I don't know how you got any of that from the article I posted. I'll just say what you posted is no more accurate than your understanding of dirty bombs.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Iran Nuke Deal
- Thread starter flenser
- Start date
Their hardliners sound an awful lot like their American counterparts.
Iranians dance in streets, thank Rouhani for nuclear deal
Motorists honk horns, wave victory signs, brandish posters of President Hassan Rouhani; 'A first step to becoming a friend with the world'.
Reuters 07.14.15, 23:43 / Israel News
Young Iranian men and women danced in streets in parts of Tehran and motorists honked car horns to cheer an historic nuclear accord with world powers they hope will end years of economic sanctions and decades of international isolation.
Millions of Iranians had followed the talks closely for months with the anticipation that Tuesday's deal would allow the economy, battered by years of sanctions, to stabilise and make their daily lives easier.
In the capital's affluent north, motorists played loud music from car stereos and young people blew South African-style 'vuvuzela' horns, scenes that Tehran normally witnesses only when the country qualifies the football World Cup.
Iranians celebrating the nuclear deal in the streets of Teheran (Photo: EPA)
Residents said police turned a blind eye to the festivities, and some even joined in. A woman in Vanak Square in north Tehran told Reuters by phone that people were buying sweets and handing them out on the streets.
Some young people draped the national flag over their shoulders, brandished posters of President Hassan Rouhani, made victory signs and shouted "Rouhani, thank you!"
Iranians celebrating with a picture of President Hassan Rouhani (Photo: AFP)
Some carried posters bearing the words "Never give up on hope", a slogan associated with Mir Hossein Mousavi, one of two opposition politicians placed under house arrest in 2011 after protests by their supporters were crushed by the state.
Residents said public festivities were more subdued in less well-off south and east Tehran.
Celebrations in Teheran (Photo: AFP)
A news conference announcing the deal achieved in marathon talks in Vienna was broadcast live on state TV. So was a speech by US President Barack Obama, an event almost inconceivable until recent months. Iranians gathered around TVs at home and in shops to watch it.
'Friend with the world'
"This is a first step to becoming a friend with the world," Bahar Ghorbani, 36, a housewife who lives in Isfahan said.
"I think the biggest achievement of the nuclear deal is the victory of logic and dialogue over warmongering and violence," she said, contacted over Facebook.
The deal will mean an end to sanctions which have caused economic hardship, particularly over the past three years when Tehran was stripped of access to the international financial system, making it difficult to sell oil and pay for imports.
Celebrations in Teheran (Photo: EPA)
It was a triumph for Rouhani, a pragmatist elected overwhelmingly two years ago on a promise to reduce the isolation of the country of 80 million people.
"Today is the end to acts of tyranny against our nation and the start of cooperation with the world," Rouhani said in a televised address.
Voters who backed him said they now felt vindicated.
"Now people can see the result of their votes," Behrouz Janfada, head of an IT department at an education institute, told Reuters from Tehran. "Rouhani promised to solve the nuclear issue in his electoral campaign, people elected him and he managed to save Iran from the sanctions and the threat of a war. That brings hope, and the feeling that you have a say."
'Death to America' just last week
Hatred towards the United States remains a basic tenet of Iran's ruling system, on display just last week during an annual protest day that saw large crowds across Iran chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".
Hardliners expressed doubt about the nuclear deal and had reservations about celebrations by reformists.
"This issue that a nuclear celebration will be taken over by only one faction will cause splits in society," said Hojatoleslam Hossein Sobhaninia, a senior cleric and parliamentarian, in an interview with the Fars News agency.
A police spokesman in Tehran said authorities would not intervene in the celebrations as long as no laws or religious morals were being violated.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has endorsed the negotiations but has yet to speak about the deal itself.
Graffiti on the former US embassy ni Teheran (Photo: AFP)
Abbas Abdi, an influential reformist politician, told Reuters by telephone he did not mind suspending much of Iran's nuclear work to reach out to the world.
"The important part for me is that Iran has came to a mutual understanding with the world, and is not humiliated," said Abdi, one of the students who attacked the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days, a crisis that ended the relations of the two countries.
But not everyone was keen to party. Nassim, a 42-year-old graphic designer who said he struggled to make ends meet as an artist, said he would not celebrate until he saw improvements in his own life.
"I didn't go to the streets. It's like World Cup celebrations. What's in it for me?" he said. "Tehran's streets are full of expensive convertible cars. That's the effect of sanctions. Those who had money got richer, and the poor are still poor and will remain poor."
Iranians dance in streets, thank Rouhani for nuclear deal
Motorists honk horns, wave victory signs, brandish posters of President Hassan Rouhani; 'A first step to becoming a friend with the world'.
Reuters 07.14.15, 23:43 / Israel News
Young Iranian men and women danced in streets in parts of Tehran and motorists honked car horns to cheer an historic nuclear accord with world powers they hope will end years of economic sanctions and decades of international isolation.
Millions of Iranians had followed the talks closely for months with the anticipation that Tuesday's deal would allow the economy, battered by years of sanctions, to stabilise and make their daily lives easier.
In the capital's affluent north, motorists played loud music from car stereos and young people blew South African-style 'vuvuzela' horns, scenes that Tehran normally witnesses only when the country qualifies the football World Cup.
Iranians celebrating the nuclear deal in the streets of Teheran (Photo: EPA)
Residents said police turned a blind eye to the festivities, and some even joined in. A woman in Vanak Square in north Tehran told Reuters by phone that people were buying sweets and handing them out on the streets.
Some young people draped the national flag over their shoulders, brandished posters of President Hassan Rouhani, made victory signs and shouted "Rouhani, thank you!"
Iranians celebrating with a picture of President Hassan Rouhani (Photo: AFP)
Some carried posters bearing the words "Never give up on hope", a slogan associated with Mir Hossein Mousavi, one of two opposition politicians placed under house arrest in 2011 after protests by their supporters were crushed by the state.
