Iran deal reached

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
I think the agreement was about the best that could be expected. What would you have him done differently? I attack because I get tired of the constant stream of empty rhetoric that is nothing more than "Obama Bad". So serious question what do you realistically think could have been done differently and why? We'll just pretend you didn't post your comment about Kerry and being voted out. (because that certainly was on topic)

I think it's an honest deal where nobody gets everything but everybody gets enough to want to honor it, make it work & build on it in the future. The potential upside for Iran is huge & I figure they want all they can get of that. Compliance gives them an open path to becoming a full member of the international community.

It also leaves Bibi out in the cold, right where he belongs for being an arrogant & overbearing dick with the Obama White House.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
I disagree. It does concern the conscience of the nation. It isn't a ransom. Simply put; release them or we aren't negotiating with you period.



Pretty darn simple.

That's a pre-negotiation, negotiation, which requires them to be desperate for a deal, which means that the follow-up negotiation would be less "negotiation" and more "telling them how it's goon' ta be." They've been under sanctions for a long time and never came crawling, so we know they weren't desperate.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,861
30,647
136
Duck and weave...

Communists, socialists, etc.

-John

And you have the nerve to whine about this thread being derailed? Guess you finally passed out after this post. You post something in the early evening, become less and less rational and more combative in your responses over next several hours and then finally flame out. You drink and post until you pass out don't you?

Get yourself to a meeting.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
That's a pre-negotiation, negotiation, which requires them to be desperate for a deal, which means that the follow-up negotiation would be less "negotiation" and more "telling them how it's goon' ta be." They've been under sanctions for a long time and never came crawling, so we know they weren't desperate.

I think you've hit on something that all too many people fail to comprehend, something about Iran and their fierce defense of self determination. They've held onto it all through the modern era & have never been under colonial rule. Not that I'm any great fan of their revolution or their govt, but they've made enormous sacrifices to keep it & stand behind it. They won't be bullied. They won't deal with us other than as equals.

They deserve respect because they've earned it. Holding to this agreement will earn them more & they'll demand it, rightfully so.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,615
46,283
136
I disagree. It does concern the conscience of the nation. It isn't a ransom. Simply put; release them or we aren't negotiating with you period.

Pretty darn simple.

Want to venture a guess how many times the US has negotiated with nations on disparate topics while they hold US citizens or POWs?

Hint: All the time stretching back to the revolution.

This "conscience of a nation" bullshit is just that. This is the big leagues, while it's regrettable that these people are being held and appropriate efforts should be made to affect their release it should not hold hostage all diplomatic processes.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Want to venture a guess how many times the US has negotiated with nations on disparate topics while they hold US citizens or POWs?

Hint: All the time stretching back to the revolution.

This "conscience of a nation" bullshit is just that. This is the big leagues, while it's regrettable that these people are being held and appropriate efforts should be made to affect their release it should not hold hostage all diplomatic processes.

It's astroturfed mock piety & posturing by people desperate to maintain all the possible avenues to aggression on our part. They don't care any more about those Americans than they care about the hundreds of people wrongfully imprisoned at Gitmo or the thousands of Iraqi civilians sacrificed in that misbegotten Neocon adventure.

Few will fall for it at this point other than the True Believers who've proven that they'll fall for damned near anything that pushes their buttons in the right way.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
I think you've hit on something that all too many people fail to comprehend, something about Iran and their fierce defense of self determination. They've held onto it all through the modern era & have never been under colonial rule. Not that I'm any great fan of their revolution or their govt, but they've made enormous sacrifices to keep it & stand behind it. They won't be bullied. They won't deal with us other than as equals.

They deserve respect because they've earned it. Holding to this agreement will earn them more & they'll demand it, rightfully so.

It seems to be that a common theme among some conservatives is that we as a nation should never attempt to deal with other countries under a framework of mutual respect. They either unconditionally submit to our demands or we wont negotiate. Obviously empathy isnt a conservatives strong suit, but lets try to imagine a situation 50 yrs from now where China has eclipsed us militarily, and we decide to unconditionally back down from a potential conflict because we feel we have no other options. How would that make you feel as an American? Believe it or not, the Iranians are a proud people as well, more so than most people in the middle east, and you will not get results from them without affording them an equal level of respect and dignity.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
It seems to be that a common theme among some conservatives is that we as a nation should never attempt to deal with other countries under a framework of mutual respect. They either unconditionally submit to our demands or we wont negotiate. Obviously empathy isnt a conservatives strong suit, but lets try to imagine a situation 50 yrs from now where China has eclipsed us militarily, and we decide to unconditionally back down from a potential conflict because we feel we have no other options. How would that make you feel as an American? Believe it or not, the Iranians are a proud people as well, more so than most people in the middle east, and you will not get results from them without affording them an equal level of respect and dignity.

