CDZ The Iranian nuclear deal: a deeper look

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

hello, im still alive.

My secondary point here would be that opponents of the Iran deal tend to be irrational. I don't think there's any question about that now. My work is done.

you top off your misinformation with a baseless ASSERTION. I am not particularly against the IRAN deal other than the fact that I do not
believe that sanctions should be lifted entirely-----MOSTLY in view of the FACT that Iran is fomenting brutal conflict RIGHT NOW---thurout
the Levant------tens of thosuands already dead----and hundreds of thousands- ----displaced and in very miserable condition-----BECAUSE OF IRAN. Also Iran supports, funds, and galvanizes world wide terrorism. ----------and now the rest of the world is going
to HELP Iran continue and MAGNIFY the program--------It is not all bad. I am safe and my family is generally
safe--------but unlike you, I do not dance on the dead bodies of children and consider those who don't "irrational". Every theory requires a "proof"----the proof is-------"can one make a prediction based on the theory" -------I am going to make a prediction based on
MY theory. >>>> The violence in Yemen will increase and Iran
will attempt to get control of ADEN and block the strait of Hormuz----AND to galvanize violence against Saudi Arabia<<<< as a result of the "NUKE DEAL" Keep an eye on the PORT CITY OF TAIZ

I think I am going to have to call social services and report you for domestic abuse, because you're beating your straw man pretty badly.

 

[irosie91]

hello, im still alive.

My secondary point here would be that opponents of the Iran deal tend to be irrational. I don't think there's any question about that now. My work is done.

you top off your misinformation with a baseless ASSERTION. I am not particularly against the IRAN deal other than the fact that I do not
believe that sanctions should be lifted entirely-----MOSTLY in view of the FACT that Iran is fomenting brutal conflict RIGHT NOW---thurout
the Levant------tens of thosuands already dead----and hundreds of thousands- ----displaced and in very miserable condition-----BECAUSE OF IRAN. Also Iran supports, funds, and galvanizes world wide terrorism. ----------and now the rest of the world is going
to HELP Iran continue and MAGNIFY the program--------It is not all bad. I am safe and my family is generally
safe--------but unlike you, I do not dance on the dead bodies of children and consider those who don't "irrational". Every theory requires a "proof"----the proof is-------"can one make a prediction based on the theory" -------I am going to make a prediction based on
MY theory. >>>> The violence in Yemen will increase and Iran
will attempt to get control of ADEN and block the strait of Hormuz----AND to galvanize violence against Saudi Arabia<<<< as a result of the "NUKE DEAL" Keep an eye on the PORT CITY OF TAIZ

I think I am going to have to call social services and report you for domestic abuse, because you're beating your straw man pretty badly.

Excellent response------since I posted-----Iran has moved to tighten its grip on the vital port city of aden.------you should practice those celebratory dance steps

 

[mamooth]

Interesting claim, given how everyone else is saying the Iranian-backed side was driven out of Aden.

Battle of Aden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RoccoR]

rosie91, PhilosphyBeforeParty, et al,

I guess that when all is said and done, the real issue are:

• Do we trust Iran enough?
• Is the framework of the Agreement such that it can be enforced?

I think I am going to have to call social services and report you for domestic abuse, because you're beating your straw man pretty badly.

Excellent response------since I posted-----Iran has moved to tighten its grip on the vital port city of aden.------you should practice those celebratory dance steps

(COMMENT)

On face value, the Agreement [AKA: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)] between Iran and the E3/EU+3 (China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and the Islamic Republic of Iran seems firm enough. It covers the basic --- for a period of time into the future. The agreement covers the application of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) with the stipulation that Iran never seek, develop or
acquire any nuclear weapons.

The agreement covers all the basics:

• The IAEA monitoring and protocols.
• Prohibition on enrichment and uranium enrichment-related activities for 8 years.
• Limitations on uranium enrichment capacity and centrifuges (10 Years)
• Requirement that a long-term plan for uranium enrichment-related activities, including safeguarded R&D exclusively in the 3.6% level at: Natanz Enrichment facility and Fordow. (15 years)
• Iran, it will keep its uranium stockpile under 300 kg of up to 3.67% enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) (15 years)
• Heavy Water limitations -- redesign and rebuild a modernized research reactor in using fuel enriched up to 3.67 % (15 years)
• No production of weapons grade plutonium. (Ever)
• Disposition of spent fuel from Arak (Lifetime of the reactor.)
• A long-term IAEA presence in Iran; IAEA monitoring of uranium ore concentrate produced by Iran from all uranium ore concentrate plants (25 years)
• Iran will not engage in activities, including at the R&D level, that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device, including uranium or plutonium metallurgy activities. (Ever)

