We have a deal!

[sirs]

North Korea cannot actually invade or take over the US.

and one more time...NO ONE IS MAKING THAT ARGUMENT OF "INVASION" OR "TAKING OVER", not to mention they're not on any record as chanting Death to America.  What part of this concept are you having the most difficulty with??

From North Korea's standpoint, a nuclear deterrent makes sense.

From a diplomatic/treaty standpoint, its polar opposite to what they signed and agreed to, and yet we're supposed to simply take Iran's word??  NK has no need for such a deterrent either, since no one is on record as proclaiming Death to North Korea

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Did the US and the UK proclaim "death to Iran" before overthrowing Mossadeagh in the 1950's?  Did the US proclaim "Death to Grenada", "Death to Panama" or "Death to Lebanon" before invading those countries? The US actually forced an Australian Labour Party PM out of office, and there was NOTHING in anyone's paper about it before it happened.

First off, the slogan "Death to America" is absurd. No one can wipe out an entire country. "Death to (country)" is a silly slogan.

The US is far more clever than the Kims when they want to overthrow something. They tend to use more stealth, and do not tend to announce their intentions. The Iraq wars were exceptions to this rule.

[sirs]

Cudos on the deflection effort, ...... now returning us to the point of the thread, this is about nuclear weapons & rogue nations....and thanks to you, a demonstration on how supposed diplomacy and treaties alone can thwart such an effort, as in NOT

You see, you and your pre-cious Obama can't seem to get on the same page.  While you're out there rationalizing why such nations should be able to have nuclear weapons, he's on record as indicating that a nuclear Iran is completely unacceptable.  How do you explain the disconnect?

"Death to America", while perhaps logistically unattainable, won't ever stop those, hell bent on performing jihad, to America, and its allies, using a mutated grasp of the Koran, as their justification.  Dying in the process of killing so many, is considered a great act.  Crashing planes into buildings, or nuking regions that support either America or Israel, would also be completely acceptable to the powers that make that decision.

Which again is WHY Obama made it cyrstal clear that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, all the while providing a Carter/Chamberlain-like understanding to a concept about a framework of a deal that will lead precisely to such an outcome

[Xavier_Onassis]

What do you mean "How do you explain the disconnect?"  Why should I agree with Obama on everything? 

Iran clearly has a right, as does every country, to develop nuclear power. They do not have to explain to you that "they don't need it", any more than they need to wear neckties. 

There is no way to make it impossible for Iran, or any other country to never, ever, be capable of building a nuclear weapon. Attacking Iran is not going to accomplish this. No one is going to invade Iran and impose their rule on the Iranians.  Diplomacy is the best way to do this. The countries that have cooperated in the embargo against Iran, especially China and Russia, and not going to agree to do this forever.  There is no law, divine or otherwise,  that states when Bibi Netanyahu draws infantile cartoons and rants and raves that he must be given whatever the f&ck he wants.

Some Iranians as well as some Americans complain that the treaty is too one-sided. That is a sign that it probably is not very one sided at all.

Congress should sign this, and I think they will.  Netanyahu can continue to blather on.

[sirs]

What do you mean "How do you explain the disconnect?" 

The disconnect that Obama, and a laundry list of Democrats have made it clear that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, while you apparently have no problem with it.  You're that trusting of Iran??      Or more likely that hateful of Israel

Why should I agree with Obama on everything?  

And who agrees with anyone on everything??        Though with the amount of cool-aide coursing thru your veins, I'm stunned you don't support his publically declared position on Iran.

Iran clearly has a right, as does every country, to develop nuclear power.

That's not the issue here.....its about nuclear weapons.  There's a whole host of things that are not necessary for nuclear power, that are necessary for nuclear weapons, such a enriched uranium, heavy water reactors, not to mention a reinforced underground bunker

There is no way to make it impossible for Iran, or any other country to never, ever, be capable of building a nuclear weapon.

There absolutely is, which has already been presented, adnauseum.  But especially a nation like Iran, who globally supports terrorist activities, have declared death to America and death to Israel, and would have no problem martrying themselves, for jihad, to help bring about those end goals

[Christians4LessGvt]

Iran clearly has a right, as does every country, to develop nuclear power.
They do not have to explain to you that "they don't need it", any more than they need to wear neckties. 

