran threw in these poison pills themselves and we went in and swallowed them anyway.

The deal is not a good deal and just because it's a deal doesn't make it better than no deal.

It is, best I can tell, Iran setting all terms of engagement and the entirety of the Western World permitting them to do it. The tail is wagging the dog.



Your talk of a "better deal" is disengenuous, as you have already made it clear that you don't trust the Iranians to abide by ANY agreement. Your position is really that you are opposed to any deal.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:03 am

Minardil wrote:
hamlet wrote:It could be argued, and is being argued, that Iran threw in these poison pills themselves and we went in and swallowed them anyway.

The deal is not a good deal and just because it's a deal doesn't make it better than no deal.

It is, best I can tell, Iran setting all terms of engagement and the entirety of the Western World permitting them to do it. The tail is wagging the dog.



Your talk of a "better deal" is disengenuous, as you have already made it clear that you don't trust the Iranians to abide by ANY agreement. Your position is really that you are opposed to any deal.


I've made this clear? Really?

Tell me, what else do I think?

So much easier than actually having an opinion. Just ask Minardil.

And your flippant comment about "getting the war [we] want" is beneath even you.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10562
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:46 am

Why worry about how much of the deal the Iranians will keep? When has that been a concern? We work out a deal and figure that it is better than the alternative. Maybe it is, and if so, we avoid war.


All these Hawks that are saying that war is OK: WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN THE LAST 12 YEARS?? WHAT HOLE DID THEY DIG AND HIDE IN SO THAT REALITY AVOIDED THEM?

And where do they think they will get the popular support for an armed conflict?
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:53 am

portia wrote:Why worry about how much of the deal the Iranians will keep? When has that been a concern? We work out a deal and figure that it is better than the alternative. Maybe it is, and if so, we avoid war.


All these Hawks that are saying that war is OK: WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN THE LAST 12 YEARS?? WHAT HOLE DID THEY DIG AND HIDE IN SO THAT REALITY AVOIDED THEM?

And where do they think they will get the popular support for an armed conflict?


I fail to see who, here or in the media, is actually advocating a war seriously.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10562
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:12 pm

There are people who are advocating abandoning the deal, and pushing for something which is not possible. They are skirting the edge. They are painting themselves into a corner out of which they will have to fight, or abandon their position, to much embarasment.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Wed Aug 26, 2015 11:15 am

Minardil wrote:
To quote Yoda, that is why you fail.

If you begin negotiations with the assumption that your goals cannot be achieved, they will certainly not be achieved. Although in Obama's case, I have major doubts about the goals that had been set.


OR, sometimes parties to a deal deliberately make impossible demands as a tactic to kill the deal. "Poison Pills" they're called, demands which the one party knows the other will never agree to, CAN NEVER agree to, and by holding these demands to be non-negotiable, the one party is able to blame the other for ruining everything. Take the Arabs for example, and their demands that Israel return to pre-1967 borders, that they allow for unrestricted right of return for all displaced "Palestinians" AND THEIR DESCENDENTS, that the new Palestinian State have all of East Jerusalem including the Old City and the Temple Mount to be their capital, that all Isreali settlements be dismantled etc, all of these are poison pills. Israel would never agree, COULD never agree, to these terms, and by making these demands and sticking to them, the Arabs have shown that they are not serious about negotiating a peace agreement, and they have shown that they prefer the current conflict to continue.

Funny you should say that. I do agree with all of the above, but it is funny YOU should say that - because a large part of these poison pill demands was endorsed by Barack Obama and became the official policy of the United States of America. And because you defended said endorsement in the past. But I digress.

There's no reason whatsoever why Iran would be unable, rather than unwilling, to accept the demands that I mention. None of it threatens the survival of Iran or even of the governing regime. Unless you can explain how they would, allow me to dismiss your argument.

On the other hand, Iran fielded tons of poison pill demands in these negotiations, and the deal was closed by swallowing them all. Not even in In the worst predictions about the possible outcome of the deal did anyone expect that the arms embargo on Iran would be removed, or that not a single nuclear installation would be dismantled. One can compile an endless list of Western concessions to Iran, but give me a list of what Iran has given up- there's nothing to put on it.

Don't worry guys, you're going to get your war.

A shining example of reasoned discussion indeed.

