|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 28 2016 09:00 biology]major wrote:
Is there anyone here in support of the iran deal? I don't understand the logic behind it. We gave them a bunch of cash so we could completely control their nuclear production (not a guarantee), so they just wait 10 years and then what? Are we going to do a nuclear deal with north korea next?
thats because you dont understand the deal.
|
On September 28 2016 09:00 biology]major wrote:
Is there anyone here in support of the iran deal? I don't understand the logic behind it. We gave them a bunch of cash so we could completely control their nuclear production (not a guarantee), so they just wait 10 years and then what? Are we going to do a nuclear deal with north korea next?
Oh boy. So we didn't give them money. We that was their money from the 1970s before the coup and we froze the assets. We gave them back their money. And in return for lifting sanctions, we were give access to their country and state run nuclear facilities for inspections(something we would never let another nation do to our nuclear power plants). Due to this, we have a better diplomatic relationship with Iran, which is good because the region is more unstable than ever. It is not a perfect deal, but nothing is a zero sum gain when dealing with other nations.
Trumps proposal that we keep sanctioning them until the country implodes into instability was terrible. That is the last thing the US or the world wants, since countries without leadership/government. tend to cause a lot of violence. That clearly showed he has not grasp of foreign policy.
On September 28 2016 09:05 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 09:00 biology]major wrote:
Is there anyone here in support of the iran deal? I don't understand the logic behind it. We gave them a bunch of cash so we could completely control their nuclear production (not a guarantee), so they just wait 10 years and then what? Are we going to do a nuclear deal with north korea next? thats because you dont understand the deal.
Also this. People have a poor understanding of the deal and want to resolve relationships with other nations like action movies, where America wins. That isn't how it works, but Trump thinks it could. Because he is good at buisness(he isn't very good at buisness).
|
That isn't quite accurate.
|
The Art of the Deal author said he knew Trump better than anyone else. He was embedded into Trump's daily life for 18 months. He said Trump is vacuous. He flies by the seat of his pants, pursuing a cutthroat, edge-of-legality strategy that is conceived solely to make more money for him. In divorce records, Trump Jr is claimed to have said "How can you say you love us? You only love your money". In Trump's interpersonal relationships and daily life, he is consumed with himself. And this is true to such a great extent that his attention span can't handle not talking about himself or being praised. According to Tony Schwartz, Trump is that vacuous.
Now picture yourself carrying the mantle of a major party nomination for President of the US. You know the debate could be very important. Do you decide to just wing it? How do you wing a debate in a serious manner? After having demonstrated both a low knowledge level and unwillingness to learn more?
|
On September 28 2016 09:09 Lord Tolkien wrote:
That isn't quite accurate.
I fully understand it isn't perfectly accurate, but my willingness to look up the finer details to educate someone who likely won't care is in direct conflict with this hang over.
|
On September 28 2016 09:00 biology]major wrote:
Is there anyone here in support of the iran deal? I don't understand the logic behind it. We gave them a bunch of cash so we could completely control their nuclear production (not a guarantee), so they just wait 10 years and then what? Are we going to do a nuclear deal with north korea next?
After an hour of the talking points, basically that you're stupid to think it was a payout and all criticism of the Iran deal is misinformed, they'll get to the main points. One is the thought that any deal was better than no deal and this one at least delays the inevitable. They'll allege the sanctions weren't working (Jay Solomon had a good piece on the side opposed). Depending who you ask, they aren't that dangerous, are on par with Israel for terrorist support, and no military threats or red lines would work.
|
On September 28 2016 09:00 biology]major wrote:
Is there anyone here in support of the iran deal? I don't understand the logic behind it. We gave them a bunch of cash so we could completely control their nuclear production (not a guarantee), so they just wait 10 years and then what? Are we going to do a nuclear deal with north korea next?
I'm in support of it. Aside from my actual reasons, Iran and N. Korea really aren't comparable, imo. One's basically a puppet proxy dictator state while the other is probably more closely aligned with American values than some of our ostensible actual allies in the region (Saudi Arabia).
My reasoning is pretty simple, the people in favor of it have repeatedly demonstrated better judgement about FP than the people against it. The reasons they gave were ones that I agreed with, and I didn't really see actual merit from any of the counter arguments.
|
On September 28 2016 09:10 Plansix wrote:I fully understand it isn't perfectly accurate, but my willingness to look up the finer details to educate someone who likely won't care is in direct conflict with this hang over.
I learned some things from your post plansix. So Iran decided to temporarily disable its nuclear program for 1.7 billion that we previously owed them, ok makes sense. You say we now have better relations with Iran because of it, but I see it differently. They were able to get their money back and just have to wait a few years until they can resume.
