Are We OK With Iran Defeating Or Greatly Diminishing ISIS?

SolomonVII · Jul 29, 2015

MikeK said:
Without a seat at the table, Iran builds a bomb. With a seat at the table, Iran likely still builds a bomb, but more slowly and with a chance to learn that life is better for everyone when you're taking in the dough. There will always be men who harm women and homosexuals, but there is generally less interest in that sort of thing when men can focus their attentions on their new car or motorcycle or vacation home or boat instead. The best way to kill a religion is to show how much better off people are who abandon their religion are.

The best way to kill a religious belief among a people, is to let theocratic thugs to take over a country, and let the people know what the religion is really like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Iran

Rhamiel · Jul 29, 2015

ebia said:
Back to nuclear, the whole point of the deal is it that its the best way of stopping, or at least slowing, the Iranian government from having nuclear weapons.

is it the best way?
us sending drone strikes on their nuclear facilities and Israel assassinating their nuclear scientists is the "best way" if by best we mean most "most effective"

ebia said:
"This system"?
Sanctions won't stop them building a bomb.

no, by this system I mean the deal Obama made

I think we gave up too much
but I DO think that it will keep Iran from building a Nuclear bomb
so yeah, this deal we made with Iran might be a bit sloppy and could probably been handled better, but it looks like it will get the job done

SolomonVII · Jul 29, 2015

Citing chapter and verse of the deal, Ayotte pointed out that the “plain language” of the bargain requires the United States “to help strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against sabotage of its nuclear program” — even to the point of warning Iran if Israel tries to launch cyberattacks against the program.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...y-undermines-obama-case?target=topic&tid=3263

The one thing that did set back the Iranian nuclear project was a successful cyber attack by Israel.
Now Obama has negotiated that away too.

Now for a lesson in Farsi.
Know how to say "Thank you Obama!!" in that language?

...
.
.
.
.

"DEATH TO AMERICA! DEATH TO ISRAEL!"

That's how.

ebia · Jul 30, 2015

SolomonVII said:
The best way to kill a religious belief among a people, is to let theocratic thugs to take over a country, and let the people know what the religion is really like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Iran

Sorry, but I keep coming back to your attempted analysis from a bit of quick internet reading doesn't match the discussion of where things are going.

The well educated, liberal, middle class is being hit hardest by the sanctions, or where they can leaving altogether as migrants and asylum seekers. There are plenty of Iranians who don't like the system - we don't need to convince them of that.

Sanctions empower the thugs, and make it massively easier to write the story as Iran being unfairly oppressed by the rest of the world.

ebia · Jul 30, 2015

SolomonVII said:
The one thing that did set back the Iranian nuclear project was a successful cyber attack by Israel.

Such things are easy to do once.

Now Obama has negotiated that away too.

Now for a lesson in Farsi.
Know how to say "Thank you Obama!!" in that language?

...
.
.
.
.

"DEATH TO AMERICA! DEATH TO ISRAEL!"

That's how.

honestly, I think that is offensive toward the beautiful Farsi language and Iranian people, given I've spent most of today with wonderful Farsi, Dari and Hazaragi speakers.

brewmama · Jul 30, 2015

Seems like only yesterday that Bush haters were excoriating the U.S. for having allied ourselves with "the enemy of our enemy", in helping Iraq against Iran, which empowered Hussein, and bin Laden in Afghanistan against Russia. Now suddenly it's an ingenious idea that couldn't possibly go wrong. Strange. Seems like we would learn.

It's also strange that folks who want Iran's economy to be so strong think it advisable to severely curtail the use of fossil fuels, which would certainly hurt their economy. :scratch:

SolomonVII · Jul 30, 2015

brewmama said:
Seems like only yesterday that Bush haters were excoriating the U.S. for having allied ourselves with "the enemy of our enemy", in helping Iraq against Iran, which empowered Hussein, and bin Laden in Afghanistan against Russia. Now suddenly it's an ingenious idea that couldn't possibly go wrong. Strange. Seems like we would learn.

It's also strange that folks who want Iran's economy to be so strong think it advisable to severely curtail the use of fossil fuels, which would certainly hurt their economy.

'Ethical oil' from places like the Canada tarsands must be opposed at all cost, but the oil that comes from countries such as Iran, that tortures and rapes women in prison for what they say, and hang homosexuals for the crime of being homosexual, needs to be pumped out full throttle in order to make these kinds of governments as powerful as possible vis-a-vis the nasty Americans.

SolomonVII · Jul 30, 2015

ebia said:
Such things are easy to do once.

honestly, I think that is offensive toward the beautiful Farsi language and Iranian people, given I've spent most of today with wonderful Farsi, Dari and Hazaragi speakers.