War is going to happen. This deal is the perfect conflict accelerator, it sets up the conditions for the war by empowering Iran, giving it the money to finance a broad campaign against the Sunni states. We're watching World War III in the making, I think, although it will take another decade or so for that to fully sink in.

And you know what? You won't be able to sit it out even if you try your hardest, because that war is bound to come after you one way or another.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:49 pm

No, I don't actually support those Arab "poison pills" at all. Certainly not a right of return, which I have stated is impossible for Israel to accept, nor the demand that Arabs control the Old City, though I may have floated the idea in the past of setting that particular section of town set aside as an international city, though that's just an idea, not a demand. And it's an idea from an old Tom Clancy novel. Certainly it makes sense to me for the Old City to be part of Israel. I have also suggested that the border between Israel and whatever they decide to call "Palestine" be drawn more or less along current lines of control, not the 1967 border. Probably the point I do actually believe that you would consider hostile to Isreal is that some Israeli settlements lying outside the current borders should be dismantled, or the people living there could chose to remain and become citizens of the new country. There are Arab citizens of Isreal, I see no reason their couldn't be Jewish citizens in "Palestine", particularly with a very protective Isreal being right next door to assure their safety. Perhaps you are misstating my positions the way you are misstating Mr Obama's, because you are engaging in the logical fallacy that if a disagree with you on some points I must disagree with you on all points? But so much for digression.

This argument is increasingly moot, as it looks as if the Republicans in the Senate will not be able to override any Presidential veto of their attempt to kill the deal.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:11 pm

A shining example of reasoned discussion indeed.

War is going to happen. This deal is the perfect conflict accelerator, it sets up the conditions for the war by empowering Iran, giving it the money to finance a broad campaign against the Sunni states. We're watching World War III in the making, I think, although it will take another decade or so for that to fully sink in.

And you know what? You won't be able to sit it out even if you try your hardest, because that war is bound to come after you one way or another.


The deal significantly reduces their ability to enrich Uranium to any level, and eliminates their ability to enrich to weapons grade levels. It requires them to ship the vast majority of their current stockpile of enriched ore out of the country and forbids them to increase their stock. It shuts down their military research reactor and limits it to purely civilian activities, and all of these facilities are subject to DAILY inspections from IAEA inspectors. Your own ambassador to the U.S. - while arguing AGAINST the deal on the Sunday morning news show circuit last week - stated that the deal pushes back the date by which they might be able to build a bomb from "sometime in the next few months" to "sometime ten years from now" when the restrictions of the deal allegedly expire, according to his presentation of the terms. So while HE seemed to think that pushing them back ten years was a bad thing, I think it is a pretty damn GOOD thing. A LOT can happen in ten years.

Your plan to kill the deal leaves Iran completely on their own to do whatever they want, and if you think the Russians and Chinese won't sell them military grade technology for their program, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Your plan puts Iran on the fast track to finish their bomb ASAP, and incentivizes them to do so, because hey, once they actually HAVE a bomb - just a few months from now according to YOUR projections - they will see themselves as having the upper hand, their incentive to negotiate will evaporate, and war will be the only option to disarm them. You say the deal puts them on track to build a bomb, and maybe they might try to restart their program in ten years. I say your plan leaves Iran to their own devices to build a bomb before Christmas of THIS year, and war will be the only way to stop it. YOU better be ready to join in.

And really, your complaints about the deal lifting sanctions and releasing frozen assets is odd, since that is what the deal is all about, from the Iranian point of view. Releasing their assets and ending sanctions are the whole reason they entered into negotiations in the first place. ANY DEAL would release assets and lift sanctions, so your opposition to these terms is really opposition to ANY DEAL. And once you oppose ANY deal, you are back to demanding war.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:12 pm

A shining example of reasoned discussion indeed.

War is going to happen. This deal is the perfect conflict accelerator, it sets up the conditions for the war by empowering Iran, giving it the money to finance a broad campaign against the Sunni states. We're watching World War III in the making, I think, although it will take another decade or so for that to fully sink in.

And you know what? You won't be able to sit it out even if you try your hardest, because that war is bound to come after you one way or another.