What exactly are we opposed to? I am surprised that we could get the Iran and the E3/EU+3 to simultaneously agree on such a complex issue. But do I really think that Iran will live-up to its obligation for 8, 10, 15, and 25 years spans? (Rhetorical) It doesn't matter what I think, it is a matter of "trust" and perceived "intentions."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

Mr R-----I believe that matters will get very very complicated -----
long before that rhetorical 25 years pass. The matter may
become moot

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

rosie91, PhilosphyBeforeParty, et al,

I guess that when all is said and done, the real issue are:

• Do we trust Iran enough?
• Is the framework of the Agreement such that it can be enforced?

I think I am going to have to call social services and report you for domestic abuse, because you're beating your straw man pretty badly.

Excellent response------since I posted-----Iran has moved to tighten its grip on the vital port city of aden.------you should practice those celebratory dance steps

(COMMENT)

On face value, the Agreement [AKA: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)] between Iran and the E3/EU+3 (China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and the Islamic Republic of Iran seems firm enough. It covers the basic --- for a period of time into the future. The agreement covers the application of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) with the stipulation that Iran never seek, develop or
acquire any nuclear weapons.

The agreement covers all the basics:

• The IAEA monitoring and protocols.
• Prohibition on enrichment and uranium enrichment-related activities for 8 years.
• Limitations on uranium enrichment capacity and centrifuges (10 Years)
• Requirement that a long-term plan for uranium enrichment-related activities, including safeguarded R&D exclusively in the 3.6% level at: Natanz Enrichment facility and Fordow. (15 years)
• Iran, it will keep its uranium stockpile under 300 kg of up to 3.67% enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) (15 years)
• Heavy Water limitations -- redesign and rebuild a modernized research reactor in using fuel enriched up to 3.67 % (15 years)
• No production of weapons grade plutonium. (Ever)
• Disposition of spent fuel from Arak (Lifetime of the reactor.)
• A long-term IAEA presence in Iran; IAEA monitoring of uranium ore concentrate produced by Iran from all uranium ore concentrate plants (25 years)
• Iran will not engage in activities, including at the R&D level, that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device, including uranium or plutonium metallurgy activities. (Ever)

What exactly are we opposed to? I am surprised that we could get the Iran and the E3/EU+3 to simultaneously agree on such a complex issue. But do I really think that Iran will live-up to its obligation for 8, 10, 15, and 25 years spans? (Rhetorical) It doesn't matter what I think, it is a matter of "trust" and perceived "intentions."

Most Respectfully,
R

I would have to disagree that it is a matter of trust: according to the deal, IAEA inspectors will have access to all of Iran's nuclear facilities, and anything that they deem "suspicious". to deny inspectors access to any facility would be in violation of the deal. I is also much harder than many people think to create a nuclear bomb in secret-especially when there are people will access to all of you facilities whose job it is to make sure you are not doing so.

 

[irosie91]

I do not believe that this is the case: these claims are made by people who look at the deal and ask themselves: “does this hurt Iran more than it helps it?” This not the way we should be thinking. This results from the “us vs. them” mentality that has been cultivated in our society by the two party system, which I will explain my opinions on in a future essay. This deal was not about gaining an advantage over Iran, but about cooperating with it and benefitting both countries and the world as a result.

It is not a 2 Party system problem. Both parties for nearly 36 years have considered Iran an enemy of Freedom and a State Sponsor of Terror. I'd have to look it up but a letter was sent to Obama warning him to not cut a bad deal with 350 Congressional Signatures to not buckle in negotiations with Iran. Many Dems signed that letter.

367 House Members Send Letter on Iran Nuclear Negotiations to President Obama House Committee on Foreign Affairs - Ed Royce Chairman
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sites/republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/03.20.15 - Iran Letter - POTUS.pdf

Our problem with Iran began under Carter. When the Shah of Iran was overthrown in the late 70's. The Shah is one of many brutal dictators which is common to the region. As it seems only Dictators can keep any country there stable. They don't do it by playing nice, but this was a Religious take over by Radicals in the Islamic Religion. When they took over they seized our embassy and held our people hostage for over a year. For 444 days our people were held. At the time, people were calling for Carter to go to War with Iran. I was one of them back then saying the same. To that point, an attack on our embassy is an attack on our nation and is a declaration of War.

Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Another point to Iran. We had oil shortages here as a result. Gas lines back then, and this is the reason for the Strategic Oil Reserve we have today.

Since Iran was a thorn in our side, Russia assisted Iran as they do today. More so then as we were still active in a Cold War. The Cold War shifted alliances in the region, and we backed Iraq more so for payback to Iran for holding our people in the Iran Iraq War. We also assisted the people in Afghanistan as Russia had it's on Vietnam there trying to dominate the region. To ensuing Wars were engaged. Iran then began to mine the Straits of Harmuse.....in a attempt to strangle the World's Oil supplies.

Operation Earnest Will - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

We came into the fray to escort these tankers. I was there. They were throwing mines into water off the tankers and using small boats and frigates to directly challenge our mission. Not to mention Iranian jets on attack vectors to our ships. I went to GQ many a time with missiles on the rail ready to shoot down these aircraft. This eventually led to a FIGHT in which we sunk their ships, and destroyed their oil rigs.

At the same time Iraq hit the Stark.
USS Stark incident - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Roberts hits a mine.
USS Samuel B. Roberts FFG-58 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Our response.
Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And direct military action against Iranian assets.

The Iranian frigate Sahand attacked by aircraft of U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing 11 after the guided missile frigateUSS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine

During the same time frame.........

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
While Iran denied involvement..........of course........they helped KILL OUR MARINES in Lebanon. As they support the Hezballah there and always have in actions against Israel.

To be continued...........this is just laying the ground for the History of the problem with Iran........which is necessary to understand WHO WE ARE DEALING WITH..............

This is how it began...........

I did not say that the problem with Iran arose directly from the two party system. I was merely pointing out similarities. and the most important thing about this deal is that it is a step towards reverse all those years of hostile relationships. It is better to turn an enemy into an ally than to defeat it.

very chamberlain of you. Come back here and talk "friends" in three years

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I do not believe that this is the case: these claims are made by people who look at the deal and ask themselves: “does this hurt Iran more than it helps it?” This not the way we should be thinking. This results from the “us vs. them” mentality that has been cultivated in our society by the two party system, which I will explain my opinions on in a future essay. This deal was not about gaining an advantage over Iran, but about cooperating with it and benefitting both countries and the world as a result.

It is not a 2 Party system problem. Both parties for nearly 36 years have considered Iran an enemy of Freedom and a State Sponsor of Terror. I'd have to look it up but a letter was sent to Obama warning him to not cut a bad deal with 350 Congressional Signatures to not buckle in negotiations with Iran. Many Dems signed that letter.

367 House Members Send Letter on Iran Nuclear Negotiations to President Obama House Committee on Foreign Affairs - Ed Royce Chairman
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sites/republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/03.20.15 - Iran Letter - POTUS.pdf

Our problem with Iran began under Carter. When the Shah of Iran was overthrown in the late 70's. The Shah is one of many brutal dictators which is common to the region. As it seems only Dictators can keep any country there stable. They don't do it by playing nice, but this was a Religious take over by Radicals in the Islamic Religion. When they took over they seized our embassy and held our people hostage for over a year. For 444 days our people were held. At the time, people were calling for Carter to go to War with Iran. I was one of them back then saying the same. To that point, an attack on our embassy is an attack on our nation and is a declaration of War.

Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Another point to Iran. We had oil shortages here as a result. Gas lines back then, and this is the reason for the Strategic Oil Reserve we have today.

Since Iran was a thorn in our side, Russia assisted Iran as they do today. More so then as we were still active in a Cold War. The Cold War shifted alliances in the region, and we backed Iraq more so for payback to Iran for holding our people in the Iran Iraq War. We also assisted the people in Afghanistan as Russia had it's on Vietnam there trying to dominate the region. To ensuing Wars were engaged. Iran then began to mine the Straits of Harmuse.....in a attempt to strangle the World's Oil supplies.

Operation Earnest Will - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

We came into the fray to escort these tankers. I was there. They were throwing mines into water off the tankers and using small boats and frigates to directly challenge our mission. Not to mention Iranian jets on attack vectors to our ships. I went to GQ many a time with missiles on the rail ready to shoot down these aircraft. This eventually led to a FIGHT in which we sunk their ships, and destroyed their oil rigs.

At the same time Iraq hit the Stark.
USS Stark incident - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Roberts hits a mine.
USS Samuel B. Roberts FFG-58 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Our response.
Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And direct military action against Iranian assets.

The Iranian frigate Sahand attacked by aircraft of U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing 11 after the guided missile frigateUSS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine

During the same time frame.........

