I was responding specifically to the idea that just because there is an expert opinion (which there are on both sides) that to disagree is frivolous.


I have stated my opposition to this deal based on its merits:


1.) the potential delay in the inspection process could be greater than our current estimate of Iran's break out time.


2.) Iran Gets the money now and will comply later.


3.) We outsource the inspections process to the UN and the IAEA. they have already demonstrated that they have to make side deals to gain access to certain sites and the concessions made weren't part of the greater agreement with input from our diplomats.


4.) Iran won't have to change their greater behavior on the world stage as the leading state sponsor of terror.


5.) We didn't get our hostages back.


I think we should have left the sanctions in place until you got a deal that was more favorable. I think that when we withdrew from Iraq we sent the signal to the international community that we really weren't interested in continued military engagement in the region. With no one to lead the charge on a potential military option then it makes sense that we wouldn't have gotten all that we wanted in the deal.


We can agree to disagree about whether or not a war with Iran would be just or not. Iran has already committed acts of War against us. They have helped attack our allies, they were part of the insurgency in Iraq that killed american soldiers, they've bombed our embassy and attempted to assassinate a foreign dignitary on american soil. Don't forget, we are having this conversation because they were pursuing weapons of mass destruction in defiance of the international community.


Personally, i hate the idea of war. I don't wake up in the morning dreaming of sending our best and brightest off to some foreign land to loose their limbs. At the same time, when a threat presents itself and has demonstrated a resolve to harm our nation as pursuit in a universal commitment to global spread of our ideology then we have to be willing to defend ourselves if the person that you are negotiating with doesn't share your commitment to the diplomatic process.

I'm inclined to agree it would be nicer of the sanctions liftingwere pushed out more but still this was the deal that was negotiates.


The frustrating part in this conversation is opponents appear to be coming from a position where they think we were the sole negotiator therefore any deal not to Americas standards could be refused. That is not the case. Also a reason why we are "outsourcing". It's not our deal its a multi nation deal. It makes sense to have an independent agency or a coalition oversee things.


Also Jewish leaders can be added to the list

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://time.com/4004106/jewish-leaders-iran/'>http://time.com/4004106/jewish-leaders-iran/</a>

---

Long story short (and staying within the confines of the CoC), Israel should not exist. Its formation was the result of almost four decades of bungling the Middle East by Britain and France, followed by a great regret by the United Nations (particularly the United States) about how World War II had played out and a desire to "make amends" for it. In order to do so, they almost completely ignored the wishes and protestations of those who were already there, and when a force that we would consider today to be terrorist unilaterally declared that they were the rightful government of a new nation, the US quickly drove a knife into the stomach of the Arab world (i.e., the rest of the Middle East at the time) by recognizing the claims of that terrorist group. It then spent the next 50+ years slowly twisting the knife by offering financial and military support to Israel and paving the way for it to hold 80-ish nuclear weapons for use against the rest of the Middle East's zero.

 

That's the very short version. As long as the US throws support at Israel, we will not be able to build any bridges with the majority of the Middle East. I believe firmly that support to Israel should be cut off, and they should be left to their own devices. They're more than capable of defending themselves with the massive military complex they've amassed, not least of all because they hold 80 of the ultimate trump card, and could turn all of Iran into a glow-in-the-dark parking lot if they so chose. I think that a deal with the rest of the Middle East that normalizes relations and limits military growth of those nations in exchange for the US drawing down (and eventually ending) support for Israel, along with recognition of the Palestinian state that emerged in very similar fashion to the modern Israel's birth, would go a long way towards stabilizing the Middle East and US relations with countries there. Israel, imo, is the single biggest hurdle to normalized relations with the Middle East, not ideology, and our continued support of it blocks any real chance of normalized relations and concerted efforts to dislodge ISIS.

 

I took a lot of time to read up on the background of the formation of Israel's current nation state.  Your post was honest and thought out so i wanted to make sure that i gave it the attention that it deserves.  Having said all that, going back from the balflour declaration, the fall of the ottoman empire up to 1948 I have to conclude that your position while having a certain foundation is an attempt at a rational solution to an apocalyptic suicidal problem.  

 

In America, the bloodiest war that we have fought so far is between the states.  We had certain undercurrents of slavery racism differences on how the central government should be empowered, etc. etc. etc. but you didn't have the level of depraved rape and brutal murder from those in the south cursing the north because they lost certain rights of sovereignty in the north as we do with ISIS.  We don't cut the heads off of Canadian families with lineage to the war of 1812.  The British parliment to this day holds a debt that we owe for the Boston Tea Party.  You don't see the queen and the Prime Minister leading chants of death to America because of the audacity of the colonies.  

 

We can debate the partitioning of international entities until all the day is long.  The bottom line is that there is nothing that can be said that would justify teaching nine year olds to kill innocent people and tape recording it for propaganda.  That's a kind of evil that is beyond a simple dispute over borders and speaks to a larger geopolitical mandate by the original head of a cult to spread an ideology by force if necessary to the four corners of the world.  There is no normalizing relations with someone committed to the obliteration of our way of life.  

---

A deal with an Iranian government that openly talks about wiping a country from the same region off of the face of the Earth. What could possibly go wrong?

