What is the real reason that the GOP does not want a deal with Iran?

[healthmyths]

No one, no where in the universe, and especially in the nuthouse of the GOP,

has a better plan.

What got Iran to the table? Sanctions.
Why give the ONLY tool that did what was needed to get them to the table UP?
What is the alternative?

 

[Liminal]

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

Do whatever it takes to force Iran to abide by our terms of them having no nukes, period. More sanctions, bombing their capital, whatever works. No need for ground troops. Eventually they will give in or they will be incapable of proceeding even if they stupidly don't.

More sanctions? Like what? And suppose they don't care if you bomb their capital? Sounds more like a propaganda victory for them.

They'll care when they have to replace their dead leaders.

No, I don't think they will. They'll just find some way to retaliate while they become more entrenched. Your plan is no plan at all.

You saying it is so doesn't make it so. You plan on capitulating and allowing them to getting a nuke is in reality no plan at all, or at least a bad plan.

Let me put it another way then. Your plan to make Iran comply is childish and superficial, as though you didn't really think about it first. Bomb their cities and hope for the best, not much of a strategy.

 

[Liminal]

And we know just how effective Republicans have been with negotiations like that in the past. North Korea being case in point.

That deal was negotiated by the Clinton Administration with Jimmy Carter leading the charge....

Who was President when North Korea tested their first nuclear weapon? I can't seem to remember, who was it again?

It's not who was President when the North Koreans broke the deal they signed back in 1994. It's who originally negotiated it in the first place that matters. Using that logic, why don't you just blame Churchill when the Nazis broke the deal they made with Chamberlain.

The Iranians simply cannot be trusted to keep their end of the bargain. And furthermore, why wasn't their support for terrorist groups not on the table as well? They want to join the civilized world, they need to start playing by the rules. That means no more support to Hamas.

What reasons does Iran have to trust the United States?

I could give crap one about Iran's national security. I only care for US national security. Truth is, I have a hard time making a deal with people who scream "Death to America" every chance they get....

Maybe you just haven't noticed that people scream death to America in many countries, particularly in nations that are supposedly our allies.

 

[Ernie S.]

I have a hard time accepting that the GOP would carry us to war just to enhance their chances to win the White House.

There has never been except from Obama a discussion of war with Iran. It is not necessary.
The sanctions are working while else is Iran in negotiations? So why give up that one effective tool?
HOLD on to the premise that the 4th largest oil producer in the world DOESN"T need nuclear power to supply energy to their people!
FACT.

Whether or not they 'need' it, they have a right to it. Imagining they don't doesn't change the fact that they do.

Are you insane? I suppose you want insane folks and felons to own guns too?

Really! Iran has proven time after time they are neither capable of following the law or of sane thought.
Giving them nuclear weapons is like giving John Nash a machine gun.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Republicans want to stop a nuclear deal with Iran. They may have ensured Obama gets one Comment is free The Guardian


"If no deal is reached, what does the Senate GOP think will happen? Peace on earth and goodwill to men? Iran will continue to build up its nuclear program, and the world will eventually face a stark choice between Iran being a screwdriver’s turn away from a nuclear bomb, or using its own traditional bombs inIranand starting a disastrous war."

So what is the reason the GOP does not want a deal with Iran? There is one HUGE reason and it has nothing to do with security, world peace, or even Iran. The GOP does not want to give Obama another victory. They know if Obama gets a deal with Iran, their chances of winning the WH go down to near 0%. It is all a repub political game.

We want a good deal. One which will prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
We don't believe President obama can or even wants, to make such a deal.

That's because you don't want him to succeed. You really do believe he wants Iran to get nuclear weapons, and that opinion has no basis in reality. Thus, I'm inclined to feel such comments are dishonest, and not the product of a mentally ill person.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have a hard time accepting that the GOP would carry us to war just to enhance their chances to win the White House.

