| spence |
03-11-2015 07:05 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
(Post 1067440)
I don't know about THE deal, but, apparently they want A deal. Though I don't know why. Even the Obama administration has said that Iran has consistently failed to meet its obligations.
Deals with tyrannical regimes which recognize only their own power as legitimate are historically proven to be unreliable. Actually, they will most assuredly be broken when it suits the tyrants. Why bother? ANY deal can remove U.N. sanctions on Iran and enable them to join Russia's and China's broad anti-Western alliances, giving them a strong shield against any military threat from us. Even a shield against further U.N. sanctions if they choose to openly work to getting the bomb. Which, in my estimation, is why Iran would be willing to sign on to a deal. We don't seem to have been paying serious attention to the shifting alliances that are taking place, and at a faster pace in picking up prospective members as they progress. In the next few years, we may well see our power and influence in international affairs shrink. And I believe Iran is hoping to align with those who will wield the greater power. And there is little we can do about it, outside of going to war sooner rather than later. At the very least, we should be building military power than can match or surpass their collective power.
|
There certainly is a mega shift in global power but I wouldn't have faith that a BRIC alliance is going to mean a dramatic reduction in US power. It's mostly economic and dependent on global consumption.
Mexico, Germany, Poland, Turkey all all likely to grow over the coming decades.
There also doesn't seem to be agreement on what Iran really is doing. The former head of Mossad called Bibi's claims before Congress to be b*llsh*t. Even our own intel agencies haven't consistently said there's an active program to develop a bomb going on.
With aggressive inspection I'd say we're better prepared to know what's real even with attempts to deceive. Saddam 2.0.
Quote:
Confusing. You cited the Zakaria article as arguing that there would be no gain for Iran in getting the bomb, implying that they, as they have been saying all along, don't intend to. Yet here you say that no deal makes it more likely that they will get the bomb. So trying to get the bomb is a ploy to get a deal? That is not logical since one situation negates the other. If they want a deal, they shouldn't be trying to get the bomb. If they want the bomb, what is the value of a deal?
|
With no deal they have no respite from sanctions, the natural response will be escalate and provoke to get the deal. This leads to a bomb.
Quote:
In the vast realm of possible conclusions, that would be one of the most unlikely. Actually it's silly, and that you try it makes you appear to be grasping at straws.
|
No, it simply follows the clear logic set forth above.
Quote:
Anyway, getting a deal could eventually make it easier for Iran to openly get the bomb. A deal could lift the sanctions and allow Iran to join the expanding Russia/China coalitions.
|
In the vast realm of possible conclusions, that would be one of the most unlikely. Actually it's silly, and that you try it makes you appear to be grasping at straws.
Quote:
Has this hate been documented as hate? Or is this the typical fall-back meme when you got nothing else? And the implication that the Obama regime does not have clouded judgment is very suspect.
|
Given the short-sighted behavior -- now being regretted by their own party -- I wonder why they would do such a silly thing. That it comes on the heels of Bibi's surreal appearance is even more strange. |
