I'm curious: are repubs dumb enough to think Iran would roll over and do whatever the West wants?

[Jantje_Smit]

Sounds to me like full retardville

Yes, but that can be funny too

 

[cnm]

CNM you are pretty bad on knowing what's happening in the world...

Saudi Arabia financed the paki nuclear program not America.

The word was 'facilitated', not 'financed'. The US permitted Pakistan access to US nuclear technology and turned a blind eye to their programme in order to progress the then war in Afghanistan.

In no way am I surprised at either your ignorance or the way you believe your own propaganda.

 

[cnm]

Who is we? You are not an American?

It was Obama not republicans

No, it was America, in particular Fuckwit43, who rushed to join the talks.

 

[cnm]

You really do believe what your government tells you, if it's Republican, don't you. There's your mistake right there.

The man who knew too much
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/13/usa.pakistan
The CIA agent who exposed US complicity in helping Pakistan develop a nuclear bomb

In the late 80s, in the course of tracking down smugglers of WMD components, Barlow uncovered reams of material that related to Pakistan. It was known the Islamic Republic had been covertly striving to acquire nuclear weapons since India's explosion of a device in 1974 and the prospect terrified the west - especially given the instability of a nation that had had three military coups in less than 30 years . Straddling deep ethnic, religious and political fault-lines, it was also a country regularly rocked by inter-communal violence. "Pakistan was the kind of place where technology could slip out of control," Barlow says.


He soon discovered, however, that senior officials in government were taking quite the opposite view: they were breaking US and international non-proliferation protocols to shelter Pakistan's ambitions and even sell it banned WMD technology. In the closing years of the cold war, Pakistan was considered to have great strategic importance. It provided Washington with a springboard into neighbouring Afghanistan - a route for passing US weapons and cash to the mujahideen, who were battling to oust the Soviet army that had invaded in 1979. Barlow says, "We had to buddy-up to regimes we didn't see eye-to-eye with, but I could not believe we would actually give Pakistan the bomb.​

 

[cnm]

Oh noes, this can't be true, it's Saudi what done it...

January 1988: Reagan Invokes, then Waives Amendment Cutting off Aid for Pakistan Because of Its Nuclear Weapons Program

President Ronald Reagan invokes the Solarz amendment (see August 1985), cutting off aid to Pakistan due to its illicit nuclear weapons program. This is in response to the arrest of a Pakistani agent attempting to purchase technology for the program in the US six months previously (see Before July 1987). However, Reagan then waives the provisions of the amendment, allowing US aid to Pakistan to continue. Journalist Seymour Hersh will comment, “The president was telling Pakistan that it could have its money—and its bomb.” [New Yorker, 3/29/1993]​

 

[Tehon]

Yeah so? They'll come back crawling on their knees in six months after the sanctions have demolished their economy. A country with large population of unemployed youth will have no choice but to agree to terms the West dictates, otherwise their angry youth will take to the streets. Like I said, Obama gave up all the leverage we had in exchange for absolutely nothing.

You think sanctions are leverage? The US started sanctioning Iran in '79. To what advantage? To listen to the hawks prior to this agreement, Iran was any day from having a bomb.

There were no real sanctions on Iran until 2011 / 2012, when the U.S., Europeans, and the major imposed an unprecedented bank / wire / trade / oil embargo. You should know that.

Why the hell do you think the Iranians came to the table? Their economy was in free fall, the currency had devalued by 50%, inflation and unemployment were out of control, and public dissatisfaction was very high. The sanctions needed to be lifted soon otherwise Iran would turn into a failed state. The sanctions were driving the mullahs out of power and Obama lifted it. Good job.

So your reasoning is that despite sanctions dating back to '79 it wasn't until 2011/12 that sanctions were ratcheted up enough to persuade Iran to the negotiating table? You have to understand that your reasoning falls flat when one takes into consideration the actual timeline of events. Iran started making proposals in 2003 and started negotiations with the EU3 in 04/05. The US entered the negotiations in 06. I fail to see the relevance of 2011/12. I understand that sanctions were having an effect on Iran's economy but....failed state?

