rickyp wrote:Fate
Wait. So, they don't want Iran to go nuclear, but they'll let them go nuclear if Congress votes down the deal?
Its not a question of "let Iran go nuclear". Its a question of whether the entire coalition would be willing to go back to the table to try an achieve something that is not achievable. The complete submission of Iran.
Red herring. "Complete submission" would be like, what, the unconditional surrender of Japan in WW2?
The question is this: is the world ready to concede a nuclear weapon to Iran?
The answer, from you, seems to be, "If this deal goes down in Congress, then our allies will permit Iran to get a bomb. If the deal is approved (actually "not disapproved"), then Iran will get a bomb but it will be 10 years or more down the road." So, either way, Iran gets the bomb.
In the recent briefings provided to Congress this was fully explained to congressional members. Many who have the same disdain for reality as Fate I guess.
Funny. I disdain reality? We have a President who can't even say "Islamic" and "terrorism" in the same sentence--as if it doesn't exist--and
I "disdain reality?"
We have a President who said Iran would have to dismantle its nuclear program. Now, Obama says they'll have to wait 10-12 years for a bomb.
One of us disdains reality. It's not me. I'll let you sort it out.
Its magical thinking to imagine that the US can unilaterally get Iran to agree to something more than what the entire group managed.
Again, and again, and again . . . you are indeed a broken record.
The options, should Iran move on nuclear are the same in ten years as they are today.
But the deal give 10 years of security, and an opportunity for Iran to demonstrate further that it has no nuclear weapons ambitions.
When has Iran
EVER demonstrated it "has no nuclear weapons ambitions?"
Be specific.
And access to Iranian nuclear sites (in 24 hours) or anywhere else in Iran in an extended period.
Not true. 24 hours for "known" nuclear sites. The other areas require 24 days and are subject to appeal and delay. This is not "anytime, anywhere" inspections.
Its a dependence on Iranian unilaterally eschewing nuclear (which it has actually been doing), or military options.
One of us "disdains reality." When has Iran "unilaterally eschew[ed]" nuclear power? The whole reason these negotiations were needed is because Iran, in violation of the NPT and UN sanctions, was pursuing nuclear weaponry. Why was Stuxnet used? For fun?
Talk about "magical thinking." You've just wished away the entire reason for the "treaty" in the first place!
By the way, the military option doesn't go away even if the deal is fully sanctioned and in force.
The military option? Um, you do know who the President is, right? The whole idea of a "military option" must make the mullahs double over in laughter.
So, what does vetoing the deal actually accomplish?
1. the end of coordinated sanctions
2. the end of cooperation with Russia and China
Danger! Conflict alert!
You've already told us Russia and China were done with sanctions before this. Russia had a meeting with a general who is under a UN travel ban. So, newsflash: they're not cooperating with us BEFORE the vote in Congress.
3. the estrangement of the European partners, and the end of any credibility for US foreign policy
Comedy alert!
Exactly where, do you suppose, US foreign policy has any credibility at the moment? For most Obama apologists, the best they can do is Myanamar. Any other suggestions? (Note well: I look forward to your punch line, er, I mean "answer")
4. the recognition of the USA's current dysfunction as a modern state.
Ooh, we better watch out! ISIS might take over!
5. Iran will continue to do what ever it wants in the region, which in some cases in is common cause with the US (battling ISIS), and in some cases is not. (sponsoring a resistance to Israel in Palestine)
Now, that is pretty funny. If you could make it just a bit more pithy, I would have laughed.
Really, where, o where is Iran not doing what it wants now? Oh, and if Congress approves the deal--what IN THE DEAL restrains Iran from sponsoring terrorism and trying to kill Americans?
Be specific. Please cite the wording. Thanks.
Shall I enumerate for you the countless times you've not commented on Fates intemperate language? If you decide to consistently police him, I'll abide by your criticisms. I can only imagine that Fate wants to have labels thrown at him, since he enjoys doing it so much himself.
Actually, I would not have noted it at all if danivon had not made an issue of it.
Fate
Mr. Cotton's resume is far more impressive than Mr. Obama's
Cotton pretends to understand the science behind nuclear inspections. And he purports to understand how it is possible for the Iranian government to submit to any demand that the US decides to make. He is a lawyer by education, and a platoon commander in logistic by military experience.
Let's see, so I said Cotton's resume is more impressive than Obama's. So, naturally, you are now going to cite Obama's superiority . . .
Balanced against Cotton's vast expertise, we hae the careful analysis offered by IAEA negotiators (past and present), by American military leaders and scientists, by European scientists and military leaders, and by Israelis security experts.
What? What does that have to do with Obama?
I doubt Cotton has a inkling about how Iranians feel about the ability of the US to deal honestly with Iran.
So, based on your vast knowledge of Tom Cotton, please tell me how you came to this conclusion. Be specific. Thanks.
Perhaps he could reflect upon how he might feel if a democratic government of his country had been subverted and replaced with a despotic monarchy by another country? Or how he might feel if another country had supported its enemy in an 8 year war? Or how the President of another country had broken his own laws to offer weapons to them in exchange for hostages? Or how one of their civilian airliners had been shot out of the sky?
Are you trying to say Obama is more empathetic to our enemies than Cotton? Otherwise, there's no relevance. But, hey, nice anti-American diatribe.
Unilateral negotiations would go no where. The Iranians aren't disposed to dealing with the US without the support of the other nations at the table. Cotton is guilty of typical right wing magical thinking that imagines that what their friends at the table are saying (Germany, UK France) has no value over what he imagines is possible.
Well, you've certainly made your case. I'm sure everyone is convinced . . . everyone in your basement.