DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Will do 'everything possible' to stop Iran deal: U.S. House speaker

they have to get rid of most of their uranium. they won't even have enough to build a bomb if they wanted to.

this stops them for the next ten years of building a bomb. once the time is up, back to the negotiating table.

but thats a whole lot better than say "we're just gonna sanction you more, even though it doesn't do anything to stop you from your program".

IMO, a lot of people that oppose this want a "permanent" fix.

sorry, there's no such thing as permanent in this world.

I'm not sold on this treaty as being an air tight solution. There are inspections that will be in place, but the wording of how these inspections would take place leave a lot to be desired IMO.

Especially when Iran's leadership just voted to not allow inspections at military sites.

Was that before or after the crowds broke out with chants of
"Death to America"?

Seriously?

So, we can inspect what they "allow" us to, but that's it?

If so - wow.

You forgot. We have to give them 24 days after the inspection is approved to clear out anything they don't want us to find.

link please, because i can't find any source saying that.

Oh come on now! Who would hide Nukes in a Military Facility anyway?

all i see is this:

Iran Lawmakers to Wait 80 Days Before Voting on Nuclear Deal

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-vote.html?_r=0

You're using the same arguments that were used against Saddam. How'd that WMD intelligence work out?

so i found this:

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/article...ites-scientists

which happened last month, and hasn't even been ratified.

even though the new deal just happened a couple days ago, giving us access to inspect those sites.


so we're fear mongering again? thats what we do on these boards?

Can't let those scary Islamic clerics have the same arsenal as the rest of the world.

I understand when you spend all your thoughts on rainbow flags and such, you would think that allowing our enemies and the enemies of our friends to have Nukes would only be fair.

Especially in that part of the world. No telling what their government will even look like 10 years from now.

A 10 year solution is good enough for me as long as it leaves us in a good position to renegotiate 10 years from now.

Appeasing Iran Ignores the Lessons of History

The now-concluded Iran nuclear negotiations predictably reflect ancient truths of appeasement. While members of the Obama administration are high-fiving each other over a deal with the Iranian theocracy, they should remember unchanging laws that will surely haunt the United States later on. First, appeasement always brings short-term jubilation at the expense of long-term security. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was a beloved peacemaker after the Munich Agreement of 1938 with Adolf Hitler but derided as a conceited fool and naif by May 1940.

A few years from now – after Iran has used its negotiated breathing space to rearm, ratchet up its terrorist operations, and eventually gain a bomb to blackmail its neighbors – the current deal will be deeply regretted. Expect a Nobel Peace Prize for Secretary of State John Kerry now, followed by Chamberlain-like infamy later. Second, the appeasement of autocrats always pulls the rug out from under domestic reformers and idealists. After the Western capitulation at Munich, no dissenter in Germany dared to question the ascendant dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.
Until last week, Iranian dissidents and reformers had blamed the theocracy for earning Iran pariah status abroad and economic ruin at home. Not now. The haughty ayatollahs are bragging that they faced down the West and will restore the economy – as they wink to applauding crowds that Iran will soon be nuclear and dictate its terms to the Middle East. Third, appeasers always wrongly insist that the only alternative to their foolish concessions is war. Just the opposite is true.

Expect a Nobel Peace Prize for Secretary of State John Kerry now, followed by Chamberlain-like infamy later. Time was not on Iran’s side. Teheran was growing desperate for financial and commercial relief from global sanctions and embargoes. In contrast, the world had no such urgency and could have easily waited for a cash-strapped and ostracized Iran to give up on a bomb. There were plenty of alternatives short of war in dealing with Hitler from 1936 to 1939, but none after. Expect that in five years Iran will be better armed, richer, more confident, more aggressive – and nearly impossible to deter without the use of force. Fourth, beneficiaries grow to hate their appeasers. Such ingratitude might seem counterintuitive, given the gifts that the Iranians have just received from the Obama administration. But we should remember that Hitler called his Munich appeasers “worms” and pushed them even further. Under the rules of appeasement, an aggressor privately has only disdain for compromises that benefit him, and yet feels a weird sort of respect for those who deter him. Expect an emboldened Iran to double down on its anti-Americanism, as it brags about how a weak and decadent Great Satan meekly caved to its demands, which will only grow greater.

Fifth, allies are always the big losers in appeasement. Britain and France ensured the destruction of third-party Czechoslovakia by conceding to Hitler’s demands in 1938 – and doomed Poland in 1939. Our apprehensive friends and allies in the Middle East – the Gulf states and Egypt especially – will naturally, for their own protection, expect the same sort of nuclear deal that we accorded our enemy, Iran.