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
While Iran denied involvement..........of course........they helped KILL OUR MARINES in Lebanon. As they support the Hezballah there and always have in actions against Israel.

To be continued...........this is just laying the ground for the History of the problem with Iran........which is necessary to understand WHO WE ARE DEALING WITH..............

This is how it began...........

I did not say that the problem with Iran arose directly from the two party system. I was merely pointing out similarities. and the most important thing about this deal is that it is a step towards reverse all those years of hostile relationships. It is better to turn an enemy into an ally than to defeat it.

very chamberlain of you. Come back here and talk "friends" in three years

this is a very different situation that pre WWII germany, and the deal is not appeasement.

 

[irosie91]

I do not believe that this is the case: these claims are made by people who look at the deal and ask themselves: “does this hurt Iran more than it helps it?” This not the way we should be thinking. This results from the “us vs. them” mentality that has been cultivated in our society by the two party system, which I will explain my opinions on in a future essay. This deal was not about gaining an advantage over Iran, but about cooperating with it and benefitting both countries and the world as a result.

It is not a 2 Party system problem. Both parties for nearly 36 years have considered Iran an enemy of Freedom and a State Sponsor of Terror. I'd have to look it up but a letter was sent to Obama warning him to not cut a bad deal with 350 Congressional Signatures to not buckle in negotiations with Iran. Many Dems signed that letter.

367 House Members Send Letter on Iran Nuclear Negotiations to President Obama House Committee on Foreign Affairs - Ed Royce Chairman
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sites/republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/03.20.15 - Iran Letter - POTUS.pdf

Our problem with Iran began under Carter. When the Shah of Iran was overthrown in the late 70's. The Shah is one of many brutal dictators which is common to the region. As it seems only Dictators can keep any country there stable. They don't do it by playing nice, but this was a Religious take over by Radicals in the Islamic Religion. When they took over they seized our embassy and held our people hostage for over a year. For 444 days our people were held. At the time, people were calling for Carter to go to War with Iran. I was one of them back then saying the same. To that point, an attack on our embassy is an attack on our nation and is a declaration of War.

Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Another point to Iran. We had oil shortages here as a result. Gas lines back then, and this is the reason for the Strategic Oil Reserve we have today.

Since Iran was a thorn in our side, Russia assisted Iran as they do today. More so then as we were still active in a Cold War. The Cold War shifted alliances in the region, and we backed Iraq more so for payback to Iran for holding our people in the Iran Iraq War. We also assisted the people in Afghanistan as Russia had it's on Vietnam there trying to dominate the region. To ensuing Wars were engaged. Iran then began to mine the Straits of Harmuse.....in a attempt to strangle the World's Oil supplies.

Operation Earnest Will - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

We came into the fray to escort these tankers. I was there. They were throwing mines into water off the tankers and using small boats and frigates to directly challenge our mission. Not to mention Iranian jets on attack vectors to our ships. I went to GQ many a time with missiles on the rail ready to shoot down these aircraft. This eventually led to a FIGHT in which we sunk their ships, and destroyed their oil rigs.

At the same time Iraq hit the Stark.
USS Stark incident - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Roberts hits a mine.
USS Samuel B. Roberts FFG-58 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Our response.
Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And direct military action against Iranian assets.

The Iranian frigate Sahand attacked by aircraft of U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing 11 after the guided missile frigateUSS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine

During the same time frame.........

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
While Iran denied involvement..........of course........they helped KILL OUR MARINES in Lebanon. As they support the Hezballah there and always have in actions against Israel.

To be continued...........this is just laying the ground for the History of the problem with Iran........which is necessary to understand WHO WE ARE DEALING WITH..............

This is how it began...........

I did not say that the problem with Iran arose directly from the two party system. I was merely pointing out similarities. and the most important thing about this deal is that it is a step towards reverse all those years of hostile relationships. It is better to turn an enemy into an ally than to defeat it.

very chamberlain of you. Come back here and talk "friends" in three years

this is a very different situation that pre WWII germany, and the deal is not appeasement.

It is BEYOND appeasement-----it is encouragement of a virulently
imperialist agenda. Iran marches on in concert with Russia -----to
forcibly gain complete control of waterways vital for world trade

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I do not believe that this is the case: these claims are made by people who look at the deal and ask themselves: “does this hurt Iran more than it helps it?” This not the way we should be thinking. This results from the “us vs. them” mentality that has been cultivated in our society by the two party system, which I will explain my opinions on in a future essay. This deal was not about gaining an advantage over Iran, but about cooperating with it and benefitting both countries and the world as a result.