Residents said public festivities were more subdued in less well-off south and east Tehran.
Celebrations in Teheran (Photo: AFP)
A news conference announcing the deal achieved in marathon talks in Vienna was broadcast live on state TV. So was a speech by US President Barack Obama, an event almost inconceivable until recent months. Iranians gathered around TVs at home and in shops to watch it.
'Friend with the world'
"This is a first step to becoming a friend with the world," Bahar Ghorbani, 36, a housewife who lives in Isfahan said.
"I think the biggest achievement of the nuclear deal is the victory of logic and dialogue over warmongering and violence," she said, contacted over Facebook.
The deal will mean an end to sanctions which have caused economic hardship, particularly over the past three years when Tehran was stripped of access to the international financial system, making it difficult to sell oil and pay for imports.
Celebrations in Teheran (Photo: EPA)
It was a triumph for Rouhani, a pragmatist elected overwhelmingly two years ago on a promise to reduce the isolation of the country of 80 million people.
"Today is the end to acts of tyranny against our nation and the start of cooperation with the world," Rouhani said in a televised address.
Voters who backed him said they now felt vindicated.
"Now people can see the result of their votes," Behrouz Janfada, head of an IT department at an education institute, told Reuters from Tehran. "Rouhani promised to solve the nuclear issue in his electoral campaign, people elected him and he managed to save Iran from the sanctions and the threat of a war. That brings hope, and the feeling that you have a say."
'Death to America' just last week
Hatred towards the United States remains a basic tenet of Iran's ruling system, on display just last week during an annual protest day that saw large crowds across Iran chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".
Hardliners expressed doubt about the nuclear deal and had reservations about celebrations by reformists.
"This issue that a nuclear celebration will be taken over by only one faction will cause splits in society," said Hojatoleslam Hossein Sobhaninia, a senior cleric and parliamentarian, in an interview with the Fars News agency.
A police spokesman in Tehran said authorities would not intervene in the celebrations as long as no laws or religious morals were being violated.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has endorsed the negotiations but has yet to speak about the deal itself.
Graffiti on the former US embassy ni Teheran (Photo: AFP)
Abbas Abdi, an influential reformist politician, told Reuters by telephone he did not mind suspending much of Iran's nuclear work to reach out to the world.
"The important part for me is that Iran has came to a mutual understanding with the world, and is not humiliated," said Abdi, one of the students who attacked the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days, a crisis that ended the relations of the two countries.
But not everyone was keen to party. Nassim, a 42-year-old graphic designer who said he struggled to make ends meet as an artist, said he would not celebrate until he saw improvements in his own life.
"I didn't go to the streets. It's like World Cup celebrations. What's in it for me?" he said. "Tehran's streets are full of expensive convertible cars. That's the effect of sanctions. Those who had money got richer, and the poor are still poor and will remain poor."
GEE. Thanks CBS. Interesting article. But I really dislike that guy in the Whitehouse. Another point I think he got wrong in the article is that "Israel" has been at "war" with the U.S. since before 1948.
Iranians’ View of the Nuclear Deal: Optimistic, With Significant Caveats
The Intercept
Glenn Greenwald July 14 2015
U.S. media coverage of the Iran deal is, as usual, overwhelmingly focused on American and Israeli voices, with the hardliner fanatics in each country issuing apocalyptic decrees, insisting that the deal is far too lenient on Iran and provides it with far too many benefits. Though largely excluded from U.S. media discussions, there is also substantial debate among Iranians about the virtues of the deal, with most viewing it positively due to the economic benefits it is expected to provide, but with many holding the view that it unfairly impinges on Iranian sovereignty in exchange for very few legitimate concessions.
The optimistic Iranian view is grounded in the expectation that the deal will usher in a normalization of relations between Iran and the West, lifting both the sanctions regime and the threat of war. That view was expressed by the ringing endorsement from National Iranian American Council President Trita Parsi, who proclaimed that “diplomacy has triumphed and war is off the table. The United States and Iran have turned the tide on decades of enmity and instead have secured a nuclear deal that promises a better and brighter future.” He added that “we now know that the U.S. and Iran need not remain hostile enemies, but can interact with each other to achieve shared interests.”
But much Iranian public opinion, while positive, is more nuanced and guarded. Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor of international relations at Rutgers University (who was one of the individuals targeted for NSA spying), has devoted most of his career to advocating for a normalization of U.S./Iran relations and the lifting of the sanctions regime. To the extent this deal accomplishes that, he said today in an interview with The Intercept, he supports it, though if it ends up confined only to nuclear issues, “then it will be very bad for both countries.” Amirahmadi added that the mood in Tehran is, in general, “very happy.” Ordinary Iranians, he said, “obviously like what has happened” primarily because “they expect money to arrive, which will help the economy and create jobs.”
But he noted several critical caveats. To begin with, expectations among ordinary Iranians are very high: They expect substantial economic improvement, and if that fails to materialize, Amirahmadi sees a likelihood of serious political instability, which “could go in a terrible direction for Iran.” He pointed out that for many years, the Iranian government has, with some good reason, blamed the U.S., Europe and their sanctions regime for the economic suffering of Iranians. “They no longer have that pretext, which means they have to deliver,” he said. He argued that the 1979 revolution was driven primarily by the Shah’s devotion to distributing wealth to a tiny elite at the expense of most Iranians, and that any repeat of that with this new flow of money would exacerbate wealth inequality even further and risk serious domestic unrest.
A similar point was made by Alireza Haghighi, a political science PhD from Tehran University and professor at the University of Toronto. He told The Intercept that the prime driver of the deal from the Iranian side was economic mismanagement during the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which weakened the Iranian economy to the point where it could no longer sustain sanctions. “Had it not been for that,” he said, “sanctions could have been managed and no deal would have been necessary.”