Their vessels are highly confrontational and they capture our sailors, doesn't seem like good diplomatic relations to me. They are taunting us and basically saying thanks for the money, see you in 10 years. Who knows where that money is going to end up and who it arms.
|
There are several factions within the Iran, but here's a simplification that I think is okay for these purposes.
One is the moderates, who have only in the last decade really begun coming back into power. They have fairly significant popular support. These guys favor better relations with the West and don't take the Quran as literally (or favor a more liberal interpretation of it).
On the other hand there's the hardcore conservatives. This consists of the Revolutionary Guard and the ruling clerics. The guard is the big military force and the is pretty much its own social/economic class (wealthy, educated, powerful) and the clerics are the ones who have the final say on... pretty much everything. Note that their popular support is by no means small either, plenty of Iranian citizens support them.
Iran is far from monolithic (much like the US) Every one of these groups has a different agenda. Thus while one side might be negotiating a relief to sanctions, the other might be screaming death to the infidels. My understanding however is that there's a part of the conservative group as well as the ruling clerics who are actually open to better relations to the west, but they've got to keep the base happy as well so they have to do stuff like flipping US sailors the bird to show they're being tough on the infidels (though the particular boating incident mentioned could just as well have been a spontaneous or rogue action).
|
I don't see how the problem of Iran being antagonistic was ever going to go away by sanctioning them. Even if in the medium term it prevented them from attaining nuclear capability and hindered their economy, they were never going to become more friendly that way.
They might not have the temperament we would like our friends to have at the present time, but we can hope to change that by playing nice with them. Iran was not always like it is now, there's no reason to think the country *can't* become something more palatable to Western sensibilities again.
The other alternative would be to invade them or something along those lines. Unless somebody really badly wants to discuss it, I'm going to dismiss that as a Bad Idea.
|
On September 28 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:
Their vessels are highly confrontational and they capture our sailors, doesn't seem like good diplomatic relations to me. They are taunting us and basically saying thanks for the money, see you in 10 years. The f...?
It is so clearly the US that is doing the taunting!
And they have not even the right to be there in the first place! (Also shot down a civil aircraft and never even apologized for example.)
Patrolling a vintage battleship on the edge of a 'virtual' border to provoke an overreaction of like one warning shot deemed too close is textbook taunting!
|
If anything ISIS has taught us is that Iran is probably a better ally to have in the middle east then the saudies. When we really needed them to step up and keep everything we did in iraq from going up in flames they were there. Isis wasn't that far from bagdad and if ISIS had started a siege of the green zone shit would have gotten real real fucking fast. But instead they came into the country and held the line with their front line troops while mobilizing religious militias that only they really could have done. Can you honestly give any examples of conflict between american iranian and kurdish forces in the field?
Granted the Us and Iran are never going to be besties but if 78% or so (I quickly wikied this no lie) of Vietnamese people have a positive view of america today then the same can happen with Iran.
On September 28 2016 09:44 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:
Their vessels are highly confrontational and they capture our sailors, doesn't seem like good diplomatic relations to me. They are taunting us and basically saying thanks for the money, see you in 10 years. The f...? It is so clearly the US that is doing the taunting! And they have not even the right to be there in the first place! (Also shot down a civil aircraft and never even apologized for example.) Patrolling a vintage battleship on the edge of a 'virtual' border to provoke an overreaction of like one warning shot deemed too close is textbook taunting!
With the Us naval base in Kuwait the Us navy has every right to be in the gulf of oman then anyone. Not to mention the Strategic interests the US has in keeping the straight of Hormuz open to unmolested trade.
|
I have a strong feeling Tony Schwartz help the Clinton team a good bit.
|
While the sanctions on Iran were hardly the same, the sanctions on Iraq after their invasion of Kuwait were also one of the main notes Osama bin Laden hit in his speeches saying the West was pretty much evil incarnate-he cited stats like 600,000 children killed by the sanctions, which is pretty compelling.
