The West Surrenders

[+and-then]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/23/world/meast/iran-nuclear-talks-geneva/

The P5+1 struck a deal with the smiling leaders of Iran today. No details have been released as yet. The potential for Iran to break out is left intact - apparently - because they had stated that enrichment was a firm red line for them. Six months... If they choose to obfuscate or even break the agreement does anyone REALLY think the west will backtrack? The west surrendered today and the price will be high eventually.

[Likely Guy]

I haven't got all of the information yet, but I'm just thinking that your position might be towards the 'over-reaction' end of the scale.

I heard that inspectors had unlimited access to their facilities for the next six months.

Edit: Or, at least, weekly access.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Likely Guy

[+and-then]

I haven't got all of the information yet, but I'm just thinking that your position might be towards the 'over-reaction' end of the scale.

I heard that inspectors had unlimited access to their facilities for the next six months.

Edit: Or, at least, weekly access.

I sincerely hope that I am over reacting. As the details become available I will recant my statement if it proves to be even a slightly positive deal. Iran insists it has a right to enrich uranium as a signatory of the NNPT but that is in error. They have a right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The two are not synonymous. I have long believed that Iran would get their bomb eventually and now I think it truly is inevitable. Even if Israel went against the whole world and attacked, it would only delay the inevitable. Remember last Summer when the nut job with the bad haircut was rattling sabres and the world seemed in rapt attention? Just imagine such a scenario but with the nutjobs sitting on a chokepoint for a substantial fraction of the world's oil.

[jeem]

Its a good decision an agreement means no war

don't you think it's good?

[+and-then]

Its a good decision an agreement means no war

don't you think it's good?

Neville Chamberlain got an agreement like this with Hitler - did that turn out to stop war?

[Mr.United_Nations]

Neville Chamberlain got an agreement like this with Hitler - did that turn out to stop war?

This is different though, Iran has a leader that actually wants to build bridges, however you have the relgious nutcases that want nuclear weapons

[DeWitz]

http://www.cnn.com/2...r-talks-geneva/

The P5+1 struck a deal with the smiling leaders of Iran today. No details have been released as yet. The potential for Iran to break out is left intact - apparently - because they had stated that enrichment was a firm red line for them. Six months... If they choose to obfuscate or even break the agreement does anyone REALLY think the west will backtrack? The west surrendered today and the price will be high eventually.

Does this mean that "The West," or "Bush" or whoever surrendered years ago to North Korea? To Pakistan? To any other nation which we, the US, cannot maintain entirely under our thumb forever and ever?

As I've alleged previously in these threads, negotiation is not appeasement is not surrender is not defeat.

[+and-then]

Does this mean that "The West," or "Bush" or whoever surrendered years ago to North Korea? To Pakistan? To any other nation which we, the US, cannot maintain entirely under our thumb forever and ever?

As I've alleged previously in these threads, negotiation is not appeasement is not surrender is not defeat.

As a practical matter these days Saint - it DOES mean those things if the entity you are negotiating with has proven it's deceptiveness time and again but that isn't considered by many now. If you actually think that any good will come of this deal then I believe you are dreaming. JMO.

[lightly]

What else can we do? This endless.. "don't do it!" .... " we aren't." is getting nowhere. Make an agreement... then VERIFY that all parties are in complete compliance . And then ENFORCE the agreement. If someone cheats, measures could be taken. The U.S has enough clout to insure cooperation ,IF they stop with the political mind games in all this and just Do it.

If any country or entity managed to put together a nuke, or bought one, in complete secrecy what could be done about that before hand?

What's the alternative? Pre-emptive Punishments? ( It is complicated though.. so see disclaimer below )

[DeWitz]

AT, I meant my post quite literally. NK has nukes and appears in constant batting practice to make one ballistic. Pakistan has had nukes for some time without our permission, or bowing and scraping to "The West," and I wouldn't trust their Islamofiefdom to feed my cat for the weekend. As they say in New York City, "Whhaddawegonnadoaboutit?!

No one that I know thinks the Iranian leadership is trustworthy; no Iranian leader trusts the US or "The West." What are we going to do? Negotiate anyway.

Negotiated agreements are best reached when cooler heads are prevailing, with full knowledge--not malice--aforethought.

Then: Review, verify assess, review, verify, assess, review. . . with several nations, not just the US, keeping up the pressure and hauling freight on this.

[+and-then]

AT, I meant my post quite literally. NK has nukes and appears in constant batting practice to make one ballistic. Pakistan has had nukes for some time without our permission, or bowing and scraping to "The West," and I wouldn't trust their Islamofiefdom to feed my cat for the weekend. As they say in New York City, "Whhaddawegonnadoaboutit?!

No one that I know thinks the Iranian leadership is trustworthy; no Iranian leader trusts the US or "The West." What are we going to do? Negotiate anyway.