The deal significantly reduces their ability to enrich Uranium to any level, and eliminates their ability to enrich to weapons grade levels. It requires them to ship the vast majority of their current stockpile of enriched ore out of the country and forbids them to increase their stock. It shuts down their military research reactor and limits it to purely civilian activities, and all of these facilities are subject to DAILY inspections from IAEA inspectors. Your own ambassador to the U.S. - while arguing AGAINST the deal on the Sunday morning news show circuit last week - stated that the deal pushes back the date by which they might be able to build a bomb from "sometime in the next few months" to "sometime ten years from now" when the restrictions of the deal allegedly expire, according to his presentation of the terms. So while HE seemed to think that pushing them back ten years was a bad thing, I think it is a pretty damn GOOD thing. A LOT can happen in ten years.

Your plan to kill the deal leaves Iran completely on their own to do whatever they want, and if you think the Russians and Chinese won't sell them military grade technology for their program, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Your plan puts Iran on the fast track to finish their bomb ASAP, and incentivizes them to do so, because hey, once they actually HAVE a bomb - just a few months from now according to YOUR projections - they will see themselves as having the upper hand, their incentive to negotiate will evaporate, and war will be the only option to disarm them. You say the deal puts them on track to build a bomb, and maybe they might try to restart their program in ten years. I say your plan leaves Iran to their own devices to build a bomb before Christmas of THIS year, and war will be the only way to stop it. YOU better be ready to join in.

And really, your complaints about the deal lifting sanctions and releasing frozen assets is odd, since that is what the deal is all about, from the Iranian point of view. Releasing their assets and ending sanctions are the whole reason they entered into negotiations in the first place. ANY DEAL would release assets and lift sanctions, so your opposition to these terms is really opposition to ANY DEAL. And once you oppose ANY deal, you are back to demanding war.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:54 pm

I should also point out that as a Program Manager for a defense contractor that builds add-on-armor kits for heavy military vehicles and tactical power generators for military mobile electric power applications, my JOB is to execute military supply contracts, so personally I would make out like fracking Daddy Warbucks if we got into a major shooting war with Iran. I mean, the military tends to tighten the belt when peace breaks out, but they spend money like drunken sailors on liberty when there's a real honest to goodness shootin' war brewin'. So by arguing against war with Iran I am Cutting My Own Throat, as Mr Dibbler would say.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:33 am

I saw a commercial the other day, a paid political message from the faction opposed to the deal. In the ad, a man claiming to be a survivor of Iranian torture tells his story, and finishes by saying (and I paraphrase here) "Iran signed a treaty promising they would not torture, but they tortured me. They cheated on that treaty, they will cheat on the nuclear deal. They cannot be trusted. Call your Senator and tell him not to support the deal".

Now, that isn't an argument against the terms of this deal, it is an argument against ANY deal. A position opposed to any deal is a position that leads to war.

Oh, and I was struck by the irony and hypocrisy of that ad, since the people who paid for it, the Conservatives who are deadset against any deal, are also the voices so strongly in favor of ignoring our treaty obligations to not torture people. For me, the ad just highlighted the similarities and idealogical kinship between the American Right and the Ayatollahs.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:54 am

There really is no argument against the fact that the Opposition is opposed to any deal. What that position might lead to is open to discussion, but the opposition to ANY deal is not questionable.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:38 am

portia wrote:There really is no argument against the fact that the Opposition is opposed to any deal. What that position might lead to is open to discussion, but the opposition to ANY deal is not questionable.


Agreed, their quibbling over the terms of the deal is a smokescreen, because when it comes down to it, they don't trust the Iranians to abide by the deal (and neither do I, which is why the daily inspections by the IAEA is an important part of the deal), and they don't want the sanctions to be lifted, because as Storyteller says, that will only empower them.

Without any deal, the Iranians will keep all their military research program, they will keep their current stockpile of enriched Uranium, and they will keep their reactor and their centrifuges, and they will be left completely alone to continue making more of everything they need to build bombs. Which they will do. Once they have a bomb, military action becomes inevitable, and necessary in my opinion.

