Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

Iran Deal, the reset.....

1235768

Comments

  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    edited April 2015
    BS44325 said:

    badbrains said:

    BS44325 said:

    callen said:

    BS44325 said:

    badbrains said:

    Hypocrisy is great isn't it?

    As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
    Doesn't work that way.


    Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
    Isn't that what Obama is basically trying to do? Oh that's right, he's muslim and WANTS iran to have nukes. How could we forget.
    That is what Obama is trying to do. You are arguing that Iran should have a bomb as a counterweight to Israel. You two are not on the same page.
    No that's not what he"a trying to do. And it's not Obama it's several countries that are working on some transparency with Iran.

    I realize that the right is screaming this at the too of their lungs but read up on deal. Not perfect but better than status quo.

    Also find it interesting that economic sanctions brought them to table versus bombs as what many would of preferred.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    edited April 2015
    BS44325 said:

    callen said:

    BS44325 said:

    badbrains said:

    Hypocrisy is great isn't it?

    As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
    Doesn't work that way.


    Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
    And this is exactly the point of deal so open in table.

    Funny wanting thread to follow Fox style.
    Post edited by callen on
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,432
    edited April 2015
    BS44325 said:
    First, if you think that America is above the public opinion manipulation game to reach a self-serving end goal, why don't you go back to - go figure - the Iranian coup d'état, where America worked hard to quietly create political dissent to bring about a change in leadership favourable to American wants. I can't imagine one volatile political negotiation where what was said behind closed doors equated to what was said as far as the public knew - though that's probably my inner cynic.

    Next point: PMDs are the issue, but PMDs as a moniker only existed when the US created that brand in 2014 specifically for the Iran issue. Given how long this has been a contentious issue, why is it only now that the brand is surfacing? Because America needs fear to get what they're after. IS, formerly ISIL, formerly ISIS understands the value of branding too. Given that the biggest issue is the potential weaponization of nuclear devices in Iran, are you honestly of the opinion that because of an article which is likely mistranslated (and a second one which references it as a primary source) you truly believe the USA to be inept enough not to have some sort of mandated solution to the inspection issue? If weaponization were not an issue - this conversation would not be happening! So certainly Obama and his administration know more than what we're discussing.

    Next, not to bring up Israel, but as Nart said... really?

    Which isn't too surprising given Commentary Magazine's "About Us" section:

    "COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.

    Many of COMMENTARY’s articles have been controversial, and more than a few have been hugely influential, touchstones for debate and discussion in universities, among policy analysts in and out of government, within the ranks of professionals and community activists of all kinds, and in circles of serious thought worldwide. A large number of articles can be counted as landmarks of American letters and intellectual life. Agree with it or disagree with it, COMMENTARY cannot be ignored. To read it is to take part in the great American discussion.

    COMMENTARY was founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee. To learn more about AJC, which has worked since 1906 to safeguard and strengthen Jews and Jewish life worldwide by promoting democratic and pluralistic societies that respect the dignity of all peoples, click here."

    Why even bother posting from that site when it directly references the Fars News article and simply supplements it with doom-and-gloom rhetoric?

    Finally, I still don't understand why America, the only country which has activated nuclear weapons on another country, is self-assigned to broker a nuclear arms deal with another country. That's like having Hitler be the mediator in favour of an anti-genocide global agreement.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,432
    As an aside... It's good to have you back here, Drowned Out... always a big fan of your well-written, reasonable and logic-driven style of debate around here.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,083
    edited April 2015

    BS44325 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mickeyrat said:

    no deal means they continue on the path they were clearly already on at greater capacity for enrichment of not only uranium but plutonium as well. well beyond the 20% enrichment levels they are reported to be at now.

    so lets just call the whole thing off , shall we?

    Yes. That and crushing sanctions. Complete economic isolation. Naval blockade. Roll back of current expansion in Iraq and Yemen. Promote the Green revolution.
    Crushing sanctions in Iraq killed Over half a million children, and culminated in war anyway. That's the best you can come up with?
    If it's that or a nuclear Iran then yes. A nuclear Iran will be far worse.
    Please tell me you're talking weapons and not energy.
    If you're talking weapons...You think killing half a million kids is justified against the possibility repeat possibility that Iran can circumvent inspections and build a bomb. And then, the possibility (possibility) that the Iranians will be the second nation with leaders stupid and psychotic enough to use a nuke...and the first to take that stupid psychosis to the next level by being the first nation to use a nuke since the MAD doctrine became reality? you have no faith whatsoever in the humanity of iran, and absolute faith that the motives of the west revolve around security, am I reading this correctly? This is your view, to the point that these incredibly low odds are worth the lives of a half million Iranian kids...is that what you're saying BS?