Negotiated agreements are best reached when cooler heads are prevailing, with full knowledge--not malice--aforethought.

Then: Review, verify assess, review, verify, assess, review. . . with several nations, not just the US, keeping up the pressure and hauling freight on this.

We will watch this unfold over the next 6 months. My guess is that it will begin well. Then within 45 to 90 days a pattern of obfuscation, footdragging and arguments over the meaning of the text will make progress harder and harder. It seems to me that the bottom line is that we realized the choices are literally war now or probably war later and war later seems the best path.

[aquatus1]

What else can we do? This endless.. "don't do it!" .... " we aren't." is getting nowhere. Make an agreement... then VERIFY that all parties are in complete compliance . And then ENFORCE the agreement. If someone cheats, measures could be taken. The U.S has enough clout to insure cooperation ,IF they stop with the political mind games in all this and just Do it.

"Obey, or get the stick"?

Isn't that what they call "gunboat diplomacy"?

[Yamato]

http://www.cnn.com/2...r-talks-geneva/

The P5+1 struck a deal with the smiling leaders of Iran today. No details have been released as yet. The potential for Iran to break out is left intact - apparently - because they had stated that enrichment was a firm red line for them. Six months... If they choose to obfuscate or even break the agreement does anyone REALLY think the west will backtrack? The west surrendered today and the price will be high eventually.

So in other words,

http://youtu.be/P_o65B1JTiw

[lightly]

"Obey, or get the stick"?

Isn't that what they call "gunboat diplomacy"?

Yes. I don't really like the idea myself, do you have a better one?

* Not "Obey" ... Comply with whatever the agreement is.. uphold your end of the agreement. If NON compliance were to occur.. i don't know that the next step should be. I'm not into "sticks"

(and i wrote my post (#9) before i heard Kerry or anyone use the word "Verify" in regard to the agreement)

Edited November 25, 2013 by lightly

[aquatus1]

Yes. I don't really like the idea myself, do you have a better one?

I might.

The problem with "negotiated agreements" (as used in the world of global politics) is that it is inevitably a compromise, a lose-lose scenario, where both parties have to surrender something they wish to keep, and where success depends on each side feeling the other side got screwed more than they did. The only reason this is tolerable is because both parties feel that direct conflict (be it military or economic) would lose them even more, even if there ends up being a clear victor.

**If NON compliance were to occur.. i don't know that the next step should be. I'm not into "sticks"

I am afraid "sticks" would be the only option, being that the fundamental reason for a negotiation was as an alternative to conflict, a "truce", so to speak. Don't mistake this for "trust". In a mutual agreement, where both parties are ready and willing to deal in good faith, non-compliance will result in pre-negotiated fines, and will be assumed to be due to either error or incapacity. In a negotiated agreement, non-compliance would be a breakdown of the "truce" and a return to the previous conflict environment, with the addition of the violation, sort of adding insult to injury.

If we require a quick resolution, then negotiated contracts are necessary. If, however, we choose to take the long road, there may be a another way to resolve the issue.

**Not "Obey" ... Comply with whatever the agreement is.. uphold your end of the agreement.

**Note: Quote taken out of order by myself

I suspect the difference between "obey" and "comply" lie largely in the attitude of the person receiving the command. Culturally, aggressive societies simply do not tolerate being told to "obey" when among those they consider as equals (as opposed to what those others think of themselves as). Since the problem is, largely, the cultural perceptions influence on the level of trust, the solution is simple (in concept).

Change the culture.

[lightly]

Change the culture.

That sounds rather impossible? .. and, Im not sure any "culture" can be so simple as to be referred to as the culture?

In essence, your post seems to be agreeing with the Obey or ELSE! rational? I realize it's complicated, but these buffoons ,on both sides, are purposely making it harder than, and Look harder than, it has to be... for political reasons? It's political gamesmanship.. sort of like your post infers?

Edited November 25, 2013 by lightly

[DeWitz]

As a practical matter these days Saint - it DOES mean those things if the entity you are negotiating with has proven it's deceptiveness time and again but that isn't considered by many now. If you actually think that any good will come of this deal then I believe you are dreaming. JMO.

To employ part of your own interpretation, delaying war could be construed as a "good" (as in "any good will come out. . .").

As for dreaming, Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lennon and many others had some good dreams along the way. I'm not putting myself on their par, just not knocking "dreaming."

My dream is simple: That Obama will not follow the sheer idiocy of pre-emptive unilateral aggression--war--as presented by the nightmares of Bush's foolish and destabilizing invasion of Iraq, Clinton's air assaults on Serb civilians, Reagan's illegal incursions in El Salvador and Nicaragua, Nixon's cynical invasion of Cambodia, Johnson's machinations over the Gulf of Tonkin incident. . .'and the beat goes on."

I'd rather have our leaders dream realizable dreams than perpetrate nightmares that can't be undone.

[Space Commander Travis]

"Obey, or get the stick"?

Isn't that what they call "gunboat diplomacy"?

Yes. I don't really like the idea myself, do you have a better one?

* Not "Obey" ... Comply with whatever the agreement is.. uphold your end of the agreement. If NON compliance were to occur.. i don't know that the next step should be. I'm not into "sticks"

(and i wrote my post (#9) before i heard Kerry or anyone use the word "Verify" in regard to the agreement)

Question is though, does anyone (in the Middle East certainly) still fear America's Big Stick, since Obama and America's Top Diplomat Mr. Kerry were upstaged over Syria?

[+and-then]

Question is though, does anyone (in the Middle East certainly) still fear America's Big Stick, since Obama and America's Top Diplomat Mr. Kerry were upstaged over Syria?

Actions certainly have consequences don't they? And when a destructive ideology loses it's fear of consequences it typically loses restraint as well.

[Dark_Grey]

Question is though, does anyone (in the Middle East certainly) still fear America's Big Stick, since Obama and America's Top Diplomat Mr. Kerry were upstaged over Syria?

Doesn't appear so, but they fear the big whompin' stick America holds in it's hand: Israel.

[+and-then]

So in other words,

[media=]http://youtu.be/P_o65B1JTiw[/media]

So Iran is no threat at all and nuclear war will never happen, eh? Yam I don't even really greatly fear a nuclear war, in fact I EXPECT one to happen, regardless what Iran does. What mystifies me is the seeming cluelessness of our governments regarding these threats. If you want to live as though it isn't a real possibility then rock on. Iran with a nuke is going to be a global headache and potentially the start of "something big". These guys REGULARLY talk openly of Israel disappearing. Play games with the words all you like but if they were directed at you or those you love you would view them as threats. To see them as less than that when they are directed at Israel is nothing short of hypocritical.

[Dark_Grey]

What mystifies me is the seeming cluelessness of our governments regarding these threats. If you want to live as though it isn't a real possibility then rock on.

...and given that the government obviously has much more insight into the situation, doesn't that reassure you that Iran is probably not really a threat? The people "in the know" are all fine with it. People outside the loop like we are can only speculate.

[moonshadow60]

What did Iran lose? They were promised multiple billions in money, petroleum, gold, and cars? Since when are cars given to placate people who have sworn to destroy us? This is not the deal of the century; it is the dumbest mistake ever, in my humble opinion. BTW, no mention was even made of the three Americans they are holding as prisoners at all.

[+and-then]

...and given that the government obviously has much more insight into the situation, doesn't that reassure you that Iran is probably not really a threat? The people "in the know" are all fine with it. People outside the loop like we are can only speculate.

Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar are not all fine with it. They feel grievously threatened. If Iran wasn't working toward anything but electricity and medical applications those other Muslim countries would not be concerned with a brother Muslim nation demanding it's "rights".

[Yamato]

So Iran is no threat at all and nuclear war will never happen, eh? Yam I don't even really greatly fear a nuclear war, in fact I EXPECT one to happen, regardless what Iran does. What mystifies me is the seeming cluelessness of our governments regarding these threats. If you want to live as though it isn't a real possibility then rock on. Iran with a nuke is going to be a global headache and potentially the start of "something big". These guys REGULARLY talk openly of Israel disappearing. Play games with the words all you like but if they were directed at you or those you love you would view them as threats. To see them as less than that when they are directed at Israel is nothing short of hypocritical.

More lies, REGULARLY. There is absolutely no threat coming out of Iran to nuke anyone. It's delirious Zionist brainwash and nothing else.

I can't believe you're still kicking that dead horse trying to say I'm hypocritical. What part of the word EVERYONE do you not understand? Special treatment for Israel that nobody else on earth enjoys is rotgut barrel bellied hypocrisy. If you don't get your double standard for Israel, it feels hypocritical to you. I get that.

These positions on Israel are the epitome of hypocrisy and based on media fed LIES. The brainwashed who believe the garbage they hear in the media pick up on this nonsense and make the perfect stooges for the fantasy.

The US media (the mouth of the Establishment) has proven it has no problem with "elective wars" when our Presidents want to start them. People should be behind bars for war crimes in this country and pundits in the media making $10 million a year to spread the criminal political filth just love painting mass murder up so bloodless. Brian Williams and Bill Kristol and many many more should be in jail for their sweetheart defenses of illegal US foreign policies.

Chickenhawk neocons and especially self-described "Christian Zionists" like you need to read the Christian Just War Theory.

What part of the word defense do you neocons not understand? What part of the "If we're attacked or under an imminent threat of attack." that's codified into our rule of law can you neocons not understand?

Edited November 25, 2013 by Yamato