CDZ Iran Nuke Deal: Bottom Line Analysis

[Ernie S.]

That level of ignorance is usually only found amongst inanimate objects.

Is this your contribution to the Clean Debate Zone? I must have accidentally unignored you, but have now corrected that oversight.

A lot of that going around lately...

 

[Derideo_Te]

That level of ignorance is usually only found amongst inanimate objects.

Is this your contribution to the Clean Debate Zone? I must have accidentally unignored you, but have now corrected that oversight.

And yet you ignore the vulgarities posted by Ernie S?

FYI The CDZ rules require abstaining from personal attacks on other posters. My remark was not a personal attack. It was merely a comment pertaining to the quality (or lack thereof) of the content of the post in question.

There is a difference.

Now let's return to the topic of the OP, m'kay?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Here's my two cents.

I believe Obama is a ninocmpoop, and John Kerry is a dullard. But I still think this deal is a good deal for the US and for Iran.

The misinformation and outright lies by the warmongering Neo-Cons and Israel is sickening. Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Iran has never had nuclear weapons. Back in 2007, combined US intelligence concluded that Iran was NOT working on a nuclear weapons program. Israel’s intelligence services came to the same conclusion. Read that again- THEY WERE NOT WORKING ON A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM. Even George W Bush conceded in his biography that - Iran was not working on a nuclear program, which is why he could not not justify bombing/invading them.

But let's pretend they did.....If Iran actual had nuclear weapons and could deliver them (that's a tricky part that North Korea is still struggling with) why would they attack Israel? Israel would obliterate them! The Israeli's have nuclear weapons, submarines, aircraft, rockets, etc.... If Iran attacked Israel, its nuclear forces would wipe Iran and it's 70 million people off the map!!

At any rate, this deal ensures that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years.

Bottom line- IMHO, Iran is a natural ally that will control/confront/defeat ISIS and help stabilize the region. Israel is in no danger and they never were.

The deal is a winner for all parties.

NEXT!!

As Iran is in a position to defeat ISIS and in doing so would be of benefit to all concerned, will they do it? Remains to be seen. To do so they must cross certain international borders, Iraq, Syria, etc. Will they turn the Republican Guard loose, remains to be seen. How ever, if Iran is willing to do so and after they have accomplished that goal, it puts them into much closer proximity of Israel. What does that mean? Not sure, but should they then suddenly have the support of Iraq and Syria, I have to feel "Katy needs to bar the door"! Or stated another way, "Pandora's box may be opened to the world" and the blitzkrieg I mentioned elsewhere may become reality. The statement "Read that again- they were not working on a nuclear weapons program" is in no way applicable to what they are doing now, some 8 years later, as they continue to refuse to allow inspections which will or will not verify the opinion. Iran has continued to state they wish to eliminate the U.S. and Israel, to virtually today. Iran is willing to play in the sandbox of the world but only on their terms and conditions. That seems somewhat one sided and now they have 15 years more,of playtime, should the U.S. Congress allow the negotiations to become law. That is simply nothing more than a "continue to march". I do trust the Iranian leadership, period. Not that it matters.

From Iran's perspective what do they see?

View attachment 45190

America has been responsible for destabilizing nations on both their eastern and western borders.

Why wouldn't Iran side with whichever group is likely to bring about some kind of stable government to it's borders in the future?

Why would they trust the West to do it given that they are responsible for the current situations?

Self interest is what is driving Iran.

The same self interest that works right here in the USA.

Both nations have their share of extremist rightwingers willing to commit atrocities.

Both nations have a vested interest in a peaceful future in the middle east.

The nuke deal offers both nations a path towards that future.

The alternative is a far worse option and both nations know it.

For, I Am Charlie, (Chuck, Chuck'umz , Chucky):
.
Point #1 Agreed, as stated.

Point #2 Were Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan reliable partners, that might be feasible. Pakistan wants no part in this in that they have other fish to fry, namely India and all of the areas terrorists. Iraq and Syria have their hands full with ISIS, and the fight for Syria, and as a result, not much help there. Saudi Arabia and Jordan are with the U.S. Turkey is simply standing by with their forces on alerted status and should push come to shove, with the U.S. Iran is in the middle of this mess and content on being antagonistic, however they may. They stay busy sinking aircraft carrier mock ups and hoping against hope for the opportunity to do so. Perhaps we could appease them by towing one of our retired carriers to the Persian Gulf and set it adrift.

Point #3 Why would they trust the West to do what? Bring peace to the area? Ask your main squeeze, Mr. Obama, about that. Perhaps it it easier to leave all concerned in the mess they are in. I truthfully cannot answer that question. It is far above my title and pay grade.

Point #4 To be certain, self interest is Iran's motive. Is this something new?

