As opposed to constant fear and distrust of everyone?

 

Look I come to my cautious optimism as I have previously posted, based on a multi national support backing the deal as well as what appears to be a positive reception in the non-proliferation community including the IAEA itself.

 

I fully understand a hallmark of the right is total distrust of everyone without an R in front of their name and in particular scientists and those in the intellectual community that disagrees with you. Since we are making sweeping generalizations and all. 

 

Just in case you forgot, we've been down this road before:

 

And where have we heard this [BAD WORD REMOVED] before?

 

Oh yeah...

 

A few Words from President Clinton:

 

"This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It's a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.

Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.

This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other's capitals. These offices will ease North Korea's isolation. "

 

Same [BAD WORD REMOVED] party, same [BAD WORD REMOVED] results.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Just in case you forgot, we've been down this road before:

Key differences:

 

1. North Korea had China, one of the world's biggest superpowers and a nation cold to the US, right next door to back it up. Iran does not have anything like that.

 

2. Iran has nuke-heavy Israel a short trip west, just waiting for the opportunity to turn it into a parking lot. North Korea faced no such threat.

 

Israel is the nation that will ultimately end up enforcing the terms of this deal, not us.

---

So do you know anything about the deal itself that makes it a bad deal? Or are you just shooting from the hip based on the above?

 

I've picked up bits and pieces from news clips, but I have not read the deal itself in it's entirety?  What about you?  After all, I did use the word "probably".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Key differences:

 

1. North Korea had China, one of the world's biggest superpowers and a nation cold to the US, right next door to back it up. Iran does not have anything like that.

 

2. Iran has nuke-heavy Israel a short trip west, just waiting for the opportunity to turn it into a parking lot. North Korea faced no such threat.

 

Israel is the nation that will ultimately end up enforcing the terms of this deal, not us.

 

Hopefully. What's more likely to happen is that Russia is going to support Iran and we'll have Russia, Iran, and the Arabic Muslims all at war with Israel. 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Hopefully. What's more likely to happen is that Russia is going to support Iran and we'll have Russia, Iran, and the Arabic Muslims all at war with Israel. 

 

wow.... It should not surprise me you would think Russia would get in involved in that mess but ok. So much fear.

---

Now Obama is going to the freaking U.N. to lift the sanctions, completely by-passing the Senate..

 

We surmised yesterday that the Obama administration had the idea to go to the United Nations to pass by resolution what Congress would never agree to: a lifting of sanctions on Iran in exchange for a nearly worthless deal in which Iran would keep thousands of centrifuges and get a 10-year glide path to nuclear breakout.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/righ...laid-bare/

 

Then there's this

 

Despite nuke deal, anti-US chants erupt in Iranian capital

 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- The main prayer service in the Iranian capital has been interrupted by repeated chants of "Death to America" - despite this week's landmark nuclear deal with world powers that was welcomed by authorities in Tehran.

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/M...7-06-47-35

---

I've picked up bits and pieces from news clips, but I have not read the deal itself in it's entirety? What about you? After all, I did use the word "probably".

I'm familiar with the terms of the deal.

---

Hopefully. What's more likely to happen is that Russia is going to support Iran and we'll have Russia, Iran, and the Arabic Muslims all at war with Israel. 

Why do so many people just assume that this deal is going to lead to war? If Iran really wants war, then that's the road they would have taken regardless. I don't think Iran is stupid enough to assume that building a warhead or two is going to give them the power to take on the United States, or even to take out Israel. Just remember the disparity here: Israel has somewhere between 40 and 400 warheads, with the most accepted estimate being 80: 50 missile-based, 30 aircraft-based. No one is going to nuke Jerusalem because it's a holy city for all parties involved. Even if Iran does strike first, Israel could turn that entire nation into a wasteland that makes Chernobyl look like quality real estate in a matter of hours (and without burning through much of its stash), and it's that threat that will keep Iran from trying anything whether they build a couple warheads in secret or not.

