Except by the American RW, which appears persistently oblivious to the fact that eliminating Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was never on the table nor could have been nor should have been, see above.
There is a large part of the RW who think a simple “bomb, bomb Iran” mission could fix any such problem. They think there would be no repercussions either, and that’s the worrisome part.
It’s not an “impossible demand”. It’s what Iranians claim was agreed to in the “framework agreement”. It just shows that what Obama presented as “framework agreement” exists only in his head. There is actually no signed document that anyone can point to, thus what the Iranians consider to be in the “agreement” is quite different from what Obama claims is in it.
We’ve gone from “the framework deal is terrible and will result in global catastrophe” to “the framework deal doesn’t exist”. Great job, guys!
The Iranians want sanctions lifted as early as possible with the fewest conditions as possible and with the least possibility of “snap-back” as can be obtained. Of course their opening position is “lift the sanctions while the ink is drying on all the signatures,” even as they understand that’s not how the final deal will work. Why that position should surprise or dismay anyone politically canny enough in the first place to realize it’s impractical is beyond me.
The Iranians who comprised our opposite numbers in this deal also have war-freaks to deal with, just as we do. Their war-freaks are convinced that if it came to war, Allah would ride to the rescue and protect Iran. They want a war, they see no advantage in avoiding one, and will bend every effort to sabotage any peaceful intentions.
We have our own. Not as many of ours depend on the terrible fire of God’s mighty sword, but the principle is quite similar. There, as here, men of good will are being accused of treason, cowardice and atheism. And men of good will, of whatever faith, of whatever complexion, are all that stand between the innocent and the Darkness.
Its pretty funny that our war hawks are saying the same thing that the Iranians are. I’m sure they completely miss the irony though.
I can see a lot of advantage to be had from a generous hand in lifting sanctions, especially consumer goods. Maybe a series of small concessions, not tied to any demands on our part, but as a gesture of good will to the Iranian people. Let them see more carrot, less stick. Let them see that every step towards peace is rewarded.
They* vote* there, that’s important. Often, when the people lead, the leaders follow.
You wouldn’t happen to have any one of those cite thingies to back up that assertion, would you?
I believe one is entitled to offer an assessment that is derived largely from one’s own ruminations on a widely scattered field of information. I believe they call that “having an opinion”. As I understand it, one is not required to cite authority when voicing an opinion, a suggestion as to how a situation might best be appraised.
Your mileage might vary. And I might care.
But perhaps you also forgot which forum we are in. GD, not IMHO. If you can’t or won’t back up your assertions, that is your choice. But do not act as if that is not what this forum is for.
I stand by the quoted words. And, as Eugene V. Debs is my witness, I don’t get what your problem is, here. Not that I’m anxious to, just that I don’t.
I clearly make reference to the paucity of reliable sources and the fog of biases. That’s a given, yes? So, I reference the lack of definitive sources, and you rag on me to provide them? Huh?
Further, if you have issues with my Board behavior, there are procedures, and they require neither my permission nor my approval. Freak freely.
For what it’s worth, I share elucidator’s opinion and I’m surprised John Mace doesn’t agree with it. This is a nation that supports worldwide terrorism more than any other country and has sponsored attacks in places Al Qaeda hasn’t even bothered with(such as Argentina). The kinds of people who would not only do that, but are successfully keeping discussion of Iran’s terror networks off the table, are probably not the kinds of people interested in peace. I’d also note that given what’s actually on the table, Iran’s warhawks are giving up nothing whatsoever that really matters to them.
As it should be, of course.
Clearly, there is some peace movement in Iran, or they wouldn’t be anywhere near the table. Based on my authority as Queen of Romania, I got a nickel says they are the young and the better educated. The future, demographically speaking.
And we don’t have to win their hearts and minds, all we need for now is to move fingers away from triggers and safeties to “on”.
You mean like this?
If so, then yeah…there certainly was and still is a large movement in Iran opposing a lot of the actions of the Iranian government. Trouble is:
But, yeah, I agree with you (assuming I can parse through whatever your position is and have accurately judged what that might be…always a tenuous thing)…we should encourage such groups, and one way to do that is through dialogue and perhaps the lifting of sanctions, which actually hit the regular people in Iran harder than it hits the elite and the hard core types. I think that what Obama is doing has potential, and I hope it goes somewhere, though the last I read about this (granted, that was Monday) the whole thing seemed pretty precarious, with both sides seemingly claiming different things had been agreed upon.
On reflection, I wholly renounce my previous position and fully endorse whatever it was that John Mace was saying.
You don’t understand what a request for a cite is? Not sure I can do anything about that.