As for outright Iranian opposition to the deal, Professor Amirahmadi said that it was largely confined to “conservatives,” by which he means “fundamental Islamists who are now the only real hardcore nationalists in the country.” But he also said that deal opponents “have some valid points.” For one, Iran (unlike Israel) is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and as such has the absolute right to enrich uranium at any level; “there’d be no reason to join the NPT except to get that right, so the fact that this deal ‘lets’ Iran do what they already had the right to do, at lesser levels, is not really a ground for celebration,” he said. He also pointed out that “the money that will flow to Iran under this deal is not a gift: this is Iran’s money that has been frozen and otherwise blocked.” As a result, he said, the hardliners have a valid objection to viewing these provisions as real concessions.
Leading Iranian government critics seem to view the deal quite favorably. Hadi Ghaemi of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran is a harsh government critic, but told The Intercept this morning that the deal is likely to alleviate economic suffering among ordinary Iranians.
While he foresees positive outcomes for the country, he said that in the immediate aftermath, “there may be short-term backlash in the form of domestic repression or the flaring of minor conflicts with the U.S, because the state has built its entire identity and official ideology on the idea of countering American imperialism.” Nonetheless, “the center of gravity is moving towards being pragmatic and engaging once again — the anti-imperialism and confrontational attitude has lost its pull on the people, even those who took part in the revolutions, and has lost all content over the years.” He added that “Iran is never going to become a real ally or friend of the U.S, but inside the country people say that the same way that China has both economic cooperation and strategic and political rivalry with America, this is what we should also strive for.”
There are some notable exceptions, but the general exclusion of Iranian voices from establishment U.S. media coverage, whether by intent or otherwise, has had a very distortive effect on how Iran is perceived, allowing its citizens to be depicted as primitive, irrational, apocalyptic religious fanatics. While that caricature arguably applies to the U.S.’s closest allies in the regime, and to some of the most extremist Iranian (and Israeli and American) fringes, it is wildly inapplicable to Iran as a whole.
The youth literacy rate in Iran is 98.7 percent, as compared to 82.4 percent in Iraq, 70.8 percent in Pakistan, and 89.3 percent in Egypt. Enrollment in tertiary education is only two percentage points below that of Germany, the U.K. and France. Iran’s Human Development Index is http://www.ir.undp.org/content/dam/iran/docs/Publications/Inclusive%20Growth%20&%20Development/IR%20of%20Iran%20Extract%20in%20HDR%202013%20ENG.pdf most of its neighbors. As Elahe Izadi explained last year in the Washington Post, “being a highly educated Iranian woman is actually quite normal. Women outnumber men in Iranian universities, a trend that started in 2001.” Similarly, Reza Aslan has pointed out that “Iran currently has the highest number of U.S. college alums serving in any foreign government cabinet in the world.” The country’s vice president, Masoumeh Ebtekar, is https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/meet-iran-s-first-woman-vice-president-125615087.html.
But the silencing of Iranian voices has meant that absurd, ignorant demonizing caricatures like this are the norm:
American journalists, who pride themselves on “neutrality” and “balance,” should spend some time considering how much of a platform they give to Israelis and how little they give to Iranians. Whatever one’s views, hearing from Iranians themselves about their own country — rather than relying on Israeli and American critics — is a prerequisite to journalistic fairness.
Photo: Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, center, Head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi, left, and Hossein Fereydoon, brother and close aide to President Hassan Rouhani, meet with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Vienna, Austria, Friday July 3, 2015. (Carlos Barria/AP)
Additional reporting provided by Andrew Fishman
The Intercept
Glenn Greenwald July 14 2015
U.S. media coverage of the Iran deal is, as usual, overwhelmingly focused on American and Israeli voices, with the hardliner fanatics in each country issuing apocalyptic decrees, insisting that the deal is far too lenient on Iran and provides it with far too many benefits. Though largely excluded from U.S. media discussions, there is also substantial debate among Iranians about the virtues of the deal, with most viewing it positively due to the economic benefits it is expected to provide, but with many holding the view that it unfairly impinges on Iranian sovereignty in exchange for very few legitimate concessions.
The optimistic Iranian view is grounded in the expectation that the deal will usher in a normalization of relations between Iran and the West, lifting both the sanctions regime and the threat of war. That view was expressed by the ringing endorsement from National Iranian American Council President Trita Parsi, who proclaimed that “diplomacy has triumphed and war is off the table. The United States and Iran have turned the tide on decades of enmity and instead have secured a nuclear deal that promises a better and brighter future.” He added that “we now know that the U.S. and Iran need not remain hostile enemies, but can interact with each other to achieve shared interests.”
But much Iranian public opinion, while positive, is more nuanced and guarded. Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor of international relations at Rutgers University (who was one of the individuals targeted for NSA spying), has devoted most of his career to advocating for a normalization of U.S./Iran relations and the lifting of the sanctions regime. To the extent this deal accomplishes that, he said today in an interview with The Intercept, he supports it, though if it ends up confined only to nuclear issues, “then it will be very bad for both countries.” Amirahmadi added that the mood in Tehran is, in general, “very happy.” Ordinary Iranians, he said, “obviously like what has happened” primarily because “they expect money to arrive, which will help the economy and create jobs.”
But he noted several critical caveats. To begin with, expectations among ordinary Iranians are very high: They expect substantial economic improvement, and if that fails to materialize, Amirahmadi sees a likelihood of serious political instability, which “could go in a terrible direction for Iran.” He pointed out that for many years, the Iranian government has, with some good reason, blamed the U.S., Europe and their sanctions regime for the economic suffering of Iranians. “They no longer have that pretext, which means they have to deliver,” he said. He argued that the 1979 revolution was driven primarily by the Shah’s devotion to distributing wealth to a tiny elite at the expense of most Iranians, and that any repeat of that with this new flow of money would exacerbate wealth inequality even further and risk serious domestic unrest.
