patrick.net

Strategist says

What's his agenda?

At the time getting reelected, followed closely by building Israels War Machine.

indigenous says

Strategist says

What's his agenda?

At the time getting reelected, followed closely by building Israels War Machine.

You are claiming Israel does not want the nuclear agreement with Iran, because Israel wants to build it's war machine. That makes no sense at all.
Israel can and will build it's war machine even with an agreement with Iran. What Israel wants is 100% safety from total alienation. Iranian threats to Israel have to be taken seriously, because religious wackos have to be taken seriously. We cannot allow them to even come CLOSE to a nuclear bomb. It's just not worth the risk.

Strategist says

Israel can and will build it's war machine even with an agreement with Iran.

So what is the downside?

indigenous says

Strategist says

Israel can and will build it's war machine even with an agreement with Iran.

So what is the downside?

Two countries getting nuked. Israel and Iran. Followed by extraordinary terrorism against the West.
Lets prevent that.

Strategist says

Two countries getting nuked. Israel and Iran. Followed by extraordinary terrorism against the West.

Lets prevent that.

Damn you are steeped in the neocon kool aid. That is vastly less likely with the deal.

indigenous says

Strategist says

Two countries getting nuked. Israel and Iran. Followed by extraordinary terrorism against the West.


Lets prevent that.

Damn you are steeped in the neocon kool aid. That is vastly less likely with the deal.

Only for a limited time.
They are still allowed to refine uranium, which brings them closer to a bomb. It does not help anyone except for the wackos who think they will get their 72 virgins.

Dan8267 says

I've noticed a pattern here. People who call Bill Maher a piece of shit or an asshole never back up their assertion with a reason. They cannot justify their opinions.

How about he shuts down anyone that isn't there to riff off of his skew or at least out skew him. Funny people don't cut people off and out yell them on a funny television show, the guy is a menace and sociopath.

Strategist says

They are still allowed to refine uranium, which brings them closer to a bomb.

In his 1995 book, “Fighting Terrorism,” Netanyahu once again asserted that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in “three to five years,” apparently forgetting about the expiration of his old deadline.

A 2009 U.S. State Department diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks described then-prime ministerial candidate Netanyahu informing a visiting Congressional delegation that Iran was “probably one or two years away”
.
https://www.3dXyD8rHmq4#t=43

Did you see the messageat 6:07?

https://www.3dXyD8rHmq4#t=43

Strategist says

https://www.K8E_zMLCRNg

If you consider giving iran 150 billion of which some is most likely to be diverted to financing hezbollah, palestinian islamic jihad, hamas, and houthis a good thing, why then there is no down side....
if you consider helping pave the way for iran to get the bomb, in which case the saudis and friends will have to buy their way into the club, a good thing, why then there is no down side...
There really was no need for any deal. And there was no need to start a war. Sanctions were working. And there was a lot of room to turn the sanction screws tighter.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Every deal has an upside and a downside.


I should not even have to say this it's so obvious...

So, what exactly is the down side of this deal other than giving a win to Obama?

I shot a 76....that takes time...

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

So, what exactly is the down side of this deal other than giving a win to Obama?

Still waiting...

This is the default position of the people who analyze in two dimensions only.
It's either deal or war to them.
The sanctions were working, and there was a shitload of room to slowly ratchet them up even further.
There was no need to do anything other than to slowly continue twisting the sanctions tourniquet.

Strategist says

If Iran says no, the sanctions continue. Eventually they will cave in.

Who said anything about boots on the ground?

Obama only has 15 months left. He can not wait for sanctions to work. He needs more chits for his new library.

The downside to the Iran deal is that I'm dumb enough to read the comments. lmao

SoftShell says

It's either deal or war to them.

it certainly is another boogeyman to the warmongers.

We spend north of 600 billion a year on defense, Iraq and Afghanistan has seen 250,000 non combatants killed in the wars there.

War more often than not, actually almost always is provoked through propaganda, i.e. WMDs, Gulf of Tonkin, Lusitania. IOW total bullshit. Iran is just another case of that.

The US cannot afford empire anymore.

I for one would like to see proof not fucking propaganda, Anyone who causes a war through propaganda is a war criminal.

SoftShell says

The sanctions were working, and there was a shitload of room to slowly ratchet them up even further.

There was no need to do anything other than to slowly continue twisting the sanctions tourniquet.

I thought they were just a year away from having the bomb? That's the sanctions "working"? I'd hate to see them "not working" then.

Strategist says

If Iran says no, the sanctions continue. Eventually they will cave in.

Just like cuba after 55 years. Oh wait, we went to them.

