The Myth of a Better Deal

[Jaskalas]

But you seem to support marching our troops into iran.

That has huge,huge costs. Why is that better?

The flaw in your reasoning is the disassociation between nuclear proliferation and nuclear detonation.
My reasoning is that the ultimate cost is very high, and you must weigh that against the cost of destroying a country.

And make no mistake, it's not an easy choice. I don't know if Iran is the correct time or place to lay down the law on proliferation. This subject reaches beyond a single country, Iran will not be the last to develop nukes. The world has and will continue to proliferate nuclear weapons. Many more countries will follow, at some point force (war) is the only answer.

This is not a question of if we have to stop nuclear proliferation, but when we choose to do so.
I strongly believe that the sooner we do, the safer the world becomes.

As for my position, I stand by my previous call for Republicans to support the President's deal. My contention on the subject is regarding how it is presented. It's a peace deal meant to gamble that we can placate Iran into good behavior. I do not believe it stops nuclear ambition, as I consider the deal toothless, unenforceable, and simply meant to placate enough people (on both sides) in order to avoid war.

The truth is it leaves us with a nuclear Iran, which I believe only a war could prevent. Absent a war, a peace deal is far better than doing nothing. And this deal is the only deal. The myth of a better deal is merely a Republican delusion meant to maintain the status quo.

Republicans don't have the balls to push for war.
Democrats don't have to balls to call it a peace deal.
Both sides hope the public is stupid enough to buy their delusion of a peaceful disarming of Iran.

 

[Jhhnn]

The flaw in your reasoning is the disassociation between nuclear proliferation and nuclear detonation.
My reasoning is that the ultimate cost is very high, and you must weigh that against the cost of destroying a country.

And make no mistake, it's not an easy choice. I don't know if Iran is the correct time or place to lay down the law on proliferation. This subject reaches beyond a single country, Iran will not be the last to develop nukes. The world has and will continue to proliferate nuclear weapons. Many more countries will follow, at some point force (war) is the only answer.

This is not a question of if we have to stop nuclear proliferation, but when we choose to do so.
I strongly believe that the sooner we do, the safer the world becomes.

As for my position, I stand by my previous call for Republicans to support the President's deal. My contention on the subject is regarding how it is presented. It's a peace deal meant to gamble that we can placate Iran into good behavior. I do not believe it stops nuclear ambition, as I consider the deal toothless, unenforceable, and simply meant to placate enough people (on both sides) in order to avoid war.

The truth is it leaves us with a nuclear Iran, which I believe only a war could prevent. Absent a war, a peace deal is far better than doing nothing. And this deal is the only deal. The myth of a better deal is merely a Republican delusion meant to maintain the status quo.

Republicans don't have the balls to push for war.
Democrats don't have to balls to call it a peace deal.
Both sides hope the public is stupid enough to buy their delusion of a peaceful disarming of Iran.

The proof will be in how it works out, one way or another, and probably not at all like what's in your fevered imagination.

They're not fools. This deal shatters the roadblocks we've put in their way since their revolution if they'll only honor it. It's a huge opportunity to do something right to counter the usual propaganda. It grants them legitimacy in the world.

That's a helluva lot deeper & more meaningful than paranoid fixations about nuclear weapons that don't exist and agreements that the experts rate as a huge improvement over the current situation.

 

[SlickSnake]

The sad part about all of this is the fact the majority of sane Iranians actually want their current regime removed from power, and they are at a complete loss on how to go about doing that.

Meanwhile, the last thing the world needs now is to go in there and kick the leadership out. Because when we leave there is likely to be another opportunity in place so some other bat shit crazy group like ISIS can go in there and manipulate Iran to their advantage.

Is the possible cure worse than the current disease? That is where we are at in Iran ATM, and that fact can't be denied when you just look at what's happening in Iraq now.

 

[ivwshane]

The sad part about all of this is the fact the majority of sane Iranians actually want their current regime removed from power, and they are at a complete loss on how to go about doing that.

Meanwhile, the last thing the world needs now is to go in there and kick the leadership out. Because when we leave there is likely to be another opportunity in place so some other bat shit crazy group like ISIS can go in there and manipulate Iran to their advantage.

Is the possible cure worse than the current disease? That is where we are at in Iran ATM, and that fact can't be denied when you just look at what's happening in Iraq now.

If the US were to some how not sign this deal or not follow it's terms it would simply empower Irans right wing to say, "See I told you so! You can't trust the Americans" and they will gain even more power, which would not be good for anyone. I'm sure iran is thinking the exact sane thing about our right wing nuts who are chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran.

Right now the moderates are in control in both countries and it's to everyone's benefit to keep it that way.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

If the US were to some how not sign this deal or not follow it's terms it would simply empower Irans right wing to say, "See I told you so! You can't trust the Americans" and they will gain even more power, which would not be good for anyone. I'm sure iran is thinking the exact sane thing about our right wing nuts who are chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran.

Right now the moderates are in control in both countries and it's to everyone's benefit to keep it that way.

What you're saying sounds prudent to me.

To understand the division in our own ranks, it might be helpful to consider what is available to know but generally isn't in the forefront of the mindset against the deal.

Those folks, by the way, are the same ones who claim that "new facts brought to light" are "historical revisionism."

What the American people were told in the early 1950s about Iran was Cold War propaganda. Iranians remember the Mossadegh coup undertaken by CIA on behalf of British oil interests; Americans don't.