A similar point was made by Alireza Haghighi, a political science PhD from Tehran University and professor at the University of Toronto. He told The Intercept that the prime driver of the deal from the Iranian side was economic mismanagement during the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which weakened the Iranian economy to the point where it could no longer sustain sanctions. “Had it not been for that,” he said, “sanctions could have been managed and no deal would have been necessary.”
As for outright Iranian opposition to the deal, Professor Amirahmadi said that it was largely confined to “conservatives,” by which he means “fundamental Islamists who are now the only real hardcore nationalists in the country.” But he also said that deal opponents “have some valid points.” For one, Iran (unlike Israel) is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and as such has the absolute right to enrich uranium at any level; “there’d be no reason to join the NPT except to get that right, so the fact that this deal ‘lets’ Iran do what they already had the right to do, at lesser levels, is not really a ground for celebration,” he said. He also pointed out that “the money that will flow to Iran under this deal is not a gift: this is Iran’s money that has been frozen and otherwise blocked.” As a result, he said, the hardliners have a valid objection to viewing these provisions as real concessions.
Leading Iranian government critics seem to view the deal quite favorably. Hadi Ghaemi of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran is a harsh government critic, but told The Intercept this morning that the deal is likely to alleviate economic suffering among ordinary Iranians.
While he foresees positive outcomes for the country, he said that in the immediate aftermath, “there may be short-term backlash in the form of domestic repression or the flaring of minor conflicts with the U.S, because the state has built its entire identity and official ideology on the idea of countering American imperialism.” Nonetheless, “the center of gravity is moving towards being pragmatic and engaging once again — the anti-imperialism and confrontational attitude has lost its pull on the people, even those who took part in the revolutions, and has lost all content over the years.” He added that “Iran is never going to become a real ally or friend of the U.S, but inside the country people say that the same way that China has both economic cooperation and strategic and political rivalry with America, this is what we should also strive for.”
There are some notable exceptions, but the general exclusion of Iranian voices from establishment U.S. media coverage, whether by intent or otherwise, has had a very distortive effect on how Iran is perceived, allowing its citizens to be depicted as primitive, irrational, apocalyptic religious fanatics. While that caricature arguably applies to the U.S.’s closest allies in the regime, and to some of the most extremist Iranian (and Israeli and American) fringes, it is wildly inapplicable to Iran as a whole.
The youth literacy rate in Iran is 98.7 percent, as compared to 82.4 percent in Iraq, 70.8 percent in Pakistan, and 89.3 percent in Egypt. Enrollment in tertiary education is only two percentage points below that of Germany, the U.K. and France. Iran’s Human Development Index is http://www.ir.undp.org/content/dam/iran/docs/Publications/Inclusive%20Growth%20&%20Development/IR%20of%20Iran%20Extract%20in%20HDR%202013%20ENG.pdf most of its neighbors. As Elahe Izadi explained last year in the Washington Post, “being a highly educated Iranian woman is actually quite normal. Women outnumber men in Iranian universities, a trend that started in 2001.” Similarly, Reza Aslan has pointed out that “Iran currently has the highest number of U.S. college alums serving in any foreign government cabinet in the world.” The country’s vice president, Masoumeh Ebtekar, is https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/meet-iran-s-first-woman-vice-president-125615087.html.
But the silencing of Iranian voices has meant that absurd, ignorant demonizing caricatures like this are the norm:
American journalists, who pride themselves on “neutrality” and “balance,” should spend some time considering how much of a platform they give to Israelis and how little they give to Iranians. Whatever one’s views, hearing from Iranians themselves about their own country — rather than relying on Israeli and American critics — is a prerequisite to journalistic fairness.
Photo: Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, center, Head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi, left, and Hossein Fereydoon, brother and close aide to President Hassan Rouhani, meet with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Vienna, Austria, Friday July 3, 2015. (Carlos Barria/AP)
Additional reporting provided by Andrew Fishman
I did notice his points. They were a mix of historical revisionism, total fantasy and the usual anti-Antisemitism that characterizes the neo-Confederate so-called libertarian movement. Nothing new there.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. It's too bad Orwell is gone. Using you and Flenser as antagonists in a 1984 sequel would be a stroke of genius.
I won't wast our time with cut and pasting the newspaper articles from the past and senate investigations into the spying and damage done to this country before and after Pollard. I don't need to mention the attack and murder of american sailors on the USS Liberty. It's all public information. Israel my friend has not, is not and will never be our friend. The Zionist regime is, and has always been, interested in one thing and one thing only. The creation of "greater Israel". At this point in time it is the most dangerous animal in the jungle.
Forgot to mention illegal arms sales.
Last edited:
BIGMESC
New Member
Yeah I was feeling a bit weird when I posted that rant.
Point that I was trying to make was that the article was a little over the top with cheerleading, comparing this accord with the "declaration of independence" and that "this was the last chance for peace in the Middle East". I find these type of statements to be journalistic sensationalism.
It in my opinion he made the accord out to be the victory in and of itself.
These type of agreements are only as good as the parties involved, non of which including the US have great track records.
You are correct, my understanding of dirty bombs was very inaccurate, I thought they were much worse then they are. It appears they are more of a nusiance than mass killers and not even very effective at denying ground as originally thought.
It's a good thing the US doesn't spy on its allies - Oh, wait! The US spies on friend and foe alike:
US spying on Germany.
US spying on France.
US spying on UK.
US spying on Canada.
US spying on Israel.
Determined to be friendly fire by the US government.
And I don't have to remind you that the US has a long history of accidentally killing allies:
Canadians killed by US friendly fire.
