The difference between your beliefs and reality, is that reality is related to the observed universe.
I am always amazed, especially after the Iraq debacle, that people still believe exacerbation of hostilities will somehow make things better.
Are you kidding me? Obama is being praised for this achievement. Is the praise a little premature? Possibly. But no one except American conservatives are complaining about what Obama has done here.
Cite an international outlet calling Obama a joke for this deal.
Like John Mace, you’re cynical. However, unlike John Mace, you’re also a ham sandwich.
I’m all for more normalized relations with both Iran and Cuba, but this part of your otherwise solid post is off point. We did actually sanction Iran into doing something we wanted. Further, Cuba isn’t an accurate counterpoint. Cuba was straight up funded with blank checks from the Soviet Union, without which the Castro regime likely would not have lasted as long as it did. And that’s a Cuba with much lighter sanctions on it than Iran, because Cuba never had the broad-based coalition of countries sanctioning it that Iran has right now.
Who do you mean by “we” when you said “we sanctioned them into doing something?” If it is “we” as in the US and Europe, that’s fair. But I’m saying that I don’t trust Europe to keep up sanctions for a long time.
If you mean “we” in reference only to the US, I disagree. It was the fact that a lot of Iran’s trading partners got together and agreed on the sanctions that really gave them some bite.
We’re told this is a “framework for an agreement”. Those are not my words, those are what is being reported. But if things are as Ravenman reports (and none of those things was in the linked article in the OP), then I can see this as a tentative, positive step forward. But the devil is, as they say, in the details and the details have yet to be worked out-- that is supposed to happen between now and June. Anyone want to bet on the June deadline being met? 
And I’m all for normalizing relations with Iran. If it were up to me, I’d do it tomorrow. There is nothing to be gained from not talking to governments when you are the only country (or almost only country) not doing so.
Countless deals with Iran later, they are pursuing their nuclear program, funding terrorist groups, and two-facing everything they say and do with America.
We’ll be back to play this same charade in a few years, after they’ve refused to let the UN atomic investigators into their facilities. They do this every time. Make them pay by keeping the sanctions for an extended time frame, and you may get some teeth to your negotiations.
But, of course, this is a major foreign policy achievement for the Obama administration. They wouldn’t dare scramble for a last-minute toothless deal in order to save face and try and notch some sort of accomplishment on their belt.
Laura Ingraham is REALLY not aging well, is she?
In my opinion…it’s all false drama, as Iran is simply big enough as a nation and an economy to get nuclear weapons if it wants them. Pakistan has 'em, and it’s economy (per the Wikipedia cite of the U.N. rankings) is less than half Iran’s economy.
This is one of those things you just can’t fight. We can, at best, delay it for a while, but threats and sanctions won’t do the trick: that just makes them angrier. It stiffens their determination. They know, once they do have such weaponry, the sanctions pretty much have to ease back. There wouldn’t be any purpose to them any longer, and it would continue to make them ill-disposed. Grumpy people with nuclear weapons: bad combination.
Obama is in a situation where the best he can do is put up a weak agreement, bypassing the Senate, and then wait for the U.S. right wing to shit all over him when Iran does, eventually, build its bomb.
But the U.S. right wing is going to shit all over Obama anyway, so what’s the goddam difference?
Peace with Iran Could Limit Ability to Bomb It, Warns McCain
In all great humor there is an element of truth.
what are you talking about? Countless meaning zero?
Some of the conservative comments quoted in that Salon article are hilarious. Apparently Obama has now legitimized nukes for the mullahs and the Ayatollah. (Figures that he would do this for fellow Muslims.) Michelle Malkin is predicting a world-ending nuclear apocalypse.
Apparently trying to reach a deal with Iran is sheer folly, and the only solution is to bomb the hell out of them. That ought to assure world peace. Bombing the hell out of Iraq certainly did!
Is this what the neocons have now become? I truly fear for the future of this world if a Republican president is elected in the present political climate. It’s not going to be about conservative fiscal policies, or negotiating peaceful treaties – it’s going to be about where the bombs fly.
That has an element of risk; you never know what the enemy might do with it. That was (one reason, apart from Emperor-worship and national chauvinism) why Japan was so reluctant to unconditionally surrender to the Allies – for all they knew, the Allied troops might sweep through the Home Islands in an orgy of rape, looting and slaughter. The Japanese knew all about such behavior by conquerors, having done it themselves in Nanjing, etc.
No, it is what they always were.
:dubious: Waitaminnit, now.
How is that not a “solid deal”?
That’s Freebeacon; don’t believe it until confirmed by a credible source.
What didn’t take long? For you to find a right-wing rag that prides itself on publishing bogus “news” that for some mysterious reason is reported nowhere else, and that’s been condemned by legitimate media as debasing journalism? It cites the Iranian foreign minister as accusing the US of “lying” about the framework agreement via Twitter, but in fact his Twitter log has no such accusations.
…and abortion, don’t forget abortion.
Well, that was never a neocon issue.
Exactly how significant would a U.S. only sanction be? Iran would be able to sell all its oil–the U.S. has only been a small market for Iranian oil anyway. The U.S. has certain technological monopolies–but not the many anymore.