I see. You’re in part majoring under false assumptions. First, the funds are overwhelmingly not in the United States. Very little of it is. So if the sanctions erode over the next few years - like China just loses interest in them - then the many billions in China will become available anyway.
Secondly, it isn’t hundreds of billions of dollars. You’re just wrong on that. The Treasury Department estimates something closer to $60 billion or so will actually be made available. But I’m sure you think they are liars because they aren’t saying what you want them to.
So in any case, you think that it is preferable to have Iran keep ten thousand centerfuges and many thousands of tons of LEU, which is enough to make a number of nuclear weapons. You’d also prefer Iran to keep their plutonium producing nuclear reactor. Why on fuck’s sake is that better?
People do say its a good deal. Plenty of people here on the board, and many of the scientists and politicians who have come out in support of it have said its a good deal.
There is a second group of people who think its a bad deal, but still support it, and finally a third group of people who think its a bad deal and don’t support it. You’re talking as if everybody is in group 2. That’s simply not true. You’re trying to paint the majority of the people supporting the deal as reluctant, group 2 supporters when most people who don’t have some political axe to grind are group 1 supporters who both think the deal is great and support it.
Plus, there’s the easy semantic trick of comparing it to a fictional “bad deal” and saying such a deal is worse than no deal at all. However, you can’t do that because the deal we have is real and in front of us. There’s no fictional bad deal that you can use to say is worse than no deal. The one scheduled to be voted on is good and that will be the basis of comparison
Republicans try to do the same thing with health care. “Repeal and replace” sounds good until you ask them what they will replace it with.
Anyone agree with me that by approving this unusual congress-votes-on-approval-then-President-vetoes method of reviewing the deal, the Republicans essentially assented in advance to the deal (long before it was finalized)? That if they really, really wanted to shut down this deal, they wouldn’t have agreed to this method at all in the first place?
Of possible interest to our readers, info I was alerted to by a friend, taking place on something called “Raddit”. Or maybe “Read It”, not too sure. At any rate, its a couple of scientists who signed the letter to Obama affirming their approval of The Deal. Its in the form of something called an “AMA”, which apparently has nothing to do with American medicine. At any rate:
Say, you are a Dem in a district with many Elbonians. The President is considering a move that many Elbonians find disagreeable. You are a loyal Dem, but you fear that you may be in electoral jeopardy if you vote for it. You relay your concerns to the Party leadership. They analyze the situation, and come to the conclusion that the matter will pass muster without your vote being crucial. So, you get a pass. You can pander to your Elbonian constituents by voting against the bill without being disloyal to the Party.
Not the oldest trick in the book, but one of them.
Don’t attribute to malice or trickery what you can attribute to stupidity. The GOP were wailing about Obama being able to sign a treaty without them, they were crying about needing some concession. Many of their members have the intelligence of Tom Cotton, the guy who wrote a letter to Iran telling them not to negotiate with our president and now wants the US to speak with one voice. I think they tried to get a concession, Obama realized it was stupid, gave it to them, and now they’re just realizing what they signed up for
You claimed that the rabbis’ letter was “putting the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of world peace”.
But the generals’/admirals’ letter was, apparently, not “putting the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of world peace”. They were “just wrong”.
Since I asked and you replied that you didn’t base that distinction on the contents of the letters, I asked how you decided on that.
To which you replied that that’s because “they’re U.S. Generals, and their loyalty is tied very closely to the U.S.”
By your answer, implying that the rabbis’ loyalty is not “tied very closely to the U.S.”. American rabbis, I must say. American citizens, not Israeli etc.
So you questioned their loyalty to the US. And of course you don’t want to admit it. So you bizarrely swing to some blather about Social Security numbers and phishing.
You know, implying all American jews have suspect loyalties wrt Israel is bad but quite honestly you are one of the last on this board who should be leading the charge against it, Terr.
What do my supposed loyalties have to do with Trinopus’ insinuations against the rabbis? Yours is a classic ad hominem - trying to divert attention from the argument to the arguer.
Reminds me of the famous Russian comedian’s statement - he said “The best way to win in an argument about ballet is to point out that one of your opponent’s legs is shorter than the other”. Except he was joking. You apparently take that seriously.
You are the only person here who seems to think that putting the interests of Israel ahead of world peace is tantamount to disloyalty to America. There are all kinds of Americans, including the senior senator from Arizona, who think military action is the solution to virtually everything. And as I have pointed out three times now, and as you have refused to address (except by grossly misreading their letter), the generals also have put the interests of Israel ahead of world peace, and yet you don’t consider that proof of their disloyalty.
It is entirely possible for someone to prefer that the US invade (e.g.) Iran to help Israel, when that is not necessarily the optimal strategy for an American who does not place a high priority on what Israel wants, without wanting something objectively bad to happen to the US. It is entirely possible to have loyalties to both countries, and to want the US to help Israel as much as it possibly can without hurting itself domestically, even if it means it damages its relations with countries other than Israel.
And it is as ludicrous to think that the rabbis are unbiased in their evaluation of geopolitical strategy as it is to think that evangelical Christians are unbiased in theirs.
It’s not a classic ad hominem because I wasn’t attempting to refute your argument with it. In fact, I clearly said assuming American jews have divided loyalties is bad. It just sticks in my craw a little to have you particularly being so bombastic about it.