    If you're talking energy...well...I'll keep the personal comments to myself.
    I am talking about weapons. I am talking about having no faith in the Iranian leadership. I am talking about my motives for security.

    You are talking about the military-industrial complex, the evils of the US and global conspiracies.

    Psychosis.
    Post edited by BS44325 on
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,083
    benjs said:

    BS44325 said:
    First, if you think that America is above the public opinion manipulation game to reach a self-serving end goal, why don't you go back to - go figure - the Iranian coup d'état, where America worked hard to quietly create political dissent to bring about a change in leadership favourable to American wants. I can't imagine one volatile political negotiation where what was said behind closed doors equated to what was said as far as the public knew - though that's probably my inner cynic.

    Next point: PMDs are the issue, but PMDs as a moniker only existed when the US created that brand in 2014 specifically for the Iran issue. Given how long this has been a contentious issue, why is it only now that the brand is surfacing? Because America needs fear to get what they're after. IS, formerly ISIL, formerly ISIS understands the value of branding too. Given that the biggest issue is the potential weaponization of nuclear devices in Iran, are you honestly of the opinion that because of an article which is likely mistranslated (and a second one which references it as a primary source) you truly believe the USA to be inept enough not to have some sort of mandated solution to the inspection issue? If weaponization were not an issue - this conversation would not be happening! So certainly Obama and his administration know more than what we're discussing.

    Next, not to bring up Israel, but as Nart said... really?

    Which isn't too surprising given Commentary Magazine's "About Us" section:

    "COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.

    Many of COMMENTARY’s articles have been controversial, and more than a few have been hugely influential, touchstones for debate and discussion in universities, among policy analysts in and out of government, within the ranks of professionals and community activists of all kinds, and in circles of serious thought worldwide. A large number of articles can be counted as landmarks of American letters and intellectual life. Agree with it or disagree with it, COMMENTARY cannot be ignored. To read it is to take part in the great American discussion.

    COMMENTARY was founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee. To learn more about AJC, which has worked since 1906 to safeguard and strengthen Jews and Jewish life worldwide by promoting democratic and pluralistic societies that respect the dignity of all peoples, click here."

    Why even bother posting from that site when it directly references the Fars News article and simply supplements it with doom-and-gloom rhetoric?

    Finally, I still don't understand why America, the only country which has activated nuclear weapons on another country, is self-assigned to broker a nuclear arms deal with another country. That's like having Hitler be the mediator in favour of an anti-genocide global agreement.
    Ahh yes...my sources are just all wrong and even sponsored by Jews. Of course. Sorry.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,083
    callen said:

    BS44325 said:

    badbrains said:

    BS44325 said:

    callen said:

    BS44325 said:

    badbrains said:

    Hypocrisy is great isn't it?

    As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
    Doesn't work that way.


    Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
    Isn't that what Obama is basically trying to do? Oh that's right, he's muslim and WANTS iran to have nukes. How could we forget.
    That is what Obama is trying to do. You are arguing that Iran should have a bomb as a counterweight to Israel. You two are not on the same page.
    No that's not what he"a trying to do. And it's not Obama it's several countries that are working on some transparency with Iran.

    I realize that the right is screaming this at the too of their lungs but read up on deal. Not perfect but better than status quo.

    Also find it interesting that economic sanctions brought them to table versus bombs as what many would of preferred.
    So why lift them?

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/politics/iran-nuclear-bill/index.html
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,083
    BS44325 said:

    badbrains said:

    Hypocrisy is great isn't it?

    As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
    Ha! The thread is up! #winning!
  • AafkeAafke Posts: 1,216
    BS44325 said:

    BS44325 said:

    badbrains said:

    Hypocrisy is great isn't it?

    As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
    Ha! The thread is up! #winning!
    So BS, if you scream load enough, you win the thread? Sorry, my mistake, i thought it was about logic and arguments...
    Waves_zps6b028461.jpg
    "The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
    "Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    Aafke said:

    BS44325 said:

    BS44325 said:

    badbrains said:

    Hypocrisy is great isn't it?

