There’s nothing in it worth addressing; not a single original argument. Blah blah blah Israel blah blah blah it’s not perfect.
No, it’s not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than invading Iran. The worst possible outcome of the deal still postpones the war that would be inevitable if we had no deal. And with any luck, the benefits of Western trade might moderate the regime to the point that war is postponed indefinitely.
I’m really, really sorry that Obama didn’t solve the entire Middle East situation and ensure that everybody in the world who doesn’t like Israel is sent to Guantanamo, but he did the best anyone could do with all the messes Bush created, including a greatly strengthened Iran.
Let’s see - Israel is mentioned, tangentially, exactly once:
“As military officers, we find it unconscionable that such a windfall could be given to a regime that even the Obama administration has acknowledged will use a portion of such funds to continue to support terrorism in Israel, throughout the Middle East and globally, whether directly or through proxies. These actions will be made all the more deadly since the JCPOA will lift international embargoes on Iran’s access to advanced conventional weapons and ballistic missile technology.”
I see. Can you explain how you decided that the rabbis that signed are “putting the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of world peace” but the 200 generals and admirals that signed are “just wrong” (and, I presume, in your opinion, do not “put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of world peace”)?
I mean, what is your reasoning for making that distinction?
So they’re mad that a treaty over issue A doesn’t address issue B also?
Next time we assemble all the nations of the world for an Omnibus Treaty covering Everything, we’ll be sure to make a grand linkage between…everything.
Otherwise, this is idiocy. The treaty is to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That it leaves them free to do other bad things is simply not relevant.
Various conservative idiots were also cheesed that it didn’t address the four U.S. citizens held prisoner in Iran. We can call that issue C. Not only is this not relevant, if we had made it relevant, by premising our agreement to the treaty on the release of those prisoners, it would be an inducement for Iran to take more prisoners.
Yet other conservative blowhards demanded that Iran agree to recognize Israel’s right to exist as part of this treaty. Issue D. How many more ideas do they want to link?
Of course I disagree; get some new glasses. That is not a tangential mention, nor is it the only reference to Israel. On the contrary, Israel is the centerpiece of their very first specific objection: “Removing sanctions on Iran and releasing billions of dollars to its regime over the next ten years is inimical to the interests of Israel and the Middle East.”
Exactly. This kind of linkage would require the Iranians to change all of their foreign policy, divorce themselves from their commitments, and unilaterally disarm. That’s the only way they could be prevented from doing any bad things.
This is a classic case of someone demanding perfection, and thereby refusing to accept pretty much the best that is ever going to be available.
And Donald Trump said he could have negotiated the deal in a single day!
You are right, of course. The substance of the letter is more important than who signed it. If this is your point, I wholeheartedly agree.
I do have one question: I’ve found three signatories for whom their rank is misrepresented on the letter. (There may be more, but three immediately jumped to my attention.) In each case, the signatory’s rank was incorrectly higher, as opposed to lower.
Do you think the authors of the letter paid as careful attention to the substance of the deal as they did to getting the signatures?
I don’t think it “greatly” enhances this ability, but it probably will give Iran more freedom to do bad stuff.
I think that’s a worthy trade-off for the restrictions on nuclear weapons development. This is better (by a lot), in my opinion, for the world and for America, then Iran with decreased ability to support terrorists but unchecked ability to develop nuclear weapons. So the deal is way better than no deal, in my view.
If this is a contest over who can come up with the more consequential heap of letters and endorsements from credible sources, you lose badly.
A letter from 200 former generals is worthy of attention, sure. But their argument sucks. They’re comparing the deal on the table against some mythical better deal that we have no reason to believe could have been obtained during negotiations, or could be obtained going forward, and rejecting it on the basis of that comparison. It’s like turning down the best job offer I can get because it would be much, much better if I could be CEO of Oracle.
Huh? I’ve answered every question posed to me, and several that were posed in general. I’m not “ducking” anything.
In any case, bullshit anyway, because if everyone was obliged to answer every question posed in every thread…SDMB’s gonna need a lot bigger server. Letting something go – letting threads die – is often the wisest thing to do.
What’s your shirt size?
ETA: in several cases, if someone else has answered a question the way I would have (or would like to have) I don’t bother answering, because the question has been sufficiently answered. In one specific case, I commented, “Exactly,” agreeing and endorsing the answer.
Can you explain how you decided that the rabbis that signed are “putting the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of world peace” but the 200 generals and admirals that signed are “just wrong” (and, I presume, in your opinion, do not “put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of world peace”)?
What is your reasoning for making that distinction?
Mostly, I was giving him a poke for running off about how no US nuclear scientist was putting his rep on the line, then when I pointed to our lead negotiator, Mr. Moniz. Fits his parameters perfectly: an academic nuclear physicist and definitely putting his rep on the line. At which point, his curiosity satisfied, he simply dropped it. Plonk!
Reminded a couple more times after that, but it was beneath his dignity to respond to such snark. Thought you’d catch that, you didn’t and my fault.