No. How Iranians treat their women is not a topic in our dealings with them. I was just responding to the accusation that I was upset because I didn't get everything I wanted. I thought by pointing out a wish list of things I wanted but had no part in the treaty that Boudreau would see how his original attribution of motives was absurd.

What is it you wanted and then expected from a deal such as this between the parties as is. 

---

I am sure you were just chomping at the bit on this but please go ahead and show me where I said this. There really is no reason to fabricate things because you don't agree with my patience on the matter. 

 

 

Understandable and I agree. What I don't agree with is absolutism and a completely unrealistic expectation of total capitulation. That would not happen from any country in the world (outside of total war and a defeat in it ala Germany, if even that these days) let alone Iran. I know that's what the right and even some I know on the left wanted but it's simply not realistic.

 

My main interest is in how the remaining nuclear can be used and if there are mechanisms in place to return sanctions should the renege or hinder inspections or the like as was mentioned when this first became a story. It's not, IMO reasonable to expect for any country to give up all access to nuclear when it's so important for the energy and medical fields.

 

Full disclosure, there was a tad bit of tongue in cheek to my post above but its based solely on this comment.  

 

1.) at what point do we say that its UNREASONABLE to allow a country to remain as the perpetual state sponsor of terror in the world fueling the threat of the next world war?

 

2.) If the purpose of the nuclear program as you say was PEACEFUL then it begs two questions.  a.) If energy is the real concern why wouldn't they build an oil refinery in the country first before they build a nuclear reactor and b.) if they want the privilege of this kind of research for peaceful medical research then why don't they hand over the ICBM's they're building to deliver a nuclear payload.  That seems pretty darn reasonable to me.  

 

Finally, as a further illustration of how LUDICROUS this deal is, i see a lot of people here mentioning that this agreement was fundamentally localized to the nuclear program so it would have been UNREASONABLE to expect IRAN to change any of its other behaviors, and by behavior i mean terrorism and killing Americans.  This is just not true.  In REALITY the IRANIANS got several concessions from us about relieving sanctions and arms embargoes that were levied for human rights violations and for terrorist activities.  To have these sanctions and embargoes lifted without any tangible changes in IRAN's behavior are the final piece of the puzzle and when you step back any rational person should be able to see this deal for what it is, SURRENDER!

---

Why is it a bad deal - on the surface.

 

If Iran is celebrating, that's not all that hard to figure out.  Or rather, shouldn't be...

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

What is it you wanted and then expected from a deal such as this between the parties as is. 

 

I wanted and expected a meaningful enforcement mechanism to assure that the Iranians were not building a bomb.


 

Anytime/Anywhere inspections, along with an easy means to re-apply sanctions if necessary would do that. But the sanctions would be almost impossible to re-apply, since every party would have to sign off on them again; they don't automatically re-start if Iran fails to live up to the agreement. The National Security Advisor stated in April that Anytime/Anyplace inspections were part of the agreement, but how he says that they were never intended as part of the agreement. The fact that there is a lack of meaningful inspections are not the claim of some right wing commentator. That information comes directly from the Obama administration.


 

Without those, the agreement is just a concession to Iran. And they get over $100B in seized assets immediately after the agreement become accepted. Iran can rip up the agreement a week after it is signed and pocket the money.

---

                                                                          

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

If Iran is celebrating, that's not all that hard to figure out.  Or rather, shouldn't be...

 

So, you just got back from Iran and that's what the Iranian people told you? Are you surprised that the government that negotiated this deal is saying they are pleased with this deal? Really?

 

Isn't the American side saying they are pleased with the deal? Should that be cause for concern for the Iranians?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Full disclosure, there was a tad bit of tongue in cheek to my post above but its based solely on this comment.


1.) at what point do we say that its UNREASONABLE to allow a country to remain as the perpetual state sponsor of terror in the world fueling the threat of the next world war?


2.) If the purpose of the nuclear program as you say was PEACEFUL then it begs two questions. a.) If energy is the real concern why wouldn't they build an oil refinery in the country first before they build a nuclear reactor and b.) if they want the privilege of this kind of research for peaceful medical research then why don't they hand over the ICBM's they're building to deliver a nuclear payload. That seems pretty darn reasonable to me.