Ford's annual new year rollout meeting with the press 1989. Ford announces they are discontinuing the exp (look it up) because it hasn't met sales expectations. Reporter (david e davis of automobile if I remember right) stands up and say excuse me, the exp is an ugly, unreliable, slow, poor handling, uncomfortable 2 seater with a cheap crappy interior. What exactly were your sales expectations?

What exactly is your time frame for eventually?

What blows my mind is the liberal support of the nuclear agreement.
Here you have extreme left wing liberals like Dan, demanding religion be banned. Yet, they are perfectly wiling to trust the most radical religious extremist regime with developing the technology that can be used to make nuclear bombs. I can't figure out who is more crazy. The mullahs who promise to eradicate others, or the liberals who are willing to give them the means to do so.

Strategist says

Yet, they are perfectly wiling to trust the most radical religious extremist regime with developing the technology that can be used to make nuclear bombs. I can't figure out who is more crazy. The mullahs who promise to eradicate others, or the liberals who are willing to give them the means to do so.

So going from zero inspections (now) to inspections under the deal is trusting Iran more? How do you figure that?

tatupu70 says

Strategist says

Yet, they are perfectly wiling to trust the most radical religious extremist regime with developing the technology that can be used to make nuclear bombs. I can't figure out who is more crazy. The mullahs who promise to eradicate others, or the liberals who are willing to give them the means to do so.

So going from zero inspections (now) to inspections under the deal is trusting Iran more? How do you figure that?

Trusting radicals beyond Zero is a major strategic error.
Reagan famously stated "Trust, but verify" That can be used with a well educated country like Russia, where MAD is well understood by both parties.
MAD cannot work with radicals who are only to eager to die.

Paradise says

tatupu70 says

So going from zero inspections (now) to inspections under the deal is trusting Iran more? How do you figure that?

It's letting Iran do "self-inspections" which is the problem.

As stupid as the IRS letting us do our own audits.

Strategist says

Trusting radicals beyond Zero is a major strategic error.

Reagan famously stated "Trust, but verify" That can be used with a well educated country like Russia, where MAD is well understood by both parties.

MAD cannot work with radicals who are only to eager to die.

Why do you keep saying that. Nobody is trusting them. That's the point of the inspections.

Paradise says

It's letting Iran do "self-inspections" which is the problem

What are you referring to? It's the IAEA that does the inspections.

Strategist says

As stupid as the IRS letting us do our own audits.

But, you're completely missing the point. We went from NO inspections to SOME inspections. How is that worse?

tatupu70 says

Strategist says

As stupid as the IRS letting us do our own audits.

But, you're completely missing the point. We went from NO inspections to SOME inspections. How is that worse?

That was a good question. Here is an analogy.
My son comes home with a grade of F-
I take away his iPhone.
Next week he comes home with a grade of F+
He wants his iphone back claiming "How is that worse?"
He is not getting his iPhone back.

Paradise says

Iran’s Secret Self-Inspections

A report says the IAEA won’t have access to the Parchin nuclear site.

Again--how is this worse than the ZERO inspections we have now?

Paradise says

ZERO + self reporting still = ZERO

Except that it's not self reporting still. Absent this site that Iran claims has military significance, there will be inspections from the IAEA. And even Parchin will be inspected and pictures given to the IAEA for their review. Obviously not perfect, but as the thread says, no downside.

It cannot be worse than what we have today--which is ZERO inspections, ZERO review. Nothing.

The ultimate downside to the deal:

The State Department on Wednesday downplayed concerns over a reported deal that would allow Iranian inspectors to investigate their own military site.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-inspections-parchin/index.html

Now I gotta ask...who's
scared of the mullahs....
scared of their wives...
scared of hetrosex
scared for what jives...

Strategist says

What blows my mind is the liberal support of the nuclear agreement.

Here you have extreme left wing liberals like Dan, demanding religion be banned. Yet, they are perfectly wiling to trust the most radical religious extremist regime with developing the technology that can be used to make nuclear bombs. I can't figure out who is more crazy. The mullahs who promise to eradicate others, or the liberals who are willing to give them the means to do so.

SoftShell says

No missiles. We just turn them into another NK, with nukes but totally isolated.

Surrounding friendly countries would be put under the US nuclear umbrella.

SWIFT ban for Iran, and any countries that break the sanctions list with iran.

Their people are not as isolated/backwards as NK, and would revolt against the mullahs under this scenario

Or we might radicalize another generation of Iranis that blame America for all of their problems. Create some terrorists that can take a dirty bomb from Iran and bring it to the US.

Strategist says

Who said anything about boots on the ground? If Iran does not cave in with sanctions, a few missiles on their nuclear sites will wake them up.

and a few cruise missiles sinking oil tankers will result in 40% of the worlds oil supply being cut off. Even the threat of a few cruise missiles will stop tanker traffic dead in the water. No one is taking a billion dollar supertanker into danger.