That theme is at the heart of Neocon ideology & depends entirely on willingness to engage in aggression. They're totally full of themselves & full of bullshit about American Exceptionalism. They're psychopathic bullies & excellent manipulators at a very high level.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,347
4,973
136
That is foolish. You really think a handful of people are far more important than brokering a deal that greatly diminishes Iran's ability to obtain nuclear weapons?

What do you do if Iran didn't acquiesce to that demand? Not have negotiations? Or go back to the negotiating table and look like a fool? Or war? I'm having trouble seeing another option. You'd prefer war to prevent them from being a nuclear power? We can listen on the news each week for the names of the young soldiers who were killed in action over there. We can spend a few more trillion dollars on a war. We can really piss off a lot of other nations, greatly tarnishing our image on the international stage. And, you're forgetting - though the US had a huge role in the negotiating, there are a LOT of other nations involved in this too - what about prisoners from their countries?

As was pointed out in his speech, the number one priority was a nuclear weapons free Iran. A lot of other nations were foregoing billions of dollars in trade (sanctions, no oil), because they also felt that a nuclear weapon free Iran was more important than their profits. If we walked away from the negotiating table, why the hell would those other nations want to continue to participate in the US led sanctions? What's stopping India from saying, "fuck it. Let's buy their oil."

I never said anything about going to war. There are many other options. Iran is suffering from the sanctions and tightening them even more I feel would work. Why do you think it is acceptable for these people to remain in an Iranian Prison while we are negotiating other deals.

We have different priorities I guess...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
I never said anything about going to war. There are many other options. Iran is suffering from the sanctions and tightening them even more I feel would work. Why do you think it is acceptable for these people to remain in an Iranian Prison while we are negotiating other deals.

We have different priorities I guess...

So we should have insisted that American inmates be released from Mexican & Canadian jails when we negotiated NAFTA?

You're just flinging excuses to not make a deal because of what, exactly? Domestic political pandering to well conditioned fear?

Or just the usual Obama hate? Perhaps some irresistible urge to suck Bibi's dick?

Shee-it, Sherlock. Had GWB negotiated this deal 10 years ago when he had the chance, the right wing would have hailed him as a visionary. I'd have joined them.
 

Oric

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
964
101
106
I think you've hit on something that all too many people fail to comprehend, something about Iran and their fierce defense of self determination. They've held onto it all through the modern era & have never been under colonial rule. Not that I'm any great fan of their revolution or their govt, but they've made enormous sacrifices to keep it & stand behind it. They won't be bullied. They won't deal with us other than as equals.

They deserve respect because they've earned it. Holding to this agreement will earn them more & they'll demand it, rightfully so.


This is the summary.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,512
17,016
136
Are you saying that they had a different video?

No, I'm saying you've been so brainwashed by the garbage "news" sites you visit that you are no longer capable of watching a video objectively. Had that not been the case you would have realized that Obama did indeed answer the question.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,314
690
126
Major driving force is the moneyed interest, as is often the case. Iran is run by a rather rational group of people (by the regional standard) and they want their country become modernized and want to share the wealth and technology. Western powers see a huge untapped market with an unlimited potential for profit and mutually beneficial trades.

The best case scenario of Iran for the West would be something like a 2nd coming of China, without nukes. (Imagine how many iPhones Apple might sell to Iranians..)
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,347
4,973
136
No, I'm saying you've been so brainwashed by the garbage "news" sites you visit that you are no longer capable of watching a video objectively. Had that not been the case you would have realized that Obama did indeed answer the question.

Nope. He answered around the question.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
I never said anything about going to war. There are many other options. Iran is suffering from the sanctions and tightening them even more I feel would work. Why do you think it is acceptable for these people to remain in an Iranian Prison while we are negotiating other deals.We have different priorities I guess...