America is for a while longer out of Iranian missile range. Not so the Arab world, Israel, and perhaps southern and eastern Europe. Won’t our Pacific allies also wish to keep their strategic deterrent options open by following the Iranian enrichment model? Concessions to enemies naturally prompt allies into wondering why they do not receive similar latitude – even on issues quite unconnected with military affairs. Were Western diplomats harsher on friendly Greece than they were to hostile and would-be nuclear Iran? The cost of giving into Greece is hundreds of millions of euros; giving into Iran will involve blood rather than money. Perhaps if Greece just had a few thousand spinning centrifuges, it might have been bailed out more quickly by terrified Westerners. RELATED: When it Comes to Iran, the Obama Administration’s Willful Blindness Is Astounding After the Iranian agreement, expect a world of nervous and angry allies, the end of dissent inside Iran, the spread of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, more nuclear states, a growing contempt for alliances with the West, and a new Middle East that may have to adopt appeasement to deal with a haughty Iran, flush with new cash and arms. Finally, outside observers of appeasement always make the necessary geostrategic adjustments.

Joseph Stalin weighed carefully the democracies’ appeasement of Hitler’s serial aggressions in the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. By 1939, the Soviet Union had fatally decided that it was as dangerous to have unreliable France and Britain as allies as it was having Germany as an enemy. So Stalin cut what proved to be a disastrous deal with Hitler that ensured World War II. China and Russia will never again see any advantage in joining the West in embargoing and sanctioning a would-be nuclear state – not when such a hard-won common front can become utterly nullified at any moment by a fickle United States. Both powers will grow closer to Iran. In 2015, we naively hail peace with honor, but by 2020, sadder and wiser, we will lament war and shame.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421484/iran-deal-appeasement-nuclear

talk about a trash article.

the writer forgets to mention all the other countries in agreement that signed this deal.

the writer also forgets NATO countries must protect each other. an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all, thus EE isn't threatened.

the author is talking about pre WW2 before any EU, NATO, UN type agreements were even thought of.

basically, this was a fear mongering article, endorsed by 40, and liked by a guy who offers nothing else short of feel good solutions (Erik)

Mofo's need to start looking at a map. seriously.

anyways,

a potential POTUS once again saying some stuff that proves he doesn't need to be POTUS. talk about a potential diplomacy killer:

GOP's Walker hits Obama on Iran, strikes combative tone

http://news.yahoo.com/gops-walker-headli...--election.html

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told a sympathetic crowd of state lawmakers from around the country Thursday that he would trash the nuclear deal with Iran on his first day as president, striking a combative tone on how he would govern on a range of domestic and foreign policy issues.

Related Stories

Walker: Doing the Business of His Corporate Masters Huffington Post
Clinton Cautious in Her Praise of a Nuclear Deal She Helped to Orchestrate The Fiscal Times
GOP candidates slam Iran deal, but will it play in 2016? Associated Press
Iran deal sets 2016 clash between Clinton and GOP hopefuls Associated Press
Scuttling Iran deal might not be easy for next president Associated Press
Walker addressed the annual meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council, whose conservative agenda has made it a target for Democrats, organized labor and liberals.

Hundreds of protesters rallied Wednesday outside the downtown San Diego hotel where the meeting is being held, some carrying signs that read "Stop the Assault on Working People" and "Big $$$ Out of Politics."

"I understand you had a few protesters yesterday. For us that's just getting warmed up," Walker said to applause before recalling his fierce battles with organized labor.

The Republican governor touted efforts in Wisconsin to restrict access to abortions and require voters to present photo identification, pledging to pursue those efforts as president. He became most animated on the agreement with Iran to ease sanctions in exchange for concessions on the Islamic nation's nuclear program.

"Iran is not a place that we should be doing business with," he said to loud applause, drawing his only standing ovation during a 25-minute speech that stuck to familiar themes of a lightly regulated economy and muscular foreign policy.

It was friendly territory for Walker, who belonged to the group as a young Wisconsin state legislator. He and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee were the only presidential contenders scheduled to appear. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz canceled a Friday appearance, citing a need to be in the Senate for votes.

ALEC, the acronym by which the group is known, promotes model legislation for state lawmakers on business-friendly issues, including "right-to-work" measures to prohibit companies and unions from requiring employees to be union members.

Opponents have pressured companies to break ties with ALEC over the group's positions on the environment, criminal justice and other matters, and ALEC has suffered high-profile defections.