There has never been except from Obama a discussion of war with Iran. It is not necessary.
The sanctions are working while else is Iran in negotiations? So why give up that one effective tool?
HOLD on to the premise that the 4th largest oil producer in the world DOESN"T need nuclear power to supply energy to their people!
FACT.

Whether or not they 'need' it, they have a right to it. Imagining they don't doesn't change the fact that they do.

Are you insane? I suppose you want insane folks and felons to own guns too?

Really! Iran has proven time after time they are neither capable of following the law or of sane thought.
Giving them nuclear weapons is like giving John Nash a machine gun.

How would you know, as a gun owner, if someone is insane or a felon?

 

[Slyhunter]

Do whatever it takes to force Iran to abide by our terms of them having no nukes, period. More sanctions, bombing their capital, whatever works. No need for ground troops. Eventually they will give in or they will be incapable of proceeding even if they stupidly don't.

More sanctions? Like what? And suppose they don't care if you bomb their capital? Sounds more like a propaganda victory for them.

They'll care when they have to replace their dead leaders.

No, I don't think they will. They'll just find some way to retaliate while they become more entrenched. Your plan is no plan at all.

You saying it is so doesn't make it so. You plan on capitulating and allowing them to getting a nuke is in reality no plan at all, or at least a bad plan.

Let me put it another way then. Your plan to make Iran comply is childish and superficial, as though you didn't really think about it first. Bomb their cities and hope for the best, not much of a strategy.

Its effective. Kill the leadership until a leader arises that is willing to comply. You dont like it because itll actually work.

 

[Ernie S.]

Republicans want to stop a nuclear deal with Iran. They may have ensured Obama gets one Comment is free The Guardian


"If no deal is reached, what does the Senate GOP think will happen? Peace on earth and goodwill to men? Iran will continue to build up its nuclear program, and the world will eventually face a stark choice between Iran being a screwdriver’s turn away from a nuclear bomb, or using its own traditional bombs inIranand starting a disastrous war."

So what is the reason the GOP does not want a deal with Iran? There is one HUGE reason and it has nothing to do with security, world peace, or even Iran. The GOP does not want to give Obama another victory. They know if Obama gets a deal with Iran, their chances of winning the WH go down to near 0%. It is all a repub political game.

We want a good deal. One which will prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
We don't believe President obama can or even wants, to make such a deal.

That's because you don't want him to succeed. You really do believe he wants Iran to get nuclear weapons, and that opinion has no basis in reality. Thus, I'm inclined to feel such comments are dishonest, and not the product of a mentally ill person.

I would love for him to succeed. I just have zero faith, based on the last 6 years that he knows what a successful agreement would be, and that he has the ability to achieve one.

 

[Ernie S.]

I have a hard time accepting that the GOP would carry us to war just to enhance their chances to win the White House.

There has never been except from Obama a discussion of war with Iran. It is not necessary.
The sanctions are working while else is Iran in negotiations? So why give up that one effective tool?
HOLD on to the premise that the 4th largest oil producer in the world DOESN"T need nuclear power to supply energy to their people!
FACT.

Whether or not they 'need' it, they have a right to it. Imagining they don't doesn't change the fact that they do.

Are you insane? I suppose you want insane folks and felons to own guns too?

Really! Iran has proven time after time they are neither capable of following the law or of sane thought.
Giving them nuclear weapons is like giving John Nash a machine gun.

How would you know, as a gun owner, if someone is insane or a felon?

Let's just say, I'm not going to sell you a gun, OK?
I'm in the process of obtaining my FFL. I will be required to run background checks on those I sell or transfer to.

 

[rdean]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

I don't think I said that. I don't think all gopers want to invade regardless. I think they have to give lip service to Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel, even if they know that to be total Netanyahu bulltripe. I agree with Goldberg that sanctions in and of themselves probably will not get the Republican Guard to give up the entire nuclear program. But, if they're just saying we don't know enough of what Iran is giving up to know if this is good enough.

