Of course. But if someone right now thinks that’s a bad deal, then you’d agree that once that is taken into account, following the same logic that the Obama administration did with “bad deal is worse than no deal” that “no deal” is a better alternative.
What I am saying is that it is disingenuous for people who said “bad deal is worse than no deal” to now say “well, then, what is the alternative?” to someone who is saying “it’s a bad deal”.
LOL! You’re just trying out that word salad in order to not have to think about what happens next! 
If this is a bad deal, its still better than no deal. But this is a good deal. No Terr, we’re not using your definition of a bad deal as the starting point for this debate. This is a great deal negotiated by Obama and no amount of whining by you or other conservatives will change that
No, that doesn’t follow logically at all, quite the reverse.
Ah then all those Obama administration officials saying “bad deal is worse than no deal” were lying.
In the interests of ruthless candor, and intending no disrespect whatsoever, I would quibble with the notion of a “great” deal. Just about the only “great” deal would be an unconditional surrender on their part, we get everything we want and they can go suck it.
I want the Iranian people to benefit from this deal, I want them to see the tangible benefit of cooperation and negotiation. That will effectively undercut the power of the Islamic fanatics. Which is a good thing. A very good thing. What value to a peace agreement that results in a hostile nation becoming even more hostile? Is there a more certain recipe for failure?
Those so eager to remind us of the consequences of Munich appear to have forgotten the consequences of Versailles.
Not considering the word salad and dancing around with hindsight … I think **Terr **has at least (accidentally?) attempted to answer the question of “what is the alternative from here?”. If I read it right, The alternatives are: refuse the deal, and then … (A) keep sanctions indefinitely, and/or (B) war.
(A) simply isn’t in the cards. The rest of the world is prepared to drop sanctions, and in my admittedly limited understanding, US sanctions alone are going to be much less effective at curbing their progress toward a weapon than this deal (which includes monitoring, inspections, dismantling, communication, threat of returning to multi-national sanctions, etc).
As for (B) War! That is last resort, and always an option. Even conceding the idea that it is a bad deal, it is still worth trying a bad deal before war. The details of the bad deal seem likely to slow research down between now and whenever we need to pull that trigger. Also, after sinking the deal that we supposedly negotiated in good faith, and the rest of the world is on board with, how Willing is our Coalition going to be led into this next war?
Cross that bridge when we come to it. Our question today is not “Have we solved every hypothethetical future scenario (while assuming the very worst of ourselves!)?” The question today is: “Approve the deal or not?” or “Is the deal designed to slow down their progress?” In your future scenario where they cheat, I hope to see the sanctions return. If that fails to happen, you will have more people on your side in the next argument. If they cheat, sanctions do not return, and they start pushing for breakout, A) that is still only not quite as bad as things are now, since whatever points they didn’t cheat on will have slowed them, and B) makes the final decision for war more justified than jumping into it now just because perfection was not achieved in this last negotiation.
If Iran didn’t sign up to a reasonable deal, I think the chances that Europe et al would maintain strong sanctions for a while is a reasonable expectation. If the U.S. pulls out of the deal, there’s no reason to believe that others will maintain sanctions. But let me make sure I understand your preference between two scenarios:
#1. Iran gives up 90+% of its uranium and centrifuges and submits to the most intrusive inspections of any arms control agreement that doesn’t involve a country that’s capitulated in a war. Iran’s ability to produce plutonium is verifiably eliminated. Major parts of this agreement continue in perpetuity. In exchange, sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program go away, but sanctions related to terrorism, human rights abuses, etc stay in place.
#2. Iran keeps all its uranium, centrifuges, and plutonium capabilities. There are no inspections. Iran keeps enough LEU to make several nuclear bombs. All sanctions stay in place for the U.S., but Europe will probably allow its sanctions to erode, probably within a few years.
You think option 2 is better than option 1? Seriously, WTF?
Since when is yogSosoth a member of the Obama Administration? If I say we shouldn’t bomb Iran, do you conclude that the Obama Administration was lying when they have said they are prepared to take military action?
Boy, you just posted one of the dumbest retorts I’ve ever seen in this forum. Arguing that one poster’s opinion speaks for the U.S. government - that’s a whole new level of laughable.
Nope, because this isn’t a bad deal. They were speaking hypothetically. If we had gotten a bad deal, a really bad one, it may be worse than no deal. Since by all accounts (except conservative ones) this is a great deal, then there is no lie.
I see how you’re slyly trying to sneak in your semantic wordplay to make it sound like this was a bad deal. Its not working and it won’t work, this deal is great. Nice try though.
Let’s see, the math works like this right?
Also in the interests of ruthless candor, that’s a perfect deal and one that is absolutely impossible to get. Obama should not be judged against what a perfect deal could be in another parallel universe. In this world, this was a great deal, the US and the P5+1 got most of what it wants and that, to me, makes it a great deal. Despite what conservatives are saying, there is no scenario in which the US would get what you are describing, so I consider it off the table even before negotiations began
It is ok to settle for what you can get rather than push for what you’ll never receive
I can only dream! To work for the Messiah? swoon
That’s tatological. They already have icbms…
No, in case you misunderstood it the first time, I will repeat:
It is disingenuous for people who said “bad deal is worse than no deal” to now say “well, then, what is the alternative?” as some kind of rebuttal to someone who is saying “it’s a bad deal”.
That’s predicated on the assumption that this is a bad deal. Since it clearly is not, its irrelevant what someone thinks of a fictional bad deal. The bad deal in your mind could have as its tenets the requirement that America gives all its nukes to Iran in exchange for their Supreme Leader giving a wedgie to Obama. That’s a bad deal and its worse than no deal. But this agreement is clearly in front of everyone, its real, and referring to THIS deal as worse than no deal is wrong.
Fictional bad deals? Sure, I’ll even agree with you! The fictional bad deal you have in your head where Obama gives Iran all of our nukes, helps them nuke Israel, and I dunno, resurrects Osama bin Laden from the dead? That’s a terrible deal and worse than no deal.
But the actual deal hammered out by Obama that’s in front of us? This is neither a bad deal nor would no deal be better. A bad deal (referring to this one if you consider it a bad deal) is worse than no deal.
No, it is not. Because the retort otherwise would be “no, it’s a good deal”. Not “well, what is the alternative”?
Obama said a bad deal is worse than no deal. Why? Because if Iran refuses to accept anything but a bad deal, then the alternative is continued sanctions. Of course, for that to be a viable alternative, the various parties to the sanctions (Russia, China etc.) must share the assessment that Iran is refusing to agree to any good deal. Otherwise, no such alternative exists.
And guess what? The rest of the P5+1 and most of the rest of the world DO view this as a good deal. So, given that Iran has agreed to what everyone else thinks is a good deal, the continuation of broad sanctions is not a viable alternative. That’s why given actual circumstances, “well, then, what is the alternative?” is in fact the only logical response to someone saying it’s a bad deal.
In other words, the administration’s “bad deal is worse than no deal” line can only be understood as: a deal that the P5+1 collectively views as a bad deal is worse than no deal. There should never have been any pretense that the US has the luxury of being sole arbiter of what a good deal would be.
Rockets aren’t nuclear weapons. And in case it needs to be said, motorcycles aren’t airplanes.
That said, motorcycles might have been able to accomplish what airplanes couldn’t in Benghazi…
Weaseling. And US should be the sole arbiter of what a “good deal” is when it makes a deal. But not with Obama at the helm, I guess.
Let’s go back to my two scenarios. Seriously, you think number 2 is a “good deal?”
Yes. With Iran having hundreds of billions of $ less to spend on terrorism, and its economy it tatters, yes. And with Europeans, if they wish to help Iran with their nuclear capabilities, having no fig leaf to hide behind, yes.
A pity we didn’t have John Bolton for our lead negotiator, rather than that Moniz guy. You know, that nuclear scientist guy with academic credentials. Who put his reputation on the line for this deal. That guy.
This assumption is a terrible miscalculation on your part.