Iran deal reached

[theeedude]

PSA for Republicans, if you want to be taken seriously when criticizing a deal, don't criticize it until seeing what's in it.

 

[CZroe]

No.

There are inspections anywhere but they have to be approved by a council of Iran and the other negotiating countries. So a popular vote of 7 representatives from each country involved in this deal.

I don't understand that. If the council of Iran doesn't "approve" the inspection, then it isn't truly "anywhere," is it?

 

[norseamd]

I don't understand that. If the council of Iran doesn't "approve" the inspection, then it isn't truly "anywhere," is it?

The Iranians only have one vote out of 7 on the allowance of inspections.

 

[feralkid]

I picture every single Repub legislator or Repub Pres. hopeful that want to hammer this deal to pander to the base will be claiming a worse scenario than the next guy to get more media face time and an upper hand on the others.

I can see that in their fervor to accomplish that, some will paint themselves into a corner they can't talk themselves out of but will try anyway and simply make jackasses of themselves in the process.

I see all of this happening because it's happened over and over again without fail.

Trump already said that he would have made Iran pay for daily inspections, and lunch, if he were President.

 

[CZroe]

The Iranians only have one vote out of 7 on the allowance of inspections.

OK, that's a bit better.

 

[Theb]

Iran is nothing like North Korea.

They're the remaining members of The Axis of Evil though...

 

[Baasha]

Why does the US care so much whether Iran gets the nuke or not? It's not like the US can't defend itself from a hypothetical nuclear attack from puny Iran.

 

[CZroe]

Why does the US care so much whether Iran gets the nuke or not? It's not like the US can't defend itself from a hypothetical nuclear attack from puny Iran.

Because we are obligated to protect Israel from Iran's threats of wiping them from the face of the Earth. That's a little hard to do after Iran launches nukes and we'd prefer not to strike preemptively.

 

[Jhhnn]

Link

Oh, *that* kind of threat, the threat of veto, kabuki threats. I thought you meant some sort of real threat. It'll likely never get that far.

I take it that they're whining already on Bibi's behalf. I'm sure Repubs will make a good show of it, seeing as how the money is so good. Ask Tom Cotton. Not as good as blood sucking war profiteer money, which is apparently what they really want, but still very good money being Israeli stooges.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because we are obligated to protect Israel from Iran's threats of wiping them from the face of the Earth. That's a little hard to do after Iran launches nukes and we'd prefer not to strike preemptively.

Which you already know was a mis-translated figure of speech but still handy for propaganda purposes. It doesn't work w/o the proper "Crazy Mullahs!" lead-in, anyway.

Not looking too crazy right at the moment, huh? Not considering they got what they wanted & it never was nuclear weapons. They've played this well & deserve respect for that, even if it's of the grudging sort. Their revolution & their chosen govt has survived the siege.

Israel has their own nuclear deterrent, anyway. The only thing they want us for is to fight their wars for them, provided they can help sucker us into it a la Iraq.

 

[norseamd]

Which you already know was a mis-translated figure of speech but still handy for propaganda purposes. It doesn't work w/o the proper "Crazy Mullahs!" lead-in, anyway.

Not looking too crazy right at the moment, huh? Not considering they got what they wanted & it never was nuclear weapons. They've played this well & deserve respect for that, even if it's of the grudging sort. Their revolution & their chosen govt has survived the siege.

Israel has their own nuclear deterrent, anyway. The only thing they want us for is to fight their wars for them, provided they can help sucker us into it a la Iraq.

This.

 

[Jaskalas]

Why does the US care so much whether Iran gets the nuke or not? It's not like the US can't defend itself from a hypothetical nuclear attack from puny Iran.

Estimates are that up to 90% of our population would die from a detonation in space just above the US. The resulting EMP blast would cut off supplies and result in immediate anarchy as store shelves emptied and communications failed.

Iran is "puny", a nuclear weapon is not. Enabling them by not ending them is certainly going to encourage further proliferation and nuclear arms races and brinksmanship in the future. Proliferation itself is dangerous, as more and more weapons fall into the hands of unstable regimes that are, themselves, more likely to fall to or support terrorists. Or believe in martyrdom to appease religious zealotry.

It's not a nice world out there, those aren't nice people, and they are granted a seat at the nuclear table. It could be the right move in this particular case, at this particular time... or it might not. The stakes are high, and anything short of the destruction of Iran and its nukes is a move that puts us all at risk.

A failure in today's policy does not mean we get to scold and mock a President. For those of us still alive, it means we'd be burying our children and our grandchildren.

 

[Jhhnn]

Estimates are that up to 90% of our population would die from a detonation in space just above the US. The resulting EMP blast would cut off supplies and result in immediate anarchy as store shelves emptied and communications failed.