I think that negotiating with people that lead shrill cries of Death to America and Death to Israel and expecting them to be honest brokers is an offense to basic human intelligence, and doing everything that one can to enable the despicable Iranian regime to succeed is an offense against the Iranian people, but on that I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Maybe this time, appeasement will work out better.

ebia · Jul 30, 2015

brewmama said:
Seems like only yesterday that Bush haters were excoriating the U.S. for having allied ourselves with "the enemy of our enemy", in helping Iraq against Iran, which empowered Hussein, and bin Laden in Afghanistan against Russia. Now suddenly it's an ingenious idea that couldn't possibly go wrong. Strange. Seems like we would learn.

What?

It's also strange that folks who want Iran's economy to be so strong think it advisable to severely curtail the use of fossil fuels, which would certainly hurt their economy.

What?

ebia · Jul 30, 2015

SolomonVII said:
I think that negotiating with people that lead shrill cries of Death to America and Death to Israel and expecting them to be honest brokers...

Nobody expects them to be honest. That's why the agreement is full of supervisions, checks and consequences for breaches.

You like building straw men?

mark46 · Jul 30, 2015

When Reagan negotiated with Russia, that was the mark of a great diplomat. Many questioned such actions.

This is the what I compare the Iran deal to, not Nixon to China.

There are few (other than on OBOB) who think of Iran as a friend of the US.

SolomonVII · Jul 30, 2015

ebia said:
Nobody expects them to be honest. That's why the agreement is full of supervisions, checks and consequences for breaches.

You like building straw men?

Lol.
Your position is that nobody expects Obama to be honest, because all agree that the deal fails according to what he promised. Nobody expects the ayatollahs to be honest, (except that they are are when they ulelate death to America and death to the Jews, they really mean it).
But somehow, compounding the lies and the dishonesty on both sides will miraculously lead to an honest deal that is chock full of supervisions( performed at Irans's leisure of course), checks ( provided enough notice is given) and consequences for breaches- as if the whole world will get on board with honoring those sanctions once trade relations are re-established.
Lo and behold, I can see those castles in the air too, supported by billowy clouds of happiness and hope, if only I dream the dream. :angel:

SolomonVII · Jul 30, 2015

mark46 said:
When Reagan negotiated with Russia, that was the mark of a great diplomat. Many questioned such actions.

This is the what I compare the Iran deal to, not Nixon to China.

There are few (other than on OBOB) who think of Iran as a friend of the US.

Reagan had a vision, and resolve, not to mention the greatest and most saintly pope of the last two hundred years standing with him on his vision of a world where people have an actual opportunity for a free life, with even God himself willing it so.

Nixon's deal with China, somewhat like Obama's deal with Cuba, was totally indifferent to the idea of furthering human rights in oppressive regimes.

There was always the hope held out for China that economic freedom would eventually lead to political freedom. There have been a lot of things happening since the days of ping pong diplomacy all those decades ago, but China turning into a humanitarian country was not one of those things.
That is to say, there is no reasons to be gleaned from history for thinking that things will be different for Cuba, which has again been given an economic lifeline, after Soviet support, and after Chavez support, to carry on oppressing any and all opposition, the same as it has always been.

As for anyone believing that Iran will somehow become humanitarian through being given deals that strengthen that regime's position in the region and over its people, that is as hollow an argument as can be made.

The Iranian future has already been written. It can be seen by looking to North Korea, and how well negotiations turned out there.

ebia · Jul 30, 2015

SolomonVII said:
Lol.
Your position is that nobody expects Obama to be honest, because all agree that the deal fails according to what he promised.

I'm not overly interested in what "promises" American politicians made to their electorate, nor am I very surprised when politicians don't keep their promises.

Nobody expects the ayatollahs to be honest, (except that they are are when they ulelate death to America and death to the Jews, they really mean it).

Bovine waste products. The "death to..." is political rhetoric designed to appeal to a certain constituency, not something they have any great interest in making a reality.

But somehow, compounding the lies and the dishonesty on both sides will miraculously lead to an honest deal that is chock full of supervisions( performed at Irans's leisure of course),
checks ( provided enough notice is given) and consequences for breaches- as if the whole world will get on board with honoring those sanctions once trade relations are re-established.

A. Why do you keep perpetuating misinformation?. The checks are well designed to catch Iran quickly if they try to cheat.
B. So now you don't trust the whole rest of the world. With that kind of paranoia, who needs enemies.

ebia · Jul 30, 2015

SolomonVII said:
Reagan had a vision, and resolve, not to mention the greatest and most saintly pope of the last two hundred years standing with him on his vision of a world where people have an actual opportunity for a free life, with even God himself willing it so.

Nixon's deal with China, somewhat like Obama's deal with Cuba, was totally indifferent to the idea of furthering human rights in oppressive regimes.

There was always the hope held out for China that economic freedom would eventually lead to political freedom. There have been a lot of things happening since the days of ping pong diplomacy all those decades ago, but China turning into a humanitarian country was not one of those things.
That is to say, there is no reasons to be gleaned from history for thinking that things will be different for Cuba, which has again been given an economic lifeline, after Soviet support, and after Chavez support, to carry on oppressing any and all opposition, the same as it has always been.