Bill Meierling, a group spokesman, said the "vast majority" of corporate departures occurred after Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, was fatally shot by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman while walking home in Florida in 2012. Less than two months after the killing, ALEC ended its support of stand-your-ground self-defense laws, he said.

About 2,000 predominantly Republican state lawmakers belong to ALEC, along with about 300 corporations, policy advocates and others, Meierling said. Some 1,300 of them registered for the meeting, which kicked off Wednesday with workshops on governing higher education, criminal justice, electronic cigarettes and drug patents.

So now not only is swish the only person on these boards who understands everything about the Middle East but he can rewrite History with a single finger.

i undertand a simple tip of the middle east. i don't claim to know even a quarter of the region.

but i still no more than you do.

That's quite alright. He'll understand once his family or some other country's people hit 10,000 degrees.

blah blah blah

From earlier in this thread, reported by the Washington Post who was picking up what the Wall Street Journal reported: “Iran’s parliament approved draft legislation on Sunday that would bar inspections of military sites as part of a nuclear deal with the U.S. and five other world powers. If passed, it would set down in law a red line laid out by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the final authority in most matters of state. That could present an obstacle to a deal, as the six world powers negotiating with Iran are unlikely to accept a blanket prohibition on inspections of military sites.”

once again, it wasn't ratified.

sorry about it.

Have a link to that?


And, if so, that would be "hasn't been ratified - yet".
You still have 199 of 213 members of Parliament voting for it - literally while engaging in chants of "Death to the America" as the article states. That gives you warm fuzzies over this??

your own link says it's hasn't been ratified yet.

come on man. read your own links please.

it's literally right there in the first paragraph

and once again, the vote came before the deal, it hasn't been ratified yet, and won't because that INSTANTLY voids the deal.

i mean damn, when congress votes on something, is it instantly passed, or does it still gotta get signed/veto by the president?

same thing bro. same thing...

i don't have warm and fuzzies cause it's Iran, but you and others, as well as the GOP hasn't offered any viable alternatives except military action.

if you feel so strongly about it, please go to your local recruitment office. i'll give you a ride there so you won't burn your gas.

To be fair our government is trying hard to shut it down too. Honestly, it kinda speaks to the necessity of this deal. The secondary objective of this bill is to create trust between us.

LOL. Been there, done that, and if I could re-up I would have years ago. Aside from re-enlistment codes, age now keeps me out, too.

But, at least you aren't over-reacting or anything...

oh, I know that is there... from back when it was written a month ago. It still can be ratified.

like i said, the only thing i could find was the other link i posted.

nothing on the web have i found that they ratified the vote.

and it probably won't now that the deal is done.

come on, we'll both go back in together. i got a bad knee but we will make it work.

jc



link

I did mention a lot of money also. 24 DAY NOTICE before inspections. According to Netanyahu they don't have to dismantle any of their infrastructure and I've heard that after 8 years they can work on ballistic missiles again. Along with the fact that the sanctions have been lifted. Not even dismantle this and we'll lift that,
just 'here ya go'!

Those are the things that we conceded to them, and then we still are going to 'trust' that they aren't going to keep working on a missile?

Trust is a lot better than continued Islamophobia against a nation who hasn't dared to start a holy war in the many years under their theocracy. But hey, let's condone a power grab by borderline theocratic government forcibly taking land, and one that institutes modern apartheid!

So I'll see your Islamophobia and raise you some antisemitism..

What was antisemitic about it?

I'll say to you what you said to me.. I know you aren't that stupid.

How is criticizing dodgy practices of the Israeli government antisemitic?

The primary fear that many have of Iran is that "oh those crazy islamists will nuke the world".

Voicing legitimate criticism of Israel is not anti-semetic. Israel has been taking land from Palestinian citizens and segregate many of them to Gaza Strip and the west bank. He said nothing anti-Jewish in that. You can have legitimate concerns over the bloods and crips doesn't mean you hate black people.

the borderline theocratic government.

What is the purpose of that if not to imply that Judaism has something to do with it?

Understood. I should've explained it better.

I should preface that not all followers of Judaism are zionists, and the overall purpose of Judaism isn't even an Israeli state. Much like how barely anyl muslims are like the theocratic loons who run Iran. Even then, Iran hasn't staged a holy war. Much of Israel's aggression is based off of conjecture of a theological text. That's a dangerous precedence to set.

I just feel the whole scare about Iran is motivated by Islamophobia that has no bearing on Islam. Whereas no one criticizes the zionists in the Israeli government who use religion to reclaim land. Aren't they supposed to wait until god gives it to them instead of trying to force prophesy?