It is not a 2 Party system problem. Both parties for nearly 36 years have considered Iran an enemy of Freedom and a State Sponsor of Terror. I'd have to look it up but a letter was sent to Obama warning him to not cut a bad deal with 350 Congressional Signatures to not buckle in negotiations with Iran. Many Dems signed that letter.

367 House Members Send Letter on Iran Nuclear Negotiations to President Obama House Committee on Foreign Affairs - Ed Royce Chairman
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sites/republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/03.20.15 - Iran Letter - POTUS.pdf

Our problem with Iran began under Carter. When the Shah of Iran was overthrown in the late 70's. The Shah is one of many brutal dictators which is common to the region. As it seems only Dictators can keep any country there stable. They don't do it by playing nice, but this was a Religious take over by Radicals in the Islamic Religion. When they took over they seized our embassy and held our people hostage for over a year. For 444 days our people were held. At the time, people were calling for Carter to go to War with Iran. I was one of them back then saying the same. To that point, an attack on our embassy is an attack on our nation and is a declaration of War.

Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Another point to Iran. We had oil shortages here as a result. Gas lines back then, and this is the reason for the Strategic Oil Reserve we have today.

Since Iran was a thorn in our side, Russia assisted Iran as they do today. More so then as we were still active in a Cold War. The Cold War shifted alliances in the region, and we backed Iraq more so for payback to Iran for holding our people in the Iran Iraq War. We also assisted the people in Afghanistan as Russia had it's on Vietnam there trying to dominate the region. To ensuing Wars were engaged. Iran then began to mine the Straits of Harmuse.....in a attempt to strangle the World's Oil supplies.

Operation Earnest Will - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

We came into the fray to escort these tankers. I was there. They were throwing mines into water off the tankers and using small boats and frigates to directly challenge our mission. Not to mention Iranian jets on attack vectors to our ships. I went to GQ many a time with missiles on the rail ready to shoot down these aircraft. This eventually led to a FIGHT in which we sunk their ships, and destroyed their oil rigs.

At the same time Iraq hit the Stark.
USS Stark incident - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Roberts hits a mine.
USS Samuel B. Roberts FFG-58 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Our response.
Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And direct military action against Iranian assets.

The Iranian frigate Sahand attacked by aircraft of U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing 11 after the guided missile frigateUSS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine

During the same time frame.........

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
While Iran denied involvement..........of course........they helped KILL OUR MARINES in Lebanon. As they support the Hezballah there and always have in actions against Israel.

To be continued...........this is just laying the ground for the History of the problem with Iran........which is necessary to understand WHO WE ARE DEALING WITH..............

This is how it began...........

I did not say that the problem with Iran arose directly from the two party system. I was merely pointing out similarities. and the most important thing about this deal is that it is a step towards reverse all those years of hostile relationships. It is better to turn an enemy into an ally than to defeat it.

very chamberlain of you. Come back here and talk "friends" in three years

this is a very different situation that pre WWII germany, and the deal is not appeasement.

It is BEYOND appeasement-----it is encouragement of a virulently
imperialist agenda. Iran marches on in concert with Russia -----to
forcibly gain complete control of waterways vital for world trade

here is what I suggest you do: first, red the deal. you obviously haven't done that. and second, read up on your recent history. then come back.

 

[irosie91]

It is not a 2 Party system problem. Both parties for nearly 36 years have considered Iran an enemy of Freedom and a State Sponsor of Terror. I'd have to look it up but a letter was sent to Obama warning him to not cut a bad deal with 350 Congressional Signatures to not buckle in negotiations with Iran. Many Dems signed that letter.

367 House Members Send Letter on Iran Nuclear Negotiations to President Obama House Committee on Foreign Affairs - Ed Royce Chairman
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sites/republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/03.20.15 - Iran Letter - POTUS.pdf

Our problem with Iran began under Carter. When the Shah of Iran was overthrown in the late 70's. The Shah is one of many brutal dictators which is common to the region. As it seems only Dictators can keep any country there stable. They don't do it by playing nice, but this was a Religious take over by Radicals in the Islamic Religion. When they took over they seized our embassy and held our people hostage for over a year. For 444 days our people were held. At the time, people were calling for Carter to go to War with Iran. I was one of them back then saying the same. To that point, an attack on our embassy is an attack on our nation and is a declaration of War.

Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Another point to Iran. We had oil shortages here as a result. Gas lines back then, and this is the reason for the Strategic Oil Reserve we have today.