Iran is "puny", a nuclear weapon is not. Enabling them by not ending them is certainly going to encourage further proliferation and nuclear arms races and brinksmanship in the future. Proliferation itself is dangerous, as more and more weapons fall into the hands of unstable regimes that are, themselves, more likely to fall to or support terrorists. Or believe in martyrdom to appease religious zealotry.

It's not a nice world out there, those aren't nice people, and they are granted a seat at the nuclear table. It could be the right move in this particular case, at this particular time... or it might not. The stakes are high, and anything short of the destruction of Iran and its nukes is a move that puts us all at risk.

A failure in today's policy does not mean we get to scold and mock a President. For those of us still alive, it means we'd be burying our children and our grandchildren.

Fear monger often? Is it fun scaring yourself, or what?

I know that billionaire hedge fund managers think they're masters of the universe but that doesn't mean they're qualified to wade in on technical issues of EMP, do you?

Following your twisted raving, anything short of the destruction of Russia, China, Pakistan, India, France & even Israel puts us at risk, right?

Isn't this where you drag forth the "Crazy Mullahs!" trope?

 

[VRAMdemon]

Estimates are that up to 90% of our population would die from a detonation in space just above the US. The resulting EMP blast would cut off supplies and result in immediate anarchy as store shelves emptied and communications failed.

Iran is "puny", a nuclear weapon is not. Enabling them by not ending them is certainly going to encourage further proliferation and nuclear arms races and brinksmanship in the future. Proliferation itself is dangerous, as more and more weapons fall into the hands of unstable regimes that are, themselves, more likely to fall to or support terrorists. Or believe in martyrdom to appease religious zealotry.

It's not a nice world out there, those aren't nice people, and they are granted a seat at the nuclear table. It could be the right move in this particular case, at this particular time... or it might not. The stakes are high, and anything short of the destruction of Iran and its nukes is a move that puts us all at risk.

A failure in today's policy does not mean we get to scold and mock a President. For those of us still alive, it means we'd be burying our children and our grandchildren.

Lol.."anything short of the destruction of Iran"..let me guess..your typing this from your fallout shelter..

How is the coalition "enabling" them?..if the IAEA is regularly inspecting Iran, then it seems like they're going to know a lot more about Iran's actual capability and nuclear-related activities then if they can't.

 

[K1052]

Estimates are that up to 90% of our population would die from a detonation in space just above the US. The resulting EMP blast would cut off supplies and result in immediate anarchy as store shelves emptied and communications failed.

Iran is "puny", a nuclear weapon is not. Enabling them by not ending them is certainly going to encourage further proliferation and nuclear arms races and brinksmanship in the future. Proliferation itself is dangerous, as more and more weapons fall into the hands of unstable regimes that are, themselves, more likely to fall to or support terrorists. Or believe in martyrdom to appease religious zealotry.

It's not a nice world out there, those aren't nice people, and they are granted a seat at the nuclear table. It could be the right move in this particular case, at this particular time... or it might not. The stakes are high, and anything short of the destruction of Iran and its nukes is a move that puts us all at risk.

A failure in today's policy does not mean we get to scold and mock a President. For those of us still alive, it means we'd be burying our children and our grandchildren.

Are you on medication?

That just seems to be a natural question to ask when someone advocates the preemptive murder of millions of people in a full blown paranoid delusion.

 

[Brainonska511]

Are you on medication?

That just seems to be a natural question to ask when someone advocates the preemptive murder of millions of people in a full blown paranoid delusion.

...ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Estimates are that up to 90% of our population would die from a detonation in space just above the US. The resulting EMP blast would cut off supplies and result in immediate anarchy as store shelves emptied and communications failed.

Iran is "puny", a nuclear weapon is not. Enabling them by not ending them is certainly going to encourage further proliferation and nuclear arms races and brinksmanship in the future. Proliferation itself is dangerous, as more and more weapons fall into the hands of unstable regimes that are, themselves, more likely to fall to or support terrorists. Or believe in martyrdom to appease religious zealotry.

It's not a nice world out there, those aren't nice people, and they are granted a seat at the nuclear table. It could be the right move in this particular case, at this particular time... or it might not. The stakes are high, and anything short of the destruction of Iran and its nukes is a move that puts us all at risk.

A failure in today's policy does not mean we get to scold and mock a President. For those of us still alive, it means we'd be burying our children and our grandchildren.

Islam has fanatics, America has fanatics

 

[Jaskalas]

Fear monger often? Is it fun scaring yourself, or what?

I know that billionaire hedge fund managers think they're masters of the universe but that doesn't mean they're qualified to wade in on technical issues of EMP, do you?

Following your twisted raving, anything short of the destruction of Russia, China, Pakistan, India, France & even Israel puts us at risk, right?

Isn't this where you drag forth the "Crazy Mullahs!" trope?

It's called stopping further proliferation. Particularly in the hands of religious fanatics whose big deal is "cause the end of the world for the Mahdi, the 12th Imam". Iran is very specific on that matter.