Point #5 The same self interest as here in the U.S? Not exactly, we already have the nukes. A sack full of them, big one's, small one's and a few intermediates. Israel also has a couple laying around which is exactly why Iran so desperately wants one of their own. Monkey see, monkey do. Not to mention they are too arrogant and primitive to realize that they cannot rely on the atom to save their defunct culture. Perhaps they have become climate aware?

Point #6 Surely ye jest! In terms of "share" the U.S. is roughly 6 times the population of Iran. In terms of being more realistic, the U.S. has many times fewer numbers of terrorists than Iran. I have not checked but would be willing to bet we have fewer American terrorists than we have Iranian terrorists living here in the U.S. That you classify any "Right Winger" as terrorist does not cut the mustard, Chuck, Je Suis. By your own standards, Chucky was a disrespectful terrorist who deserved to die.

Point #7 True as stated.

Point #8 Perhaps, perhaps not. Should both parties honor the intent of the accord, yes. Should one or the other violate the accord, no. To continue calling for death to Israel and the United States violates the spirit of said accord, in that such ranting and raving may incite violence upon either Israel or the United States or Iran itself, from within. Not that would be a bad thing.

Point #9 True as stated.

I have taken the time to address the concerns and questions you have stated. With exception of a couple of mild barbs, in the interest of latent humor, I expect the same in return. Feel free to jab and enjoy your wit while doing so. But I beg of you, try not to go personal. If you feel that I have done that, I apologize in advance. Should that be the case, please do not lower yourself to my standards.

Point #3 Why would they trust the West to do what? Bring peace to the area? Ask your main squeeze, Mr. Obama, about that. Perhaps it it easier to leave all concerned in the mess they are in. I truthfully cannot answer that question. It is far above my title and pay grade.

My question was tongue in check. Of course Iran wouldn't trust the West because the West is responsible for the current abysmal situation. President Obama has offered Iran a better alternative which is the topic of the OP.

Point #5 The same self interest as here in the U.S? Not exactly, we already have the nukes. A sack full of them, big one's, small one's and a few intermediates. Israel also has a couple laying around which is exactly why Iran so desperately wants one of their own. Monkey see, monkey do. Not to mention they are too arrogant and primitive to realize that they cannot rely on the atom to save their defunct culture. Perhaps they have become climate aware?

The self interest I am referring to here is not about nukes. It is about what is best for the people of the respective nations.

As far as your demeaning language about the Iranian people you are either ignorant or misinformed. Iranians are neither more arrogant nor more primitive that Americans.

With reference to their culture being "defunct" that is a separate topic. IMO all religions are a hindrance to the betterment of civilization and that applies equally to the majority religion here in the USA.

Point #6 Surely ye jest! In terms of "share" the U.S. is roughly 6 times the population of Iran. In terms of being more realistic, the U.S. has many times fewer numbers of terrorists than Iran. I have not checked but would be willing to bet we have fewer American terrorists than we have Iranian terrorists living here in the U.S. That you classify any "Right Winger" as terrorist does not cut the mustard, Chuck, Je Suis. By your own standards, Chucky was a disrespectful terrorist who deserved to die.

Growth in domestic terrorist militias in the USA has exploded since 2008. The only significant difference is that the FBI is very diligent about keeping tabs on them and proactive when it comes to filing charges when they start obtaining materials to commit heinous acts of terrorism here in the USA.

But don't delude yourself into believing that there is any significant difference percentagewise in the respective populations as to those who are willing to commit acts of terrorism.

No, I don't "classify any Right Winger as terrorist" [sic] because that would be erroneous. I make a clear distinction by using the term "extremist rightwingers". Words do have meanings and yes, I use them appropriately notwithstanding the fallacious allegations in the contrary in this thread.

Point #8 Perhaps, perhaps not. Should both parties honor the intent of the accord, yes. Should one or the other violate the accord, no. To continue calling for death to Israel and the United States violates the spirit of said accord, in that such ranting and raving may incite violence upon either Israel or the United States or Iran itself, from within. Not that would be a bad thing.

Let's be clear here. It was Bush jr who called Iran a member of the "Axis of Evil". It was McCain who campaigned on bombing Iran. There have been plenty of senior political leaders in this nation who have advocated for going to war against Iran.

And yes, Israel has made threats against Iran too.

From Iran's perspective the USA is the aggressor since it has invaded nations on both it's eastern and western borders.

Iran is making a pact with the "Great Satan" and it has every right to be skeptical as does America.

But if you look at the long term perspective the odds of this deal working out in favor of the West are better than the odds of going to war against Iran.

 

[Bobby1250]

So who here thinks 20% enriched uranium is "weapons grade" uranium, thanks to the media?

Who here thinks 5% enriched uranium is "weapons grade" uranium, thanks to the media?