You don't know what you're talking about. The 79 sanctions had nothing to with Iran's nuclear program. It wasn't until 2011 when, because of the nuclear situation, they froze all financial bank wire / swift transactions and trade whatsoever, which caused the Iranian economy to go Into into a downward spiral. The Iranian Rial fell from 1000 Tomans per dollar to 2000 Tomans per dollar (in 1979 the Dollar was 7 Tomans, one Toman = one hundred Rials). That meant that nobody could get any money in or out of Iran, period. Nor could any business import or export anything. It is because of the harsh sanctions that the Mullahs allowed a moderate (puppet) to run and loosened up on the Islamic decency laws in order for the frustrated youth to let off some frustration and steam.

The Iranians wanted a deal more than the West, but Obama gave all that pressure and leverage up for what? Absolutely nothing. We don't have a deal, what we have is capitulation and appeasement.

I don't know what I'm talking about? You are the one who is shape shifting your argument, I'm staying on point. Sanctions don't work as leverage. The reason to take it back to '79 is to show that sanctions, despite there varied stated purposes, have not altered Iran's actions. However you seem intent on proving that sanctions applied in 2011/12 had an impact on Iran's decisions. As it relates to Rouhani's election, that was not related to economic sanctions either. Ahmadinejad's reelection in '09 led to large uprisings based on fears of election fraud. Uprisings took shape again in 2011 coinciding with the "arab spring". The unilateral blocking of the Iranian central bank didn't go into effect until 2012, again your timeline is all off.

Your point seems to be that Obama implemented crippling sanctions on Iran that brought them to the table only so that he could capitulate to Iran's demands and allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon which hawk's claim was only days away from happening anyway. And Obama did this with the consent of 5 other nations. Wow, that doesn't seem very rational.

 

[CowboyTed]

If someone else were in charge of the deal? You know the one sponsored by 7 countries? They like to think Obama is weak which is why concessions were made, but it's completely stupid to think Iran, under any circumstance, would do whatever the fuck repubs want. It's so nauseatingly ignorant.

Enough with the whole "well if St. Reagan was in charge of that deal derp, derp, derp!"

This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.

No it isn't. Sanctions were far better, moron.

Hey US would be the only one imposing them... It is not really sanctions then...

So Iran you can't buy anything directly from the US but if it is in any European country for more than two secs it is fair game...

How did Cuba sanctions go and they were right beside you? You know they traded with every other country and they were right next door... How do you think this going to affect Iran.

Iran has to invest $500bn in it oil and gas fields and No American need apply, Dumbass..

 

[CowboyTed]

You really do believe what your government tells you, if it's Republican, don't you. There's your mistake right there.

The man who knew too much
The CIA agent who exposed US complicity in helping Pakistan develop a nuclear bomb

In the late 80s, in the course of tracking down smugglers of WMD components, Barlow uncovered reams of material that related to Pakistan. It was known the Islamic Republic had been covertly striving to acquire nuclear weapons since India's explosion of a device in 1974 and the prospect terrified the west - especially given the instability of a nation that had had three military coups in less than 30 years . Straddling deep ethnic, religious and political fault-lines, it was also a country regularly rocked by inter-communal violence. "Pakistan was the kind of place where technology could slip out of control," Barlow says.


He soon discovered, however, that senior officials in government were taking quite the opposite view: they were breaking US and international non-proliferation protocols to shelter Pakistan's ambitions and even sell it banned WMD technology. In the closing years of the cold war, Pakistan was considered to have great strategic importance. It provided Washington with a springboard into neighbouring Afghanistan - a route for passing US weapons and cash to the mujahideen, who were battling to oust the Soviet army that had invaded in 1979. Barlow says, "We had to buddy-up to regimes we didn't see eye-to-eye with, but I could not believe we would actually give Pakistan the bomb.​

cnm,

You have to stop with these facts, you are making the RWers look like idiots..

Truth is GOP has done more to arm terrorists than any other enity... GWB is a poster child for getting the terrorist money even today in the ME...
In a fight between the vast majority moderate peaceful Muslims and the fundamentalist the GOP administration cut the moderates off at the knees.

They actually were better to say to the ME please could you find those people and hand them over if it is not too much trouble... they were a disgrace...

 

[kaz]

If someone else were in charge of the deal? You know the one sponsored by 7 countries? They like to think Obama is weak which is why concessions were made, but it's completely stupid to think Iran, under any circumstance, would do whatever the fuck repubs want. It's so nauseatingly ignorant.

Enough with the whole "well if St. Reagan was in charge of that deal derp, derp, derp!"

This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.

Clearly the Republicans want to use force to compel Iran, they don't think Iran will roll over and they don't think Iran will honor any agreement.