The nations your cited are fine as they are, except for Pakistan who I wouldn't mind getting revenge on for Bin Laden.

 

[nickqt]

It's called stopping further proliferation. Particularly in the hands of religious fanatics whose big deal is "cause the end of the world for the Mahdi, the 12th Imam". Iran is very specific on that matter.

The nations your cited are fine as they are, except for Pakistan who I wouldn't mind getting revenge on for Bin Laden.

We better make sure that we keep our Christofascists away from the levers of power, since they claim that the end of the world will bring back Christ.

 

[Orignal Earl]

It's called stopping further proliferation. Particularly in the hands of religious fanatics whose big deal is "cause the end of the world for the Mahdi, the 12th Imam". Iran is very specific on that matter.

The nations your cited are fine as they are, except for Pakistan who I wouldn't mind getting revenge on for Bin Laden.

How exactly does this Mahdi thing work?
Do the Iranians fool God or what?

 

[Brainonska511]

I for one am excited to see various conservative politicians and outlets that haven't even read the deal fall over each other in their race to denounce it as the second coming of Neville Chamberlain.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33530816

 

[Jaskalas]

The road ahead, Republicans seek to oppose the "deal".
Obama's aim is peace, whatever the risk, whatever the cost.

If Republicans oppose Obama's plan for peace, what do they replace it with? There can be no middle ground, for that invites a nuclear Iran WITHOUT an effort at peaceful negotiations. A hostile Iran with a bomb is measurably worse than an appeased Iran with a bomb.

Short of full invasion and DESTRUCTION of Iran and its nuclear program, Obama's deal is the only option. Republicans need to avoid standing in the way if they're not ready to push for full scale war.

Republicans need to man up, help your President with the path he's on.

 

[Screech]

Estimates are that up to 90% of our population would die from a detonation in space just above the US. The resulting EMP blast would cut off supplies and result in immediate anarchy as store shelves emptied and communications failed.

Iran is "puny", a nuclear weapon is not. Enabling them by not ending them is certainly going to encourage further proliferation and nuclear arms races and brinksmanship in the future. Proliferation itself is dangerous, as more and more weapons fall into the hands of unstable regimes that are, themselves, more likely to fall to or support terrorists. Or believe in martyrdom to appease religious zealotry.

It's not a nice world out there, those aren't nice people, and they are granted a seat at the nuclear table. It could be the right move in this particular case, at this particular time... or it might not. The stakes are high, and anything short of the destruction of Iran and its nukes is a move that puts us all at risk.

A failure in today's policy does not mean we get to scold and mock a President. For those of us still alive, it means we'd be burying our children and our grandchildren.

Yeah, the right way to show people we view as fanatics how to be sane and rational is to slaughter millions of innocents in order to make sure a nonsense editorial in WSJ doesn't come to pass.....

Wait, what?

 

[nickqt]

The road ahead, Republicans seek to oppose the "deal".
Obama's aim is peace, whatever the risk, whatever the cost.

Whatever the risk, whatever the cost? You mean like 90% of Americans dying from an EMP from space or whatever you were saying previously?

I highly doubt that.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

If Republicans oppose Obama's plan for peace, what do they replace it with? There can be no middle ground, for that invites a nuclear Iran WITHOUT an effort at peaceful negotiations. A hostile Iran with a bomb is measurably worse than an appeased Iran with a bomb.

Short of full invasion and DESTRUCTION of Iran and its nuclear program, Obama's deal is the only option. Republicans need to avoid standing in the way if they're not ready to push for full scale war.

Republicans need to man up, help your President with the path he's on.

Let's hope that batshit insane Republicans don't write another letter to Iran to tell them something idiotic, never mind them helping KingObummer™, Usurper-In-Chief and head of the Kenyan Atheist Muslim Brigade.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's called stopping further proliferation. Particularly in the hands of religious fanatics whose big deal is "cause the end of the world for the Mahdi, the 12th Imam". Iran is very specific on that matter.

The nations your cited are fine as they are, except for Pakistan who I wouldn't mind getting revenge on for Bin Laden.

You did! You really did! You dragged out the "Crazy Mullahs!" canard as if it weren't just a prop invented by crazy Neocons.

The leadership of Iran is *not* crazy- not any crazier than Bibi or Cheney, for example. That's beyond obvious when we view the last 14 years. They had a hostile superpower invade two adjacent countries & avoided entanglement even as they created an independent nuclear program. They puffed it up & played it in a gambit to win diplomatic legitimacy in the eyes of the West, the end of regime change & increased normalization of trade.

Scale back that program to win all of that? That's likely why they did it in the first place, to bargain it away- the "nuclear weapons program" they never really had or wanted. Keeping that in mind, chances of them violating the agreement are slim to none.

Try that version of reality to feel really sheepish about all the emotional agitprop you fell for over the years.