Since Iran was a thorn in our side, Russia assisted Iran as they do today. More so then as we were still active in a Cold War. The Cold War shifted alliances in the region, and we backed Iraq more so for payback to Iran for holding our people in the Iran Iraq War. We also assisted the people in Afghanistan as Russia had it's on Vietnam there trying to dominate the region. To ensuing Wars were engaged. Iran then began to mine the Straits of Harmuse.....in a attempt to strangle the World's Oil supplies.

Operation Earnest Will - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

We came into the fray to escort these tankers. I was there. They were throwing mines into water off the tankers and using small boats and frigates to directly challenge our mission. Not to mention Iranian jets on attack vectors to our ships. I went to GQ many a time with missiles on the rail ready to shoot down these aircraft. This eventually led to a FIGHT in which we sunk their ships, and destroyed their oil rigs.

At the same time Iraq hit the Stark.
USS Stark incident - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Roberts hits a mine.
USS Samuel B. Roberts FFG-58 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Our response.
Operation Praying Mantis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And direct military action against Iranian assets.

The Iranian frigate Sahand attacked by aircraft of U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing 11 after the guided missile frigateUSS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine

During the same time frame.........

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
While Iran denied involvement..........of course........they helped KILL OUR MARINES in Lebanon. As they support the Hezballah there and always have in actions against Israel.

To be continued...........this is just laying the ground for the History of the problem with Iran........which is necessary to understand WHO WE ARE DEALING WITH..............

This is how it began...........

I did not say that the problem with Iran arose directly from the two party system. I was merely pointing out similarities. and the most important thing about this deal is that it is a step towards reverse all those years of hostile relationships. It is better to turn an enemy into an ally than to defeat it.

very chamberlain of you. Come back here and talk "friends" in three years

this is a very different situation that pre WWII germany, and the deal is not appeasement.

It is BEYOND appeasement-----it is encouragement of a virulently
imperialist agenda. Iran marches on in concert with Russia -----to
forcibly gain complete control of waterways vital for world trade

here is what I suggest you do: first, red the deal. you obviously haven't done that. and second, read up on your recent history. then come back.

I read the deal and I know recent history. I even know past history

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I did not say that the problem with Iran arose directly from the two party system. I was merely pointing out similarities. and the most important thing about this deal is that it is a step towards reverse all those years of hostile relationships. It is better to turn an enemy into an ally than to defeat it.

very chamberlain of you. Come back here and talk "friends" in three years

this is a very different situation that pre WWII germany, and the deal is not appeasement.

It is BEYOND appeasement-----it is encouragement of a virulently
imperialist agenda. Iran marches on in concert with Russia -----to
forcibly gain complete control of waterways vital for world trade

here is what I suggest you do: first, red the deal. you obviously haven't done that. and second, read up on your recent history. then come back.

I read the deal and I know recent history. I even know past history

then you are ignoring both.

 

[irosie91]

very chamberlain of you. Come back here and talk "friends" in three years

this is a very different situation that pre WWII germany, and the deal is not appeasement.

It is BEYOND appeasement-----it is encouragement of a virulently
imperialist agenda. Iran marches on in concert with Russia -----to
forcibly gain complete control of waterways vital for world trade

here is what I suggest you do: first, red the deal. you obviously haven't done that. and second, read up on your recent history. then come back.

I read the deal and I know recent history. I even know past history

then you are ignoring both.

nope------I am paying close attention

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

this is a very different situation that pre WWII germany, and the deal is not appeasement.

It is BEYOND appeasement-----it is encouragement of a virulently
imperialist agenda. Iran marches on in concert with Russia -----to
forcibly gain complete control of waterways vital for world trade

here is what I suggest you do: first, red the deal. you obviously haven't done that. and second, read up on your recent history. then come back.

I read the deal and I know recent history. I even know past history

then you are ignoring both.

nope------I am paying close attention

then please explain to me where you are getting these Ideas.

 

[RoccoR]

PhilosphyBeforeParty, et al,

I don't think that it is very easy to discuss or understand Iran's vision for the future; or it's goals and objectives that drive it's strategy. Part of the reason is that Western power brokers do not grasp the Iranian methods of operation (politically, economically, diplomatically and militarily), nor do Western power brokers understand how the Iranians prioritize their wants and needs relative to what they are willing to sacrifice towards attaining their goals and objectives.