Americans were told "Mossadegh is a socialist" and therefore unseating him was part of a valid Cold War agenda. Mossadegh just wanted the Brits to pay royalties for their oil: Iranian oil workers at that time were being paid $0.60/day.

The counter argument of historical myopia will include the fact that "that was a long, long time ago," assuming that it all ended with the coup. For the Iranians, it didn't: USA helped install Shah Reza Pahlavi, who, in turn, imposed his will through a brutal secret police force known as SAVAK. So for Iranians, it didn't end in ~1952: it ended in 1979.

We assume that the cause of Israel was the only thing driving the hard-liners of 1979 when they took Americans hostage. And so we assume that Iran is an "Enemy" for that reason.

As you look at the flashpoints and trouble-spots over the last ten or fifteen years, consider that these are not "new developments." Consider instead that they represent the detritus of the Cold War -- unforeseen at the time conditions were set up to make them possible.

Then there's this hypocrisy about who has nukes and who doesn't. I think it's generally accepted that Israel has nukes. South Africa had them at one time and decided to terminate their program, foreswearing a possibility to be a "nuclear power." But Israel doesn't acknowledge what seems to be widely understood, suspected or known.

The major players (USA, Russia, China) understand the problem of proliferation. Pipsqueaks and lunatics like Kim Jong Un don't get it. The North Koreans are locked into this mindset that was established at the end of the Korean War. The Chinese have moved on, the Russians have moved on. The "Hermit Kingdom" has not. And since MacArthur had threatened to use nukes on the Chinese mainland at the time of the Korean War, the DPRK still thinks that a nuclear arsenal is fundamental to their success as a nation-state. Yet they fail to see that their population has dwindled to half that of South Korea, and that South Korea is the fourth-largest trading partner of the Chinese. They are a failure as a nation-state in spite of the vast diversion of resources into a primitive nuclear weapons and delivery-system program.

But Iran isn't governed by Kim Jong Un.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

That's a good article.

Consider me "conceited," "elitist," or add "eccentric" and any other mild epithet.

I began to notice ten years ago that pundits, experts and commentators would suddenly voice the basics of a conclusion I'd made 5 years earlier.

I suppose I see this as a sign of human progress.

Or you suffer from Dunning Kruger, or confirmation bias, or any number of other explanations that do not make you anyone special.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Look! I am afraid Iran is going to nuke me in my sleep. I don't want a deal. I want all of you to go to war for me and destroy Iran so I can sleep in peace. I really don't care how many of you die so long as it isn't me. Call me a scumbag craven coward, but I don't care. I can easily live without pride.

LOL, that is about what it comes down to. That the politics of FUD are so effective, is a never ending source of wtf for me. Perhaps the American people need another "There is nothing to fear but fear itself" speech? Because the level of irrational fear in this country is absurd. Maybe if they stop listening to the bogeyman stories their preferred information sources tell them, they would stop jumping at shadows.

 

[fskimospy]

The flaw in your reasoning is the disassociation between nuclear proliferation and nuclear detonation.
My reasoning is that the ultimate cost is very high, and you must weigh that against the cost of destroying a country.

And make no mistake, it's not an easy choice. I don't know if Iran is the correct time or place to lay down the law on proliferation. This subject reaches beyond a single country, Iran will not be the last to develop nukes. The world has and will continue to proliferate nuclear weapons. Many more countries will follow, at some point force (war) is the only answer.

This is not a question of if we have to stop nuclear proliferation, but when we choose to do so.
I strongly believe that the sooner we do, the safer the world becomes.

As for my position, I stand by my previous call for Republicans to support the President's deal. My contention on the subject is regarding how it is presented. It's a peace deal meant to gamble that we can placate Iran into good behavior. I do not believe it stops nuclear ambition, as I consider the deal toothless, unenforceable, and simply meant to placate enough people (on both sides) in order to avoid war.

The truth is it leaves us with a nuclear Iran, which I believe only a war could prevent. Absent a war, a peace deal is far better than doing nothing. And this deal is the only deal. The myth of a better deal is merely a Republican delusion meant to maintain the status quo.

Republicans don't have the balls to push for war.
Democrats don't have to balls to call it a peace deal.
Both sides hope the public is stupid enough to buy their delusion of a peaceful disarming of Iran.

Didn't we go to war with Iraq largely over claims of nuclear proliferation? Didn't that just make other countries even more determined to go nuclear?

 

[sm625]

Look! I am afraid Iran is going to nuke me in my sleep. I don't want a deal. I want all of you to go to war for me and destroy Iran so I can sleep in peace. I really don't care how many of you die so long as it isn't me. Call me a scumbag craven coward, but I don't care. I can easily live without pride.

You have what it takes to win over the republican base.

 

[Jhhnn]

The sad part about all of this is the fact the majority of sane Iranians actually want their current regime removed from power, and they are at a complete loss on how to go about doing that.

Meanwhile, the last thing the world needs now is to go in there and kick the leadership out. Because when we leave there is likely to be another opportunity in place so some other bat shit crazy group like ISIS can go in there and manipulate Iran to their advantage.

Is the possible cure worse than the current disease? That is where we are at in Iran ATM, and that fact can't be denied when you just look at what's happening in Iraq now.

Iranians don't want the regime out of power- they want it to change, to liberalize in an orderly transition. That's hard to do when the Great Satan is breathing down their neck & their own hard liners have greater sway because of it. It's been that way since the revolution.

 

[Jhhnn]

You have what it takes to win over the republican base.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NzFJxX8yoY