Brits killed by US friendly fire.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/long-unfortunate-history-friendly-fire-accidents-u-s-conflicts/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._friendly-fire_incidents_since_1945_with_British_victims
I thought you were going to say money. I suppose "greater Israel" is another way of saying the same thing, though.
Doublethink! War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; and now we can add Safe is Dangerous. I told you you should be a character in the 1984 sequel.
You mean Iranian illegal arms sales, of course.
Your post was spot on. The article in question was horseshit.
It's a good thing the US doesn't spy on its allies - Oh, wait! The US spies on friend and foe alike:
US spying on Germany.
US spying on France.
US spying on UK.
US spying on Canada.
US spying on Israel.
Determined to be friendly fire by the US government.
And I don't have to remind you that the US has a long history of accidentally killing allies:
Canadians killed by US friendly fire.
Brits killed by US friendly fire.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/long-unfortunate-history-friendly-fire-accidents-u-s-conflicts/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._friendly-fire_incidents_since_1945_with_British_victims
I thought you were going to say money. I suppose "greater Israel" is another way of saying the same thing, though.
Doublethink! War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; and now we can add Safe is Dangerous. I told you you should be a character in the 1984 sequel.
You mean Iranian illegal arms sales, of course.
1.WHAT DOES OUR SPYING HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID?
2.DETERMINED TO BE FRIENDLY FIRE? ACCIDENT? (THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST STUPIDEST AND CALLOUS REMARKS YOU'VE EVER MADE.)
3.ISRAEL SELLING AND SUPPLYING ILLEGAL WEAPONS TO AMERICAN ENEMIES IS NO SECRET. DO SOME RESEARCH.
4.YOU KNOW DAMN WELL WHAT IS MEANT BY THE TERM "GREATER ISRAEL" (Eretz Yisrael Hashleimah
Which of our enemies? We have so many
. But I'm sure they have helped arm and fund "rebels" in Syria and other areas to fight a proxy war against Iran and Syria. Saudi Arabia has been doing the same thing, and of course we have as well. These weapons happen to fall into the hands of our enemies and future enemies unfortunately. As far as Israel supplying China with U.S. nuclear technology, I would find that hard to believe and would need to see some strong evidence that would support that claim. While sanctions are placed on Iran and other nearby countries fuel a proxy war against Iran, the United States conveniently swoops in and offers a nuke deal that lift these sanctions. So Iran is left with a choice as to how money will be allocated with sanctions lifted. It will either choose to use the money to help its people or it will use the money to increase its military capabilities and fund its proxy war against Israel and Saudi. If Iran chooses to neglect its people (who have rather high expectations) it will face the risk of future political instability. With sanctions lifted the Iranian people will only have their leadership to blame for a shitty economy. Iran will have trouble placing any blame on other countries for a poor economy, once sanctions are lifted.
Iran's enemies will be able to capitalize off any increasing tension between the Iranian government and its people. Countries like Saudi and Israel will continue to fund a proxy war against both Syria and Iran. If Iran chooses to ignore its people by dumping the extra money it will have available, due to sanctions being lifted, into funding militias to fight its neighbors, the Iranian people will grow increasingly hostile towards its government. This would influence Iran to work with other countries (like the U.S.) to come up with a diplomatic solution to end the ongoing proxy wars it is involved in. Iran would be pressured to make ongoing future compromises in order to appease its people, out of fear of a possible revolt.
If Iran chooses to neglect its people in order to fight its neighbors, it will face increased aggression from its neighbors and more importantly, its people, and I am sure the U.S. will use such a conflict to topple the Iranian government internally. Or Iran will get on board and will have to start making some compromises that it is uncomfortable with in order to maintain stability in its own country. Being able to turn a country's own people against its government is a powerful tool (as we have seen in the past).
Last edited:
His specific points on the treaty were the reason I posted. He has been following things closely since the beginning, and calling BS on some of the more outrageous claims of the dissenters.
I personally like his somewhat exaggerated journalistic style, but probably only because his political beliefs and mine are very similar. I'm sure I would find the same style annoying coming from either Left or Right journalists.
And you're right about his calling the treaty a victory. Regardless of whether Iran can keep its word, there are only two probable 2016 presidential victors, and Israel owns them both. I will be amazed if there's not a war of some kind with Iran before 2018.
After Iran Deal, Obama Seeks Talks on Buying Israel’s Acquiescence
Israeli PM Seen Gambling by Refusing to Negotiate Sooner
Jason Ditz, July 15, 2015
Since mid-May, there’s been a sparsely reported fact underpinning the Israeli government’s position on the Iran nuclear talks and eventual deal: their policy stance is for sale, and the right amount of US military aid would make intense Israeli lobbying simply go away.
Israeli officials have admitted as much in local media, though of course much of the deal is contingent on them not publicly having to disavow their previous stance. There has even been semi-public debate between the foreign and defense ministries over the deal, with the military wanting to get the deal done soon, and the foreign ministry believing they can get more by holding out.
In his conversation with Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu today, President Obama is said to have brought the matter up directly, hoping to get the ball rolling on the deal. Netanyahu was not interested in talking, in part because he wants to keep the negotiations quiet.
But Netanyahu is also seen favoring the Foreign Ministry’s argument, that Israel can get more billions out of the US by holding out and threatening to kill the deal with lobbying to the US Congress. This is a risky gamble, however.
While many seem to be treating the Israel Lobby as nigh-omnipotent, it seems a real long shot that they could actually sabotage the deal in this manner. If it becomes more obvious they’ll fail, the US will have less and less reason to bargain with Israel on this “aid” package. If the rhetoric coming out of Netanyahu’s office continues to be so anti-Obama, it may also convince him that they don’t need to make any payment to Israel at all.