And additionally, the Western World, as well as the Far East, do not have a grasp of the moral imperatives the Iranians hold, or what value (if any) they place on honesty, integrity, and social obligations. Iran is an Islamic Republic for which most westerners have little understanding on how a theocratic state (Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, essential the Sovereign) interfaces with the executive government, the justice system, the human rights and laws of the nation. (Example: Stoning is the principle execution method women accused of committing adultery --- after torture, and beatings.) Yet such a crime and penalty is seldom applied to the males for the same activity.

The legal system has systematically been brought into the sphere of religion (desecularized) with the judges of all the courts required to be knowledgeable in Shia jurisprudence; Shia Islam being the official state religion; and all the key judicial officers must be Shia Mujtahids.

then please explain to me where you are getting these Ideas.

(COMMENT)

Much of the international community would assess Iran as holding essentially a defensive posture and having adopted a strategy which has four dominant characteristics: deter by geography, protect with defensive forces, and engage in complex diplomatic maneuvers. Iran wants to refine its strategy in such a way as to move towards being a regional (Persian Gulf) influence; while at the same time not trigger an adverse diplomatic or military response from the Western Powers (in particularly the US).

The current US Administration is a long ways from understanding what an Ayatollah thinks is a productive diplomatic posture. Thus it is unable to accurately forecast current and future intentions. However, there have been some objectives that have been identified simply because Iranian actions have disclosed them. I think that

• Becoming the dominant Military force in the Persian Gulf.
• Becoming a major Military influence in Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean.
• Becoming a greater influence in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea.

I tend to think that some of IROSIE91's observations are not quite as remote as you have suggested. The first step to gaining influence, is to be seen with those with influence.

Russia, Iran Seen Coordinating on Defense of Assad Regime in Syria
Wall Street Journal By JAY SOLOMON in Washington and SAM DAGHER in Amman, Jordan

Russia and Iran have stepped up coordination inside Syria as they move to safeguard President Bashar al-Assad’s control over his coastal stronghold, according to officials in the U.S. and Middle East, creating a new complication for Washington’s diplomatic goals.

Senior Russian and Iranian diplomats, generals and strategists have held a string of high-level talks in Moscow in recent months to discuss Mr. Assad’s defense and the Kremlin’s military buildup in Syria, according to these officials.
​

We all know and understand that Iran has many fingers in many aspects of Middle Eastern Politics; including in the Egyptian Sinai, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. It is already a aspiring influence in these unfolding dramas.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

It is BEYOND appeasement-----it is encouragement of a virulently
imperialist agenda. Iran marches on in concert with Russia -----to
forcibly gain complete control of waterways vital for world trade

here is what I suggest you do: first, red the deal. you obviously haven't done that. and second, read up on your recent history. then come back.

I read the deal and I know recent history. I even know past history

then you are ignoring both.

nope------I am paying close attention

then please explain to me where you are getting these Ideas.

what "ideas"? I am probably a bit luckier than are you-------I have had close
relationships with LOTS OF PEOPLE ------right here in the USA -------way back in the mid 60s I encountered IRANIAN IMMIGRANTS-----and---Syrian immigrants to the USA The Iranian immigrants back then were jewish teens-----being sent out by their parents ------to save them from ISLAMICISM -----growing way back then in Iran. I also got to know SYRIAN CHRISTIANS ----way back in the 60s ----and Lebanese----escaping the stink of islamicism --------feel free to ask questions

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

here is what I suggest you do: first, red the deal. you obviously haven't done that. and second, read up on your recent history. then come back.

I read the deal and I know recent history. I even know past history

then you are ignoring both.

nope------I am paying close attention

then please explain to me where you are getting these Ideas.

what "ideas"? I am probably a bit luckier than are you-------I have had close
relationships with LOTS OF PEOPLE ------right here in the USA -------way back in the mid 60s I encountered IRANIAN IMMIGRANTS-----and---Syrian immigrants to the USA The Iranian immigrants back then were jewish teens-----being sent out by their parents ------to save them from ISLAMICISM -----growing way back then in Iran. I also got to know SYRIAN CHRISTIANS ----way back in the 60s ----and Lebanese----escaping the stink of islamicism --------feel free to ask questions

you still do not explain why you are against the deal.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

PhilosphyBeforeParty, et al,

I don't think that it is very easy to discuss or understand Iran's vision for the future; or it's goals and objectives that drive it's strategy. Part of the reason is that Western power brokers do not grasp the Iranian methods of operation (politically, economically, diplomatically and militarily), nor do Western power brokers understand how the Iranians prioritize their wants and needs relative to what they are willing to sacrifice towards attaining their goals and objectives.