(incidentally, the speeches themselves were pretty good rhetoric-at least after English translation-I would like to see him debate Trump to be honest, it would have been a sight to behold)
To this day, I think sanctions are still kind of a rallying cry for extremists because when they are imposed against a regime it is typically the common people who suffer, not the powerful ones.
|
On September 28 2016 07:16 LegalLord wrote:The "doctrine of PC" is a real issue that genuinely leads to a discussion killing censorship in the name of stopping an ever-expanding concept of "racism" that reminds me of that anti-racist Hitler cartoon. A lot of Republicans use "anti-PC" in a way that just looks like a justification for what no one would disagree is genuine racism, and they end up being the "if Jesus isn't real how do you explain the Bible?" idiots of the anti-PC movement as Kwark put it - the people who even the supporters of the position distance themselves from because said people make them look bad. + Show Spoiler +I feel like I keep interjecting into these discussions with short and random centrist positions on the issues.
centrist position = nazi videos who parody the holocaust and compare it to "multiculturalism"
how dense are you?
|
United States44109 Posts
On September 28 2016 09:00 biology]major wrote:
Is there anyone here in support of the iran deal? I don't understand the logic behind it. We gave them a bunch of cash so we could completely control their nuclear production (not a guarantee), so they just wait 10 years and then what? Are we going to do a nuclear deal with north korea next?
Background: United States is the shitty party in the Iran-US relationship. The US may be objectively better as a nation (democracy, women's rights etc) but in terms of who is fucking who over the US has been the party chain fucking Iran while chestbeating because what the fuck are they gonna do about it. I can explain this at greater length but if you're familiar with the history of the region I shouldn't have to.
2003:
GWB starts invading nations on his list and the only way to stop him doing so, as North Korea has shown, is to actually have WMDs as a deterrent. Saddam destroyed his WMDs as everyone, from the South Africans who worked with him on the program to the UN inspectors to intelligence services outside the US, said. Then he got invaded. The lesson was pretty fucking clear and a lot of important people inside the United States are publicly stating their intention to invade Iran. Given their inability to win militarily some other kind of deterrent is priority #1 for the survival of their nation.
2000s:
Iraq goes super badly and Iran is looking like it won't be so fun so the Iran invasion doesn't happen, even though their nuke isn't done yet. Instead there are just sanctions.
2010s:
The coalition behind the sanctions is fracturing and although the US can keep her own sanctions on forever that won't mean shit if they're the only ones doing it. Russia, China, half of Europe etc are no longer on board because Iran is offering a deal that the US refuses to take. Iran is perfectly happy to trade with its neighbours and China is perfectly happy to buy discounted oil that the US refuses to let US based multinationals buy. Meanwhile Iran gets closer and closer to completing a nuclear weapon.
At this point the US has basically lost. They can increase the intensity of the sanctions indefinitely but if they don't make the sanctions universally applied by a coalition that won't count for shit. And even if they do it won't stop Iran getting the nuke because as long as Iran believes the United States really does intend to invade, well, they actually need that nuke. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. They need the nuke because the US says they'll invade because the US doesn't want them to have a nuke. Given the US refuses to invade, and given the sanction regime was fracturing, there were no more cards left to play. We could delay Iran, as we did with Stuxnet, but not stop.
With this in mind we looked at the deal Iran was asking for in exchange for ending the sanctions. After all, the whole point of the sanctions wasn't to somehow force them to not get a nuke (North Korea is sanctioned more than anyone, can still get a nuke) but rather to create a bargaining position where they'd rather not get the nuke. The sanctions were intended to make shit generally unpleasant for them to force them to the negotiating table, if you refuse to negotiate once they're there and just scream "double the sanctions" a la Trump, well, what the hell were the sanctions even for in the first place. They wanted an end to sanctions (excluding controlled tech obviously, still a sales ban there) and the opportunity to flood the markets with their oil. We wanted guarantees that their nuclear program would end. They, in turn, wanted relations that would make it less necessary. We wanted guarantees from all of their neighbours that if their nuclear program didn't end the coalition of sanction countries would be back in force. They wanted back all the money stolen from them during the Revolution. We wanted some citizens, some of whom were spies they had caught.
In the end a deal was struck and it was a remarkably good deal, given the weakness of the American position going in. How good the deal was is indicative of their lack of commitment to their nuclear aspirations (which they only really needed as long as the US was going "no deal, INVADE") and their desire to reenter the international community.
Before, Iran was going to definitely get a nuke very soon. After, no evidence suggests that they are going to get a nuke, certainly not soon, the facilities could hypothetically be reactivated but right now they're dormant.
Before, Iran's sanctions were going to end as the coalition broke down causing bad blood between America and Russia/China and letting Russia/China partner with Iran and profit from the exclusive relationship. After, the dying sanctions are gone and Iranian oil is on the open market. And all the big nations have committed to return to stronger sanctions than before if Iran violates the deal.
