Bomb Iran?
dave said:
He never gets too involved in actual decisions and uses his distance from day to day operations as a comfortable nether world to deflect any blame for outcomes.
So, he has a role like yours on MOL? ;-)
nohero said:
bkc said:
Paul
Most Iranians will blame Khameini.? A major boost for the opposition?
So what!
Even if true, and you don't know it is, that is hardly likely to change who is running the country.
The Iranian media is controlled by the government. Guess who they will blame.
Further:
'Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say for Iran on the deal, on Thursday ruled out any "extraordinary supervision measures" over nuclear activities and said military sites could not be inspected.'
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-deal-could-stumble-on-sensitive-nuclear-monitoring-396725He hasn't accepted 'intrusive inspections' or inspections of military bases since the negotiations began. We should not accept such a deal and I think we would have a good case no matter who tries to blame us.
Or this could be posturing during negotiations, which often happens. The posturing isn't the deal, of course, so we should wait to see what the deal turns out to be.
In the meantime, he's trying to make his hardliners happy. It just so happens that it also provokes a reaction from those folks who won't be happy unless there are some dead Muslims from bombing.
I usually prefer not to waste time on you but your last comment is an insulting load of crap.
Most dead Muslims are dead because of other Muslims, not because of 'those folks'. Bombing is still on the table, not because of 'those folks', unless you mean Obama and Carter are 'those folks' - which you obviously don't.
dave said:
All Khameini does is posture. It's basically his job. He never gets too involved in actual decisions and uses his distance from day to day operations as a comfortable nether world to deflect any blame for outcomes.
"If there is no end to sanctions, there will not be an agreement," Rouhani said in a televised speech in the northern Iranian city of Rasht, echoing remarks made last week by Iran's most powerful authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.'
That was a comment 2 days ago by the Iranian PM. He gets involved (and Khamenei put him in office)
Note Khomenei is referred to as ' Iran's most powerful authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei'.
bkc said:
I usually prefer not to waste time on you but your last comment is an insulting load of crap.
Most dead Muslims are dead because of other Muslims, not because of 'those folks'. Bombing is still on the table, not because of 'those folks', unless you mean Obama and Carter are 'those folks' - which you obviously don't.
My comment didn't mention you, so if you felt insulted, that's not my fault.
I meant the people who want bombs NOW. If you are not one of them, then I did not insult you.
We should bomb Iran with the left over bombs from when we bombed Libya and then go in with the weapons we didn't give to ISIS and secure the pistachios....and then use diplomacy to show them we are better then them!
Hoopshoedavegl_Boy said:
We should bomb Iran with the left over bombs from when we bombed Libya and then go in with the weapons we didn't give to ISIS and secure the pistachios....and then use diplomacy to show them we are better then them!
Genius!
Nukes kept us and the USSR in check for 50+ years. Israel has nukes. Thus...
bkc said:
BTW I am no longer bkc. I changed to BCC some time ago.
So are you bcc or bkc? And is bkc the author of all the bcc posts?
GL2 said:
Nukes kept us and the USSR in check for 50+ years. Israel has nukes. Thus...
The USSR was not a theocracy and understood MAD, as proven by the Cuban missile crisis.
paulsurovell said:
bkc said:
BTW I am no longer bkc. I changed to BCC some time ago.
So are you bcc or bkc? And is bkc the author of all the bcc posts?
I just was changed back to BCC I believe. Yes to last question.
Another little tidbit as of yesterday.
It has always been a question of who blinks first, Looks like it is our President,
'Instead, Mr. Obama suggested that negotiators seek a solution that would seem “more acceptable” to Iran’s political constituencies, while preserving leverage to force the government to abide by the deal. Rather than the timing and structure of sanctions relief, he said his priority was creating a system for reimposing the punitive measures if Iran is caught cheating.
How sanctions are lessened, how we snap back sanctions if there’s a violation, there are a lot of different mechanisms and ways to do that,” Mr. Obama said at a White House news conference alongside the Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi. The negotiators, Mr. Obama said, need to “find formulas that get to our main concerns while allowing the other side to make a presentation to their body politic that is more acceptable.”
“Our main concern here is making sure that if Iran doesn’t abide by its agreement, that we don’t have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops in order to reinstate sanctions,” Mr. Obama continued. “That’s our main concern.”
There will be no 'snap back'. Countries led by Germany and Russia and including the US are lined up waiting for the end of sanctions to go in and make their financial deals with Iran, Once that happens there will be no going back. 'Creative' ways will be found to avoid it.
ETA Looks like I still haven't got the hang of this as yet.Still bkc
bkc said:
Another little tidbit as of yesterday.
It has always been a question of who blinks first, Looks like it is our President,
'Instead, Mr. Obama suggested that negotiators seek a solution that would seem “more acceptable” to Iran’s political constituencies, while preserving leverage to force the government to abide by the deal. Rather than the timing and structure of sanctions relief, he said his priority was creating a system for reimposing the punitive measures if Iran is caught cheating.
How sanctions are lessened, how we snap back sanctions if there’s a violation, there are a lot of different mechanisms and ways to do that,” Mr. Obama said at a White House news conference alongside the Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi. The negotiators, Mr. Obama said, need to “find formulas that get to our main concerns while allowing the other side to make a presentation to their body politic that is more acceptable.”
“Our main concern here is making sure that if Iran doesn’t abide by its agreement, that we don’t have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops in order to reinstate sanctions,” Mr. Obama continued. “That’s our main concern.”