The more I read your posts on this topic, the more I picture you stomping your feet and declaring "I want an oompa loompa, and I want it now." You don't always get to have everything you want. It is very obvious you have not listened to the entire speech. Else, you're incapable of understanding that there are more than two countries in the world involved in this deal. The sanctions are not simply US vs. Iran - they're world vs. Iran. Many other countries were willing to economically harm themselves to help support the sanctions. But, if the US walks away from negotiations - not Iran walking away, the US walking away, we are going to undermine the support of the other nations for those sanctions. Ask them to tighten the sanctions? "Hey all you other countries! We want your economies to miss out on billions of dollars because Iran won't release four Americans, one of whom is admittedly a former FBI employee and CIA contractor. We're the superior nation, so you guys have to give us 100% of what we want." They don't give a shit about a handful of Americans being held - they want Iran off the path to nuclear weapons, they don't give a shit about Iran using nuclear energy (because unlike California, Iran wants to use nuclear energy for desalination plants), and they want to stop harming their own economies by not trading with Iran.

And, quite frankly, your "tightening them even more I feel would work." Oh, like Cuba? We were the idiots of the world - US people couldn't go there, but friends in Canada were like, "wtf, eh? WE can go there on vacation." Perhaps this point needs a bit of clarification for you - you see, while the US had sanctions against Cuba, Cuba was ranked 60th by the World Bank, based on actual data (not estimations) for per capita GDP. It doesn't take much speculation to realize that Cubans were more prosperous than many of the countries we are on friendlier terms with - their leaders and general population were/are doing quite well compared to many countries we do trade with. Sanctions don't work without International cooperation. And there would be no reason for International cooperation should the US be the one to walk away from the negotiating table - over 4 Americans. While I also see it as important, 4 people is TRIVIAL compared to negotiating to get Iran off the path to nuclear weapons.

Iran has an elected president who was elected on the platform of helping their economy. He was ready to negotiate. The rest of the world wanted those negotiations. We walk away from the negotiating table over a handful of our citizens being held there destroys our credibility. Heck, how many times have we violated the Geneva Convention while executing foreign nationals in our country? A lot more than 4. How many innocent people do we hold in our prisons here in the US? Statistics point to a lot more than 4. Maybe 3 or 4 in Iran? The other countries don't give a shit - they wanted to negotiate with Iran, Iran wanted to negotiate, the world is a safer place in the long term by Iran not being on the path to nuclear weapons. Though, even Obama admitted (had you actually listened to the whole speech, rather than just clips that your news source played) that short term, it could cause more problems in the Middle East - but that is certainly of lesser importance than a non-nuclear Iran.
 

Charmonium

Lifer
May 15, 2015
10,527
3,527
136
No, I'm saying you've been so brainwashed by the garbage "news" sites you visit that you are no longer capable of watching a video objectively.
I'm not saying this is true about the person to whom it was directed, but I've noticed this phenomenon many times before. People tend to get their news from a preferred source - generally a single preferred source since it takes too much time and effort to compare say, huffpo to faux news. Also people like it when their sources agree with them regardless of the facts. It's warm and comforting to only listen to people who agree with your views. Confirmation bias and all that good stuff.

Unfortunately the vast majority of people either a) don't understand this and/or b) actually believe that their news source isn't biased. All sources have a slant one way or the other. The problem is that people don't distinguish between a slight slant and one that veers off so far in one direction or the other that it crumbles under its own weight.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,736
10,043
136
Sanctions were collapsing. They weren't going to exist or be effective in a few years - and Iran would have the bomb regardless. The status quo was unsustainable and it's delusional for any Republican to think they can have their cake and eat it too.

You go to war, fully, or you stay home and make peace. The "middle ground" is a pretense for failure.
We're not going to war, so support your President in the path he has chosen.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Sanctions were collapsing. They weren't going to exist or be effective in a few years - and Iran would have the bomb regardless. The status quo was unsustainable and it's delusional for any Republican to think they can have their cake and eat it too.

You go to war, fully, or you stay home and make peace. The "middle ground" is a pretense for failure.
We're not going to war, so support your President in the path he has chosen.

Thank you. The middle ground is a Neocon holding pattern until they find a pretext for war.

It's gotta be great being a war profiteer in this country. Even when we lose, they still get paid & they're not risking their own wealth, either.

Oh, and contracting services to the VA is like residuals on a movie contract.