And additionally, the Western World, as well as the Far East, do not have a grasp of the moral imperatives the Iranians hold, or what value (if any) they place on honesty, integrity, and social obligations. Iran is an Islamic Republic for which most westerners have little understanding on how a theocratic state (Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, essential the Sovereign) interfaces with the executive government, the justice system, the human rights and laws of the nation. (Example: Stoning is the principle execution method women accused of committing adultery --- after torture, and beatings.) Yet such a crime and penalty is seldom applied to the males for the same activity.

The legal system has systematically been brought into the sphere of religion (desecularized) with the judges of all the courts required to be knowledgeable in Shia jurisprudence; Shia Islam being the official state religion; and all the key judicial officers must be Shia Mujtahids.

then please explain to me where you are getting these Ideas.

(COMMENT)

Much of the international community would assess Iran as holding essentially a defensive posture and having adopted a strategy which has four dominant characteristics: deter by geography, protect with defensive forces, and engage in complex diplomatic maneuvers. Iran wants to refine its strategy in such a way as to move towards being a regional (Persian Gulf) influence; while at the same time not trigger an adverse diplomatic or military response from the Western Powers (in particularly the US).

The current US Administration is a long ways from understanding what an Ayatollah thinks is a productive diplomatic posture. Thus it is unable to accurately forecast current and future intentions. However, there have been some objectives that have been identified simply because Iranian actions have disclosed them. I think that

• Becoming the dominant Military force in the Persian Gulf.
• Becoming a major Military influence in Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean.
• Becoming a greater influence in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea.

I tend to think that some of IROSIE91's observations are not quite as remote as you have suggested. The first step to gaining influence, is to be seen with those with influence.

Russia, Iran Seen Coordinating on Defense of Assad Regime in Syria
Wall Street Journal By JAY SOLOMON in Washington and SAM DAGHER in Amman, Jordan

Russia and Iran have stepped up coordination inside Syria as they move to safeguard President Bashar al-Assad’s control over his coastal stronghold, according to officials in the U.S. and Middle East, creating a new complication for Washington’s diplomatic goals.

Senior Russian and Iranian diplomats, generals and strategists have held a string of high-level talks in Moscow in recent months to discuss Mr. Assad’s defense and the Kremlin’s military buildup in Syria, according to these officials.
​

We all know and understand that Iran has many fingers in many aspects of Middle Eastern Politics; including in the Egyptian Sinai, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. It is already a aspiring influence in these unfolding dramas.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes there is social injustice in Iran and yes Iran is a general mischief maker in the middle east, but that is precisely why I support the deal. I believe that this pattern can and will be reversed by it. I wont fully explain why because it would take too long and I would be mostly repeating myself, but I will answer any specific questions you have.

 

[irosie91]

I read the deal and I know recent history. I even know past history

then you are ignoring both.

nope------I am paying close attention

then please explain to me where you are getting these Ideas.

what "ideas"? I am probably a bit luckier than are you-------I have had close
relationships with LOTS OF PEOPLE ------right here in the USA -------way back in the mid 60s I encountered IRANIAN IMMIGRANTS-----and---Syrian immigrants to the USA The Iranian immigrants back then were jewish teens-----being sent out by their parents ------to save them from ISLAMICISM -----growing way back then in Iran. I also got to know SYRIAN CHRISTIANS ----way back in the 60s ----and Lebanese----escaping the stink of islamicism --------feel free to ask questions

you still do not explain why you are against the deal.

simple----I do not trust the Irnanians----take this thing out of CDZ and
I will explain. I have known ruling Iran. Take this out of CDZ and I
will explain what I do know about the Iranians ruling Iran from Iranians
in the USA

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

then you are ignoring both.

nope------I am paying close attention

then please explain to me where you are getting these Ideas.

what "ideas"? I am probably a bit luckier than are you-------I have had close
relationships with LOTS OF PEOPLE ------right here in the USA -------way back in the mid 60s I encountered IRANIAN IMMIGRANTS-----and---Syrian immigrants to the USA The Iranian immigrants back then were jewish teens-----being sent out by their parents ------to save them from ISLAMICISM -----growing way back then in Iran. I also got to know SYRIAN CHRISTIANS ----way back in the 60s ----and Lebanese----escaping the stink of islamicism --------feel free to ask questions

you still do not explain why you are against the deal.

simple----I do not trust the Irnanians----take this thing out of CDZ and
I will explain. I have known ruling Iran. Take this out of CDZ and I
will explain what I do know about the Iranians ruling Iran from Iranians
in the USA

...except that we do not need to trust Iran. the inspections are more than sufficient.