    As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
    Ha! The thread is up! #winning!
    So BS, if you scream load enough, you win the thread? Sorry, my mistake, i thought it was about logic and arguments...
    Hahahahaha
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 15,248
    Aafke said:

    BS44325 said:

    BS44325 said:

    badbrains said:

    Hypocrisy is great isn't it?

    As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
    Ha! The thread is up! #winning!
    So BS, if you scream load enough, you win the thread? Sorry, my mistake, i thought it was about logic and arguments...
    I think he is referring to his suggestion that someone start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread, a thread which now actually has been started. Perhaps facetiously, but started nonetheless.

    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,083
    JimmyV said:

    Aafke said:

    BS44325 said:

    BS44325 said:

    badbrains said:

    Hypocrisy is great isn't it?

    As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
    Ha! The thread is up! #winning!
    So BS, if you scream load enough, you win the thread? Sorry, my mistake, i thought it was about logic and arguments...
    I think he is referring to his suggestion that someone start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread, a thread which now actually has been started. Perhaps facetiously, but started nonetheless.

    Correct.
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,432
    BS44325 said:

    benjs said:

    BS44325 said:
    First, if you think that America is above the public opinion manipulation game to reach a self-serving end goal, why don't you go back to - go figure - the Iranian coup d'état, where America worked hard to quietly create political dissent to bring about a change in leadership favourable to American wants. I can't imagine one volatile political negotiation where what was said behind closed doors equated to what was said as far as the public knew - though that's probably my inner cynic.

    Next point: PMDs are the issue, but PMDs as a moniker only existed when the US created that brand in 2014 specifically for the Iran issue. Given how long this has been a contentious issue, why is it only now that the brand is surfacing? Because America needs fear to get what they're after. IS, formerly ISIL, formerly ISIS understands the value of branding too. Given that the biggest issue is the potential weaponization of nuclear devices in Iran, are you honestly of the opinion that because of an article which is likely mistranslated (and a second one which references it as a primary source) you truly believe the USA to be inept enough not to have some sort of mandated solution to the inspection issue? If weaponization were not an issue - this conversation would not be happening! So certainly Obama and his administration know more than what we're discussing.

    Next, not to bring up Israel, but as Nart said... really?

    Which isn't too surprising given Commentary Magazine's "About Us" section:

    "COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.

    Many of COMMENTARY’s articles have been controversial, and more than a few have been hugely influential, touchstones for debate and discussion in universities, among policy analysts in and out of government, within the ranks of professionals and community activists of all kinds, and in circles of serious thought worldwide. A large number of articles can be counted as landmarks of American letters and intellectual life. Agree with it or disagree with it, COMMENTARY cannot be ignored. To read it is to take part in the great American discussion.

    COMMENTARY was founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee. To learn more about AJC, which has worked since 1906 to safeguard and strengthen Jews and Jewish life worldwide by promoting democratic and pluralistic societies that respect the dignity of all peoples, click here."

    Why even bother posting from that site when it directly references the Fars News article and simply supplements it with doom-and-gloom rhetoric?

    Finally, I still don't understand why America, the only country which has activated nuclear weapons on another country, is self-assigned to broker a nuclear arms deal with another country. That's like having Hitler be the mediator in favour of an anti-genocide global agreement.
    Ahh yes...my sources are just all wrong and even sponsored by Jews. Of course. Sorry.
    Why do you cherry-pick the parts of my comments to make me out to be some sort of delusional and hatred-filled person? I was pretty clear in my opinion: what we in the public hear does not have a strong correlation to the discussions occurring behind closed doors, and the "leaks" are likely to skew public opinion. This is an age-old game of manipulation: it is also not a novelty, nor is it unprecedented.

    As for the 'sponsored by Jews'... Um... yeah. It's literally right there on their mission statement. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion may be a stretch depending on who you ask, but the Commentary article is irrefutably pro-Jewish biased.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • AafkeAafke Posts: 1,216
    JimmyV said:

    Aafke said:

    BS44325 said:

    BS44325 said:

    badbrains said:

    Hypocrisy is great isn't it?