---

We can debate the partitioning of international entities until all the day is long.  The bottom line is that there is nothing that can be said that would justify teaching nine year olds to kill innocent people and tape recording it for propaganda.  That's a kind of evil that is beyond a simple dispute over borders and speaks to a larger geopolitical mandate by the original head of a cult to spread an ideology by force if necessary to the four corners of the world.  There is no normalizing relations with someone committed to the obliteration of our way of life.  

I refuse to see it that way. I believe that ISIS is a group born as a spiritual offshoot of Al-Qaeda, and I believe that by normalizing relations with Arab states in the Middle East, it can be marginalized. They've got Iraq, nothing can stop that, but if we are to fight a declared, conventional war against them, I'd rather it be with the support (or at least non-interference) of surrounding states.

 

I firmly believe that normalized relations in the Middle East are possible, and they are within reach if we're willing to open the gates and slowly send a sacred cow out to fend for itself on the pasture.

---

Long story short (and staying within the confines of the CoC), Israel should not exist. Its formation was the result of almost four decades of bungling the Middle East by Britain and France, followed by a great regret by the United Nations (particularly the United States) about how World War II had played out and a desire to "make amends" for it. In order to do so, they almost completely ignored the wishes and protestations of those who were already there, and when a force that we would consider today to be terrorist unilaterally declared that they were the rightful government of a new nation, the US quickly drove a knife into the stomach of the Arab world (i.e., the rest of the Middle East at the time) by recognizing the claims of that terrorist group. It then spent the next 50+ years slowly twisting the knife by offering financial and military support to Israel and paving the way for it to hold 80-ish nuclear weapons for use against the rest of the Middle East's zero.

 

 

A lot of borders changed after WW2. What's now Poland was formerly mostly Germany. Yet you don't have the Germans threatening to annihilate Poland.


 

Sorry, but when the Palestinians started blowing up school busses full of children they lost my sympathy.

---

                                                                          

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

Shariah law and the mandate to spread it predate current palestiniab israleli conflicts

---

Shariah law and the mandate to spread it predate current palestiniab israleli conflicts

 

I haven't read TJ's post, but I just wanted to point one thing out...  Let's not pretend that Muslims in the middle east are the only folks that have been wishing to have their religion become the doctrine for political power within a nation in the past or even today.  I'm looking your way, Huckabee.

 

And don't forget, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...   :thumbsup:

---

The code of conduct will only allow me to point out that there is a difference between handing out a track detailing your beliefs and the benefits there of and mass rape/murder

---

The code of conduct will only allow me to point out that there is a difference between handing out a track detailing your beliefs and the benefits there of and mass rape/murder

Lol, I understand. And, there is some validity to point to the differences....


But, I don't think we can just blanket out the entire region based on Isis...


I just believe that ignoring history and even contemporary American/European politics allows us to demonize an entire population. Which I don't think is productive.

---

I dont ascribe to blanketting a region or a population. History teaches us that when a cross section of a population devalues anyones humanity that disagrees with them that a.) you take them at their word b.) you stop them before its too late.

---

Shariah law and the mandate to spread it predate current palestiniab israleli conflicts

So did the crusades. What is your point?

---

I dont ascribe to blanketting a region or a population. History teaches us that when a cross section of a population devalues anyones humanity that disagrees with them that a.) you take them at their word b.) you stop them before its too late.

So like conservatives with LGBT rights? 

---

Supporting a traditional view of marriage vs. Systematic rape torture and murder. Come on now.

---

And when ancient islamic armies were on a mission to conquer all of europe those who didnt want to be imprisoned or enslaved for theur faith should have done what?

---

Supporting a traditional view of marriage vs. Systematic rape torture and murder. Come on now.

I responded to what you said. You chose your words and I responded to them. If you did not mean "devalue humanity" than don't use it. 

---

And when ancient islamic armies were on a mission to conquer all of europe those who didnt want to be imprisoned or enslaved for theur faith should have done what?

I understand we just have a fundamental difference on approach.

 

I also like you as a poster better when you stop trying to sound smart and just mash away at the keyboard forgetting how to English.  

---

Lol what approach would u have taken in their situation?


Also, there is a differece between a disagreement about a legal definition of an institution and the fundamental ideology that if you dont submit to my belief system i can rape torture plunder and kill you.


P.s. dont hate on the cell phone posts.

---

I dont ascribe to blanketting a region or a population. History teaches us that when a cross section of a population devalues anyones humanity that disagrees with them that a.) you take them at their word b.) you stop them before its too late.

Like how the USA devalued the native Americans, blacks, Japanese in wwii, comminists during the 1950s and beyond, the gays until recently, etc?


Again, it's important to recognize that we as a nation are not above demonization when it serves a political purpose...

---

Like how the USA devalued the native Americans, blacks, Japanese in wwii, comminists during the 1950s and beyond, the gays until recently, etc?


Again, it's important to recognize that we as a nation are not above demonization when it serves a political purpose...

You say until recently. I think you are wrong. 

---

Like how the USA devalued the native Americans, blacks, Japanese in wwii, comminists during the 1950s and beyond, the gays until recently, etc?


Again, it's important to recognize that we as a nation are not above demonization when it serves a political purpose...

 

Replace "devalues anyones humanity" with "threatens to kill anyone" and it will better represent the danger of Iran, ISIS, and a significant percentage of the citizens of the rest of the Middle East.

---

                                                                          

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