Israeli PM Seen Gambling by Refusing to Negotiate Sooner
Jason Ditz, July 15, 2015
Since mid-May, there’s been a sparsely reported fact underpinning the Israeli government’s position on the Iran nuclear talks and eventual deal: their policy stance is for sale, and the right amount of US military aid would make intense Israeli lobbying simply go away.
Israeli officials have admitted as much in local media, though of course much of the deal is contingent on them not publicly having to disavow their previous stance. There has even been semi-public debate between the foreign and defense ministries over the deal, with the military wanting to get the deal done soon, and the foreign ministry believing they can get more by holding out.
In his conversation with Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu today, President Obama is said to have brought the matter up directly, hoping to get the ball rolling on the deal. Netanyahu was not interested in talking, in part because he wants to keep the negotiations quiet.
But Netanyahu is also seen favoring the Foreign Ministry’s argument, that Israel can get more billions out of the US by holding out and threatening to kill the deal with lobbying to the US Congress. This is a risky gamble, however.
While many seem to be treating the Israel Lobby as nigh-omnipotent, it seems a real long shot that they could actually sabotage the deal in this manner. If it becomes more obvious they’ll fail, the US will have less and less reason to bargain with Israel on this “aid” package. If the rhetoric coming out of Netanyahu’s office continues to be so anti-Obama, it may also convince him that they don’t need to make any payment to Israel at all.
Which of our enemies? We have so many
While sanctions are placed on Iran and other nearby countries fuel a proxy war against Iran, the United States conveniently swoops in and offers a nuke deal that lift these sanctions. So Iran is left with a choice as to how money will be allocated with sanctions lifted. It will either choose to use the money to help its people or it will use the money to increase its military capabilities and fund its proxy war against Israel and Saudi. If Iran chooses to neglect its people (who have rather high expectations) it will face the risk of future political instability. With sanctions lifted the Iranian people will only have their leadership to blame for a shitty economy. Iran will have trouble placing any blame on other countries for a poor economy, once sanctions are lifted.
Iran's enemies will be able to capitalize off any increasing tension between the Iranian government and its people. Countries like Saudi and Israel will continue to fund a proxy war against both Syria and Iran. If Iran chooses to ignore its people by dumping the extra money it will have available, due to sanctions being lifted, into funding militias to fight its neighbors, the Iranian people will grow increasingly hostile towards its government. This would influence Iran to work with other countries (like the U.S.) to come up with a diplomatic solution to end the ongoing proxy wars it is involved in. Iran would be pressured to make ongoing future compromises in order to appease its people, out of fear of a possible revolt.
If Iran chooses to neglect its people in order to fight its neighbors, it will face increased aggression from its neighbors and more importantly, its people, and I am sure the U.S. will use such a conflict to topple the Iranian government internally. Or Iran will get on board and will have to start making some compromises that it is uncomfortable with in order to maintain stability in its own country. Being able to turn a country's own people against its government is a powerful tool (as we have seen in the past).
It was difficult to believe some of the allegations that were thrown around during the Vietnam war until Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers, at least it was difficult for me since I was a staunch supporter of our involvement in Vietnam.. It was hard to believe some of the seemingly wild charges against our government spying on the American people, and everybody else, until Snowden. China has had a very close relationship with Israel over many years and has invested billions of dollars into that country. Why do you find it so difficult to believe that nuclear technology may not have been involved? I'm not saying it has or it hasn't. We are always the last to know. If we ever do know. And some of these weapons you speak of sometimes do not just "fall" unfortunately into the enemies hands.
Rejecting the Iran Deal Would Be GOP Suicide
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/patrick-j-buchanan • July 17, 2015
From first reactions, it appears that Hill Republicans will be near unanimous in voting a resolution of rejection of the Iran nuclear deal. They will then vote to override President Obama’s veto of their resolution. And if the GOP fails there, Gov. Scott Walker says his first act as president would be to kill the deal.
But before the party commits to abrogating the Iran deal in 2017, the GOP should consider whether it would be committing suicide in 2016.
For even if Congress votes to deny Obama authority to lift U.S. sanctions on Iran, the U.S. will vote to lift sanctions in the UN Security Council. And Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China, all parties to the deal, will also lift sanctions.
A Congressional vote to kill the Iran deal would thus leave the U.S. isolated, its government humiliated, unable to comply with the pledges its own secretary of state negotiated. Would Americans cheer the GOP for leaving the United States with egg all over its face?
And if Congress refuses to honor the agreement, but Iran complies with all its terms, who among our friends and allies would stand with an obdurate America then? Israel would applaud, the Saudis perhaps, but who else? And as foreign companies raced to Iran, and U.S. companies were told to stay out, what would GOP presidential candidates tell the business community?
Would the party campaign in 2016 on a pledge to get tough and impose new sanctions? “Coercive diplomacy,” the Wall Street Journal calls it. If so, what more would they demand that Iran do? And what would they threaten Iran with, if she replied: We signed a deal. We will honor it. But we will make no new concessions under U.S. threat.
Would we bomb Iran? Would we go to war? Not only would Americans divide on any such action, the world would unite—against us. And would a Republican president really bomb an Iran that was scrupulously honoring the terms of the John Kerry deal? What would we bomb? All the known Iran nuclear facilities will be crawling with U.N. inspectors.
“Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons is resolved diplomatically through negotiation or it’s resolved through force,” said the president, “Those are the options.” Is that not pretty much where we are at, even if the GOP does not like it?
Republicans seem to be unable to grasp the changes that have taken place in this century. With the Arab Spring, the fall of half a dozen regimes, the rise of al-Qaeda and ISIS, civil wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, we have a new Middle East. Our principal enemies are now al-Qaeda and ISIS. And while both have been aided by our old allies, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, both are being resisted by Iran.
But, we are reminded, Iran’s regime is founded upon ideological hatred of America. But, so, too, were Mao’s China and Stalin’s USSR. Yet Nixon forged a detente with Mao and FDR partnered with Stalin. And Ronald Reagan negotiated a strategic arms deal with the “evil empire” of his time.
Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC, the Saudis and Gulf Arabs, will demand that Congress kill the Iran deal that Lindsey Graham says is a “death sentence for the State of Israel.” But one trusts that, this time, the GOP will add a dose of salt to what the hysterics are bellowing.
After all, it was Bibi’s rants—Iran is hellbent on getting a bomb, is only months away, and military action is needed now to smash the whirling centrifuges—that teed up the talks for Tehran. All Iran had to do was prove it had no bomb program, which was not difficult, as U.S. intelligence had repeatedly said Iran had no bomb program.
Then the Iranians proved it. They agreed to cut their centrifuges by two-thirds, to eliminate 98 percent of their uranium, to halt production of 20 percent uranium at Fordow, to convert the heavy-water reactor at Arak that produces plutonium to a light water reactor that produces one kilogram a year, and to let cameras in and give U.N. inspectors the run of their nuclear facilities.
And how is Israel, with hundreds of atom bombs, mortally imperiled by a deal that leaves Iran with not a single ounce of bomb-grade uranium?
What does Iran get? What Iran always wanted. Not a bomb which would make Iran a pariah like North Korea and could bring down upon her the same firestorm America delivered to Iraq, but a path to become again the hegemon of the Persian Gulf.
Remarkable. Iran agrees not to build a bomb it had already decided not to build, and we agree to lift all sanctions. And they pulled it off. What is one or two atom bombs you can’t use, without committing national suicide, compared to $100 billion in freed assets and a welcome mat back to the community of nations.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/author/patrick-j-buchanan • July 17, 2015
From first reactions, it appears that Hill Republicans will be near unanimous in voting a resolution of rejection of the Iran nuclear deal. They will then vote to override President Obama’s veto of their resolution. And if the GOP fails there, Gov. Scott Walker says his first act as president would be to kill the deal.
But before the party commits to abrogating the Iran deal in 2017, the GOP should consider whether it would be committing suicide in 2016.
For even if Congress votes to deny Obama authority to lift U.S. sanctions on Iran, the U.S. will vote to lift sanctions in the UN Security Council. And Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China, all parties to the deal, will also lift sanctions.
A Congressional vote to kill the Iran deal would thus leave the U.S. isolated, its government humiliated, unable to comply with the pledges its own secretary of state negotiated. Would Americans cheer the GOP for leaving the United States with egg all over its face?
And if Congress refuses to honor the agreement, but Iran complies with all its terms, who among our friends and allies would stand with an obdurate America then? Israel would applaud, the Saudis perhaps, but who else? And as foreign companies raced to Iran, and U.S. companies were told to stay out, what would GOP presidential candidates tell the business community?
Would the party campaign in 2016 on a pledge to get tough and impose new sanctions? “Coercive diplomacy,” the Wall Street Journal calls it. If so, what more would they demand that Iran do? And what would they threaten Iran with, if she replied: We signed a deal. We will honor it. But we will make no new concessions under U.S. threat.
Would we bomb Iran? Would we go to war? Not only would Americans divide on any such action, the world would unite—against us. And would a Republican president really bomb an Iran that was scrupulously honoring the terms of the John Kerry deal? What would we bomb? All the known Iran nuclear facilities will be crawling with U.N. inspectors.
“Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons is resolved diplomatically through negotiation or it’s resolved through force,” said the president, “Those are the options.” Is that not pretty much where we are at, even if the GOP does not like it?
Republicans seem to be unable to grasp the changes that have taken place in this century. With the Arab Spring, the fall of half a dozen regimes, the rise of al-Qaeda and ISIS, civil wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, we have a new Middle East. Our principal enemies are now al-Qaeda and ISIS. And while both have been aided by our old allies, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, both are being resisted by Iran.
But, we are reminded, Iran’s regime is founded upon ideological hatred of America. But, so, too, were Mao’s China and Stalin’s USSR. Yet Nixon forged a detente with Mao and FDR partnered with Stalin. And Ronald Reagan negotiated a strategic arms deal with the “evil empire” of his time.
Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC, the Saudis and Gulf Arabs, will demand that Congress kill the Iran deal that Lindsey Graham says is a “death sentence for the State of Israel.” But one trusts that, this time, the GOP will add a dose of salt to what the hysterics are bellowing.
After all, it was Bibi’s rants—Iran is hellbent on getting a bomb, is only months away, and military action is needed now to smash the whirling centrifuges—that teed up the talks for Tehran. All Iran had to do was prove it had no bomb program, which was not difficult, as U.S. intelligence had repeatedly said Iran had no bomb program.
Then the Iranians proved it. They agreed to cut their centrifuges by two-thirds, to eliminate 98 percent of their uranium, to halt production of 20 percent uranium at Fordow, to convert the heavy-water reactor at Arak that produces plutonium to a light water reactor that produces one kilogram a year, and to let cameras in and give U.N. inspectors the run of their nuclear facilities.
And how is Israel, with hundreds of atom bombs, mortally imperiled by a deal that leaves Iran with not a single ounce of bomb-grade uranium?
What does Iran get? What Iran always wanted. Not a bomb which would make Iran a pariah like North Korea and could bring down upon her the same firestorm America delivered to Iraq, but a path to become again the hegemon of the Persian Gulf.
Remarkable. Iran agrees not to build a bomb it had already decided not to build, and we agree to lift all sanctions. And they pulled it off. What is one or two atom bombs you can’t use, without committing national suicide, compared to $100 billion in freed assets and a welcome mat back to the community of nations.
Only in America can a leader try to disarm his country, and then turn around to arm an enemy.
