-- thank you John Kerry.., US Secretary of State...

[ericpmoss]

The treatment of gays in Iran is indeed horrid. Sadly, they aren't the only place where that happens.

Here are the 10 countries where homosexuality may be punished by death - The Washington Post

But this is a nuclear deal to reduce the threat Iran poses to neighbors. Is it the best? Doubtful. Is it the best we can get given what has led us here? Possibly. If it works, it *has* to be better than another war that would be even more expensive than the one Cheney promised would "pay for itself".

[Dallas Tex]

North Korea executes.... well, who knows how many thousands of people annually, for whatever insane reasons, and has a human rights record that would make Satan green with envy. Plus they have several bombs, perhaps dozens, with many more on the way. Plus within a few years they will likely have the capability to lob them over to the West Coast (hell, all you'd have to do is put one on a shipping container and send it on over to Long Beach). Plus their leadership, and most of their utterly brainwashed population, is vehemently, fanatically anti-US to the point that they almost sound like something out of a comic book, and their government has officially stated that they plan on bombing the United States, including some releasing some (admittedly comical) images of DC ablaze after a nuclear strike. So why don't we go bananas over North Korea, at least right now?

The same reason why we didn't go bananas over Russia after they got the bomb, despite dire warnings of what would happen.
The same reason why we didn't go bananas over China after they got the bomb, despite dire warnings of what would happen.
The same reason why we didn't go bananas over the breakup of the USSR, despite dire warnings of what would happen to their arsenal.
The same reason why we didn't go bananas over Pakistan when they got the bomb, despite dire warnings of what would happen.

Wash, rinse repeat. North Korea knows it would be turned into a sea of glass if they actually did send one on over, and so would Iran, if they were to make such an arsenal and do the same to Israel. In 1994 NK's nuclear program was a serious national security threat. Now it's an afterthought, or at least it appears to be, even for a country that states it wants to see us all dead.

Look, it's wise to stop the spread of nuclear proliferation. I get it and I agree with that. But we've been down this road before, and even if Iran develops the bomb, we'll go down it again with some other country. With predictable results.

When a nuke finds its way to NYC in the hands of a terrorist group & is detonated, who exactly are we going to 'bomb into a sea of glass' ? How will we divine its origin ?

[Dallas Tex]

The treatment of gays in Iran is indeed horrid. Sadly, they aren't the only place where that happens.

Here are the 10 countries where homosexuality may be punished by death - The Washington Post

But this is a nuclear deal to reduce the threat Iran poses to neighbors. Is it the best? Doubtful. Is it the best we can get given what has led us here? Possibly. If it works, it *has* to be better than another war that would be even more expensive than the one Cheney promised would "pay for itself".

agreed on all points. I'm justed shocked at the 'deal'. We basically got nothing and gave them everything. They didn't even offer a verbal assurance to reduce their terrorism in the region.

[monadnocky]

When a nuke finds its way to NYC in the hands of a terrorist group & is detonated, who exactly are we going to 'bomb into a sea of glass' ? How will we divine its origin ?

Wasn't this said during the run-up to war in 2004? Wasn't this the narrative? A nuclear bomb in NYC, thanks to terrorists, or Iraq, or terrorists trained in Iraq, or something like that, throw in something scary about Afghanistan, or did it really matter in all the fearmongering that was being force-fed to us?

I sang in that chorus. I'm not singing in it again.

[Cookietruck]

When a nuke finds its way to NYC in the hands of a terrorist group & is detonated, who exactly are we going to 'bomb into a sea of glass' ? How will we divine its origin ?

do you honestly think a nuke from Iran is going to find it's way into NYC via a terrorist group???

[Dallas Tex]

do you honestly think a nuke from Iran is going to find it's way into NYC via a terrorist group???

Tell me what's preventing it.

And the fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't enough.

[ericpmoss]

agreed on all points. I'm justed shocked at the 'deal'. We basically got nothing and gave them everything. They didn't even offer a verbal assurance to reduce their terrorism in the region.

Iran's sponsorship of various groups (some of which fight ISIS, not that this should give them a pass) is a problem, but does that have to be a condition for *this* deal? Pakistan funds some bad actors, and Saudi Arabia funds others, but it doesn't prevent us from working with them where we can. Maybe we shouldn't, but we do.