There will be no 'snap back'. Countries led by Germany and Russia and including the US are lined up waiting for the end of sanctions to go in and make their financial deals with Iran, Once that happens there will be no going back. 'Creative' ways will be found to avoid it.
ETA Looks like I still haven't got the hang of this as yet.Still bkc
How long do you think Germany and Russia (and you should also add China) will enforce the sanctions if there is no deal?
paulsurovell said:
bkc said:
Another little tidbit as of yesterday.
It has always been a question of who blinks first, Looks like it is our President,
'Instead, Mr. Obama suggested that negotiators seek a solution that would seem “more acceptable” to Iran’s political constituencies, while preserving leverage to force the government to abide by the deal. Rather than the timing and structure of sanctions relief, he said his priority was creating a system for reimposing the punitive measures if Iran is caught cheating.
How sanctions are lessened, how we snap back sanctions if there’s a violation, there are a lot of different mechanisms and ways to do that,” Mr. Obama said at a White House news conference alongside the Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi. The negotiators, Mr. Obama said, need to “find formulas that get to our main concerns while allowing the other side to make a presentation to their body politic that is more acceptable.”
“Our main concern here is making sure that if Iran doesn’t abide by its agreement, that we don’t have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops in order to reinstate sanctions,” Mr. Obama continued. “That’s our main concern.”
There will be no 'snap back'. Countries led by Germany and Russia and including the US are lined up waiting for the end of sanctions to go in and make their financial deals with Iran, Once that happens there will be no going back. 'Creative' ways will be found to avoid it.
ETA Looks like I still haven't got the hang of this as yet.Still bkc
How long do you think Germany and Russia (and you should also add China) will enforce the sanctions if there is no deal?
Then you agree there will be no 'snap back' either way.
There's no point in conducting this discussion on two threads. Confine your remarks to this one and I will do,the same.
bkc said: Then you agree there will be no 'snap back' either way.
No, if there is an agreement it will provide for snap-back.
bkc said: There's no point in conducting this discussion on two threads. Confine your remarks to this one and I will do,the same.
No, the the threads are not the same.
bkc said:
GL2 said:
Nukes kept us and the USSR in check for 50+ years. Israel has nukes. Thus...
The USSR was not a theocracy and understood MAD, as proven by the Cuban missile crisis.
Agree there are differences. But Iranians aren't any crazier than our Arab allies in the area. In fact, they may be saner. "Death to America; Death to Israel" is like "Good day" in Muslim Middle East. Iran is big, has educated populace, and not likely to commit suicide by attacking Israel. Having nukes is a way to establish status in this f'ed up world. Hey, who's nuttier than Kim in N. Korea? He's got nukes. How secure are Pakistani nukes? God only knows.
Obama said:
'Instead, Mr. Obama suggested that negotiators seek a solution that would seem “more acceptable” to Iran’s political constituencies, while preserving leverage to force the government to abide by the deal. Rather than the timing and structure of sanctions relief, he said his priority was creating a system for reimposing the punitive measures if Iran is caught cheating.'
We are talking about when sanctions will be lifted. And you agree it should happen when Iran meets it's commitments. That isn't what Obama is saying.
His main concern is keeping 'Snap Back' while offering the Iranians a 'more acceptable' timing of when sanctions will be lifted'
The Iranians have not budged an inch about having sanctions end when the agreement is signed, our President has.
Once sanctions are lifted (whenever that happens) and the billions start pouring in there will be no snap back.
GL2 said:
bkc said:
GL2 said:
Nukes kept us and the USSR in check for 50+ years. Israel has nukes. Thus...
The USSR was not a theocracy and understood MAD, as proven by the Cuban missile crisis.
Agree there are differences. But Iranians aren't any crazier than our Arab allies in the area. In fact, they may be saner. "Death to America; Death to Israel" is like "Good day" in Muslim Middle East. Iran is big, has educated populace, and not likely to commit suicide by attacking Israel. Having nukes is a way to establish status in this f'ed up world. Hey, who's nuttier than Kim in N. Korea? He's got nukes. How secure are Pakistani nukes? God only knows.
In RI it may be easy to brush off Iranian threats to eliminate Israel, not so easy in Jerusalem.
You have also forgotten that Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism. What is so far fetched in believing they will be happy tp provide a small A-bomb to Hezbollah, keeping their own hands apparently clean.
GL2 said:
No one's wild about the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
Certainly not our President. He has said on a number of occasions they will not get the bomb. Do you think he will prevent it with 'Snap Back' resolutions?
There aren't too many choices beyond negotiating or, as a last resort, bombing. I believe BHO on this threat. No American president can desert Israel.
So someone smarter than I am is going to have to explain to me the article in today's NY Times about wealthy American businessmen traveling through Iran, being treated luxuriously, discussing business deals, etc. One of them was named Cohen which even an Iranian would know signifies the person as Jewish.
It makes me think that all the rhetoric on all sides is just BS for consumption by the peasants, while the "leaders" wheel and deal with each other while chuckling.
There has long been a Jewish population in Iran.
The businessmen are discussing potential deals if/when sanctions are lifted. Not current deals.
Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop goes to Tehran and reaches an intelligence-sharing agreement on Australians who have joined ISIS in Iraq. The agreement follows meetings with Iran's president, foreign minister and head of the National Security Council.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-20/julie-bishop-brokers-intelligence-sharing-deal-with-iran/6404624
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
All Khameini does is posture. It's basically his job. He never gets too involved in actual decisions and uses his distance from day to day operations as a comfortable nether world to deflect any blame for outcomes.