I oppose the Republican policy, but at least I know what it is. Seriously, what is wrong with you? No one thinks Iran will roll over

 

[Geaux4it]

Sounds to me like full retardville

Yes, but that can be funny too

^^^^^ that shit is too funny ^^^^

I really appreciate the added detail of the 'let go' point and the identification of the weapon

LMAO

-Geaux

 

[Wyatt earp]

Who is we? You are not an American?

It was Obama not republicans

No, it was America, in particular Fuckwit43, who rushed to join the talks.

You lying dumb ass

 

[Wyatt earp]

If someone else were in charge of the deal? You know the one sponsored by 7 countries? They like to think Obama is weak which is why concessions were made, but it's completely stupid to think Iran, under any circumstance, would do whatever the fuck repubs want. It's so nauseatingly ignorant.

Enough with the whole "well if St. Reagan was in charge of that deal derp, derp, derp!"

This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.

Clearly the Republicans want to use force to compel Iran, they don't think Iran will roll over and they don't think Iran will honor any agreement.

I oppose the Republican policy, but at least I know what it is. Seriously, what is wrong with you? No one thinks Iran will roll over

What kind of pussys we have now a says in America?

So your plan is be like Bill Clinton was with North Korea suck their dick and let them get a nuke?

 

[cnm]

No, it was America, in particular Fuckwit43, who rushed to join the talks.

You lying dumb ass

Hoho. The truth is not your friend.

History of Official Proposals on the Iranian Nuclear Issue

Arms Control Association

France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (the EU3) also offered Iran several proposals to resolve the nuclear issue during negotiations with Iran in 2004 and 2005. China, Russia, and the United States joined the three European countries in 2006 as part of a format known as the “P5+1”—in reference to the permanent five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany—offering similar comprehensive proposals to Iran.​

 

[kaz]

If someone else were in charge of the deal? You know the one sponsored by 7 countries? They like to think Obama is weak which is why concessions were made, but it's completely stupid to think Iran, under any circumstance, would do whatever the fuck repubs want. It's so nauseatingly ignorant.

Enough with the whole "well if St. Reagan was in charge of that deal derp, derp, derp!"

This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.

Clearly the Republicans want to use force to compel Iran, they don't think Iran will roll over and they don't think Iran will honor any agreement.

I oppose the Republican policy, but at least I know what it is. Seriously, what is wrong with you? No one thinks Iran will roll over

What kind of pussys we have now a says in America?

So your plan is be like Bill Clinton was with North Korea suck their dick and let them get a nuke?

There is no possible way to read what I said and conclude that is what I am arguing. I'll be glad to discuss it with you. You making up shit and claiming that's my position isn't a path I'm interested in

 

[cnm]

One wonders where on earth these rightards get their version of events from. Planet Hatfoil, maybe.

 

[Roudy]

The Iranians wanted a deal more than the West, but Obama gave all that pressure and leverage up for what? Absolutely nothing. We don't have a deal, what we have is capitulation and appeasement.

You appear to conflate the US with the west. But what's your beef with Iran having nuclear weapons when you don't appear to care that the US facilitated Pakistan's nuclear programme?

So now it seems like you're basically okay with Iran having nukes. Iran having nukes means WWIII and nuclear holocaust. The Sunnis especially aren't going to stand by and let Iran's radical Shiite Islamists take over Islam's two holiest sites and all the oil around it. As we can see the proxy war using Yemen's Houthi Shiites has already started. You seem very ignorant about the history of the region and the geopolitics.

 

[Roudy]

The Iranians wanted a deal more than the West, but Obama gave all that pressure and leverage up for what? Absolutely nothing. We don't have a deal, what we have is capitulation and appeasement.

What we have is more cheap oil, persian rugs, hundreds of $billions in lucrative contracts, an Iran focussed on business instead of nukes and a major ally against psychotic, beheading jihadis.

What Netanyahoo and his zionist buddies have is a major competitor in the region free of sanctions and no more excuse to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Sounds like a good deal

Hah! The radical Islamist Mullahs running Iran the number one terrorist regime in the world, will suddenly be focused on business as opposed to conquering the region and the world and spreading their version of Islamism. You are a fool.