Finally, as a further illustration of how LUDICROUS this deal is, i see a lot of people here mentioning that this agreement was fundamentally localized to the nuclear program so it would have been UNREASONABLE to expect IRAN to change any of its other behaviors, and by behavior i mean terrorism and killing Americans. This is just not true. In REALITY the IRANIANS got several concessions from us about relieving sanctions and arms embargoes that were levied for human rights violations and for terrorist activities. To have these sanctions and embargoes lifted without any tangible changes in IRAN's behavior are the final piece of the puzzle and when you step back any rational person should be able to see this deal for what it is, SURRENDER!

I didn't say it was peaceful. I also didn't imply it. I also don't think it's the case. What I said was that its not reasonable to expect complete dismantling of a nuclear program due to the reasons you latched onto. Not sure why you keep putting words into my mouth.


Scientific progress is a right. How you use it is a different matter entirely.


A nuclear weapons program is completely different and if the sanctions lifted actually are related to anything than those invited due to the weopons program than I do have a problem with that. I'm working late and havnt had a chance to read the whole thing yet.

---

So, you just got back from Iran and that's what the Iranian people told you? Are you surprised that the government that negotiated this deal is saying they are pleased with this deal? Really?


Isn't the American side saying they are pleased with the deal? Should that be cause for concern for the Iranians?

I doubt either government is fully happy. Whar we are seengis fluff. The people of Iran probably are.

---

So, you just got back from Iran and that's what the Iranian people told you? Are you surprised that the government that negotiated this deal is saying they are pleased with this deal? Really?


Isn't the American side saying they are pleased with the deal? Should that be cause for concern for the Iranians?

Clinton was pleased with the North KOREA Deal too.

---

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

Yes, that's SO MUCH different.

 

Did you know that Jewish women, once married must also cover their hair?  Same as a hijab's design.  I lived in Israel for 5 months.  They also have very strict guidlines on women as well...  Believe it or not.  

 

So yes, there is a difference between a burka and covering one's hair...  

---

If Iran is celebrating, that's not all that hard to figure out.  Or rather, shouldn't be...

 

Actually, the Iranian people are celebrating.  The right wing Iranian theocracy is not happy with this deal.  Kinda like in the USA.  We actually have alot in common with the people of Iran.  But if you don't know much about the actual people that live in the middle east and only watch and read certain points of view, one could easily be ignorant to these facts. 

---

As usual,  Ted Cruz is right on target with his comments.  

 

While the entire interview is well worth listening to,  the first 2:15 starting at the 18 second mark is about the horrific Iran Nuclear Agreement:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qGHX2u7UZo

---

Did you know that Jewish women, once married must also cover their hair?  Same as a hijab's design.  I lived in Israel for 5 months.  They also have very strict guidlines on women as well...  Believe it or not.  

 

So yes, there is a difference between a burka and covering one's hair...  

 

Once again the left diverts the argument.

---

                                                                          

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

The right wing Iranian theocracy is not happy with this deal. 

 

I'd call it a left wing theocracy.

---

                                                                          

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

Once again the left diverts the argument.

Starts the thread deralement and tries to claim the other side did it. Once again the right diverts the blame.

---

Starts the thread deralement and tries to claim the other side did it. Once again the right diverts the blame.

 

You original comment claimed I wouldn't be satisfied with the deal unless I got everything I wanted. My point was that there are lots of bad things the Iranian government does that I want changed but wouldn't expect as part of a nuclear arms deal. The exact nature of the oppression of women in Iran has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

---

                                                                          

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

I'd call it a left wing theocracy.

Except they are a right wing theocracy.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I'd call it a left wing theocracy.

A left-wing theocracy would look a lot more like communism than Iran does. I'm not even sure that Iranian politics can be placed on a true left/right scale. Likewise, I don't think that a left/right scale is the best way to look at political theory in general (outside of limited examples like US democracy), but that's a discussion for another day.

---

Once again the left diverts the argument.

Haha, funny! I wouldn't call me educating you on something you are incorrect about that is relevant to this discussion as diverting the discussion.


:-)


Cultural context in regards to foreign policy I think it's very important.

---

I'd call it a left wing theocracy.

Lol, you can call it left wing, but you'd be wrong. The mullahs actually have a lot more in common with right wingers than left wingers... the whole marriage between a man and woman thing for one... the uproar over this deal, for another...

---

A left-wing theocracy would look a lot more like communism than Iran does. I'm not even sure that Iranian politics can be placed on a true left/right scale. Likewise, I don't think that a left/right scale is the best way to look at political theory in general (outside of limited examples like US democracy), but that's a discussion or another day.

Agreed outside the us it's more authoritarian or anarchy scale

---