What "Republican Guard" are you referring too?
The Iraqi Republican Guard (Arabic: حرس العراقي الجمهوري‎ ""Ḥaris al-‘Irāq al-Jamhūriyy") was a branch of the Iraqi military from 1969 to 2003, primarily during the presidency of Saddam Hussein. It later became the Republican Guard Corps, and then the Republican Guard Forces Command (RGFC) with its expansion into two corps. The Republican Guard was disbanded in 2003, after the invasion of Iraq by a U.S.-led international coalition.
I didn't know Iran also had a "Republican Guard".

USMB Republicans won't even admit that officers from the Iraqi Military joined up with Isis which is why that organization suddenly is so militarily successful.

This from a few years ago. The entire article is depressing in it's truthfulness.
--------------------------------------------------------------

The worst mistake, however, was the disbanding of the Iraqi Army in May 2003, two months after the invasion.

Bremer and Slocombe apparently believed that the Iraqi Army had to be rendered powerless, though others explain to Ferguson that Bremer and Slocombe were confusing the army with the Republican Guard. The Guard consisted of Baath Party loyalists; the Iraqi military was a professional force that had always tried to keep its distance from the Hussein regime. When the war began, the army had faded into the countryside, leaving the Guard to do the bulk of the fighting. Once the Americans prevailed, according to Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff, Iraqi military officers indicated their willingness to work with the occupiers, but instead they and their troops were stripped of their positions and careers. An estimated 500,000 to 800,000 men, 7 to 10 percent of the Iraqi work force, lost their jobs. And they had guns. “More than any other single action,” Ferguson says, the order to disband the army “created the Iraqi insurgency.”

Dick Cheney Rewrites Iraq War History And Claims Disbanding Saddam s Army Influenced Nothing Crooks and Liars

 

[JimH52]

Iran could have given up their nuclear program all together and even donated to the GOP and it would still not have been enough. The repubs just don't want to see Obama win.....again.

 

[Dana7360]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

I don't think I said that. I don't think all gopers want to invade regardless. I think they have to give lip service to Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel, even if they know that to be total Netanyahu bulltripe. I agree with Goldberg that sanctions in and of themselves probably will not get the Republican Guard to give up the entire nuclear program. But, if they're just saying we don't know enough of what Iran is giving up to know if this is good enough.

Attacking Israel is the last thing the Iranians would want to do. Who wants to attack a nation that can retaliate with a couple of hundred nuclear warheads.

Iran and every other middle eastern nation will never nuke Israel.

They've bothered to do what most of the conservatives are way too lazy to do. That is look at a thing we call A MAP.

When they look at that map they see how small Israel is and they know how big the blast, destruction and fall out zones are for a nuclear bomb. They know that if a nuclear bomb is used on Israel then Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq are also nuked. They know that the fall out will be blown with the wind all over the middle east and the last thing Iran or any other middle eastern leader is going to do is nuke themselves or their friends in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq.

There is absolutely no reason to fear for the safety of Israel. They actually have nuclear bombs and will use them.

The best way to make sure that Israel is safe is to create that two state situation. Let the Palestinians have self rule.

 

[JimH52]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

I don't think I said that. I don't think all gopers want to invade regardless. I think they have to give lip service to Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel, even if they know that to be total Netanyahu bulltripe. I agree with Goldberg that sanctions in and of themselves probably will not get the Republican Guard to give up the entire nuclear program. But, if they're just saying we don't know enough of what Iran is giving up to know if this is good enough.

Attacking Israel is the last thing the Iranians would want to do. Who wants to attack a nation that can retaliate with a couple of hundred nuclear warheads.

Iran and every other middle eastern nation will never nuke Israel.

They've bothered to do what most of the conservatives are way too lazy to do. That is look at a thing we call A MAP.

When they look at that map they see how small Israel is and they know how big the blast, destruction and fall out zones are for a nuclear bomb. They know that if a nuclear bomb is used on Israel then Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq are also nuked. They know that the fall out will be blown with the wind all over the middle east and the last thing Iran or any other middle eastern leader is going to do is nuke themselves or their friends in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq.