    As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
    Ha! The thread is up! #winning!
    So BS, if you scream load enough, you win the thread? Sorry, my mistake, i thought it was about logic and arguments...
    I think he is referring to his suggestion that someone start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread, a thread which now actually has been started. Perhaps facetiously, but started nonetheless.


    I know what he means, my comment was cynical...
    Waves_zps6b028461.jpg
    "The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
    "Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 22,438
    edited April 2015
    So, take me through the argument against.
    Given its known to have 19 k plus centrifuges of which 13k are more advanced and capable of faster refinement of uranium and soon refinement of plutonium, add in the reported 50 lbs of 20% refined material from an estimated 2.8(read a newer article claiming 11 ton) tons of low grade material. In addition to whatever rocket technology has been achieved by these very smart people. AND the unknown details of what most likely weapon study has occurred.

    What is the preferred course of action in place of this framework? Don't dance around the answer. I prefer brutal honesty. Lay it out. Explicitly. Not too much to ask in my view.
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    mickeyrat said:

    So, take me through the argument against.
    Given its known to have 19 k plus centrifuges of which 13k are more advanced and capable of faster refinement of uranium and soon refinement of plutonium, add in the reported 50 lbs of 20% refined material from an estimated 2.8 tons of low grade material. In addition to whatever rocket technology has been achieved by these very smart people. AND the unknown details of what most likely weapon study has occurred.

    What is the preferred course of action in place of this framework? Don't dance around the answer. I prefer brutal honesty. Lay it out. Explicitly. Not too much to ask in my view.

    He wants us (the U.S.) to bomb the shit out of them. Why, he won't answer. Keeps dancing around it. Good luck on that one Mickey.
  • AafkeAafke Posts: 1,216
    badbrains said:

    mickeyrat said:

    So, take me through the argument against.
    Given its known to have 19 k plus centrifuges of which 13k are more advanced and capable of faster refinement of uranium and soon refinement of plutonium, add in the reported 50 lbs of 20% refined material from an estimated 2.8 tons of low grade material. In addition to whatever rocket technology has been achieved by these very smart people. AND the unknown details of what most likely weapon study has occurred.

    What is the preferred course of action in place of this framework? Don't dance around the answer. I prefer brutal honesty. Lay it out. Explicitly. Not too much to ask in my view.

    He wants us (the U.S.) to bomb the shit out of them. Why, he won't answer. Keeps dancing around it. Good luck on that one Mickey.
    Well if he doesn't answer himself, I can only guess for for his reasons. I believe his point of view is motivated with fear. Fear of being attacked by a nation with a different view on certain subjects, as his own. And what better way to overcome your fears... is attacking the so called enemy, it worked so well on numerous occasions for the U.S. didn't it?(Iraq (Wasn't there a nuke as well, oh, no that was a bunch of lies, wasn't it?), Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam,...)
    Waves_zps6b028461.jpg
    "The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
    "Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,083
    benjs said:

    BS44325 said:

    benjs said:

    BS44325 said:
    First, if you think that America is above the public opinion manipulation game to reach a self-serving end goal, why don't you go back to - go figure - the Iranian coup d'état, where America worked hard to quietly create political dissent to bring about a change in leadership favourable to American wants. I can't imagine one volatile political negotiation where what was said behind closed doors equated to what was said as far as the public knew - though that's probably my inner cynic.

    Next point: PMDs are the issue, but PMDs as a moniker only existed when the US created that brand in 2014 specifically for the Iran issue. Given how long this has been a contentious issue, why is it only now that the brand is surfacing? Because America needs fear to get what they're after. IS, formerly ISIL, formerly ISIS understands the value of branding too. Given that the biggest issue is the potential weaponization of nuclear devices in Iran, are you honestly of the opinion that because of an article which is likely mistranslated (and a second one which references it as a primary source) you truly believe the USA to be inept enough not to have some sort of mandated solution to the inspection issue? If weaponization were not an issue - this conversation would not be happening! So certainly Obama and his administration know more than what we're discussing.

    Next, not to bring up Israel, but as Nart said... really?

    Which isn't too surprising given Commentary Magazine's "About Us" section:

    "COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.

    Many of COMMENTARY’s articles have been controversial, and more than a few have been hugely influential, touchstones for debate and discussion in universities, among policy analysts in and out of government, within the ranks of professionals and community activists of all kinds, and in circles of serious thought worldwide. A large number of articles can be counted as landmarks of American letters and intellectual life. Agree with it or disagree with it, COMMENTARY cannot be ignored. To read it is to take part in the great American discussion.

    COMMENTARY was founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee. To learn more about AJC, which has worked since 1906 to safeguard and strengthen Jews and Jewish life worldwide by promoting democratic and pluralistic societies that respect the dignity of all peoples, click here."

    Why even bother posting from that site when it directly references the Fars News article and simply supplements it with doom-and-gloom rhetoric?

    Finally, I still don't understand why America, the only country which has activated nuclear weapons on another country, is self-assigned to broker a nuclear arms deal with another country. That's like having Hitler be the mediator in favour of an anti-genocide global agreement.
    Ahh yes...my sources are just all wrong and even sponsored by Jews. Of course. Sorry.
    Why do you cherry-pick the parts of my comments to make me out to be some sort of delusional and hatred-filled person? I was pretty clear in my opinion: what we in the public hear does not have a strong correlation to the discussions occurring behind closed doors, and the "leaks" are likely to skew public opinion. This is an age-old game of manipulation: it is also not a novelty, nor is it unprecedented.

    As for the 'sponsored by Jews'... Um... yeah. It's literally right there on their mission statement. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion may be a stretch depending on who you ask, but the Commentary article is irrefutably pro-Jewish biased.
    I don't think you are hate filled. I do find it interesting though that you need to point out to everyone on here which articles written by jews lest they be mistaken. What exactly is pro-Jewish bias? Jews fall over the spectrum on this issue and others.
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    BS44325 said:

    callen said:

    BS44325 said:

    badbrains said:

    BS44325 said:

    callen said:

    BS44325 said:

    badbrains said:

    Hypocrisy is great isn't it?

    As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
    Doesn't work that way.


    Of course it doesn't. Just looking for some intelligent commentary from those who are actually interested in preventing Iran from going nuclear.
    Isn't that what Obama is basically trying to do? Oh that's right, he's muslim and WANTS iran to have nukes. How could we forget.
    That is what Obama is trying to do. You are arguing that Iran should have a bomb as a counterweight to Israel. You two are not on the same page.
    No that's not what he"a trying to do. And it's not Obama it's several countries that are working on some transparency with Iran.

    I realize that the right is screaming this at the too of their lungs but read up on deal. Not perfect but better than status quo.

    Also find it interesting that economic sanctions brought them to table versus bombs as what many would of preferred.
    So why lift them?

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/politics/iran-nuclear-bill/index.html
    Don't understand your rebuttle with article. They are still negotiating.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    JimmyV said:

    Aafke said:

    BS44325 said:

    BS44325 said:

    badbrains said:

    Hypocrisy is great isn't it?

    As stated earlier this thread is mainly for those who don't think Iran should have a bomb and my comment is speaking to those who feel this particular deal is the right approach. You are indifferent and possibly even supportive of a nuclear Iran so feel free to start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread.
    Ha! The thread is up! #winning!
    So BS, if you scream load enough, you win the thread? Sorry, my mistake, i thought it was about logic and arguments...
    I think he is referring to his suggestion that someone start a Help Iran Go Nuclear thread, a thread which now actually has been started. Perhaps facetiously, but started nonetheless.

    I don't know Jimmy seems the thread has merit.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,083
    mickeyrat said:

    So, take me through the argument against.
    Given its known to have 19 k plus centrifuges of which 13k are more advanced and capable of faster refinement of uranium and soon refinement of plutonium, add in the reported 50 lbs of 20% refined material from an estimated 2.8(read a newer article claiming 11 ton) tons of low grade material. In addition to whatever rocket technology has been achieved by these very smart people. AND the unknown details of what most likely weapon study has occurred.

    What is the preferred course of action in place of this framework? Don't dance around the answer. I prefer brutal honesty. Lay it out. Explicitly. Not too much to ask in my view.

    I pointed out my thoughts above:

    "Yes (walk away from the deal). That and crushing sanctions. Complete economic isolation. Naval blockade. Roll back of current expansion in Iraq and Yemen. Promote the Green revolution."

    The ayatollah is all over twitter today stating that the American document released on the agreement is all lies. Iran is demanding that sanctions be lifted on day 1 of the deal. They are stating that there will be no inspections. This means that deal you keep discussing doesn't even exist. It is a mirage. Iran must change its behaviour first, allow inspections then sanctions can be eased.
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,432
    BS44325 said:

    benjs said:

    BS44325 said:

    benjs said:

    BS44325 said:
    First, if you think that America is above the public opinion manipulation game to reach a self-serving end goal, why don't you go back to - go figure - the Iranian coup d'état, where America worked hard to quietly create political dissent to bring about a change in leadership favourable to American wants. I can't imagine one volatile political negotiation where what was said behind closed doors equated to what was said as far as the public knew - though that's probably my inner cynic.

    Next point: PMDs are the issue, but PMDs as a moniker only existed when the US created that brand in 2014 specifically for the Iran issue. Given how long this has been a contentious issue, why is it only now that the brand is surfacing? Because America needs fear to get what they're after. IS, formerly ISIL, formerly ISIS understands the value of branding too. Given that the biggest issue is the potential weaponization of nuclear devices in Iran, are you honestly of the opinion that because of an article which is likely mistranslated (and a second one which references it as a primary source) you truly believe the USA to be inept enough not to have some sort of mandated solution to the inspection issue? If weaponization were not an issue - this conversation would not be happening! So certainly Obama and his administration know more than what we're discussing.

    Next, not to bring up Israel, but as Nart said... really?

    Which isn't too surprising given Commentary Magazine's "About Us" section:

    "COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.

    Many of COMMENTARY’s articles have been controversial, and more than a few have been hugely influential, touchstones for debate and discussion in universities, among policy analysts in and out of government, within the ranks of professionals and community activists of all kinds, and in circles of serious thought worldwide. A large number of articles can be counted as landmarks of American letters and intellectual life. Agree with it or disagree with it, COMMENTARY cannot be ignored. To read it is to take part in the great American discussion.

    COMMENTARY was founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee. To learn more about AJC, which has worked since 1906 to safeguard and strengthen Jews and Jewish life worldwide by promoting democratic and pluralistic societies that respect the dignity of all peoples, click here."

    Why even bother posting from that site when it directly references the Fars News article and simply supplements it with doom-and-gloom rhetoric?

    Finally, I still don't understand why America, the only country which has activated nuclear weapons on another country, is self-assigned to broker a nuclear arms deal with another country. That's like having Hitler be the mediator in favour of an anti-genocide global agreement.
    Ahh yes...my sources are just all wrong and even sponsored by Jews. Of course. Sorry.
    Why do you cherry-pick the parts of my comments to make me out to be some sort of delusional and hatred-filled person? I was pretty clear in my opinion: what we in the public hear does not have a strong correlation to the discussions occurring behind closed doors, and the "leaks" are likely to skew public opinion. This is an age-old game of manipulation: it is also not a novelty, nor is it unprecedented.

    As for the 'sponsored by Jews'... Um... yeah. It's literally right there on their mission statement. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion may be a stretch depending on who you ask, but the Commentary article is irrefutably pro-Jewish biased.
    I don't think you are hate filled. I do find it interesting though that you need to point out to everyone on here which articles written by jews lest they be mistaken. What exactly is pro-Jewish bias? Jews fall over the spectrum on this issue and others.
    I did the same search on Fars News' page, and their "About" page was inactive. The only reason I didn't specify where the article was from was because it's an Iranian news site, according to Wikipedia. Seems reasonable to leave factual Iranian news to Iranian news companies. I don't think the Commentary article added anything to the table, hence I found it curious that you bothered posting a tertiary source referring to a secondary source.

    In terms of pro-Jewish bias - you're right, that was the wrong terminology, pro-Israeli bias is probably more appropriate. As a Jew I'm very much aware of the fact that we fall all over the spectrum.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    So BS the west understands this and will counter. Just as we have Fox they have Ayatollahs. Propaganda machines that spread hate. Ha

    Let's see what happens.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    callen said:

    So BS the west understands this and will counter. Just as we have Fox they have Ayatollahs. Propaganda machines that spread hate. Ha

    Let's see what happens.

    Good post
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    Aafke said:

    badbrains said:

    mickeyrat said:

    So, take me through the argument against.
    Given its known to have 19 k plus centrifuges of which 13k are more advanced and capable of faster refinement of uranium and soon refinement of plutonium, add in the reported 50 lbs of 20% refined material from an estimated 2.8 tons of low grade material. In addition to whatever rocket technology has been achieved by these very smart people. AND the unknown details of what most likely weapon study has occurred.

    What is the preferred course of action in place of this framework? Don't dance around the answer. I prefer brutal honesty. Lay it out. Explicitly. Not too much to ask in my view.

    He wants us (the U.S.) to bomb the shit out of them. Why, he won't answer. Keeps dancing around it. Good luck on that one Mickey.
    Well if he doesn't answer himself, I can only guess for for his reasons. I believe his point of view is motivated with fear. Fear of being attacked by a nation with a different view on certain subjects, as his own. And what better way to overcome your fears... is attacking the so called enemy, it worked so well on numerous occasions for the U.S. didn't it?(Iraq (Wasn't there a nuke as well, oh, no that was a bunch of lies, wasn't it?), Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam,...)
    Best part, he lives in Canada. He thinks somehow Iran is gonna send a nuke to Canada just because the maple leafs suck haha
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    edited April 2015
    Again, who does this clown work for? Unreal, Schumer threatening to veto Iran deal:

    http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/30113-democrats-blast-sen-chuck-schumer-s-threat-to-kill-iran-deal#
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,083
    callen said:

    So BS the west understands this and will counter. Just as we have Fox they have Ayatollahs. Propaganda machines that spread hate. Ha

    Let's see what happens.

    You can hate Fox but equating the two is beneath ridiculous. There is nothing to counter. The Ayatollahs are in charge and have rejected "the deal".

    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/04/09/iran-pulls-the-rug-from-under-obama/#more-42736
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,083
    benjs said:

    BS44325 said:

    benjs said:

    BS44325 said:

    benjs said:

    BS44325 said:
    First, if you think that America is above the public opinion manipulation game to reach a self-serving end goal, why don't you go back to - go figure - the Iranian coup d'état, where America worked hard to quietly create political dissent to bring about a change in leadership favourable to American wants. I can't imagine one volatile political negotiation where what was said behind closed doors equated to what was said as far as the public knew - though that's probably my inner cynic.

    Next point: PMDs are the issue, but PMDs as a moniker only existed when the US created that brand in 2014 specifically for the Iran issue. Given how long this has been a contentious issue, why is it only now that the brand is surfacing? Because America needs fear to get what they're after. IS, formerly ISIL, formerly ISIS understands the value of branding too. Given that the biggest issue is the potential weaponization of nuclear devices in Iran, are you honestly of the opinion that because of an article which is likely mistranslated (and a second one which references it as a primary source) you truly believe the USA to be inept enough not to have some sort of mandated solution to the inspection issue? If weaponization were not an issue - this conversation would not be happening! So certainly Obama and his administration know more than what we're discussing.

    Next, not to bring up Israel, but as Nart said... really?

    Which isn't too surprising given Commentary Magazine's "About Us" section:

    "COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.

    Many of COMMENTARY’s articles have been controversial, and more than a few have been hugely influential, touchstones for debate and discussion in universities, among policy analysts in and out of government, within the ranks of professionals and community activists of all kinds, and in circles of serious thought worldwide. A large number of articles can be counted as landmarks of American letters and intellectual life. Agree with it or disagree with it, COMMENTARY cannot be ignored. To read it is to take part in the great American discussion.

    COMMENTARY was founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee. To learn more about AJC, which has worked since 1906 to safeguard and strengthen Jews and Jewish life worldwide by promoting democratic and pluralistic societies that respect the dignity of all peoples, click here."

    Why even bother posting from that site when it directly references the Fars News article and simply supplements it with doom-and-gloom rhetoric?

    Finally, I still don't understand why America, the only country which has activated nuclear weapons on another country, is self-assigned to broker a nuclear arms deal with another country. That's like having Hitler be the mediator in favour of an anti-genocide global agreement.
    Ahh yes...my sources are just all wrong and even sponsored by Jews. Of course. Sorry.
    Why do you cherry-pick the parts of my comments to make me out to be some sort of delusional and hatred-filled person? I was pretty clear in my opinion: what we in the public hear does not have a strong correlation to the discussions occurring behind closed doors, and the "leaks" are likely to skew public opinion. This is an age-old game of manipulation: it is also not a novelty, nor is it unprecedented.

    As for the 'sponsored by Jews'... Um... yeah. It's literally right there on their mission statement. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion may be a stretch depending on who you ask, but the Commentary article is irrefutably pro-Jewish biased.
    I don't think you are hate filled. I do find it interesting though that you need to point out to everyone on here which articles written by jews lest they be mistaken. What exactly is pro-Jewish bias? Jews fall over the spectrum on this issue and others.
    I did the same search on Fars News' page, and their "About" page was inactive. The only reason I didn't specify where the article was from was because it's an Iranian news site, according to Wikipedia. Seems reasonable to leave factual Iranian news to Iranian news companies. I don't think the Commentary article added anything to the table, hence I found it curious that you bothered posting a tertiary source referring to a secondary source.

    In terms of pro-Jewish bias - you're right, that was the wrong terminology, pro-Israeli bias is probably more appropriate. As a Jew I'm very much aware of the fact that we fall all over the spectrum.
    Well regardless what level of bias you would like to assign to those links today the Ayatollahs have confirmed their findings.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,083
    Aafke said:

    badbrains said:

    mickeyrat said:

    So, take me through the argument against.
    Given its known to have 19 k plus centrifuges of which 13k are more advanced and capable of faster refinement of uranium and soon refinement of plutonium, add in the reported 50 lbs of 20% refined material from an estimated 2.8 tons of low grade material. In addition to whatever rocket technology has been achieved by these very smart people. AND the unknown details of what most likely weapon study has occurred.

    What is the preferred course of action in place of this framework? Don't dance around the answer. I prefer brutal honesty. Lay it out. Explicitly. Not too much to ask in my view.

    He wants us (the U.S.) to bomb the shit out of them. Why, he won't answer. Keeps dancing around it. Good luck on that one Mickey.
    Well if he doesn't answer himself, I can only guess for for his reasons. I believe his point of view is motivated with fear. Fear of being attacked by a nation with a different view on certain subjects, as his own. And what better way to overcome your fears... is attacking the so called enemy, it worked so well on numerous occasions for the U.S. didn't it?(Iraq (Wasn't there a nuke as well, oh, no that was a bunch of lies, wasn't it?), Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam,...)
    Israel blew up the Iraqi reactor in the 80's with minimal blowback. They also hit Syrian facilities a few years ago as well. In hindsight both were probably the right call.
  • AafkeAafke Posts: 1,216
    edited April 2015
    BS44325 said:

    Aafke said:

    badbrains said:

    mickeyrat said:

    So, take me through the argument against.
    Given its known to have 19 k plus centrifuges of which 13k are more advanced and capable of faster refinement of uranium and soon refinement of plutonium, add in the reported 50 lbs of 20% refined material from an estimated 2.8 tons of low grade material. In addition to whatever rocket technology has been achieved by these very smart people. AND the unknown details of what most likely weapon study has occurred.

    What is the preferred course of action in place of this framework? Don't dance around the answer. I prefer brutal honesty. Lay it out. Explicitly. Not too much to ask in my view.

    He wants us (the U.S.) to bomb the shit out of them. Why, he won't answer. Keeps dancing around it. Good luck on that one Mickey.
    Well if he doesn't answer himself, I can only guess for for his reasons. I believe his point of view is motivated with fear. Fear of being attacked by a nation with a different view on certain subjects, as his own. And what better way to overcome your fears... is attacking the so called enemy, it worked so well on numerous occasions for the U.S. didn't it?(Iraq (Wasn't there a nuke as well, oh, no that was a bunch of lies, wasn't it?), Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam,...)
    Israel blew up the Iraqi reactor in the 80's with minimal blowback. They also hit Syrian facilities a few years ago as well. In hindsight both were probably the right call.
    Yeah, it calmed the region really down, didn't it? The hatred in the Arab world for the Jews has lessened a great deal since then, didn't it? If we don't talk with one another fear builds up, and we only give the hate space to grow. Unknown is unloved. Without talking everyone on both sides think they need those nukes. Look at how you are reasoning yourself, lets nuke the bastards before they can nuke us... Why can´t we all grow up, and start acting like responsible adults.
    Post edited by Aafke on
    Waves_zps6b028461.jpg
    "The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
    "Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Sign In or Register to comment.