 

I don't think Iran wants a nuke so that they can start a war with Israel. I think they want a nuke to make the standoff with Israel more of a fair fight. The United States is not and never would be Iran's target. It's one thing to stand in front of an ICBM and talk about blasting the infidels--it's another entirely to convince Russia to go to war in Iran's defense against the United States and start World War III. If Iran does get a nuclear warhead, I think it would be a defensive move on their part. Consider this from the point of view of the Arab world: Israel is allowed to have 80 nuclear warheads. 80. That's enough to turn most of the Arab nations in the Middle East into a parking lot. From the point of view of their governments, why shouldn't they be allowed access to nuclear weapons as well to defend themselves from that threat? Entering into an international agreement that provides for consequences if they continue that research is a pretty big show of good will on their part. Cracking the door a little more open for trade with the west is a good sign as well.

 

I'm not justifying Iran's nuclear program, and I don't really want Iran to get a nuclear weapon because it would further destabilize the Middle East, but any argument that Iran would completely disregard an agreement the way North Korea did is completely ignoring the lack of China and presence of Israel right next door.

---

Hopefully. What's more likely to happen is that Russia is going to support Iran and we'll have Russia, Iran, and the Arabic Muslims all at war with Israel. 

What are you talking about? Russia is one of Israel's fiercest supporters and is a major military supplier to Israel (after Britain, France and the US). In fact, Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union played a major role in the Partition of Palestine in 1948.

 

wow.... It should not surprise me you would think Russia would get in involved in that mess but ok. So much fear.

People don't know anything about geopolitics.

---

Why do so many people just assume that this deal is going to lead to war? If Iran really wants war, then that's the road they would have taken regardless. I don't think Iran is stupid enough to assume that building a warhead or two is going to give them the power to take on the United States, or even to take out Israel. Just remember the disparity here: Israel has somewhere between 40 and 400 warheads, with the most accepted estimate being 80: 50 missile-based, 30 aircraft-based. No one is going to nuke Jerusalem because it's a holy city for all parties involved. Even if Iran does strike first, Israel could turn that entire nation into a wasteland that makes Chernobyl look like quality real estate in a matter of hours (and without burning through much of its stash), and it's that threat that will keep Iran from trying anything whether they build a couple warheads in secret or not.

 

I don't think Iran wants a nuke so that they can start a war with Israel. I think they want a nuke to make the standoff with Israel more of a fair fight. The United States is not and never would be Iran's target. It's one thing to stand in front of an ICBM and talk about blasting the infidels--it's another entirely to convince Russia to go to war in Iran's defense against the United States and start World War III. If Iran does get a nuclear warhead, I think it would be a defensive move on their part. Consider this from the point of view of the Arab world: Israel is allowed to have 80 nuclear warheads. 80. That's enough to turn most of the Arab nations in the Middle East into a parking lot. From the point of view of their governments, why shouldn't they be allowed access to nuclear weapons as well to defend themselves from that threat? Entering into an international agreement that provides for consequences if they continue that research is a pretty big show of good will on their part. Cracking the door a little more open for trade with the west is a good sign as well.

 

I'm not justifying Iran's nuclear program, and I don't really want Iran to get a nuclear weapon because it would further destabilize the Middle East, but any argument that Iran would completely disregard an agreement the way North Korea did is completely ignoring the lack of China and presence of Israel right next door.

Because the alternative most assuredly war at some point in the future. They assume this deal changes nothing at best or at worst Iran cheats the deal and gets a bomb also leading to war. 

 

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but their line of thinking is that either way there is likely to be war but with this deal they get their 200 billion back. Am I wrong here anti-deal folks?

---

---

Why do so many people just assume that this deal is going to lead to war? If Iran really wants war, then that's the road they would have taken regardless. I don't think Iran is stupid enough to assume that building a warhead or two is going to give them the power to take on the United States, or even to take out Israel. Just remember the disparity here: Israel has somewhere between 40 and 400 warheads, with the most accepted estimate being 80: 50 missile-based, 30 aircraft-based. No one is going to nuke Jerusalem because it's a holy city for all parties involved. Even if Iran does strike first, Israel could turn that entire nation into a wasteland that makes Chernobyl look like quality real estate in a matter of hours (and without burning through much of its stash), and it's that threat that will keep Iran from trying anything whether they build a couple warheads in secret or not.

 

I don't think Iran wants a nuke so that they can start a war with Israel. I think they want a nuke to make the standoff with Israel more of a fair fight. The United States is not and never would be Iran's target. It's one thing to stand in front of an ICBM and talk about blasting the infidels--it's another entirely to convince Russia to go to war in Iran's defense against the United States and start World War III. If Iran does get a nuclear warhead, I think it would be a defensive move on their part. Consider this from the point of view of the Arab world: Israel is allowed to have 80 nuclear warheads. 80. That's enough to turn most of the Arab nations in the Middle East into a parking lot. From the point of view of their governments, why shouldn't they be allowed access to nuclear weapons as well to defend themselves from that threat? Entering into an international agreement that provides for consequences if they continue that research is a pretty big show of good will on their part. Cracking the door a little more open for trade with the west is a good sign as well.

 

I'm not justifying Iran's nuclear program, and I don't really want Iran to get a nuclear weapon because it would further destabilize the Middle East, but any argument that Iran would completely disregard an agreement the way North Korea did is completely ignoring the lack of China and presence of Israel right next door.

 

First of all, getting a nuclear capable weapon isn't what most people think.  One weapon will not annihilate an entire country (for the most part).  In the case of Israel, a nuclear weapon used on them would significantly cripple them, even if said weapon was "crude" by nuclear standards.

 

Regarding the first part in bold, just take a look at what they say (their government) regarding Israel.

 

Regarding the second part in bold, a country that chants "death to America" and is working on not only nuclear technology, but also ICBM technology is doing it for a reason.  They aren't exactly building rockets to get to the moon.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

  They aren't exactly building rockets to get to the moon.

 

Nope, they're building them to get to heaven.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Nope, they're building them to get to heaven.

 

I wish that I was younger so that I could help them get their 72 virgins and meet Allah.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

First of all, getting a nuclear capable weapon isn't what most people think.  One weapon will not annihilate an entire country (for the most part).  In the case of Israel, a nuclear weapon used on them would significantly cripple them, even if said weapon was "crude" by nuclear standards.

 

Regarding the first part in bold, just take a look at what they say (their government) regarding Israel.

 

Regarding the second part in bold, a country that chants "death to America" and is working on not only nuclear technology, but also ICBM technology is doing it for a reason.  They aren't exactly building rockets to get to the moon.

Being hit with a nuclear weapon is hardly ideal for anyone, but to suggest that it would cripple Israel seems like a stretch to me. They'd have ten more nukes stamped "From Israel with Love" on their way to Tehran in minutes. The Iranian government is not stupid. They can posture against Israel all they want, but they will not start a war that they have no chance at all of winning.

 

If Iran fires an ICBM at us, it would be shot down. That's really all there is to it. Iran might be able to build a long-range delivery platform--might--but making it stealthy enough to slip past the US' missile defenses is all but impossible for a country that still relies on F-14A-model Tomcats and reverse-engineered F-5's as its front line of defense. If Iran did fire at us, we would blast the government to pieces with conventional weapons, and as long as we didn't go nuclear, I doubt that Russia or China would be willing to engage on Iran's behalf. It's pretty hard to justify defending someone because they were dumb enough to fire a nuke at the biggest military powerhouse in the world.

---

They can posture against Israel all they want, but they will not start a war that they have no chance at all of winning.

 

Depends on your definition of "winning" I'd say.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Depends on your definition of "winning" I'd say.

Getting your country turned into a parking lot is not a victory.

---

Getting your country turned into a parking lot is not a victory.

 

In your opinion. For someone trying to please their deity for instance, well, that might not be so.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

What does Vox have to do with those in the non-proliferation community as well as the atomic watchdogs being generally in favor of the agreement? 

 

Hmmm, yes. What DOES Ezra Klein's Vox have in common with the non-proliferation community and the IAEA? Could it be a typical leftist blame American bias?


 

https://www.iaea.org/about/leadership

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

If the Right doesn't believe anything the left says... why should the left believe anything the right says?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke.