That is correct. Without a nuclear bomb Iran will always be at danger from US agression.
Given what they probably want a nuke for, them having nukes would actually increase the chance of US attack. I believe they want a nuclear shield so that they can expand their worldwide terror campaign and believe themselves untouchable. That assumption would be a terrible miscalculation on their part.
And of course those are American Rabbis and their loyalty is not tied very closely to the U.S. Right?
Ah isn’t projection a wonderous thing.
As priests I assume their loyalty is tied most closely to their religion. Other than that they are just normal citizens.
Because under the agreement, Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon. Period. If they are cheating, then they can obtain a nuclear weapon and the deal has failed.
You’re wrong because the point of the agreement isn’t to conduct inspections. That’s called a “self-licking ice cream cone.” The point of the agreement is to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and if they are doing things to obtain a weapon, the deal has failed.
The main problem in debating this point is that you seem not to understand some basics about this issue - why the agreement was pursued, what breakout is, etc.
“Rabbi” is not a “priest”. A rabbi is a graduate of a yeshiva - which is your run of the mill Orthodox Jewish religious school. I am sure some of those generals/admirals went to Catholic schools. Yet Trinopus still does not doubt their loyalty to the US somehow.
Ok, we get it, you’ve got a thing about connecting Judiasm and Israel. Why don’t you say what substance of the two letters you think is particularly good, and what the realistic alternative is to either the deal or war?
Tell me - all those people from Obama administration who claimed that “bad deal is worse than no deal” - what was their realistic alternative to a “bad deal”?
The demagoguery is amazing on this one. If that was the thinking - that there is no “realistic alternative” to a deal - then Iran held every card and the US was bluffing, and was caught out bluffing.
Doesn’t “Rabbi” mean teacher (of the Torah)? Seems disingenuous to say their schooling is similar to a Catholic school rather than a seminary. You’re saying it’s just like a Catholic graduating from Notre Dame?
I have a friend in NYC who is Orthodox and who went to a yeshivah as you went to a high school. At the end of the yeshivah, to graduate, he passed the “smichah” exam. Since he passed it, he is a “rabbi” now. He does not teach Judaism, he does not lead any congregations, and works in insurance industry. He’s definitely not a “priest”.
The alternative to a “bad deal” would be continued (perhaps intensified) sanctions, or military action. I think that when the administration talked about a “bad deal,” they contemplated a deal that wouldn’t include very rigorous inspections, for example, or any mechanism to reimpose sanctions in the event of violations.
Of course, none of the parties to this agreement view it as a bad deal.
Well you answered your own question.
In fact, correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like the badness of this deal in the eyes of critics really boils down to three things:
- It allows Iran to maintain a token nuclear program (to which it has a right as a signatory to the NPT), albeit under extremely close supervision
- It has an expiration date, as opposed to being forever and ever until the end of time
- It relieves Iran of the sanctions that were only imposed in the first place in order to get Iran to agree to restrictions on its program
All three of these are viewed by most of the world as eminently reasonable aspects of the deal.
So if you want to talk about demagoguery, you’re really going after the wrong side of the argument.
… and to follow up on that - even if you are only looking at the “pulpit rabbis”, Trinopus’s questioning of their loyalty to the US is disgusting.
How many Rabbis that signed that letter work in the insurance business I wonder.
No - the point is that this deal is better* than the alternative of indefinitely maintaining sanctions, and certainly better than the alternative of war.
*If not in our eyes, certainly better in the eyes of our P5+1 partners, upon whom we depend to maintain effective sanctions.
I disagree. Indefinitely maintaining sanctions is better. And just because Europeans have traditionally put their financial interests above their security interests doesn’t mean we have to do the same.
Well, OK, then how is it that his position as a “rabbi” is of any significance more than any other functionary of the insurance industry? Would you offer us a letter signed by ten thousand used car salesmen? If the importance of rabbis to the discussion is not based upon their religious calling, what is it based upon?
You know that when they said “a bad deal is worse than no deal,” they weren’t actually saying they made a bad deal, right?