No they absolutely do not have the right to develop nuclear bombs.
And you know why they don't?
Because we F-ing say they don't.
There needs to be no other reason....although many other countries agree with us.
And because if they do we should destroy them (military and infrastructure)
We make the rules Iran must live by (in many areas)
And that is because we can!
As much as you hate to hear that.....i dont really give a shit what you or Iran thinks about those rules.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Well, this is not up to me.

It is not up to you, either. The United States is not going to destroy Iran, a country of 72 million people. The US has 5% of the world's population and controls a shrinking amount of the world's commerce.

This is probably not possible even if 100% of the population of this country was all for it and half of them went to fight it while the other half waved "We're Numbah ONE!" and waved giant foam fingers in the air. But it won't happen.

There will not be any plebiscite on this treaty, and if it does not pass, all alternatives are even worse. Those are the facts.

[sirs]

Well, this is not up to me.

Good thing so little is "up to you", since if that were the case, conservatives would be rounded up for "re-education camps", Republicans would be banned from any effort to meet, only the "media" would be able to report the "news", and all firearms would be confiscated from the law abiding civilian population.  Anything else you want to reference that is irrelevent, as in what is or isn't up to you?

The United States is not going to destroy Iran, a country of 72 million people.

DEFLECTION ALERT.....NO ONE IS SUPPORTING THE ASININE NOTION THAT WE "DESTROY IRAN AND ALL ITS PEOPLES".   Good gravy, when will you stop with these transparent attempts to argue points NO ONE IS MAKING??  Is it genetic??     ]

[Xavier_Onassis]

And because if they do we should destroy them (military and infrastructure)
We make the rules Iran must live by (in many areas)

====================================================
WE SHOULD DESTROY THEM.

[sirs]

WE SHOULD DESTROY THEM.

And because if they do (build nuclear weapons)

we should destroy them (military and infrastructure that supports the military)

CONTEXT means EVERYTHING, as in its not about destroying all of Iran or its people, that you keep trying to paint. 

But why do you keep doing that (arguing a pont no one is making?.....because if you actually stuck to the arguement being discussed, you'd consistently be shown the error of such an approach.  So, in your mind, it's better apparently to argue a hyperbole, and tear that down as if that's what's being debated

[Xavier_Onassis]

Maybe you lot ought to stop  writing hyperboles.

CU4 is worse than AIPAC or the Ayatollahs. He seems to want to kill everyone.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would never try to send you to a reeducation camp. It would be like sending SpongeBob to the Institute for Advanced Studies.

[sirs]

Maybe you lot ought to stop  writing hyperboles.

Ahhh....that fine art of projection.  You, of all people, a language professor, should know the definition of hyperbole.  Here's an example

person a)   I want to kill those bad guys that just killed a group of women and children
person x)   Person a) just said they want to kill everyone

Guess which sentence is the hyperbolic one.  So, pray tell, what's the supposed hyperbole I'm writing?  Here's a hint, destroying all of Iran and all its millions of people was neither me, NOR CU4.

CU4 is worse than AIPAC or the Ayatollahs. He seems to want to kill everyone.

Speaking of hyperbole, please explain how targeting and destroying Iran's military capabilities equates to "killing everyone"  (this should be interesting)

[Xavier_Onassis]

That was not what CU4 said.

In any event, there are only two ways to make Iran unlikely to make nuclear weapons.
(1) subjugate Iran and replace all those responsible for all nuclear facilities with non-Iranians who will dismantle or destroy such facilities.
(2) get the Iranians to agree to do this by themselves.

Option1 would entail conquering Iran, since very few of the 72 Iranian people want to see their government  and forced to do something to please Netanyahu.

They would probably dislike this every bit as much as NRA members would enjoy giving their expensive and beloved weapons to Barak Obama.
 
Option 2 is therefore the better alternative.

[sirs]

NO, you're again reading into what Cu4 said, that isn't there.  Its your mutated version of what he clearly said.  In fact, he made it painfully clear that such efforts wouldn't require ANY BOOTS ON THE GROUND, as in NO INVASION.  NO ONE IS ADVOCATING INVASION.  DO YOU GET THAT YET??