Personally, I'd prefer a deal that put the mullahs in front of firing squads, but I can't get Putin to kill himself, either. I've seen so much downside to what the real-politik experts have gotten us into by following their lead, I'm willing to give the P5+1 group a chance. The political leaders dissing it have a piss-poor track record for their predictions, so they have basically ruined their reputation in my eyes.

[Cookietruck]

Tell me what's preventing it.

And the fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't enough.

maybe the fact that Iran doesn't care about attacking us. they (and many of the other middle east groups) mostly care to resist US influence (aka control of resources) over there, or to counter Israel's aggressions.

[9tubes]

This is a link to the US State Dept. classifying Hezbollah as a Terrorist organization: Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Hezbollah used to be a non-state actor and is now a state actor, which might be part of the definitional confusion.

You might consider that choosing which groups get the official name-calling might be politically motivated. For some examples: The State Department doesn't classify Saudi Arabia as a terrorist group or a state sponsor of terrorism even though the State Department officially wrote: "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," The State Department said nothing about terrorists in Egypt taking over the country because the administration liked the terrorists. The Free Syrian Army is a bunch of radical mercenary terrorists by the official definitions but the US won't label them as such. The US funds and arms them. Note that the US never names the US as a "state sponsor of terrorism" despite its long history of doing just that. I focus on the acts, not on the words.

We agree Hezbollah is militant and lobs rockets into Israel, and Israel lobs rockets back. That's called a war. We agree we don't like it, whatever it's called. We agree that is Iran's support is a bad act. That's hardly evidence of middle east hegemony or a nuclear weapons program. As much as I dislike that support, to be worried about Iran to the exclusion of worry about Saudi and the US is just...sorry, mind-blowing. Saudi Arabia is currently supporting militant Sunni radicals in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It brags on its official government website about how many schools, universities and mosques it has built to spread Wahhabi radicalism from Morocco to Bosnia to Kazakhstan to Indonesia. The US supports (or rather, refuses to oppose or even comment on) Saudi's adventures.

Iran has a minority of leaders who are war hawk religious fundamentalists. And they worry me. But just like the US, it is lucky that for the most part the leaders who are war hawk religious fundamentalists are not supported by a majority of the voters.

[sine]

Yes, and I'm concerned too. But after all the analysis of Iran over the past 30 years, that is about the weakest language that a professional scientist could write in a formal report. "Concerned...possible...past or current...nuclear related activities." Having a centrifuge is a current nuclear related activity. It's also necessary for atomic energy, ya know, the technology that the US encouraged Iran to have and sold to Iran in the 1970s.

Yes. Obvious. Dig deeper.

Peace.

[jclay]

Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism. Is currently actively trying to destabilize the Middle East. Going forward a nuclear Iran with ICBM technology is a near worst case scenario.

We eclipse Iran, and I'm pretty sure everybody else (post WWII), in he killing of innocents and in the number of countries destabilized. There is no justification for it. Big, mean, nasty world doesn't quite make the grade especially since we've been one of the key chefs in the kitchen. Perhaps that's why some would plant a bomb here if they could? Maybe that's what we need to examine?

[EricKeller]

Iran's nuclear program will be more dangerous without this agreement than with it. You can just look at the example of North Korea. Clinton had a similar deal with NK, but then Bush backed out of it. As a result, NK has exploded a bomb. I think it's fair to say that if those geniuses hadn't pulled the U.S. out of the deal that would not have happened.


Absent any concern about the human cost, we seem to have endless funds to bomb the crap out of people, which is something I'm pretty sure isn't true.

[quickag]

Is this what a post looks like when you have nothing substantive to add to an adult conversation?

If you need confirmation, plan a trip to Iran. Bring a gay friend and a jewish friend. Let me know how that works out in reality. Maybe then you'll be 'cocksure' with something to add to the conversation.

*sigh*

I had a diatribe written and then realized it came off as a personal attack and that's not what this place is about. As someone who actively works in the region I can tell you that you're ignorant (in the literal sense...again, not a personal attack) about the realities of the region. There are people here trying to help you with that. Don't double down on the ignorance please.

[fastupslowdown]

i love the bike related discussions on this site and some of the off topic conversations such as food and watches, but my own view is that discussion of John Kerry should be limited to bikes. Seeing how this thread has evolved reminds me of Godwin's law. Anyway , I go to this site to escape the CNN and not find it here. -Mike G

[rabo]

Google "torture under the Sjah"; Blow torch does not even come close.

Absolutely.

Something that I find fascinating is to Google for pictures of Iran prior to the '79 Islamic Revolution.

It looks like the place you are describing. You'd swear you are looking at old pictures of Florida!!

Ladies at the beach in swimsuits. College girls in engineering classes. Education, industry, etc.

Google pictures for 'pre' and 'post' 1979. It's reall interesting.

[nahtnoj]

Hezbollah used to be a non-state actor and is now a state actor, which might be part of the definitional confusion.

You might consider that choosing which groups get the official name-calling might be politically motivated. For some examples: The State Department doesn't classify Saudi Arabia as a terrorist group or a state sponsor of terrorism even though the State Department officially wrote: "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," The State Department said nothing about terrorists in Egypt taking over the country because the administration liked the terrorists. The Free Syrian Army is a bunch of radical mercenary terrorists by the official definitions but the US won't label them as such. The US funds and arms them. Note that the US never names the US as a "state sponsor of terrorism" despite its long history of doing just that. I focus on the acts, not on the words.

We agree Hezbollah is militant and lobs rockets into Israel, and Israel lobs rockets back. That's called a war. We agree we don't like it, whatever it's called. We agree that is Iran's support is a bad act. That's hardly evidence of middle east hegemony or a nuclear weapons program. As much as I dislike that support, to be worried about Iran to the exclusion of worry about Saudi and the US is just...sorry, mind-blowing. Saudi Arabia is currently supporting militant Sunni radicals in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It brags on its official government website about how many schools, universities and mosques it has built to spread Wahhabi radicalism from Morocco to Bosnia to Kazakhstan to Indonesia. The US supports (or rather, refuses to oppose or even comment on) Saudi's adventures.

Iran has a minority of leaders who are war hawk religious fundamentalists. And they worry me. But just like the US, it is lucky that for the most part the leaders who are war hawk religious fundamentalists are not supported by a majority of the voters.

Drops mic, walks away.

[Dallas Tex]

*sigh*

I had a diatribe written and then realized it came off as a personal attack and that's not what this place is about. As someone who actively works in the region I can tell you that you're ignorant (in the literal sense...again, not a personal attack) about the realities of the region. There are people here trying to help you with that. Don't double down on the ignorance please.

What 'realities of the region' am I missing? That most Iranians are nice?? That doesn't offset a government that performs mass public hangings, beheadings, and in general is a horrid oppressive human rights abuser.

What are you going to tell me? Ignore the public executions for adultery and it's beautiful! Just like Cape Cod with torture and hanging homosexuals.

Seriously, you're trying to tell me Iran is a wonderful place......how much reality must be sacrificed to achieve that level of denial and political correctness?

[ericpmoss]

Seeing how this thread has evolved reminds me of Godwin's law.

How so?

hitler_and_bicycle_by_shitdeviant-d56chz0.jpg

[SeanEasley]

Is this what a post looks like when you have nothing substantive to add to an adult conversation?

If you need confirmation, plan a trip to Iran. Bring a gay friend and a jewish friend. Let me know how that works out in reality. Maybe then you'll be 'cocksure' with something to add to the conversation.

Sorry, but the bus dropped me off in Afghanistan instead of Iran in 2011 where I spent a year away from my home and family trying to help that country get it's shit straight after we invaded it. I hope I accomplished something lasting in my small contributions, but fear that most likely I did not. If we had less people (I almost put another word in here but decided to keep it above board) like you forcing us into more of these entanglements, then perhaps less of us will be called on to head over to these places to 'fix' them.

So when was your trip to Iran? How much of your agenda did you get accomplished?

This piece even from Foreign Affairs a few years ago now, makes the most sense to me. I've read a couple different versions of the same arguement since and they still make sense. It's about the balance of power, and currently it is lacking. Just like Iraq before we took out Saddam.
Why Iran Should Get the Bomb | Foreign Affairs

I rarely post in the OT and especially about politics, so perhaps I should just avoid it altogether. Have a good one buddy.

[edoz]

Reality is the government of Iran will have nuclear weapons and will have a delivery system capable of reaching our shores.

No one doubts there are many, many wonderful Iranian people. But it will be the government of Iran pointing those nukes at the U.S. not the guy you know from work.

Not for a LONG time. Israel (our bestest customer of arms in the world) can't even reach our shores with a nuke. The Jericho 3 would fall about 3000km short of New York, and that's with all the best help they can get from a willing ally. Iran would be in a slightly better boat than North Korea.