 

[auditor0007]

Cons think we can get a better deal, but it's not likely. More likely is the fact that Iran would continue enrichment so they could make plenty of nukes. This would force us and/or Israel to start a war. Most likely the Russians would step in and then we are on the verge of WWIII. With this deal, we still have a military option, if the Iranians do not abide by their agreement. I'm to the point that I believe cons just want more wars, or they are too dumb to understand that the world is changing. We still have the greatest military, but the rest of the world isn't so thrilled about our using it to force our wishes on the rest of them, and that includes our so called allies.

You idiot.

Okay, we'll go with your plan and just nuke them. What a moron.

 

[Roudy]

Yeah so? They'll come back crawling on their knees in six months after the sanctions have demolished their economy. A country with large population of unemployed youth will have no choice but to agree to terms the West dictates, otherwise their angry youth will take to the streets. Like I said, Obama gave up all the leverage we had in exchange for absolutely nothing.

You think sanctions are leverage? The US started sanctioning Iran in '79. To what advantage? To listen to the hawks prior to this agreement, Iran was any day from having a bomb.

There were no real sanctions on Iran until 2011 / 2012, when the U.S., Europeans, and the major imposed an unprecedented bank / wire / trade / oil embargo. You should know that.

Why the hell do you think the Iranians came to the table? Their economy was in free fall, the currency had devalued by 50%, inflation and unemployment were out of control, and public dissatisfaction was very high. The sanctions needed to be lifted soon otherwise Iran would turn into a failed state. The sanctions were driving the mullahs out of power and Obama lifted it. Good job.

So your reasoning is that despite sanctions dating back to '79 it wasn't until 2011/12 that sanctions were ratcheted up enough to persuade Iran to the negotiating table? You have to understand that your reasoning falls flat when one takes into consideration the actual timeline of events. Iran started making proposals in 2003 and started negotiations with the EU3 in 04/05. The US entered the negotiations in 06. I fail to see the relevance of 2011/12. I understand that sanctions were having an effect on Iran's economy but....failed state?

You don't know what you're talking about. The 79 sanctions had nothing to with Iran's nuclear program. It wasn't until 2011 when, because of the nuclear situation, they froze all financial bank wire / swift transactions and trade whatsoever, which caused the Iranian economy to go Into into a downward spiral. The Iranian Rial fell from 1000 Tomans per dollar to 2000 Tomans per dollar (in 1979 the Dollar was 7 Tomans, one Toman = one hundred Rials). That meant that nobody could get any money in or out of Iran, period. Nor could any business import or export anything. It is because of the harsh sanctions that the Mullahs allowed a moderate (puppet) to run and loosened up on the Islamic decency laws in order for the frustrated youth to let off some frustration and steam.

The Iranians wanted a deal more than the West, but Obama gave all that pressure and leverage up for what? Absolutely nothing. We don't have a deal, what we have is capitulation and appeasement.

I don't know what I'm talking about? You are the one who is shape shifting your argument, I'm staying on point. Sanctions don't work as leverage. The reason to take it back to '79 is to show that sanctions, despite there varied stated purposes, have not altered Iran's actions. However you seem intent on proving that sanctions applied in 2011/12 had an impact on Iran's decisions. As it relates to Rouhani's election, that was not related to economic sanctions either. Ahmadinejad's reelection in '09 led to large uprisings based on fears of election fraud. Uprisings took shape again in 2011 coinciding with the "arab spring". The unilateral blocking of the Iranian central bank didn't go into effect until 2012, again your timeline is all off.

Your point seems to be that Obama implemented crippling sanctions on Iran that brought them to the table only so that he could capitulate to Iran's demands and allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon which hawk's claim was only days away from happening anyway. And Obama did this with the consent of 5 other nations. Wow, that doesn't seem very rational.

Actually Obama was against increasing the sanctions, the republicans were the ones pushing for it. The 79 sanctions were the standard bullshit and ineffective sanctions which the U.S. imposed mainly by the U.S. that had to do with arms, trade and goods. And almost everything was making its way into Iran, anyway.

After the UN nuclear violations, the new series of sanctions were the crippling ones that had the Europeans and major world powers on board. These sanctions locked Iran down financially, and sent Iranian economy into a downward spiral. But now, thanks to the "deal" all the terrorist and proxy groups who's funding from Iran had started drying up, can look forward to resuming the death and mayhem they were causing in the region.

 

[Wyatt earp]

One wonders where on earth these rightards get their version of events from. Planet Hatfoil, maybe.

What the fuck you talking about child?

Bill Clinton assured us during the NK deal they wouldn't get nukes