Foreign Relations - the Chicago Way

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

What do you want me to "back up"?

That Obama wants the Iranians to get "the bomb" would be a start.

Do you deny that the Saudis have been wanting to get into the nuke game?

Nope!

Do you deny that the Sunn- Saudi regime would be concerned about an imbalance of power in their own backyard if Shiite Iran got the bomb?

Nope!

First off, the Saudi interest in nuclear weapons is nothing new and instigated by the fact that Israel, as everyone knows, has them. So, yes, the potential for a "Shia Bomb" is of concern to them but I think they're a great deal more concerned that Israel has a bunch of them.

Secondly, no country that wants an H bomb wants it so they can use it. It's the old MADD game. Any country that launched a first strike would be obliterated in a matter of hours. The Iranians and the Saudis... and even the Israelis... know this and none of these countries is suicidal.

Third, the idea is to create a multi-polar Middle East. Nobody in the region likes the idea that there's only one country in the region with Nuclear capabilities. (Okay, they probably REALLY hate it because it happens to be Israel.) Getting a bomb changes the calculus, shifts regional hegemony away from Israel. That's why these countries want nukes and why Israel is so apoplectic about it.

Fourth, Iran is a signatory to the NNPT. Israel isn't.

The hell you didn't (mention the Logan Act).

Sheesh! You know what I meant! I didn't mention the Logan Act in the post you were responding to!

http://politicalchat.org/showpost.ph...10&postcount=7

Dude, you're becoming unhinged if you can't remember what you said from one day to the next.

Oh, I remember alright. I also remember that I separated the charges of committing treason from violating the Logan Act because, you know, they're different. And "from one day to the next"? Try March 9th.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Apparently you both missed post 5.

Apparently you're unable to comprehend Blue's post.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Here's what's significant. If Kerry and Obama get their way, it appears that Iran will have the free reign to pursue a bomb after 10 years in exchange for lifting sanctions. If the Iran behaves like Iran usually does, they'll sign the agreement, have the sanctions lifted, play games with the nuke inspectors, and then somewhere inside the ten year period tell "the great Satan" and the rest of the West or go screw themselves. They'll then take a page out of North Koreas playbook and start playing nuclear blackmail.

Someone still needs to tell me why this is a good thing.

Frankly, if I were Israel, I'd be trying to breach the security of the P5+1 Talks because those talks appear to be all about making my country and my neighborhood really, really insecure.

What international treaties has Iran signed and then violated?

What sort of "games" have they been playing with the IAEA inspectors who have been in Iran for a long time now?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

That Obama wants the Iranians to get "the bomb" would be a start.

Might help if you read what I wrote. I have no clue if Obama "wants the Iranians to get the bomb". The objective has - at least as stated - to keep the Iranians from EVER having the bomb. The reports so far suggest that we're prepared to offer a moratorium in exchange for lifting sanctions - a chance in policy that Iran's most recent behavior fails to justify. A moratorium with Iran - based on their past behavior - seems rather pointless. Also, there's no question that we've given them cover to continue what they allege is a nuclear energy program, and no one really believes that Iran's nuke program is all about energy.

Originally Posted by Boreas

So, yes, the potential for a "Shia Bomb" is of concern to them but I think they're a great deal more concerned that Israel has a bunch of them.

Bull Shiite. The Saudis know that the Israelis have nukes for defensive purposes. THIS is why the Saudis want nukes:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10139229.html

In 2012 the Saudi Arabian government threatened to acquire nuclear weapons were neighbouring regional power Iran ever to do so.

“Politically, it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom,” a senior Saudi source told The Times newspaper at the time.

The United States and other Western allies say a deal with Iran on its nuclear programme is possible. Iran denies it is building nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Secondly, no country that wants an H bomb wants it so they can use it. It's the old MADD game. Any country that launched a first strike would be obliterated in a matter of hours. The Iranians and the Saudis... and even the Israelis... know this and none of these countries is suicidal.

The history of mankind is replete with examples autocrats and dictators who fail to pay attention to rationality or the lessons of history.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Third, the idea is to create a multi-polar Middle East. Nobody in the region likes the idea that there's only one country in the region with Nuclear capabilities. (Okay, they probably REALLY hate it because it happens to be Israel.) Getting a bomb changes the calculus, shifts regional hegemony away from Israel. That's why these countries want nukes and why Israel is so apoplectic about it.

Baloney. See quoted article above.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Fourth, Iran is a signatory to the NNPT. Israel isn't.

So what? Iran certainly isn't behaving like its gives a rat's ass about the NNPT.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Sheesh! You know what I meant! I didn't mention the Logan Act in the post you were responding to!

http://politicalchat.org/showpost.ph...10&postcount=7

What, so I'm not supposed to remember your comments in prior posts? If memory serves, multiple prior posts??

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

What sort of "games" have they been playing with the IAEA inspectors who have been in Iran for a long time now?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-blo...eal-1414797490

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

What international treaties has Iran signed and then violated?

Per my prior post, do they truly behave like they give a crap about the NNPT? Also:

http://www.unitedagainstnucleariran....on-of-treaties

[merrylander]

So Mike what option do you suggest, shed more blood and money by invading? Or maybe drop a cobalt bomb on them?

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by bobabode

We're helping Iran get nukes?

How could that possibly serve our interests? Not a logical deduction imo.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

So Mike what option do you suggest, shed more blood and money by invading? Or maybe drop a cobalt bomb on them?

Its not that hard, really. We just need to figure out who our "friends" or allied in that area of the world are going to be, and proceed accordingly. We either leave a vacuum in the region where the promotion and protection of our national interests and the stability of our allies used to be. Or we continue to pursue some kind of half -assed strategy where we position ourselves to look harmless and feckless to both allies and our enemies alike which invites instability and props up and provides political cover to those countries, like Iran, that want to export mayhem and mischief while building a nuke program that no one believes is all about domestic energy.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Its not that hard, really. We just need to figure out who our "friends" or allied in that area of the world are going to be, and proceed accordingly....

After Bibi's recent antics, one could argue that we have no real friends in that area of the world.