No, I was talking about both. Thus my repeated use of “USA” and “USSR”.
Why should I? That’s totally irrelevant. I’m not a fan of Iran; I just don’t think they are the suicidal maniacs you are trying to claim they are.
Sigh, I did want to end this but oh well.
Nice try.
When I mentioned the Basij you said
Sorry, you were pretty clearly talking about the Soviets then. If you want to try and claim you were talking about the Americans instead, no American soldiers have never shown the sort of fanaticism that the Iranian soldiers did in their wars and frankly that’s a good thing.
That is complete bullshit. I never said any such thing and considering the fact that I’m Iranian you’re accusing me of that is quite silly.
Actually, since you’re claiming that the American Christians are as bad if not worse than the Iranian government how you’ve been treated as an atheist in America in comparison to the treatment of Jews and Christians in Iran and the much worse treatment of atheists in Iran is quite relevant.
So, once again, please give us some details on the type and nature of the persecution and discrimination you’ve faced as an atheist in America in school, employment, or your social life.
If your claims about American Christians are correct you should be able to give us some fairly profound tales.
If you’re unable to produce any, we’ll have to conclude that your views of American Christians being as bad as the Iranian government are demonstrably false.
To be fair to DT, that’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. The Apocalyptics in the US have no actual governmental power, wheres that mullahs in Iran have all the power. Now, we don’t really know how “bad” those Americans would be if they were in a similar position to the Council of Guardians, and the US system has lots of checks to make sure that doesn’t happen, but if it did, they may not be all that different.
Still, this is a huge hijack, so we should probably give it a rest.
You’re correct, it is a hijack which is why I earlier suggested he might want to open a thread on it.
That said, he clearly thinks they do have “actual governmental power” since he specifically claims he thinks they’re far more likely to start a nuclear war then the Iranian government which would require having actual governmental power.
Anyway, back to the OP, my own feeling is much of this is more about what might happen in the future since Khamanei has issued a fatwah against the building of nuclear weapons and while the clerics are pretty good at figuring out ways around all sorts of things, I.E. really strict prohibitions on suicide and the targeting of women and children, I’m not sure how they could get around it.
As to any of Khamenei’s successors, well, that’s a different story.
Yeah. 
As for the rest, I was only hoping to have vandaphil expand on what struck me as some knee-jerk ignorant bullshit. I promise, having been married to a Persian for some years, any apparent ignorance on my part was purely rhetorical.
No problem, I was far, far harsher than I should have been since I should have recognized you were making a comment about people’s views of Iranians rather than what they’re actually like.
Besides, plenty of us are “brown-skinned”.
Like Hispanics and Arabs we come in all colors.
How quickly things evolve. Can a mod change my thread to title to Iran: Fewer sanctions now or wait?
How is Obama going to get Congress to relax sanctions on Iran? Regardless of what you think of the merit of this, is there any chance that Congress passes a bill to support loosening sanctions in Iran? Will Obama veto a bill that refuses to do so?
I’m not seeing how this plays out in the political environment we live in-- and I don’t mean just the Republicans. Plenty of Democrats are furious at Obama for the political hit they are taking because of the ACA fiasco, and now they have to explain to their constituents that it’s a good thing to relax sanctions on Iran?
Well, to more or less repeat myself from page 1, most of the sanctions are from other countries, as the US and Iran more or less ended economic and diplomatic ties back in the 80’s. So Obama needs the French and Russians to sign off on a deal, not the US Congress.
If a nuclear device is detonated in the United States, how do you know who did it? We have 11 million illegal aliens who walked in without so much as a how-do-you-do and a President who not only refuses to transport them back when caught is actively trying to make voters out of them. What is stopping someone from transporting a nuke into the US.
Nothing.
What makes you think we’ll care? If Iran has nukes, and we get nuked, we’ll launch our nukes in retaliation against Iran and make up any necessary evidence later. Something they are well aware of given that they are right next to a country we conquered in the name of nonexistent WMDs.
Do you actually think that the Iranian leadership is less cynical about America than I am?
No, the same thing that has stopped anyone from doing so since other nations acquired nuclear weapons; fear of retaliation. If your idea would actually work the Soviets would have smuggled nukes into America during the Cold War; they didn’t because they knew we’d launch on them whether we found evidence it was them or not.
Can you please produce a cite to back up such a stupid assertion?
Thanks in advance.
My take on the whole deal:
Neither Obama nor Netanyahu were ever going to bomb Iran. It’s just not in their nature. I knew it, they knew it, the Iranians knew it. So instead, we got the only thing we could have expected to get - a face-saving agreement that will have no actual effect on the real world. So the U.S. gets to play peacemaker, Israel gets to play Cassandra, and Iran gets to be a nuclear power. I could have told you that a month ago.
I’m not sure what a “cite” for a prediction about a hypothetical scenario would be.
The conquest of Iraq comes close to one though I’d say. All you need to do is assuming that we keep acting like we’ve always acted.
You mean the way the US used nukes in response to 911 or the way the US bombed Iran after the Iranian catspaw Hezbollah blew up 240 Marines?
Sorry, but too anyone remotely familiar with the Middle East and the US relationship to it your prediction is beyond silly.
I’d recommend stopping by your local library and picking up some books on the subject.
Would it not be grand if the Democrats could explain or did not have to explain to their constituents that the ‘ACA roll out problems’ versus a sanctions lifting/ potential war preventing internationally backed ‘deal with Iran’ are two separate issues?
Got a cite for that (other than the fact that most trade, even under normal circumstances, would not be with the US)? We don’t need diplomatic relations in order to have trade, and we have tightened trade and financial restrictions on all sorts of goods and services to Iran over the years.
Plus, we are talking about Iran changing its nuclear policy, and the US needs to show signs of easing sanctions in order for the Iranians to agree to take steps on their part. If the US refuses, that gives Iran and excuse to refuse on its part as well.
Of course they are two separate issues. So what? Is having two separate issues that your constituents are pissed at you about supposed to be a consolation? Well, at least they’re not two related issues!!
It will be interesting to hear what Senator Chuck Schumer has to say about easing sanctions on Iran.
I do.
At any rate, according to the NYT article on the web right now it appears that Obama can act without Congress to ease the necessary sanctions, so the question is: will Congress act to prevent him from doing so? That is, will the Republicans and the Democratic hawks produce a new bill that limits Obama’s ability to do this? I suspect the Republicans, at least, will try.
The deal doesn’t require Iran to stop enrichment, only to cease any enrichment beyond 5%.
Seems like a reasonable deal to me, but then I’m a complete dove when it comes to dealing with Iran.
They can try, but I think there’s little chance that Harry Reid would allow a Senate vote on something against the President’s wishes, and even if he did, there’s very little chance they could override a veto.
Considering how little appetite the public has for military action, I think the public will be behind Obama on this as well, which would make it more difficult for the hawks to throw a wrench in the works.
Why would Democrat Poltician’s constituents be pissed about the Iran deal?