The Iran Deal I Don't Get It Do You?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Jul 19, 2015 10:59 am

Death to Israel Death to America so says the Iranian Leaders. That's been their stance for some time and it is not likely to ever change, nor is their sponsorship of terrorism. This new deal with Iran is not going to change anything. At some point down the road a major mid east conflict is inevitable irrespective of any present agreements. All past dealings with Iran have been for naught and produced nothing. And now Iran has a pocketful of cash to play with and support their nefarious causes. I can't support this new deal. Can you?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:50 pm

Lon;1482996 wrote: I can't support this new deal. Can you?

With all due respect you and I don't have to, just hope they do.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:00 pm

Don: Iran was only two months away from nuclear capability. Without a deal, they would have a bomb within the year. 12 bombs, to be exact. Now you have monitoring for decades to come.

If you are one of those people who thinks "Iran shouldn't have a nuclear bomb, they are terrorists." Then you should be FOR monitoring and watching them. If you are against the deal then you are saying "I want Iran to have a nuclear bomb."

And if you are someone who thinks Iran shouldn't get a single dollar since it might end up sponsoring terrorism, then you are living in a dream world if you think that the Ayatollah would agree to monitoring without some kind of concessions.

It's that simple.

Experts who have seen agreements like this is the past agree this agreement is one of the strictest ever written at 150 pages plus, so rest easy.

My logic: Any diplomacy is better than war. If it works you avoid war, if it doesn't at least you tried.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:06 pm

Lon;1482996 wrote: Death to Israel Death to America so says the Iranian Leaders. That's been their stance for some time and it is not likely to ever change, nor is their sponsorship of terrorism. This new deal with Iran is not going to change anything. At some point down the road a major mid east conflict is inevitable irrespective of any present agreements. All past dealings with Iran have been for naught and produced nothing. And now Iran has a pocketful of cash to play with and support their nefarious causes. I can't support this new deal. Can you?

I'd say that Iran's stance has changed significantly since the days of the Ayatollah Khomeini and even since the days of Ahmadinejad.

There's hope in the new deal - let's wait a while before we dismiss it.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:08 pm

When another student acts up on the schoolyard. Most kids will shun them for a while, but eventually you have a choice: ease them back into the group or isolate them forever. The former choice has a chance that the child will learn and change. The second guarantees bitterness, slowly simmering into evil and lasting hatred. (See: Vietnam vs. North Korea)

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:51 pm

By-and-large I agree with Saint about Iran. Without this monitoring deal, we risk an uncontrolled nuclear arms-race in one of, if not the most, unstable regions on the planet!

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jul 19, 2015 3:03 pm

I have not had the opportunity to read the document, yet. Have you, Lon?

Anybody?

I figure that reading it before deciding whether I support it or not would be a good idea.

I dug up a copy, and will read it in the next few days, work schedule allowing.

Here is a copy if anyone else wants to read it.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:55 pm

Saint_;1483010 wrote: My logic: Any diplomacy is better than war. If it works you avoid war, if it doesn't at least you tried.Winston Churchill said it a bit more colorfully: "Jaw, jaw is better than waw, waw."

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:04 am

Lon;1482996 wrote: Death to Israel Death to America so says the Iranian Leaders. That's been their stance for some time and it is not likely to ever change, nor is their sponsorship of terrorism. This new deal with Iran is not going to change anything. At some point down the road a major mid east conflict is inevitable irrespective of any present agreements. All past dealings with Iran have been for naught and produced nothing. And now Iran has a pocketful of cash to play with and support their nefarious causes. I can't support this new deal. Can you?

The alternative to diplomacy and sorting out your differences is you go to war. That worked well in iraq didn't it? The iraqis haven't made weapons of mass destruction since. .

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:51 pm

LarsMac;1483015 wrote: I have not had the opportunity to read the document, yet. Have you, Lon?

Anybody?

I figure that reading it before deciding whether I support it or not would be a good idea.

I dug up a copy, and will read it in the next few days, work schedule allowing.

Here is a copy if anyone else wants to read it.

Really sure, I thank you so much.

To be frank I ain't going to sit here to read all 188 pages myself. That would not make any sense at all.

At least as this or that is said about this deal I could look up the actual wording, as it it matters.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:14 pm

159 pages, stop exaggerating.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 3:08 pm

But isn't that just the introduction ? Just askin' :sneaky:

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 5:02 pm

tude dog;1483035 wrote: Really sure, I thank you so much.

To be frank I ain't going to sit here to read all 188 pages myself. That would not make any sense at all.

At least as this or that is said about this deal I could look up the actual wording, as it it matters.

I just made the thing available here. Do with it as you will. No skin off my nose.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:04 pm

LarsMac;1483044 wrote: I just made the thing available here. Do with it as you will. No skin off my nose.

Could be useful, LarsMac, thank you.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:07 am

Yes Iran have changed their approach to the sponsorship of terrorism dramatically. These days they don't publicise the fact quite so much.