There is absolutely no reason to fear for the safety of Israel. They actually have nuclear bombs and will use them.

The best way to make sure that Israel is safe is to create that two state situation. Let the Palestinians have self rule.

The two sate decision that Bibi didn't and did and didn't want to see. The man with many faces...

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have a hard time accepting that the GOP would carry us to war just to enhance their chances to win the White House.

There has never been except from Obama a discussion of war with Iran. It is not necessary.
The sanctions are working while else is Iran in negotiations? So why give up that one effective tool?
HOLD on to the premise that the 4th largest oil producer in the world DOESN"T need nuclear power to supply energy to their people!
FACT.

Whether or not they 'need' it, they have a right to it. Imagining they don't doesn't change the fact that they do.

Are you insane? I suppose you want insane folks and felons to own guns too?

Really! Iran has proven time after time they are neither capable of following the law or of sane thought.
Giving them nuclear weapons is like giving John Nash a machine gun.

How would you know, as a gun owner, if someone is insane or a felon?

Let's just say, I'm not going to sell you a gun, OK?
I'm in the process of obtaining my FFL. I will be required to run background checks on those I sell or transfer to.

Does a background check disclose a person's voluntarily treatment, seeking help for suicidal ideation, and/or if s/he has been prescribed anti depressive medication? How does a private citizen know if the person who seeks to buy a weapon from him or her is not a felon or insane or suicidal?

 

[hjmick]

I find it amusing how so many are so quick to praise a deal that is not yet made, and one that, according to many reports, involved the U.S. bending over and lowering its goals for a deal. Forcing its partners in the process to abandon their ideas.


In my opinion, all indicators point to a bad deal overall, only temporarily slowing the Iranian government's goal of obtaining membership in the nuclear club. It feels to me as if our President is more interested in adding to his legacy list than actually achieving a lasting and effective solution with regard to Iran.

I guess, like so many things of this nature, we'll just have to wait and see what happens... Personally, just based on their history and rhetoric, I'd be surprised if a final deal is ever hashed out.

 

[2aguy]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

I don't think I said that. I don't think all gopers want to invade regardless. I think they have to give lip service to Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel, even if they know that to be total Netanyahu bulltripe. I agree with Goldberg that sanctions in and of themselves probably will not get the Republican Guard to give up the entire nuclear program. But, if they're just saying we don't know enough of what Iran is giving up to know if this is good enough.

Attacking Israel is the last thing the Iranians would want to do. Who wants to attack a nation that can retaliate with a couple of hundred nuclear warheads.

Iran and every other middle eastern nation will never nuke Israel.

They've bothered to do what most of the conservatives are way too lazy to do. That is look at a thing we call A MAP.

When they look at that map they see how small Israel is and they know how big the blast, destruction and fall out zones are for a nuclear bomb. They know that if a nuclear bomb is used on Israel then Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq are also nuked. They know that the fall out will be blown with the wind all over the middle east and the last thing Iran or any other middle eastern leader is going to do is nuke themselves or their friends in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq.

There is absolutely no reason to fear for the safety of Israel. They actually have nuclear bombs and will use them.

The best way to make sure that Israel is safe is to create that two state situation. Let the Palestinians have self rule.

Yes...and Chancellor hitler will never invade Austria.....or Czechoslovakia...only a madman would risk war with the rest of Europe after the horrors of the First World War...........

 

[Ernie S.]

There has never been except from Obama a discussion of war with Iran. It is not necessary.
The sanctions are working while else is Iran in negotiations? So why give up that one effective tool?
HOLD on to the premise that the 4th largest oil producer in the world DOESN"T need nuclear power to supply energy to their people!
FACT.

Whether or not they 'need' it, they have a right to it. Imagining they don't doesn't change the fact that they do.

Are you insane? I suppose you want insane folks and felons to own guns too?

Really! Iran has proven time after time they are neither capable of following the law or of sane thought.
Giving them nuclear weapons is like giving John Nash a machine gun.