As for anyone believing that Iran will somehow become humanitarian through being given deals that strengthen that regime's position in the region and over its people, that is as hollow an argument as can be made.

The Iranian future has already been written. It can be seen by looking to North Korea, and how well negotiations turned out there.

The N Korean government combined with sanctions has driven N Korea into the ground so there's little hope for the place.

Iran is not N Korea. But keep up sanctions for long enough, and you'll turn it into that.

But why stop at Iran? Why not Saudi? Why not practically the whole Middle East? Sri Lanka?

Hey, we've had sanctions against Burma for a while. Hasn't that turned out well? A bit more political freedom for the ethnic Burmese, but ever worse religious persecution for non-Buddhists, and ever worse ethnic persecution of the Chin, Rohinga, Karen, Kareni, ... And even the west's darling Burmese opposition won't speak out against it in any significant way.

Sanctions against Israel for their human rights atrocities against Palestinians - now that might work because it hits the voters in a functioning democracy.

mark46 · Jul 30, 2015

SolomonVII said:
Reagan had a vision, and resolve, not to mention the greatest and most saintly pope of the last two hundred years standing with him on his vision of a world where people have an actual opportunity for a free life, with even God himself willing it so.

Nixon's deal with China, somewhat like Obama's deal with Cuba, was totally indifferent to the idea of furthering human rights in oppressive regimes.

There was always the hope held out for China that economic freedom would eventually lead to political freedom. There have been a lot of things happening since the days of ping pong diplomacy all those decades ago, but China turning into a humanitarian country was not one of those things.
That is to say, there is no reasons to be gleaned from history for thinking that things will be different for Cuba, which has again been given an economic lifeline, after Soviet support, and after Chavez support, to carry on oppressing any and all opposition, the same as it has always been.

As for anyone believing that Iran will somehow become humanitarian through being given deals that strengthen that regime's position in the region and over its people, that is as hollow an argument as can be made.

The Iranian future has already been written. It can be seen by looking to North Korea, and how well negotiations turned out there.

You are talking in circles.

Let me try again.

Reagan negotiated with a known enemy, who he continued to oppose after making a deal with them. Obama has negotiated with a known enemy and will continue non-nuclear sanctions and many other actions against Iran. The very same people consider one set of actions as that of a peacemaker and the other the actions of a incompetent.

SolomonVII · Jul 31, 2015

mark46 said:
You are talking in circles.

Let me try again.

Reagan negotiated with a known enemy, who he continued to oppose after making a deal with them. Obama has negotiated with a known enemy and will continue non-nuclear sanctions and many other actions against Iran. The very same people consider one set of actions as that of a peacemaker and the other the actions of a incompetent.

Reagan is a proven success, and Obama is a proven incompetent.
It is almost laughable that anyone can actually pretend that they are anything alike, and still expect to be taken seriously.

SolomonVII · Jul 31, 2015

ebia said:
The N Korean government combined with sanctions has driven N Korea into the ground so there's little hope for the place.

Iran is not N Korea. But keep up sanctions for long enough, and you'll turn it into that.

But why stop at Iran? Why not Saudi? Why not practically the whole Middle East? Sri Lanka?

Hey, we've had sanctions against Burma for a while. Hasn't that turned out well? A bit more political freedom for the ethnic Burmese, but ever worse religious persecution for non-Buddhists, and ever worse ethnic persecution of the Chin, Rohinga, Karen, Kareni, ... And even the west's darling Burmese opposition won't speak out against it in any significant way.

Sanctions against Israel for their human rights atrocities against Palestinians - now that might work because it hits the voters in a functioning democracy.

Argument from moral equivalence.

And North Korea is a nuclear power, the last time I checked.

ebia · Jul 31, 2015

SolomonVII said:
Argument from moral equivalence.

Your avoidance of the question, and all the points of my post, is noted.

And North Korea is a nuclear power, the last time I checked.

Despite massive sanctions completely destroying the economy starving millions to death.

mark46 · Jul 31, 2015

SolomonVII said:
Reagan is a proven success, and Obama is a proven incompetent.
It is almost laughable that anyone can actually pretend that they are anything alike, and still expect to be taken seriously.

What cannot be seriously is someone who says that because his name is Obama, he cannot do anything right. No matter what Obama's views are on abortion, this is a good deal for the US.

I do not compare Obama with Reagan. As I have said a dozen times, I consider Reagan and Clinton to be two of the best presidents in a very long time. What I compared was ONE situation, negotiating with an enemy. In this one case, Obama and Reagan acted in a similar manner, and are viewed very differently. One might also mention Reagan's failure to attack after the marines in Lebanon were killed. That decision is also similar to that of Reagan.

I mention Reagan because he is THE standard that the majority of this board seems to measure against, which is fine. So, for me, it is appropriate to ask "what would Reagan do?"

Are We OK With Iran Defeating Or Greatly Diminishing ISIS?

Well-Known Member

Member of the Round Table

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads