The senior European diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity when meeting with a group of reporters on Monday, called it “pretty obvious” that Mr. Trump would no longer waive American sanctions against Iran, as he has done since the start of his presidency to uphold the deal....Those 2 statements by Rouhani seem inconsistent. In the second statement, he seems to be saying that Iran is getting so much from the deal that it's worth continuing to abide by it just to get what the Europeans are giving, even if the Americans go forward with their sanctions. Why, then, would there be "historic regret"? And wouldn't that set up the conditions "to fix it, not nix it"? The deal remains in place for Iran, and there is new pressure for Iran to make concessions. It suggests that Trump is right and Iran got far too much out of the deal and that it should be redone. It sounds as though the Europeans agree, or why would they want "to fix it, not nix it"? I'm just looking at the public theater, of course. I have no idea what is really going on.
Should Mr. Trump withdraw from the accord, Iran could accurately claim that Washington was the first to violate it — a propaganda win. And Iran would be free, if it chose, to resume fuel production, according to diplomats who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive negotiations.
The mantra of the European negotiators toiling to retain the nuclear deal has been “to fix it, not nix it.” But Mr. Trump has come at the problem from a different perspective: He argues that the only solution is a clean slate....
“If America leaves the nuclear deal, this will entail historic regret for it,” President Hassan Rouhani of Iran said in a speech broadcast live on state television in recent days. “If we can get what we want from a deal without America, then Iran will continue to remain committed to the deal,” Mr. Rouhani said....
UPDATE: The NYT reports that this morning, Trump told Macron that he's withdrawing from the Iran deal.
Posts
267 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 267 of 267Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
Iran’s president is saying there’s a “short time” to negotiate with the countries remaining in the nuclear deal, warning his country could start enriching uranium more than ever in the coming weeks.
Iran doesn't have a nuclear program. They shelved in in 2003. It is unpossible for them to enrich Uranium.
This statement that they once did enrich Uranium was taken out of context.
Blogger Kyzer SoSay said...
"making an atomic bomb is really a rather simple undertaking. All the hard work has already been done so it's just a matter of chemistry and mechanics. If you're buying fissionable material from a friend it's even easier. "
"While I agree with you to a point, and probably think it is easier than Farmer gives it credit for, this is not technically true. The material properties require a huge level of caution. Machining uranium (not to mention actually enriching it and purifying it to usable form) is a very difficult task. It becomes even more difficult if we're talking about plutonium, which has incredible properties including multiple phase/density changes below melting point. These are dangerous materials to work with, and must be soooo carefully machined . . . I think you UNDERESTIMATE the difficulty to the same degree that Farmer OVERESTIMATES the difficulty."
Arev you telling me that it is more problematic today than it was in 1944? Yes there are problems to overcome but history has proven that they are engineering problems and that those can be solved.
" If Obama had a hand in it it's flawed in a very basic way."
I agree. But that's also not enough. Name the flaw. Show your cards, or leave the table.
He lied about it.
" If the kid from Grosse Pointe, or where ever he was in Michigan, hadn't confided in his teacher he'd still be building his nuclear pile."
Yes, and it would have still been detected. David Hahn was using isotopes unsuitable for bomb-making, in truly miniscule quantities, was not interested in making a bomb at all (he wanted to build his own breeder reactor for unlimited energy), and did more harm to himself than anyone or anything else. And he was caught by the police due to a concerned call from a neighbor who'd seen him acting strangely, not by a tip from his teacher.
Of course he would eventually be detected. Probably around the time his neighborhood became a superfund site. The point being that if one has incentive enough even the assembling of dangerous nuclear material can be hidden from prying eyes.
Old jewish saying that I just made up. "Never assume your enemies are telling the truth. Because they aren't."
"someone who argues using reason and the available facts"
Farmer claimed the Israelis showed "nothing new."
David Albright said they did, citing examples (covered in a previous thread).
The available fact is that one of the key U.S. nuclear experts, who knows what the Iranians declared and at least some of what the Israelis found, believes the Israelis uncovered a more extensive program, involving more people and places, than previously known.
I have no independent judgment on the validity of this judgment.
But if Albright rather than Farmer is correct, we can "use reason" to infer two things: that the Iranians were more motivated to develop nuclear weapons than we knew, and that they did not declare the full extent of their prior efforts as required by the Iran "deal."
As I said before, canceling the deal, even as a strategic move, is not a slam-dunk to me, because I do think the inspection regime had value for us and the alternative is not so clear.
Bac k before Israel was a state and pary of th british madate. There was an embargo of weapons and ammunition to the jews of what was known as palestine. They were especially short of 9mm ammunition. They needed thoussands of rounds every day. To that they needed to build a factory. But if they built a factory the british would shut them down and confiscate their machinery. So that's exactly what they did. They built a factory . Underground. Benieth a kibbutz. And not just some little hand made old man with a file and a drill press facory. Nope. Fully automated. Producing thousands of rounds a day.Lots of loud oily smelly machines. Right under the noses of the british.
They want you to feel superior. They want you to think they're stupid. It makes it a lot easier to fool you.
enrich "more than ever"
”So my question to you is - "were you in the room when the deal was struck?"
My question is - “on which side?”
Yes DickBimbo,
We already all saw (the first time you made the comment) that you just discovered that the Iranians have enriched. Quite the discovery you've made there!
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/29/world/middleeast/iran-hands-over-stockpile-of-enriched-uranium-to-russia.html
enrich "more than ever"
anti-de Sitter space said...
Yes DickBimbo,
We already all saw (the first time you made the comment) that you just discovered that the Iranians have enriched. Quite the discovery you've made there!
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/29/world/middleeast/iran-hands-over-stockpile-of-enriched-uranium-to-russia.html
Oh dear. You mean Iran was colluding with Russia?
Impeach them!
It is really quite funny watching enemies of the United States try to figure out who is bad at what point and when...
Obama, Kerry hardest-hit.
Well Russia is a reliable place to stash uranium. We can trust Russia with Iran's uranium.
Also, Russia is completely untrustworthy. They stole the election for Donald Trump by preventing Hillary Clinton from campaigning in swing states.
Lefties are consistent.
That NYT article smells like BS to me.
I'm just quoting what the leader of Iran is saying circa today.
Oh, that was circa today.
Now I get it.
Obviously a lot has been posted since I was last at my desk. A little convoluted to wade back through, so I'll try another avenue of discussion.
1) Is there any deal that you would be comfortable with?
2) If yes, how could any deal be crafted that couldn't be cheated on?
3) What leverage do we have to sanction Iran when all of our closest allies plus Russia and China were in favor of the deal?
4) If the above failed, should the US be prepared to invade and occupy Iran to forcibly dismantle any nuclear program it has? If it does pursue this option, how will it (a) prevent being bogged down in another slow burning insurgency campaign (see Afghanistan, circa 2018); and (b) how do we leave a stable state behind?
Withdrawing from the JCPOA is a huge unforced error and self-inflicted wound whose full costs we won’t realize until later, and it represents a serious setback to the cause of nonproliferation. Trump is walking away from a deal that got the U.S. almost everything it wanted at virtually no cost, and he is doing it mainly because it allows him to repudiate his predecessor’s work. It is a perfect example of putting petty self-interest and pique ahead of the interests of the United States, and it has absolutely nothing to do with putting America first.
-Daniel Larison, The American Conservative
Well now that a guy I don't care about has called something a mistake something, I am sure I am moved.
@Kyser SoSay:
Honestly, while I'd prefer an attempt at renegotiation, I think this move is the very next best thing, as it could very well result in an enhanced deal further down the line.
I'll tell you what. I'll give you my contact information. I'll put a thousand dollars in an escrow account, and you match it. I'll wager the money that no "enhanced deal" is achieved by the end of Trump's first term. Game?
Betting is prohibited on the Althouse site.
That can get you banned.
So, maybe reconsider.
"That can get you banned."
Wut!
That's all it takes.
I've wasted a lot of effort.
@Birkel:
Offer extends to you as well. But you've already admitted that you are simply an attention-starved little loud mouth. So again, I'm happy my words could give some minor comfort in an otherwise lonely and sad little life. God it feels good to be charitable to those less fortunate.
Smug,
Betting on Althouse is prohibites.
House rules apply to everybody.
The hostess runs the joint.
Respect her rules.
Prohibited
J. Farmer said...
Obviously a lot has been posted since I was last at my desk. A little convoluted to wade back through, so I'll try another avenue of discussion.
1) Is there any deal that you would be comfortable with?
The Mullahs out of power.
2) If yes, how could any deal be crafted that couldn't be cheated on?
Stupid straw man. There isn't. That is why you don't deal with people like the Mullahs who you know will cheat.
3) What leverage do we have to sanction Iran when all of our closest allies plus Russia and China were in favor of the deal?
Trade Russia carte blanche in Syria for their support in removing the Mullahs. Tell the Chinese we will consider removing troops from SK if they don't fuck with peace in either region.
This deal was already made. Trump has already been leaking this out. Xi just pulled fatboy in and kneecapped again after chubby tubs started mouthing off.
4) If the above failed, should the US be prepared to invade and occupy Iran to forcibly dismantle any nuclear program it has? If it does pursue this option, how will it (a) prevent being bogged down in another slow burning insurgency campaign (see Afghanistan, circa 2018); and (b) how do we leave a stable state behind?
Good sanctions will be plenty to bring the mullahs down. They would have fallen in 2009 with even the mildest support from Obama for the green revolution. The Rial is in a tailspin. They are supporting 4 wars in foreign countries.
Cut off the money and their own people will take them down for us.
If it's bad for the Jews, J. Farmer is for it.
Smug,
You get so upset when somebody paraphrases you poorly. Why would you mischaracterized my position in the way you claim to disapprove?
I make light of you because you are not here yo engage. You are here to be Smug. You Smug with the best of them. Even those who engaged were turned away and not honestly addressed. Smug your way to victory.
If Tel Aviv ever starts glowing, the first speculation must be whether they accidentally blew up one or more of their own undeclared nukes.
Cook, that's a trifle low from you. I don't say "even from you" because frankly I wouldn't have expected that of you. Learn something new every day, I guess.
@Achilles:
The Mullahs out of power.
Then you might as well as unicorns and leprechauns to the wish list.
Stupid straw man. There isn't. That is why you don't deal with people like the Mullahs who you know will cheat.
How do you know who won't cheat? How do you have that power? In fact, is there a country in the world today that you would say would never cheat on an international agreement? India had a democratic and nationalistic government that cheated on an agreement and was very popular for it. Why do you imagine the same cannot happen in Iran?
This deal was already made. Trump has already been leaking this out. Xi just pulled fatboy in and kneecapped again after chubby tubs started mouthing off.
In that case, would you be willing to make a cash wager that such a bet materializes before the end of Trump's term?
Good sanctions will be plenty to bring the mullahs down. They would have fallen in 2009 with even the mildest support from Obama for the green revolution.
The green revolution? I am sorry, but you do not know what you are talking about. Where do you think the color "green" comes from? It was the color of Mir Hossein Mousavi's presidential campaign, which his supporters believed was stolen by Ahmadinejad. The demands of the green movement were for Mousvai bein named president. He had been a major figure in the revolution and was prime minister of Iran in the 1980s. Even if the green movement had gotten their way, it would not "bring the mullahs down."
Wut,
They weren't protesting for Tesla's in every garage?
Don't they know what it means to be green?
Dummies.
Bad L learned something new circa today.
@J. Farmer
Read your link to the Clapper rundown. I've seen other time lines of the sunset provisions with explanations of what each means regarding the advancement of Iran's push towards weapons grade nuclear material over the course of JCPOA. The real problem with JCPOA is it puts Iran on an 'aboveground' glide path. Even if fully followed the end result is that in 25 years Iran would be within 12 months of being able to build the bomb. Likely they would pull out sooner once they reached a certain stage of development.
@PacWest:
Even if fully followed the end result is that in 25 years Iran would be within 12 months of being able to build the bomb. Likely they would pull out sooner once they reached a certain stage of development.
If the JCPOA arrangement remained in place, including the additional protocols, which includes inspections in perpetuity, Iran would be constrained from obtaining a weapon. The minute they make the ploy to develop such a weapon, thinks to the verification measures in place, we would know, and obviously we could adopt a different strategic posture at that time. The fact remains that the JCPOA was doing what it was designed to do, containing Iran's nuclear program. Iran is further from a nuclear weapon now than anytime in the last 20 years.
I will repeat again. This was a fantastic deal from the point of view of the West. The US and our allies gave up nothing of significant value except for the lifting of sanctions. That is, for a return to the international conditions of pre-2010. In return, Iran made significant concessions, exceeding even what they are permitted under the NPT and agreeing to the most intrusive inspection measures the IAEA utilizes. To call this the "worst deal ever" may not be off the mark by exactly 180 degrees, but it's pretty damn close.
Didn't Bibi tell us in 2012 (while he was campaigning for Romney) that Iran was six months from having a bomb?
1)Is there any deal that you would be comfortable with?
For now, better oversight and something to include their missile program. I'll remain vague on this until I see what can be crafted.
2) If yes, how could any deal be crafted that couldn't be cheated on?
That's the rub, but is why I would like to see increased verification in any deal.
3) What leverage do we have to sanction Iran when all of our closest allies plus Russia and China were in favor of the deal?
Not enough time to give you a full answer, but I think leverage could be regained (after President Obama sold most of what we had built up) through a framework built on through an upgraded NPT making Iran the first instance, as well as the usual screws of economic and military pressure.
4) If the above failed, should the US be prepared to invade and occupy Iran to forcibly dismantle any nuclear program it has?
Bomb, disrupt, destabilize, and deal with the consequences of the instability later when we can do it in a piecemeal fashion.
Aside, I would like to see nukes limited to a hundred or less per country as Cooke brought up, but good luck with that! Point being: All the more important that nuclear proliferation be stopped dead in its tracks.
"To call this the "worst deal ever" may not be off the mark by exactly 180 degrees, but it's pretty damn close."
If that was directed towards me you have confused me with someone else. As above I hope President Trump stays in the deal for the time being. I know you've taken a lot of unwarranted heat from others. You do it well.
"Center? What is the source for this? "
Farmer doesn't know about this thing called"Wikipedia."
At the official level, the Qatari government has been accused of supporting Hamas, the Palestinian group regarded as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States, Israel, Egypt, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Canada.[4] Qatar denies these allegations, stating that it does not support Hamas' political position, and that its policy is to help facilitate constructive engagement between Hamas and the PA.[5]
One of the leaked Podesta emails from August 2014, addressed to John Podesta, identifies Qatar and Saudi Arabia as providing "clandestine," "financial and logistic" aid to ISIL and other "radical Sunni groups." The email outlines a plan of action against ISIL, and urges putting pressure on Qatar and Saudi Arabia to end their alleged support for the group.[6][7][8][9] Whether the email was originally written by Hillary Clinton, her advisor Sidney Blumenthal, or another person is unclear.[10][11]
In response to these allegations, on September 25, 2014, the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, went on American television to defend his country against claims that it harbors terrorist financiers. In an interview on CNN, the Emir stated that Qatar does not fund terrorists and is committed to fighting ISIS for the long term
You're welcome.
"If the US didn't have nukes the socialists would have been killing people with them."
We're the only nation that has done that. One can understand why the Russians would want them to serve as defensive deterrent.
"Iran is the cause of most of the conflict in the ME."
No, we are.
"Didn't Bibi tell us in 2012 (while he was campaigning for Romney) that Iran was six months from having a bomb?"
Does that make it so?
"Cook, that's a trifle low from you. I don't say "even from you" because frankly I wouldn't have expected that of you."
Why low? I was making an arch point, that for all the hyperventilating here about Iran and their nonexistent nuclear bomb program, the unspoken truth is that Israel is a major, though unadmitted, nuclear party in the region.
I agree with J Farmer. Iran's violations do not matter.
You see they are about to attack Israel and are about to be slaughted in wholesale lots.
Israel signaled this when they bombed Iranian troops last week. They took the gloves and did it gingerly to see what Trump would do. The Arabist State Department and the Muslim lovers like Obama and Clinton are not in charge anymore. Israel has a free hand. To attack Iran. Perhaps even to destroy Iran's nuclear capacity. Who is going to stop them? The Europeans? They have no influence with the President and are pitiful paper Tigers. The Saudis? They are going to pay the bill for bombing Iran. Russia? A possibility but they have their own problems. They would be better off letting the Mullahs fall and installing a puppet regime. So they will not act to forestall an Israeli attack.
Best of all it will not cost any American lives. The table is set. Lets watch it all unfold.
That's the endgame of what Trump did today.
America First.
Of course if Iran already has a bomb they must know that Israel has them too. So I doubt that they would use one on Israel with the knowledge that one would be coming right back in an instant.
One would hope that even the mullahs are not that suicidal.
"Iran is the cause of most of the conflict in the ME."
No, we are.
Cookie is a member of the "blame America first" crowd in good standing. All the Maxists are members,
"Does that make it so?"
I know a rhetorical question when I sees one.
@Michael K:
Farmer doesn't know about this thing called "Wikipedia"
I'll remind you of your claim: "Mean while, Qatar is the center of most terrorist funding these days."
Nothing you quoted from a Wikipedia page substantiates that charge. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Turkey are all far more responsible for facilitating the funding of radical Sunni jihadist groups.
Israel signaled this when they bombed Iranian troops last week. They took the gloves and did it gingerly to see what Trump would do. The Arabist State Department and the Muslim lovers like Obama and Clinton are not in charge anymore. Israel has a free hand. To attack Iran. Perhaps even to destroy Iran's nuclear capacity. Who is going to stop them? The Europeans? They have no influence with the President and are pitiful paper Tigers. The Saudis? They are going to pay the bill for bombing Iran. Russia? A possibility but they have their own problems. They would be better off letting the Mullahs fall and installing a puppet regime. So they will not act to forestall an Israeli attack.
---------------------
We've got to fulfill The Book...
wiki:
Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 were in accordance with Bible prophecy. The term began to be used in the mid-20th century, superseding Christian Restorationism.
Traditional Catholic thought did not consider Zionism in any form, but Christian advocacy grew after the Protestant Reformation in support of the restoration of the Jews. A contemporary Israeli historian suggests that evangelical Christian Zionists of the 1840s "passed this notion on to Jewish circles", while Jewish nationalism in the early 19th century was widely regarded with hostility by British Jews.
Some Christian Zionists believe that the gathering of the Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. The idea has been common in Protestant circles since the Reformation that Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel, along with the parallel idea that the Jews ought to be encouraged to become Christians as a means of fulfilling Biblical prophecy.
@PacWest:
For now, better oversight and something to include their missile program. I'll remain vague on this until I see what can be crafted.
What do you find lacking in the current inspection/verification regime oversight?
Not enough time to give you a full answer, but I think leverage could be regained (after President Obama sold most of what we had built up) through a framework built on through an upgraded NPT making Iran the first instance, as well as the usual screws of economic and military pressure.
To sanction Iran, your basically asking countries to cut off beneficial trade relationships from their points of view. I don't see how you gain this by abandoning a deal these very countries support.
Bomb, disrupt, destabilize, and deal with the consequences of the instability later when we can do it in a piecemeal fashion.
In the last two decades, under Republican and Democratic administration, the US has attempted four regime change operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, all with pretty much the same result. But you're certain that if we rush into a war with a country of 80,000,000 people, things will turn out just as expect and hope this time?
Very good Mary. That is definitely part of it. A big part of it for sure.
Really it is just Israels self interest. Along with the self interest of the Saudi's, Jordanians and Egyptians. They are willing to stand by and hold Israel's coat. To step on the Palestinians to keep them quiet and avoid a two front war. The Saudi's have already told Abbas to sit down and shut up.
The reason why Israel didn't already do this was because Obama hates the Jews. Like most blacks. And most Muslims. Since he was both he hated them double.
On the other hand Trump has Jewish grandchildren and finally made Jerusalem the recognized capital of Israel. When Israel bitch slaps Iran he is not going to cut off aid. Not going to freeze arm transactions. Not going to threaten sanctions.
He is going to say "What took you so long?"
"In the last two decades, under Republican and Democratic administration, the US has attempted four regime change operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, all with pretty much the same result. But you're certain that if we rush into a war with a country of 80,000,000 people, things will turn out just as expect and hope this time?"
This is were you and the other pro Muslim fanatics like John Kerry are dead wrong. He is not going to send our boys to die. He is going to let the Israeli's handle it and they will since the other Muslim states fear Iran and want them destroyed. So for now they will lie doggo and the Nuclear Plant is going the way of the Rocket Man's nuke stockpile.
The God Emperor is going to copy another deity only instead of "Release the Kraken" he will say "Release the Hebes."
Old jewish saying that I just made up. "Never assume your enemies are telling the truth. Because they aren't."
-----------
Go ahead and hate your neighbor
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven...
you can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowin'
come the Judgement Day...
On the bloody morning after
One Tin Soldier rides away.
The Jewish people... they're not known for having very good long-term eyesight, are they? Not enough of them saw the Holocaust coming and got out, right? They were voluntarily still boarding trains right until the end, some of them. I wonder if they were convinced that they were the alpha dogs right until the showers came on, and their eyes were finally opened?
Israel at 70 is a lot like that, I think.
Will they make it to 100, or will the American taxpayers have blown a retreat well before then, letting the little country surrounded by so many destabilized nations now, fend for herself? It's easy to think you've got the world's mightiest military, afterall, when you're just shooting kids amassed on your border.
When Israel bitch slaps Iran he is not going to cut off aid. Not going to freeze arm transactions. Not going to threaten sanctions.
-----------------
Sounds like you found yourself a true saviour, eh?
This is the one you've been waiting for?
As for me and mine...
Never Forget.
"To sanction Iran, your basically asking countries to cut off beneficial trade relationships from their points of view. I don't see how you gain this by abandoning a deal these very countries support."
Airbus is likely to snatch the 100+ planes in the Boeing deal that would be ditched if DJT isn't lying re going back to the previous sanctions. OTOH, Airbus is (w/ a plant) in Alabama, so maybe their own deal as well as their potential Boeing snatch will be stopped.
I dunno.
Those were the faggy jews Mary. The Harvey Weinstiens and Eric Sniedermans and Woody Allens who could only slap around women and molest kids. Those jews are the ones who want to send our boys to fight their battles.
The Israeli's are not that. They are the Starkers. The Meyer Lansky's and the Longy Zweillman's and the Abe Reles. They are not afraid to kick ass. Especially the Likud who are in charge.
They will show these rug merchants and camel jockeys what Murder Incorporated and do.
They are not my savior Mary.
But the enemy of my enemy can kill my enemy and I won't get in their way.
Hey but it is great to see you posting up a storm Mary. Meade must be off tonight.
"Airbus is likely to snatch the 100+ planes in the Boeing deal that would be ditched if DJT isn't lying re going back to the previous sanctions. OTOH, Airbus is (w/ a plant) in Alabama, so maybe their own deal as well as their potential Boeing snatch will be stopped."
So we are supposed to care about Boeing? The God Emperor hates Boeing. From the first day in office he knew the royal screwing they are giving us in arms procurement. This is only leverage to make them cut prices. Just the way he bitch slapped them on the Air Force one deal.
Boeing is part of the Swamp and the Deep State corruption of the military industrial complex. They need to be brought down to size.
Let the rug merchants buy Air Bus. More of their planes will crash. It is a win/win.
langford peel said...
They are not my savior Mary.
But the enemy of my enemy can kill my enemy and I won't get in their way.
---------------------------
Little brown Pali boys with rocks and slingshots are your enemy?
No wonder the Zionist Christians have hopes of Christ's return.
Forgive me from assuming, upthread, that Donald J. Trump was your personal savior, lanford. Your words make it seem so, but I trust you put your faith in higher powers... not military, but God?
Sadly, this does not end well for the Jews.
Again. Luckily though, owing to that poor eyesight, few can yet see it, and plenty still think they are sitting pretty... Too much faith in taxpayers in the middle of the country here. We can afford to withdraw from the Middle East, and put America first.
"If the boys want to fight, you better let 'em."
The sooner we have some nuclear parity, the better, I think.
I say that for the benefit of the young Jewish children in Isreael, who don't know any better yet.
For the record,
I'm Catholic, not protestant, myself.
No Christian Zionists here.
Be careful of those protestants, especially the Brits.
They are likely to settle you on gifted land without a clear title.
You can settle, but you can't stay forever camped on on somebody else's property.
I often hear Israel's treatment of the Palestinians compared to America's treatment of the Red Man. Of course, there is some distance between the East Coast and Oklahoma, say.
Trouble in the MIddle East is... the reservations are right on Israel's front door. And there aren't enough bugs killing off the natives so fast as smallpox back in the day. Unless Israel figures out a healthy plan to dispense with all the surrounding demographics, I don't think the Jews will fare very well again.
You know, maybe Christ had something when he said, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself". IMagine if the Jews only shared with others like they share with their own: two coats? Give up one to he who needs it. No running water? The Jews have plenty of water for all. Hungry, naked, in need of shelter? Imagine if the Jewish people of Israel were working today to treat their neighbors as good as they do their own sons.
Surely peace would be upon them, no?
I don't see many Israeli's listening to Christ though. They are too busy dressing up like Catholics and partying like it's 1999. Some will learn, I suspect. Many won't.
Let the rug merchants buy Air Bus. More of their planes will crash. It is a win/win.
---------------------------
"Go ahead and hate your neighbor.
Go ahead and cheat a friend..."
~Coven.
Just please: don't come crying to me and calling for another world war to make the world safe for Israel, ok? Too much blood has already been spilt in that region. No mas.
I am not trying to make it "safe" for Israel. I just admire their moxie.
Plus the more of them that killed over there the less of them that will try to sneak in over here. If we had just let Assad gas his people a lot of Swedish and German broads would not have been raped. Let them fight it out like crabs in a bucket.
Jesus has nothing to do with. He is too busy getting ready for Christmas.
By them I mean Muslims of course. Nits make lice to coin a phrase used in our own interaction with the indigenous peoples of our own country. Let the Gods of War loose and stand back out of the way. That is why the God Emperor wanted to take our boys out of Syria. I hope he follows through soon.
J. Farmer said...
@Achilles:
The Mullahs out of power.
Then you might as well as unicorns and leprechauns to the wish list.
No need. Leprechauns and Unicorns are bad at bombing the shit out of stuff.
But the Israelis are good at it. All we need to do is stop supporting Iran and let the rest of the region do the dirty. Maybe throw in some technical support here and there.
Trump has clearly made it our goal to actually stabilize the region. That is clearly in our best interests.
That means removing the Mullahs.
You have some sort of weird emotional attachment to this. You are clearly wrong about several things. Then you wander off into lala land pretending you are the only person that knows anything about the ME when you are just talking out of your ass.
Have you ever been there?
Seriously? J Farmer is obviously from there. Or in their pay. Or just another pro-muslim pantywaist like John Kerry who suck the mullahs dick for fun and profit. Like the spineless European weenies who want to make money and don't care how many dead Jews they wind up with.
That is why they are importing anti-semtic hordes to do their dirty work that regular Frogs and Krauts don't want to do anymore.
Only instead of being maids and installing drywall like our Mexicans the Muzzies just want to burn synagogues and slaughter as many Jews as they can catch.
@J. Farmer
"What do you find lacking in the current inspection/verification regime oversight?"
Access to military sites for a big one. Free reign for inspectors as much as is possible. Ever stronger punishment for withdrawal as the sunsets progress. A clause that states immediate overwhelming force that will destroy all known and any possible sites related to nuclear activity to be used in case of certain egregious transgressions
"To sanction Iran, your basically asking countries to cut off beneficial trade relationships from their points of view."
That's the way sanctions always work.
"I don't see how you gain this by abandoning a deal these very countries support."
Modify, not abandon. Several countries are interested in that approach.
"But you're certain that if we rush into a war with a country of 80,000,000 people, things will turn out just as expect and hope this time?"
Why would we want to go to war? That's not necessary to destroy their nuclear program. Unless like Cooke you think lobbing misses in Syria was an act of war. And I'm not all that bright, but I'm not stupid enough to be certain about outcomes of military adventure in the ME.
Again, the JCPOA as it stands now is a slow walk with a certain end. Something that, at best, will lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the region. At worst, nuclear war. Saudi Arabia will have a nuclear reactor and weapons program in less than 10 years.
You keep bringing up sunset timing, and continuous restrictions. These only work if Iran stays in the deal. They can withdraw whenever they feel the timing is best for them. You are just "kicking the can down the road". Again.
Farmer, this is not a country that we want to have weapons grade materials, much less a bomb. You are proposing pushing risk into the future to mitigate present risk. I think it should be dealt with now. I consider the risk as one to great to take at all.
I was disappointed that Trump withdrew today. I think he lost a useful tool. I doubt he is going to be able to use the NK strategy on Iran. Let's hope we get a very positive outcome in NK.
"You see they are about to attack Israel and are about to be slaughted in wholesale lots.
"Israel signaled this when they bombed Iranian troops last week."
So...Israel bombed Iranian troops and it's Iran that's about to attack Israel?
@Achilles:
You have some sort of weird emotional attachment to this. You are clearly wrong about several things. Then you wander off into lala land pretending you are the only person that knows anything about the ME when you are just talking out of your ass.
Simple question. Explain how supporting "the green movement" would have resulted in getting rid of "the mullahs."
@PacWest:
Access to military sites for a big one. Free reign for inspectors as much as is possible. Ever stronger punishment for withdrawal as the sunsets progress. A clause that states immediate overwhelming force that will destroy all known and any possible sites related to nuclear activity to be used in case of certain egregious transgressions
Then you might as well write the deal up in fantasy land, because no sovereign country would agree to such a deal. But it represents the typical American disdain for diplomacy by claiming that we must get our entire maximalist demands and anything less is an appeasement or a defeat or a result of weak leadership or will.
Modify, not abandon. Several countries are interested in that approach.
None of the countries that are a party to the agreement, as Trump's efforts to get allies like the UK and Germany to consider renegotiating the deal went nowhere.
Why would we want to go to war? That's not necessary to destroy their nuclear program. Unless like Cooke you think lobbing misses in Syria was an act of war. And I'm not all that bright, but I'm not stupid enough to be certain about outcomes of military adventure in the ME.
Well a couple paragraphs earlier you were advocating "immediate overwhelming force that will destroy all known and any possible sites related to nuclear activity" in response to "certain egregious transgressions," whatever those may be. So you are "not stupid enough to be certain about outcomes of military adventure in the ME," but you do believe that bombing Iran as a punitive measure would be a good idea?
These only work if Iran stays in the deal. They can withdraw whenever they feel the timing is best for them. You are just "kicking the can down the road". Again.
Any option is "kicking the can down the road." There is no nothing you can do today (no deal, no action, no arrangement) that could not be abandoned in the future. Your criticism that the JCPOA does not permanently solve the problem is fatuous. No solution can permanently solve the problem.
Farmer, this is not a country that we want to have weapons grade materials, much less a bomb. You are proposing pushing risk into the future to mitigate present risk. I think it should be dealt with now. I consider the risk as one to great to take at all.
Please explain how it can "be dealt with now" that doesn't involve "pushing risk into the future."
Post a Comment