That should work out pretty well I think. Really give the old economy a big boast with 1000 a barrel oil. Stategist? I think not.

SoftShell says

No missiles. We just turn them into another NK, with nukes but totally isolated.

Surrounding friendly countries would be put under the US nuclear umbrella.

SWIFT ban for Iran, and any countries that break the sanctions list with iran.

Their people are not as isolated/backwards as NK, and would revolt against the mullahs under this scenario..

Another severely geographically challenged one. What friendly countries would that be? Saudi Arabia? That's too funny for words. Iran already has a swift ban. Kicking china, russia, india, and japan (iran's largest trading partners, if you really think they aren't working around the sanctions then I've got some swamp land for you) out of swift would work out even better than having iran closing the straight of hormuz. Brilliant thinking.

Is it trolls ski free day or are you people really that stupid?

bob2356 says

Strategist says

Who said anything about boots on the ground? If Iran does not cave in with sanctions, a few missiles on their nuclear sites will wake them up.

and a few cruise missiles sinking oil tankers will result in 40% of the worlds oil supply being cut off. Even the threat of a few cruise missiles will stop tanker traffic dead in the water. No one is taking a billion dollar supertanker into danger.

That should work out pretty well I think. Really give the old economy a big boast with 1000 a barrel oil. Stategist? I think not.

That's all Bullshit. They were saying the same thing during the gulf war. Iraq got cleaned out like it was a video game.
Allowing them to have nuclear technology is no different then simply giving them nukes.

bob2356 says

Another severely geographically challenged one. What friendly countries would that be? Saudi Arabia? That's too funny for words. Iran already has a swift ban. Kicking china, russia, india, and japan (iran's largest trading partners, if you really think they aren't working around the sanctions then I've got some swamp land for you) out of swift would work out even better than having iran closing the straight of hormuz. Brilliant thinking.

Is it trolls ski free day or are you people really that stupid?

Working around the ban only gets them a trickle. Now it's trickle at $40.00. Allah has not been very merciful.
All these crazy Mid East regimes are nothing but trouble. You either control them, or overthrow them. There is no other solution.

Strategist says

That's all Bullshit. They were saying the same thing during the gulf war. Iraq got cleaned out like it was a video game.

Perfect, you don't know the geography, religion, or politics of the region. Why would iran have objected to the US invading iraq? They just had an 8 year war with iraq in which iraq invaded iran. Iraq had a sunni controlled government that would always be a threat to shia iran. How would Iraq close the straights of hormuz? They are a long way from the straights and they don't have a navy.

Sue the cake bakers for starters...

bob2356 says

How would Iraq close the straights of hormuz ?

Precisely why you don't go halfass with this one....attack all their military sites at once...all or nothing..

bob2356 says

and a few cruise missiles sinking oil tankers will result in 40% of the worlds oil supply being cut off. Even the threat of a few cruise missiles will stop tanker traffic dead in the water.

SoftShell says

Precisely why you don't go halfass with this one....attack all their military sites at once...all or nothing..

bob2356 says

and a few cruise missiles sinking oil tankers will result in 40% of the worlds oil supply being cut off. Even the threat of a few cruise missiles will stop tanker traffic dead in the water.

Amazing, someone even more clueless than strategist, a very, very high bar. Iran is the size of the US eastern third. Pray tell how does one strikes all their military sites at once?

In general, I think they should be brought into the international fold. But I just don't trust Obama-especially the way he is handling the TPP. The devil is in the details, what is in the plan?

Strategist says

It does not help anyone except for the wackos who think they will get their 72 virgins

In fairness, despite the bluster, while not benign, is much more bluster than real. I don't see Persians raising future suicide bombers or having families of 10 kids like many Palestinians I grew up around and went to school with in New Mexico and beyond.

Unlike arabs, Persians generally value education and western ideals more, despite what their idiot mullahs are spewing.

anonymous says

The nuclear agreement “removes the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program based on dates certain, rather than on changes in Iran’s aggressive behavior, including its support for terrorism around the world,” the senior official said. “The deal doesn’t solve the Iranian nuclear problem, but rather delays and intensifies it.”

According to the secret document, obtained Monday by The Associated Press, key restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program imposed under the accord will ease in slightly more than a decade, cutting the time Tehran would need to build a bomb to six months or less from present estimates of a year.

Iran's support for terrorism around the world? You need a senior official that knows what he is talking about.

So the problem is that in 10 years Iran could build a bomb in 6 months instead of a year? WTF? Is the onion or something?

Sure, let's hear what a clown has to say on this matter...

indigenous says

apparently forgetting about the expiration of his old deadline.

this is expected of jews. full of lies.