While Storyteller likes to repeat Netanyahu's talking point about how this deal "paves the way" to Iranian nukes, he doesn't actually lay out the chain of events that would lead to that.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:46 am

Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin and until the baffling and meteoric rise of Donald Trump one of the leading GOP contenders for President, was on Morning Joe just now discussing the deal, which he said if elected he would cancel on "day one". He went on to reminisce about the 1979 Hostage Crisis, and said that the U.S. should not be dealing with Iran at all. HE isn't against this deal, he is against ANY deal of any kind, and I don't see any real difference between him and any of the other GOP candidates, with the exception maybe if Trump, who would probably say that HE could negotiate the most fabulous, fantastic, greatest deal ever, though he would never be able to say how he'd do that.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Fri Aug 28, 2015 8:09 am

I see. So, there's no such thing as a legitimate objection to the deal at all? It's all just smokescreens, racism, hatred, and idiocy?

OK, got it.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10562
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Aravar » Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:36 am

Where, precisely did Minardil mention racism? I seem to have missed that bit.
User avatar
Aravar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 8:57 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:27 am

Minardil wrote:The deal significantly reduces their ability to enrich Uranium to any level, and eliminates their ability to enrich to weapons grade levels. It requires them to ship the vast majority of their current stockpile of enriched ore out of the country and forbids them to increase their stock.


That's a hollow talking point. Reduces from what level to what level?
Under the deal, Iran is not being required to disclose the amount of nuclear research and production they've done so far. So any estimates of their current stockpile and production capacity is guesswork. All we actually know that under the deal they will be allowed a greater number of centrifuges and volume of uranium production than Pakistan had when it went nuclear.

It shuts down their military research reactor and limits it to purely civilian activities

Contradiction of terms right there, Minardil. You can't shut it down AND limit it to purely civilian activities.

If it's working, it's not shut down - and if it's not shut down, it can do double duty. I'm also wondering which of the facilities you're talking about here. Fordow? Arak? Parchin? Iran has just built an extension to Parchin, rather than shut it down or re-purpose it.


and all of these facilities are subject to DAILY inspections from IAEA inspectors.

Now that is a flat out lie. Not "daily inspections" - not even Obama claims that at this point- but "managed access" after a 24-day advanced warning. Or Iran could "otherwise allay concerns".

Well, except in Parchin, where every paragraph begins with Iran will provide because IAEA will have no access.

Your own ambassador to the U.S. - while arguing AGAINST the deal on the Sunday morning news show circuit last week - stated that the deal pushes back the date by which they might be able to build a bomb from "sometime in the next few months" to "sometime ten years from now" when the restrictions of the deal allegedly expire, according to his presentation of the terms.

I suspect you're misrepresenting the presentation. Will gladly accept a link suggesting otherwise.

Your plan to kill the deal leaves Iran completely on their own to do whatever they want, and if you think the Russians and Chinese won't sell them military grade technology for their program, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

If you think the Russians or the Chinese won't sell them military grade technology with the deal in place, I also have a bridge for sale.

In fact, right as we speak Iran has presented a North Korean ballistic missile (technology they're not allowed to import under the deal for another five years) as an indigenous Iranian design, and the Ayatollah explained, out loud, that they won't look at any resolution before getting any weapons they deem necessary.

Your plan puts Iran on the fast track to finish their bomb ASAP, and incentivizes them to do so, because hey, once they actually HAVE a bomb - just a few months from now according to YOUR projections - they will see themselves as having the upper hand, their incentive to negotiate will evaporate, and war will be the only option to disarm them.

How does the deal possibly safeguard against that?

What will you do if they don't abide by the deal? Go to war? You've filled this thread to the brim with declarations that it's not going to happen no matter what. Re-impose sanctions? Then you're not even back at the starting point; you've given Iran extra $100 billion and tons of new business contracts that won't be subject to re-imposition of sanctions? (Yes, there's a grandfather clause in the deal, too).

Negotiations should have been held from position of strength. Sanctions should have been tightened should Iran refuse to comply with key demands. Instead, by all accounts, the USA has put far more pressure on the skeptics in the French and British delegations than they ever have on Iran.

There's been some interesting news emerging from France lately, reflecting a good deal of buyer's remorse. Apparently they pretty much agree that the deal is bad, but they need the money for their non-performing economy so they sold out eventually.

And really, your complaints about the deal lifting sanctions and releasing frozen assets is odd, since that is what the deal is all about, from the Iranian point of view. Releasing their assets and ending sanctions are the whole reason they entered into negotiations in the first place. ANY DEAL would release assets and lift sanctions, so your opposition to these terms is really opposition to ANY DEAL. And once you oppose ANY deal, you are back to demanding war.

