The idea that we're going to go to war with Iran is just a misleading talking point from the Obama administration to paint anyone who doesn't agree with him as a war monger. Clearly it's a dishonest position.
POLL: Do You Favor War with Iran?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Assuming Iran will follow international agreements you have a very valid point. Trouble is, they have already shown they will cheat, not disclose, etc to get around the agreement. Sanctions are much better than a bad agreement. Those very sanctions brought them to the table in the first place. If the world would double down and put the kind of sanctions on Iran that brought South Africa to renounce apartheid that would be even better
Posted from Rivals Mobile
How would that work? What do you imagine more sanctions could do? Say we manage to bring their economy to a stand still where it take buckets of money to buy bread. What would crashing their economy do to stop their already existing centrifuges and already existing uranium from being enriched? How does that do anything to bolster the moderates and keep the hard liners from just taking over and plowing full steam ahead toward the bomb and war?
You aren't connecting the dots. They only need time and the will to get the bomb. Sanctions give them both. The agreement decreases both. We get control of their already existing centrifuges and inspectors on their uranium and lessons the will to go all in on belligerent status. IMO your plan is a recipe for Americans dieing and no thats not a lie or dishonest.
Any sane individual should realize you cannot negotiate with maniacs like Iran, they will never honor any agreement the minute it goes against their agenda.
Obama and is ilk have not put America's interests first in any scheme they have concocted.
A little self-control goes a long way. On the other hand if our cons exercised any, HROT would be less fun and it wouldn't be so easy to tell who the children are.
I think you guys are missing the point. We don't require Iran to be trust worthy for the agreement path to still be the correct and useful one. First, there is the Reagan adage, we are there to verify compliance, not need to trust. But second and bigger IMO is that this is an international agreement. If Iran screws us, then we have international clout to go for the bombing or the tougher sanctions or whatever our next move might be. The agreement makes winning without shouldering the burden all on our own possible. No matter how Iran acts, the agreement path gives us more of what we want.
Well, initially the answer was oil, of course. We either want to control the sale of their oil - ideally by owning the rights to it - or at least to control the currency it's sold in, since that is a huge part of what props up the demand for the dollar. Iran made the mistake of deciding to sell oil to the rest of the world in euros and directly to the Chinese in yuan. Same mistake Saddam made.
There's also the issue of terrorism. As we choose to define it. The world's leading supporter of terrorism (after us, but that doesn't count) is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is engaged in a contest with Iran to dominate that part of the world. In pursuit of that dominance, Saudia Arabia has established an extensive network of madrassas teaching the extremist Islam of Wahhabism, and has directly funded al Qaeda, al Nusra Front, and the early ISIL In turn, Iran supports Hamas, Hezbollah and (for reasons I've never quite understood) Assad in Syria.
We never officially admit that oil is the reason. Even in Iraq, where we sought first to secure the oil fields and only then to look for WMD, we insisted oil wasn't the reason for our unprovoked war of aggression.
Naturally all sane people prefer that no more nations develop nukes. Duh. But some nations will do so whether we like it or not. The rational view of why we are determined to prevent (or at least postpone) Iran getting nukes is because we don't trust that they have the emotional maturity not to use them. As the only nation to ever use them, we know something about that.
In addition, we'd like to have regime change there. Merely getting Ahmadinejad out and a more liberal leader in isn't enough because he doesn't have to power to let western corporations rape Iran. To the extent that the US government dances to the tune of the US and multinational corporations that bribe it, you have to ask what they want. And what they want is to turn it into Greece so they can strip it bare at fire sale prices.
Enough?
All too often I'm reminded of this quote after reading one of your posts...
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Thats the beauty of the agreement path, it has something for everyone. If you want Iran to voluntarily give up nukes and integrate closer with western economies and moderate, it offers that hope. If you think thats naive and want to ratchet up sanctions, you are going to need more international buy in and it offers that too. If you want to bomb the crap out of them, you will get that support if the agreement is broken. If you want the US to stop going it alone, it offers that too. No matter what you want to do with Iran, the agreement path is for you.
I'm still not seeing it. Do you think you could maybe answer it again. You know, in straightforward English.
Your naive notion that some better deal is possible is sweet. Seriously. No serious commentator thinks that's true, but it's adorable.
Very few people say they "favor war" in a general sense. So your cute statement that you don't favor war carries about as much substance as saying there will be weather tomorrow. The question which your trite denial dodges, which is the question posed in this thread, is given the choice of the deal on the table or war, which do you favor?
If I was wrong that you had already declared yourself in agreement with the Cotton letter, I apologize, but in my statement you'll notice that couched my comments about your position with that belief saying "IF THAT IS CORRECT....." Which most adults would take as an invitation to clarify things if that's in error.
So why don't you just behave like a big boy and be clear where you stand on these things? For a change.
I voted no but I have serious concerns with Iran gaining a Nuke. Actually I have serious concerns with the proliferation of Nukes in general...no new nations in the club.
It's not even the concern that the Iranian State would use them...I don't think they would. It's the security of the nukes and the chance they'd fall into the hands of nut jobs (terror groups) or into the hands of a$$holes willing to sell one to those nut jobs.
All it'll take is one nuke to go off in a western city and boom.....all our civil liberties gone/police state. People complain about the erosion of privacy and the intrusion of the state in our lives.....nothing compared to what we'd be living with if a nuke is detonated in a city.
That's my fear.....
It's not even the concern that the Iranian State would use them...I don't think they would. It's the security of the nukes and the chance they'd fall into the hands of nut jobs (terror groups) or into the hands of a$$holes willing to sell one to those nut jobs.
All it'll take is one nuke to go off in a western city and boom.....all our civil liberties gone/police state. People complain about the erosion of privacy and the intrusion of the state in our lives.....nothing compared to what we'd be living with if a nuke is detonated in a city.
That's my fear.....
Similar threads