When I look at how the Iranians played the Administration I wonder what is going through Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Medvedev, ISIS, and any other tin horn dictators mind, or what they see when they look at this whole thing. What are they are thinking? They must be so happy to see "everyone just getting along". This whole Nuke deal is based on "trust" from a country that has vowed to kill us. Why is Iran allowed to keep its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), and will they only be using them for R&D?
Should Iran arm them I guess we can have Michelle O start a hashtag campaign like the successful #BringBackOurGirls. That really seemed to work well for those 200 girls, not.
Oh well, back to the nuke deal. Since we trust Iran should we suspect they cheated, or that there has been a violation, fear not, there is a built in safety factor. We don't need to get our panties in an uproar, stress out trying to verify the claim, or if the violation(s) is legit, we simply have Obama place a call to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and then they call the Iranians for us.
From the moment the AEA calls the Iranians and says, "The Great One in the evil USA says you're cheating," a 14-day window opens for the Iranians and the Atomic Energy Agency to negotiate whether or not somebody will be allowed in to check. If the 14 days go by and there's still no resolution, then another three days will be triggered. Should nothing happen then, then nothing happens.
I wish LEO worked that way, and I can hear it now, "Mr. Joe Blow, we suspect you purchased some AAS, and we would like to come search your home in 14 days. Of course, you do have the right to refuse"
A total of 24 days can go by with nothing happening after the original request for verification's been made. Why we even have a time limit is beyond me since the Iranians can say "no" at any time, and there's no mechanism in place other than agree with them when they do say "no." This wonderful deal also has no mechanism in place to verify any suspicious activities, or to confirm evidence that we may have that they've been cheating. Therfore, every path to a nuclear weapon has NOT been cut off as we've been told. Gotta love a deal that's built on the trust from someone who chants "Death to America".
Bottom line, Fuck You Very Much. We're going to continue business as usual. Oh, and by the way Thank You for lifting the sanctions, and not bringing up the hostages we have.
When I look at how the Iranians played the Administration I wonder what is going through Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Medvedev, ISIS, and any other tin horn dictators mind, or what they see when they look at this whole thing. What are they are thinking? They must be so happy to see "everyone just getting along". This whole Nuke deal is based on "trust" from a country that has vowed to kill us. Why is Iran allowed to keep its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), and will they only be using them for R&D?
Should Iran arm them I guess we can have Michelle O start a hashtag campaign like the successful #BringBackOurGirls. That really seemed to work well for those 200 girls, not.
Oh well, back to the nuke deal. Since we trust Iran should we suspect they cheated, or that there has been a violation, fear not, there is a built in safety factor. We don't need to get our panties in an uproar, stress out trying to verify the claim, or if the violation(s) is legit, we simply have Obama place a call to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and then they call the Iranians for us.
From the moment the AEA calls the Iranians and says, "The Great One in the evil USA says you're cheating," a 14-day window opens for the Iranians and the Atomic Energy Agency to negotiate whether or not somebody will be allowed in to check. If the 14 days go by and there's still no resolution, then another three days will be triggered. Should nothing happen then, then nothing happens.
I wish LEO worked that way, and I can hear it now, "Mr. Joe Blow, we suspect you purchased some AAS, and we would like to come search your home in 14 days. Of course, you do have the right to refuse"
A total of 24 days can go by with nothing happening after the original request for verification's been made. Why we even have a time limit is beyond me since the Iranians can say "no" at any time, and there's no mechanism in place other than agree with them when they do say "no." This wonderful deal also has no mechanism in place to verify any suspicious activities, or to confirm evidence that we may have that they've been cheating. Therfore, every path to a nuclear weapon has NOT been cut off as we've been told. Gotta love a deal that's built on the trust from someone who chants "Death to America".
Bottom line, Fuck You Very Much. We're going to continue business as usual. Oh, and by the way Thank You for lifting the sanctions, and not bringing up the hostages we have.
I looked at the leading Iran hawks' cases against the deal. They're utter nonsense.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/16/8978439/case-against-iran-nuclear-deal
Yesterday I published an article asserting that opponents of the nuclear deal reached between Iran and the six major world powers negotiating with it had no argument. Of course, before reaching that conclusion I was not able to literally read every single hostile article that has been published. I was, however, able to engage last night in a little Twitter dialogue with Noah Pollak, a well-networked neoconservative who leads the Emergency Committee for Israel and writes for Commentary, the Weekly Standard, and the Washington Free Beacon.
He offered to recommend some choice articles that might change my mind around.
So I read them. And having read them, it's clearer than ever: The most prominent arguments against the deal aren't really arguments at all. The people making them don'tlike the deal, because they don't like Iran and because the deal has some upside for Iran. That is, of course, the nature of diplomacy. You make deals with adversaries (that's why you are negotiating), and the adversaries secure an upside through the deal (that's why you reach agreement).
But hawks don't want to come out and say they oppose diplomacy in all forms and just want a war. So what you get are irritable mental gestures instead.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/16/8978439/case-against-iran-nuclear-deal
Yesterday I published an article asserting that opponents of the nuclear deal reached between Iran and the six major world powers negotiating with it had no argument. Of course, before reaching that conclusion I was not able to literally read every single hostile article that has been published. I was, however, able to engage last night in a little Twitter dialogue with Noah Pollak, a well-networked neoconservative who leads the Emergency Committee for Israel and writes for Commentary, the Weekly Standard, and the Washington Free Beacon.
He offered to recommend some choice articles that might change my mind around.
So I read them. And having read them, it's clearer than ever: The most prominent arguments against the deal aren't really arguments at all. The people making them don'tlike the deal, because they don't like Iran and because the deal has some upside for Iran. That is, of course, the nature of diplomacy. You make deals with adversaries (that's why you are negotiating), and the adversaries secure an upside through the deal (that's why you reach agreement).
But hawks don't want to come out and say they oppose diplomacy in all forms and just want a war. So what you get are irritable mental gestures instead.
Similar threads
