Iran won't be our friend? (parties, elect, government, program)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This agreement is a real opportunity in Iran to promote democracy through economic development. There is a very well educated contingent of moderates and those on the left that want to see changes, if they can succeed it would be great for the entire region. If they become more westernized, they will see the Ayatollahs as the crazy uncle that belongs in the basement.
This agreement is a real opportunity in Iran to promote democracy through economic development. There is a very well educated contingent of moderates and those on the left that want to see changes, if they can succeed it would be great for the entire region. If they become more westernized, they will see the Ayatollahs as the crazy uncle that belongs in the basement.
Yup because history has proven that those in power give up power...
Couldn't defeat Iraq, can't win in Afghanistan, and now you think attacking Iran is a viable alternative.
We defeated Sadam and won every battle we participated in. But what I said is that "attacking Iran" is not the first or the best option. Extending the sanction works better. I did not suggest to attack Iran in the way you portray. I only spoke about destroying the nuclear centers if sanctions become impractical, not occupying land. Your reference to Iraq simply doesn't hold water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloforLife
Why are you so obsessed with war? We have been losing them left and right and just pouring American blood in the sand and bringing back numerous disabled military personnel . Why don't you take a trip to a VA hospital to see a part of the end result of what you so cherish?
See above. Where did I say I favor war? Going to war means you already lost the first battle and your deterrence didn't work. Winning without having to take military action is the best way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0marvin0
To clarify a point or two with your above post. The Iranian government had held a position of no negotiations for several years despite the sanctions by the U.S. and a few of our allies. It took years of diplomacy to get Russia and China along with the rest of the E.U. to get on board with a more comprehensive sanctions program in order to get the Iranian government to finally agree to negotiatons, resulting in the agreement we now have. I doubt seriously we could manage to keep the program of sanctions in place indefinately without going to the negotiating table.
I agree and totally favor diplomacy. Its the best way. But diplomacy when Iran understands that it cannot develop nuclear weapons and enjoy a flourishing economy at the same time. Its either one or the other. The way it was signed will allow them to eat the cake and ha
Quote:
Getting Russia and China on board with the sanctions was vital in finally getting the Iranians to come to the table. The agreement gives a framwork for reinstalling the sanctions if in future the Iranians are found to be in violation. Without the agreement the Russians or the Chineese or anyone else for that matter could just tell the U.S. to stuff their sanctions and resume trading with the Iranians whenever they please. This is how multinational diplomacy works. I for one prefer it to just willy-nilly bombing and hoping you get all the targets or killing and maiming thousands of our military personal when you have to use upwards of a million combat troops and their supporting personal to invade in order to make sure you have taken out all the targets.
Nobody talked about invasions except left wing alarmists (the same who maintain Iran has no military might and choose their opinion as it suits their mood).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
I really need to re-read that framework. I completely missed the "Iran can develop nuclear weapons" part.
What happens at the end of ten year period? Will you be able to reinitiate the sanctions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
The Iranian regime has had a multitude of time and consideration to put aside historical differences and make itself an ally. They chose the ladder, sponsor terrorism, human rights abuses domestically and abroad and pursue interests contrary to U.S policy. The United States has settled historical differences with European countries as Israel settled historical differences with Egypt and Jordan through Camp David. The Iranian teenager preaching death to America is not protesting because of the U.S involvement with the Shah. Ignoring the spiritual, political and theological supreme leaders call for nuclear genocide of two U.N Charter Members is foolish thinking just because of a controversial U.S historical mishap.
I agree. The extreme Shiite regime is clever. They understand the west much better then we understand them. If the Ayatollahs are removed from power (as will undoubtedly happen) there will be little "death to America" left. Most young Iranians do not care about the Shah and don't hate America. The current confrontation is with the Ayatollah regime and their ideology, not the Iranian people. Ayatollahs are afraid (and rightly so) they will lose power one day and that's why they need protection in the way of nuclear weapons. That's also why they make every effort to export their ideology to places like Lebanon and Yemen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMoreJuice
Argument has no validity to the topic at hand. This isn't about America overthrowing the Shah 35 years ago. Iran gets a pass of its violations and threats of genocide because of a suppose historical wrong in its history? Does that make sense to you? Should I put this into perspective or no? Native American kills a white man in a bar his ancestors took over his land hundreds of years ago? According to you, this would be a justifiable attack. If you do not find this scenario justifiable, then you would simply be a hypocrite.
So throwing out all the Ad homeniums and unrelated excuses for Iranian violations that you and others use, Iran is in violation of the NPT and UNSC resolutions. There non-compliance of the agreements and genocidal threats are treated as equal partners in this P5+1 deal. Iran has been given its right to privacy of its nuclear program which is against NPT regulations. This deal does nothing to prevent Iran from the bomb because their are no surprise inspections, only with a 24 day notice. You can only blame historical U.S imperialism so much when the government in question is not violating human rights laws against its own people or threatening nuclear annihilation of YOUR country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
This agreement is a real opportunity in Iran to promote democracy through economic development. There is a very well educated contingent of moderates and those on the left that want to see changes, if they can succeed it would be great for the entire region. If they become more westernized, they will see the Ayatollahs as the crazy uncle that belongs in the basement.
That is exactly the western "wisdom" that make Ayatollahs very amused. That's what I meant by "they understand us much better than we understand them". If there will be a regime change, it will be violent.
We defeated Sadam and won every battle we participated in. But what I said is that "attacking Iran" is not the first or the best option. Extending the sanction works better. I did not suggest to attack Iran in the way you portray. I only spoke about destroying the nuclear centers if sanctions become impractical, not occupying land. Your reference to Iraq simply doesn't hold water.
Good lord...not the "we won every battle" argument again. You sound like one of those lame defenders of our Vietnam involvement.
We LOST in Iraq. This is inarguable.
Attacking Iran isn't the first or best option...it's not even a decent option. It's a dumb option, which really means that it's not an option at all. Stop it with the airstrikes nonsense. The only way to know that you hit what you needed to hit is to put troops on the ground.
And troops on the ground in Iran is the end of us.
Good lord...not the "we won every battle" argument again. You sound like one of those lame defenders of our Vietnam involvement.
We LOST in Iraq. This is inarguable.
Attacking Iran isn't the first or best option...it's not even a decent option. It's a dumb option, which really means that it's not an option at all. Stop it with the airstrikes nonsense. The only way to know that you hit what you needed to hit is to put troops on the ground.
And troops on the ground in Iran is the end of us.
Yet despite the Bibi assassinators on this thread, he has advocated for a harsher deal rather than war.
A harsher deal and either they or the other countries may walk away, what does a harsher deal look like, specifically.
Repetitions is key I see or just repeating myself until you get it. Continued sanctions, no sunset clause, full transparency and surprise inspections anywhere. Can't "validate" that Iran is complying to its terms that it agreed with if we are not able to access the whole facility.
Lets make deal, handshake, and then immediately the death to America chatter starts up again. Sounds to me like we have no deal!! Death to America you say? How about you first...... We will happily oblige.
A harsher deal and either they or the other countries may walk away, what does a harsher deal look like, specifically.
Well, specifically it looks harsher.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