As for diplomacy always being better than war - the words of Neville Chamberlayne come to mind. "Here is the paper". Just what is the difference to a country covertly sponsoring terrorists to fight their cause and openly employing mercenaries under their own banner? It is the same outcome. The only difference is that one is officially CALLED a war. The other is not.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:22 am

One wonders how we got so friendly with those bloody Germans.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:47 am

To start with, it seems that nothing in the agreement to lift sanctions will take place until after verification that Iran has met the requirements to prove that they are not participating in the development of weapons grade materials and that they have disposed of any equipment and materials that would be used for such.

At that time we do not "give them money" we simply lift the sanctions that have been in place to prevent trade with them.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:34 pm

LarsMac;1483044 wrote: I just made the thing available here. Do with it as you will. No skin off my nose.

Sorry, didn't mean any offence.

I do thank you for the link.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:39 pm

tude dog;1483099 wrote: Sorry, didn't mean any offence.

I do thank you for the link.

Thanks for that.

No offense taken

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:06 pm

An interesting perspective from The Nation

From the editorial:

...ï»¿

If the agreement is to work as a vehicle for constructive diplomacy, its supporters will have to confront the false alarms about Iranâ€™s regional designs as well as its nuclear intentions. Already we are hearing that lifting the sanctions on Iran will give it more resources to pursue destabilizing and anti-Israel policies. But a reasonable analysis of recent Iranian actions leads to a different conclusion: namely, that the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic rests not on its revolutionary zeal, but on its ability to improve the living standards of its people; that its regional policy is based as much on defensible national interests as it is on anti-Israel fervor; that it has been a helpful partner in Afghanistan and more recently in Iraq; and that it has done more to dampen the conflict in Yemen and Bahrain than has Saudi Arabia, which has resorted to military force in violation of international law.

...

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:00 pm

Iran is not a benevolent nation, but quite the opposite. It is a nation lead by fanatical religious shia mullahs busy building an empire dedicated to some end of time end game.

I like this commentary by Dennis Prager where he says in part,

Many in the West denied the darkness of Nazism. They looked the other way when that evil could have been stopped and then appeased it as it became stronger.

We are reliving 1938. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain went to Munich to negotiate with Adolf Hitler. He left believing Hitler's promises of peace in exchange for Germany being allowed to annex large parts of Czechoslovakia. Upon returning to England, Chamberlain announced, "Peace for our time."

The American and European negotiations with Iran have so precisely mirrored 1938 that you have to wonder how anyone could not see it.

1938 and 2015: Only the Names Are Different

I once read where Winston Churchill read Mein Kamph and took Hitler for his words.

Blows my mind reading the words of the Ayatollas and seeing the actual actions of Iran nobody gets it.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:39 am

This is different. First, the mullahs may want a suicidal agenda, but the majority of the country does not. The young, vastly westernized by access to the internet, are already challenging the old. The Nazis could control all media, the ayatollah cannot.

Two, this is a globalized civilization. Iran, unlike North Korea, due to its reliance on global oil trading, understands that.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 5:45 am

tude dog;1483168 wrote: America is not a benevolent nation, but quite the opposite. It is a nation lead by fanatical financial institutions busy building an empire dedicated to some end game.

Sorry Dawg it had to be done.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 12:02 pm

Saint_;1483170 wrote: This is different. First, the mullahs may want a suicidal agenda, but the majority of the country does not. The young, vastly westernized by access to the internet, are already challenging the old. The Nazis could control all media, the ayatollah cannot.

Two, this is a globalized civilization. Iran, unlike North Korea, due to its reliance on global oil trading, understands that.

Gosh be darn.

Hereâ€™s how Iran censors the Internet

Little is known about Iran's censorship system because Iranian citizens who probe the network from inside the country risk reprisals from the government. But earlier this year, two anonymous Iranians teamed up with Alex Halderman, a computer science professor at the University of Michigan, to conduct one of the first systematic studies of Iranian Internet censorship to be published outside Iran. Halderman presented his findings at a Tuesday talk at the Usenix Security conference in Washington, D.C.

Iran has an extensive list of blacklisted sites.

What gets censored? To find out, the researchers attempted to visit the sites on Alexa's top 500 lists in various categories. Almost half of the 500 most popular sites on the Internet are censored. Unsurprisingly, the theocratic Iranian regime censors pornographic Web sites most heavily. But a high percentage of sites in the "art," "society," and "news" categories are also blocked:

That is nothing new.

How often do we read of protests in Iran? Could be because they never happen?

Executions in Iran could top 1,000 this year, says Amnesty International

How many would protest a government willing to execut at the drop of a hat?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:24 pm

Is it not better for the major powers to be involved with an OPEN nuclear programme in Iran, as opposed to non-involvement and thus having no control of the situation? With controls in place, maybe we can avoid a nuclear arms race in the unstable Middle East!