It's a huge diplomatic coup and what makes it better is that both parties actually profit from it and can claim it as a victory. Iran wins by having the sanctions be over and not having to funnel all their money into a nuclear program to defend against the US anymore. The US wins by Iran scrapping their nuclear ambitions without having to invade at a colossal cost in resources and dead Americans. The entire argument was dumb as hell in the first place, it was a nuke to defend against the soldiers trying to stop them getting a nuke. Iran actually tried to work with the US after 9/11 including joining the coalition invading Afghanistan and helping US special forces with the initial invasion. It was only after the Bush doctrine and the Axis of Evil speech that shit all went wrong.
Additionally we all love cheap oil, except for Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia etc and fuck those guys, Iranian undermining of OPEC is bankrupting Russia. Additionally a strong Shia nation acts as a great counterbalance to SA in the region and ISIS specifically (Iran is on the ground fighting them in Syria). There is literally no part of resolving the Iran deal that isn't good, the deal is so amazingly good because the dispute was so retarded that Iran was motivated to end it. And they're being remarkably trusting of the US given shit like that treasonous stunt by the band of Senators and the Republican primary debates trying to outdo each other on "bomb Iran".
TLDR: The original plan was to put sanctions on them to stop them getting a nuke and then invade if that failed. But the invade plan died in a fire and the sanctions didn't stop them getting a nuke and the sanctions were ending anyway. The US had literally zero cards. But because the dispute was so fucking retarded anyway the US was able to trade folding their losing hand for (best case scenario) getting everything they wanted in the first place anyway or (worst case scenario) getting a much stronger hand than the one they folded (commitments from all major nations to return to a much stronger sanctions regime if Iran violates the deal). Even if Iran is scamming us this is still a good deal, they still delay their nukes which they'd have by now if there was no deal and they rebuild our coalition for us.
TLDRTLDR:
1) US, Europe, Russia and China all get together to sanction Iran to force them to the negotiating table and make them give up their nuclear ambitions.
2) Iran progresses towards getting a nuke and is really close, the sanctions failed to stop them.
3) Then Iran pauses before the finish line and says "hey, you know what, sanctions suck, wanna make a deal?".
4) China and Russia and half of Europe goes "sure thing bro, scrap the nuclear program and we'll scrap the sanctions".
5) The US goes "fuck you, the sanctions stay on no matter what you do"
6) Iran goes "wait, you want us to complete a nuke?"
7) China and Russia go "are you fucking retarded America?"
8) The US goes "fuck Iran"
9) China and Russia go "listen, we actually want them to not get a nuke, that's why we're on board with the sanctions. If you're gonna be a fucking retard about it then we're just going to end the sanctions and buy all that cheap oil and be their bros"
10) The US goes "fuck Iran, but you may have a point, we'll end them if you give us the sweetest deal you can think of"
11) Everybody else sighs.
12) The US chants "USA" "USA" for a while
13) Everybody agrees to get on team USA for a million years if Iran goes back on their word as long as the US accepts their word. They also point out that if the US doesn't accept Iran's word then the US gets nothing and Iran gets a nuke.
|
Hopefully there's some deal with North Korea at some point in the future. Another one of the many fuckups of sanctions in perpetuity that haven't had any positive effects.
|
On September 28 2016 10:12 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 07:16 LegalLord wrote:The "doctrine of PC" is a real issue that genuinely leads to a discussion killing censorship in the name of stopping an ever-expanding concept of "racism" that reminds me of that anti-racist Hitler cartoon. A lot of Republicans use "anti-PC" in a way that just looks like a justification for what no one would disagree is genuine racism, and they end up being the "if Jesus isn't real how do you explain the Bible?" idiots of the anti-PC movement as Kwark put it - the people who even the supporters of the position distance themselves from because said people make them look bad. + Show Spoiler +I feel like I keep interjecting into these discussions with short and random centrist positions on the issues. centrist position = nazi videos who parody the holocaust and compare it to "multiculturalism" how dense are you?
That's the real damage the Trump campaign has caused even when he loses
|
The reason we got such a good deal with Iran I believe is because we had Israel to act as the bad cop/ crazy paranoid I will fucking kill you if you look at me cop.
|
On September 28 2016 10:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While the sanctions on Iran were hardly the same, the sanctions on Iraq after their invasion of Kuwait were also one of the main notes Osama bin Laden hit in his speeches saying the West was pretty much evil incarnate-he cited stats like 600,000 children killed by the sanctions, which is pretty compelling.
(incidentally, the speeches themselves were pretty good rhetoric-at least after English translation-I would like to see him debate Trump to be honest, it would have been a sight to behold)
To this day, I think sanctions are still kind of a rallying cry for extremists because when they are imposed against a regime it is typically the common people who suffer, not the powerful ones.
600,000 Iraqi kids dead was "A price worth paying" according to Madeleine Albright.The woman was a sociopath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