How would you know, as a gun owner, if someone is insane or a felon?

Let's just say, I'm not going to sell you a gun, OK?
I'm in the process of obtaining my FFL. I will be required to run background checks on those I sell or transfer to.

Does a background check disclose a person's voluntarily treatment, seeking help for suicidal ideation, and/or if s/he has been prescribed anti depressive medication? How does a private citizen know if the person who seeks to buy a weapon from him or her is not a felon or insane or suicidal?

Unrelated to this discussion.

It was a rhetorical question. Do you, or do you not, want John Nash to possess a machine gun?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I find it amusing how so many are so quick to praise a deal that is not yet made, and one that, according to many reports, involved the U.S. bending over and lowering its goals for a deal. Forcing its partners in the process to abandon their ideas.


In my opinion, all indicators point to a bad deal overall, only temporarily slowing the Iranian government's goal of obtaining membership in the nuclear club. It feels to me as if our President is more interested in adding to his legacy list than actually achieving a lasting and effective solution with regard to Iran.

I guess, like so many things of this nature, we'll just have to wait and see what happens... Personally, just based on their history and rhetoric, I'd be surprised if a final deal is ever hashed out.

I, for one, would like you to post the sources which reported ("according to many reports, involved the U.S. bending over and lowering its goals for a deal") and what your idea of diplomatic negotiations seek? Brinkmanship (GWB, "bring it on) failed miserably under George Bush. He, Chaney & Co sought to play a zero sum game. Obama seeks a win-win solution, something which can be lasting and maybe the first real breakthrough in establishing diplomatic relations with Iran,

 

[Wry Catcher]

Whether or not they 'need' it, they have a right to it. Imagining they don't doesn't change the fact that they do.

Are you insane? I suppose you want insane folks and felons to own guns too?

Really! Iran has proven time after time they are neither capable of following the law or of sane thought.
Giving them nuclear weapons is like giving John Nash a machine gun.

How would you know, as a gun owner, if someone is insane or a felon?

Let's just say, I'm not going to sell you a gun, OK?
I'm in the process of obtaining my FFL. I will be required to run background checks on those I sell or transfer to.

Does a background check disclose a person's voluntarily treatment, seeking help for suicidal ideation, and/or if s/he has been prescribed anti depressive medication? How does a private citizen know if the person who seeks to buy a weapon from him or her is not a felon or insane or suicidal?

Unrelated to this discussion.

It was a rhetorical question. Do you, or do you not, want John Nash to possess a machine gun?

John Nash was never violent, as far as I know. But I would not allow a Paranoid Schizophrenic to own, possess or have in his custody or control a machine gun, or any firearm.

 

[Liminal]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

I don't think I said that. I don't think all gopers want to invade regardless. I think they have to give lip service to Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel, even if they know that to be total Netanyahu bulltripe. I agree with Goldberg that sanctions in and of themselves probably will not get the Republican Guard to give up the entire nuclear program. But, if they're just saying we don't know enough of what Iran is giving up to know if this is good enough.

Attacking Israel is the last thing the Iranians would want to do. Who wants to attack a nation that can retaliate with a couple of hundred nuclear warheads.

Iran and every other middle eastern nation will never nuke Israel.

They've bothered to do what most of the conservatives are way too lazy to do. That is look at a thing we call A MAP.

When they look at that map they see how small Israel is and they know how big the blast, destruction and fall out zones are for a nuclear bomb. They know that if a nuclear bomb is used on Israel then Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq are also nuked. They know that the fall out will be blown with the wind all over the middle east and the last thing Iran or any other middle eastern leader is going to do is nuke themselves or their friends in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq.

There is absolutely no reason to fear for the safety of Israel. They actually have nuclear bombs and will use them.

The best way to make sure that Israel is safe is to create that two state situation. Let the Palestinians have self rule.

In a few decades Israelis will have to nuke themselves to prevent the growing Israeli Arab population from taking over.