The original plan was partial relief of economic sanctions in exchange for complete suspension of Iranian nuclear program. The end result is full relief of economic AND MILITARY sanctions in exchange for unverifiable minor adjustments to Iranian nuclear program.

That's called having been fleeced.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:30 am

portia wrote:There really is no argument against the fact that the Opposition is opposed to any deal. What that position might lead to is open to discussion, but the opposition to ANY deal is not questionable.

Argument by assertion was a fallacy last time I checked. Don't claim it, show it.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:33 am

Minardil wrote:No, I don't actually support those Arab "poison pills" at all. Certainly not a right of return, which I have stated is impossible for Israel to accept, nor the demand that Arabs control the Old City, though I may have floated the idea in the past of setting that particular section of town set aside as an international city, though that's just an idea, not a demand. And it's an idea from an old Tom Clancy novel. Certainly it makes sense to me for the Old City to be part of Israel. I have also suggested that the border between Israel and whatever they decide to call "Palestine" be drawn more or less along current lines of control, not the 1967 border. Probably the point I do actually believe that you would consider hostile to Isreal is that some Israeli settlements lying outside the current borders should be dismantled, or the people living there could chose to remain and become citizens of the new country. There are Arab citizens of Isreal, I see no reason their couldn't be Jewish citizens in "Palestine", particularly with a very protective Isreal being right next door to assure their safety. Perhaps you are misstating my positions the way you are misstating Mr Obama's, because you are engaging in the logical fallacy that if a disagree with you on some points I must disagree with you on all points?

Or I remember our discussions back when Obama made Israel's return to 1967 borders his official demand back in 2011.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Sat Aug 29, 2015 7:38 am

Story: every one of your arguments shows opposition to any deal. You have proved my point for me.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Sat Aug 29, 2015 7:42 am

Storyteller wrote:
Minardil wrote:No, I don't actually support those Arab "poison pills" at all. Certainly not a right of return, which I have stated is impossible for Israel to accept, nor the demand that Arabs control the Old City, though I may have floated the idea in the past of setting that particular section of town set aside as an international city, though that's just an idea, not a demand. And it's an idea from an old Tom Clancy novel. Certainly it makes sense to me for the Old City to be part of Israel. I have also suggested that the border between Israel and whatever they decide to call "Palestine" be drawn more or less along current lines of control, not the 1967 border. Probably the point I do actually believe that you would consider hostile to Isreal is that some Israeli settlements lying outside the current borders should be dismantled, or the people living there could chose to remain and become citizens of the new country. There are Arab citizens of Isreal, I see no reason their couldn't be Jewish citizens in "Palestine", particularly with a very protective Isreal being right next door to assure their safety. Perhaps you are misstating my positions the way you are misstating Mr Obama's, because you are engaging in the logical fallacy that if a disagree with you on some points I must disagree with you on all points?

Or I remember our discussions back when Obama made Israel's return to 1967 borders his official demand back in 2011.


His "official" position is NOT a "demand" for a return to the 1967 border. His position is that Isreal and Palestine should negotiate a new border with land swaps reflecting the current situation on the ground. Nor is this "Obama's idea, it has been the unofficial position of the last several U.S. Administrations including Republicans. Nor does he support any right to return for Palestinans. Why do you feel the need to lie about President Obama's position?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:00 am

Storyteller wrote:
What will you do if they don't abide by the deal? Go to war? You've filled this thread to the brim with declarations that it's not going to happen no matter what.



Uh, that is the exact opposite of what I have been saying. I have been saying that once Iran has a bomb, war becomes "inevitable and necessary". Are you so accustomed to misrepresenting the views and positions of others that you think you can lie about my own position when my words are easily seen just by scrolling up?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:05 am

hamlet wrote:I see. So, there's no such thing as a legitimate objection to the deal at all? It's all just smokescreens, racism, hatred, and idiocy?

OK, got it.



Sure there are legitimate objections to the deal, but we're talking here about people who object to ANY deal. There isn't any legitimate objection to the base concept of trying to settle the dispute diplomatically, and this is the position that hard line conservatives have taken, that ANY deal is a bad deal.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron