Iran Nuclear Deal

?All of this has been said by Obama himself,? Dershowitz explains. ?When Obama first set out the red lines, he specified 24/7 inspections?we didn?t get that. He set out that Iran would never have nuclear weapons?we didn?t get that. He set out to end the nuclear facility at Fordow?we didn?t get that. He has crossed his own red lines at least three times.?

?I think this will be his legacy in terms of international relations and I think it will result in an increase in the nuclear arms race, an end to anti-nuclear proliferation, an increase in the likelihood of war, and a greater gulf between Israel and the United States. All of which he promised would not happen.?

?If you judge president Obama by his own standards, he is an abject failure when it comes to international relations. Forget about my standard or yours. By his own standard he is an abject failure when it comes to dealing with Iran.?

?Now the problem is that we negotiated as equals and we were playing checkers against the people who invented chess, and they checkmated our president and our secretary of state,? Dershowitz said. ?The end result is that now we are going to be equals because they are going to have nuclear weapons, and once they have nuclear weapons they are essentially equals, we can?t take them on, we have no viable military threat against them, so it was a double disaster.?

Alan Dershowitz,

And what does Dershowitz think we should have done,

?Now why are you [Iran] accepting the sanctions if you?re never, ever going to be able to develop a nuclear weapon? Let?s figure out a way of ending the sanctions by you dismantling the nuclear program and allowing 24/7 inspections. We have military powers that you don?t. You?ll never get a nuclear weapon. That?s not negotiable. What?s negotiable is how to get rid of the sanctions.?

Sounds like a bad deal to me.

[quote]Rednose wrote:
?All of this has been said by Obama himself,? Dershowitz explains. ?When Obama first set out the red lines, he specified 24/7 inspections?we didn?t get that. He set out that Iran would never have nuclear weapons?we didn?t get that. He set out to end the nuclear facility at Fordow?we didn?t get that. He has crossed his own red lines at least three times.?

?I think this will be his legacy in terms of international relations and I think it will result in an increase in the nuclear arms race, an end to anti-nuclear proliferation, an increase in the likelihood of war, and a greater gulf between Israel and the United States. All of which he promised would not happen.?

?If you judge president Obama by his own standards, he is an abject failure when it comes to international relations. Forget about my standard or yours. By his own standard he is an abject failure when it comes to dealing with Iran.?

?Now the problem is that we negotiated as equals and we were playing checkers against the people who invented chess, and they checkmated our president and our secretary of state,? Dershowitz said. ?The end result is that now we are going to be equals because they are going to have nuclear weapons, and once they have nuclear weapons they are essentially equals, we can?t take them on, we have no viable military threat against them, so it was a double disaster.?

Alan Dershowitz,

And what does Dershowitz think we should have done,

?Now why are you [Iran] accepting the sanctions if you?re never, ever going to be able to develop a nuclear weapon? Let?s figure out a way of ending the sanctions by you dismantling the nuclear program and allowing 24/7 inspections. We have military powers that you don?t. You?ll never get a nuclear weapon. That?s not negotiable. What?s negotiable is how to get rid of the sanctions.?

Sounds like a bad deal to me.[/quote]

You base that assessment solely on what Alan Dershowitz (an AIPAC apologist and shill) wrote? Have you read the agreement? Have you read the numerous public endorsements of the deal by senior nuclear scientists, intelligence officers, diplomats, and military officers? Keep in mind that Dershowitz is a legal scholar.

[quote]loppar wrote:
Perspective from a Jewish Iranian-American:

She emphasizes issues that I’ve written about here in PWI before, the pro-American stance of the Iranians in general, which makes them ironically perhaps the only Muslim country that is positively predisposed towards the US of A.

Also, a fascinating three year old insight how the relationship between Israel and Khomeini’s Iran soured with Israel’s rapprochement with Saudi Arabia in the early 90ies and how they would actually be natural allies:

[/quote]

Thanks for the links. Your insights on the Iranian people are always appreciated. Have you heard of the Trident alliance between Israel, Iran, and Turkey? I wonder if such a strategic relationship could be reestablished after the clerical regime in Tehran falls.

“The Trident alliance, through which, between 1956 and 1979, Israel shared intelligence with Iran and Turkey on a scale not seen since, was one of Israelâ??s most far-reaching and comprehensive foreign policy accomplishments. The program represented the vanguard of Israelâ??s doctrine for dealing with its neighbors and provided the nation with a grand strategy for the first time since its creation. Jerusalemâ??s relationship with Tehran lasted more than 20 years, until the fall of Iranâ??s Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1979.”

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Fears that a nuclear Iran would carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or transfer nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist organizations are not only misplaced, but are red herrings.

[/quote]

Then why have an agreement at all? If we have nothing to fear? We had no agreement with the British and the French when they produced an actual bomb and no, we didn’t have anything to fear from them either.

And after all, Iran says it’s not going to produce a nuclear devise so why not just believe them? Since there’s nothing to fear after all…[/quote]

Correct, if that were true, then there would be no need for this or any other agreement.[/quote]

To my knowledge, no one is this advocating this position, so it’s very much a straw man.
[/quote]
Hence why I put “…if that were true, then…”[/quote]

Fair enough. I wasn’t sure if you were giving credence to Gkhan’s blatant manipulation of my post or not.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Kid? Ok. Age is no guarantee of efficiency.[/quote]

Really? Want to rethink that statement? Age seems to matter a whole lot.

One cannot drink until the age of 21, vote until the age of 18, drive until the age of 16…and of course One cannot even run for the Presidency until age 35.

How about cabinet posts? Can you see the President elect sitting down with his top advisors saying “now where can we find a really good 18 year old to fill the position of Secretary of State?”.

Now why don’t they do that? Why is age almost a prerequisite for every highly level important government position? Here you go I’ll spell it out for you junior:

E X P E R I E N C E

LOL you are a funny little boy!

[/quote]

Your rant above doesn’t change the fact that your advanced age isn’t a substitute for subject matter knowledge, something that you’re wholly lacking. You aren’t interested in reasoned debate, but are content with leveling various personal charges against me. These attacks don’t address the substance of what I wrote - a tacit concession that both facts and logic are on my side.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Kid? Ok. Age is no guarantee of efficiency.[/quote]

Really? Want to rethink that statement? Age seems to matter a whole lot.

One cannot drink until the age of 21, vote until the age of 18, drive until the age of 16…and of course One cannot even run for the Presidency until age 35.

How about cabinet posts? Can you see the President elect sitting down with his top advisors saying “now where can we find a really good 18 year old to fill the position of Secretary of State?”.

Now why don’t they do that? Why is age almost a prerequisite for every highly level important government position? Here you go I’ll spell it out for you junior:

E X P E R I E N C E

LOL you are a funny little boy!

[/quote]

Your rant above doesn’t change the fact that your advanced age isn’t a substitute for subject matter knowledge, something that you’re wholly lacking. You aren’t interested in reasoned debate, but are content with leveling various personal charges against me. These attacks don’t address the substance of what I wrote - a tacit concession that both facts and logic are on my side. [/quote]

You said age doesn’t matter I pointed out why it does matter. to this you have no retort, but that’s what I expected. And I might add you also pointed out why age matters with post after post of nothing by blather.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

“The Trident alliance, through which, between 1956 and 1979, Israel shared intelligence with Iran and Turkey on a scale not seen since, was one of Israelâ??s most far-reaching and comprehensive foreign policy accomplishments. The program represented the vanguard of Israelâ??s doctrine for dealing with its neighbors and provided the nation with a grand strategy for the first time since its creation. Jerusalemâ??s relationship with Tehran lasted more than 20 years, until the fall of Iranâ??s Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1979.”
[/quote]

Unfortunately, it seems the sticking point would be Turkey. Erdogan’s first crypto now open islamism has driven a huge wedge between Israel and Turkey.

Remember that for example until a few years’ back Israeli and Turkish Air Force regularly held joint drills and the two countries did a brisk trade in military and civilian technology. Losing the Turkish support was a major geopolitical blow for Israel, although they won’t admit this openly.

Erdogan has committed himself to re-establish Turkey as the worthy successor of the Ottoman empire and the regional power that could fight for preeminence in the sunni world, which means covertly supporting some nasty people and ramping up the anti-Israel rhetoric.

He has got two things going for him - economic growth and the virulent strain of Turkish nationalism. He thinks he can get away with increased islamisation if he deals with the Kurdish issue by force thus increasing his popularity among the general public.

The people who oppose him - urban, middle-class secularists in Istanbul and industrial centers along the coastline are trying to resist, from heroic Ghezi park protests to current voting for the Kurdish party in the general election.

Sadly, this will not prove enough for the increasingly authoritarian state apparatus and conservative Anatolian peasants who are increasingly immigrating to the urban cities.

It sounds incredible that 20 years ago headscarves were banned in public offices in Turkey and that they had a female prime minister.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Put pressure on the Russians, Chinese and others to stop Iran from gaining a nuclear weapons program while making it known that if Iran succeeds in getting the bomb, so will Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, Latvia, Saudi Arabia, & others etc.[/quote]

There wouldn’t have been a broad international sanctions regime in response to Iran’s nuclear program if it weren’t for China and Russia. Since the IAEA referred the matter to the United Nations Security Council, six resolutions intended to address international concerns in regard to Iran’s nuclear program and its obligations under the NPT have been adopted. All were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, making the Resolutions binding instruments of international law. China and Russia are permanent members of the UNSC and thus exercise veto power. They could have killed any UN based sanctions regime had they chosen to. They may look askance at the exercise of American power at times, but they don’t want a revisionist Iran to become a nuclear weapons state anymore than the United States does, as evidenced by the JCPOA (among numerous other international agreements).

The United States should fight nuclear proliferation by threatening to aid and abet nuclear proliferation? Seems logical. If Iran gets the bomb, then Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine (none of whom reside in Southwest Asia) will soon follow suit? That is the definition of magical thinking - analysis and prescriptions based on unrealistic assumptions, unspecified causal relationships, inapt analogies, and a dearth of supporting evidence. Even Saudia Arabia, the most likely candidate for nuclear proliferation, has more reasons to abstain from the bomb than to seek it.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Kid? Ok. Age is no guarantee of efficiency.[/quote]

Really? Want to rethink that statement? Age seems to matter a whole lot.

One cannot drink until the age of 21, vote until the age of 18, drive until the age of 16…and of course One cannot even run for the Presidency until age 35.

How about cabinet posts? Can you see the President elect sitting down with his top advisors saying “now where can we find a really good 18 year old to fill the position of Secretary of State?”.

Now why don’t they do that? Why is age almost a prerequisite for every highly level important government position? Here you go I’ll spell it out for you junior:

E X P E R I E N C E

LOL you are a funny little boy!

[/quote]

Your rant above doesn’t change the fact that your advanced age isn’t a substitute for subject matter knowledge, something that you’re wholly lacking. You aren’t interested in reasoned debate, but are content with leveling various personal charges against me. These attacks don’t address the substance of what I wrote - a tacit concession that both facts and logic are on my side. [/quote]

You said age doesn’t matter I pointed out why it does matter. to this you have no retort, but that’s what I expected. And I might add you also pointed out why age matters with post after post of nothing by blather.
[/quote]

Actually, I wrote “age is no guarantee of efficiency”, as in, you can’t base an argument on your age and my relative lack-thereof. I was clearly referring to this discussion, which concerns subjects you are both inexperienced in and unversed in. Your seniority gifts you neither. More often than not, young fools grow up to be old fools. Now, unless you are actually going to address the substance of what I’ve written, you can crawl back to your paleo-conservative cave.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Fair enough. I wasn’t sure if you were giving credence to Gkhan’s blatant manipulation of my post or not. [/quote]

Blatant manipulation?

You said fears of an Iranian first strike and fears they will give nuclear weapons to terrorists are red herrings and unfounded. How is what I wrote manipulation?

Those are our 2 main fears. You said they were unfounded, not me.

Because you said they were unfounded and red herrings, I asked why would we need an agreement if there is nothing to fear from Iran, (since those are in fact our 2 main fears from the regime regarding nuclear weapons.)

And you say you are holding MY hand through out this conversation?

Yet you will not even answer a single question regarding the statement YOU made, yet argue I somehow manipulated it by generalizing:

Why are the fears which you listed about an Iranian first strike & nuclear arms to terrorist unfounded?

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Actually, I wrote “age is no guarantee of efficiency”, as in, you can’t base an argument on your age and my relative lack-thereof.[/quote]

And I clearly pointed out how age is actually a qualifier in most cases. In other words, people in power don’t even want to hear your opinion unless you are at a certain age.

Oh don’t be so hard on yourself. Get out of College get some real life experience get your ass kicked (financially and perhaps otherwise) you will smarten up quick. :wink:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Fair enough. I wasn’t sure if you were giving credence to Gkhan’s blatant manipulation of my post or not. [/quote]

Blatant manipulation?

You said fears of an Iranian first strike and fears they will give nuclear weapons to terrorists are red herrings and unfounded. How is what I wrote manipulation?

Those are our 2 main fears. You said they were unfounded, not me.

Because you said they were unfounded and red herrings, I asked why would we need an agreement if there is nothing to fear from Iran, (since those are in fact our 2 main fears from the regime regarding nuclear weapons.)

And you say you are holding MY hand through out this conversation?

Yet you will not even answer a single question regarding the statement YOU made, yet argue I somehow manipulated it by generalizing:

Why are the fears which you listed about an Iranian first strike & nuclear arms to terrorist unfounded?

[/quote]

He says those things because in addition to being 100% WRONG on the issue, he is also an arrogant little bastard. Apparently his father didn’t spend enough time with him…just guessing of course.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Put pressure on the Russians, Chinese and others to stop Iran from gaining a nuclear weapons program while making it known that if Iran succeeds in getting the bomb, so will Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, Latvia, Saudi Arabia, & others etc.[/quote]

…United States should fight nuclear proliferation by threatening to aid and abet nuclear proliferation? Seems logical…[/quote]

Indeed. We very much do not want any of those countries acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities, and everybody knows it. Such a threat would be emptier than a banker’s heart and recognized as such by all.

This is a tiny microcosm of a point you’ve been making here. International politics, diplomacy, foreign affairs – they are not like abortion or CSA battle colors. They require an enormous amount of study and don’t tolerate argument via gut impulse or analogy. Step into an abortion thread on PWI and you will find informed and intelligent people making good sturdy arguments on both sides. Step into a thread like this one and you’ll find bubbling puddles of oblivious nonsense. (I say this not to pick out Gkhan, whom I consider to be on the higher-information end in these matters. It is clear that he follows international news, which, astoundingly, cannot be said of most people with whom I’ve discussed this deal, even in real life and even in New York journalism circles. That said, I have had the opportunity to hear the private thoughts of the person I respect most vis-a-vis this kind of thing, and he said what I think: not perfect, not supposed to be perfect, but unarguably decimates Iran’s ability to break out for the next 15-25 years, which is infinitely preferable to a window of mere months and no end in sight. 150 inspectors in the country, IAEA technical monitors and international scientists at Fordow, 98 percent reduction in uranium-stockpile size and a 3.67 percent cap on enrichment, late-generation centrifuges surrendered, Arak dispossessed of plutonium-production capacity. 24 days entails some risk, particularly if the Iranians find a way to stall, but, as Moniz said, this is not a matter of dishwashing. Nuclear weapons production is heavy industry, and an interested American security apparatus is a hell of a thing to try to hide from. Again, though, it is absolutely inarguable that the agreement enormously reduces Iran’s capacity to develop a nuclear weapon. There is no question about this. Perhaps we do go to war in 25 years, perhaps we don’t. Perhaps the Iranian regime and, more importantly, people get pushed beyond the tipping point and come to loudly say that American good will is easier to handle than American military might. Perhaps. This is the nature of the game. If you want a sure thing, bet against the New York Jets.)

[quote]Bismark wrote:
If Iran gets the bomb, then Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine (none of whom reside in Southwest Asia) will soon follow suit? That is the definition of magical thinking - analysis and prescriptions based on unrealistic assumptions, unspecified causal relationships, inapt analogies, and a dearth of supporting evidence. Even Saudia Arabia, the most likely candidate for nuclear proliferation, has more reasons to abstain from the bomb than to seek it. [/quote]

If the Russians & Chinese want to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, why is the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom building more nuclear power reactors in Iran? Why is China helping them also?

Just saw your response…above this post, smh_23.

edited…

Ok, point taken smh…but what’s your opinion of the article I posted and why North Korea has been allowed to produce nuclear weapons even though no sane nation would want that to happen either.

I understand how my threat stated above would be received as hollow. I get that, but on the other hand you’ve got Putin running around with his military threatening a nuclear World War III and that’s perfectly fine. So my reasoning would be to negotiate in the same tone right back at them.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
If Iran gets the bomb, then Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine (none of whom reside in Southwest Asia) will soon follow suit? That is the definition of magical thinking - analysis and prescriptions based on unrealistic assumptions, unspecified causal relationships, inapt analogies, and a dearth of supporting evidence. Even Saudia Arabia, the most likely candidate for nuclear proliferation, has more reasons to abstain from the bomb than to seek it. [/quote]

If the Russians & Chinese want to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, why is the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom building more nuclear power reactors in Iran? Why is China helping them also?

Just saw your response…above this post, smh_23.

edited…

Ok, point taken smh…but what’s your opinion of the article I posted and why North Korea has been allowed to produce nuclear weapons even though no sane nation would want that to happen either.

I understand how my threat stated above would be received as hollow. I get that, but on the other hand you’ve got Putin running around with his military threatening a nuclear World War III and that’s perfectly fine. So my reasoning would be to negotiate in the same tone right back at them.
[/quote]

I certainly wouldn’t deny that Russian and China have been less-than-positive influences here, as in many other places. But the “taste of their own medicine” response, while tempting (and especially tempting in light of the fact that we are the greatest power on the planet), is the kind of thing a country like ours has the luxury to resist.

First there is tone/appearance. You mention correctly that loud and indiscreet shouts can be heard from the Kremlin. Contrary to the suspicions of people who don’t follow these things closely, this is a sign of deep and structural weakness. Throughout most of the cold war, when the USSR was a true superpower and military rival of the U.S., Soviet rhetoric tended to be sober and measured. In reality of course the whole world was being run by wolves, and we came appallingly close to nuclear war on more than one occasion. But the word “peace” figured prominently into public Soviet language, and the US was more likely to be accused of warmongering than threatened with endtime. Compare and contrast this with the present day, in which Putin and his inner circle are hysterically yammering about World War 3 every couple of weeks. Not coincidentally, Russia is a thin shadow of the power it was at the height of the cold war. Its military is decrepit, its nuclear arsenal is no longer capable of granting it even the appearance of parity, and its economy is comparable to that of the State of California rather than to that of the country to which California belongs. Put simply, we don’t talk about our dick in public because everybody knows we’ve got a third forearm knocking around our knees.

Beyond tone/appearance, and much more importantly, the above paragraph entails some actual and serious danger. The Russians and their leaders are fixated on restoration and former glory. What if Putin chooses to compensate for his country’s deficiencies by being willing to play carelessly along the brink? “I can’t out-muscle you, but I can sure as hell out-crazy you.” These are the kinds of things nightmare scenarios are made of: a paranoid (whereas conservatives see Obama the Appeaser, Putin believes he’s being surrounded by an enemy with cruel intentions) and status-obsessed governing class with relatively little to lose…a series of calculated risks plotted and taken by prideful, saber-rattling buffoons, etc. It isn’t all that difficult to imagine how things can get out of hand very quickly.

Which brings me, at long last, to the thing about nuclear proliferation in Asia and E. Europe. Take the state of affairs described above and introduce a bunch of small, American-backed cold wars in some of the least stable geopolitical regions on the planet. It almost couldn’t end well for anyone, and certainly not for us. The present status quo is actually pretty great on this side of the world – we are rich, powerful, relatively happy. Enormously increased nuclear tension is not going to have a positive effect on that status quo, and, in fact, it could have a catastrophically negative one. As in the sky lights up white one day.

TLDR: There has got to be an adult in the room. Speak softly and carry a big dick, etc.

^ And that last set of points isn’t rhetoric or hysteria. I believe that human civilization will ultimately fall to nuclear apocalypse. Man is too weak and the temptation is too strong. We think it unthinkable, but is it? Highly-educated, advanced societies spent much of the last century showing each other the primitively savage ends to which they were willing to put their technologies and innovations and modernism. Has a weapon ever been made and then not, at some point, used as liberally and profligately as possible? Does anybody have faith that the rotating cast of psycho-clowns who appear, every once in a while, to shake up world history will not, eventually, succumb to the button-pushing impulse? It doesn’t even take a psycho-clown, though: all you need is a couple of snowballing risks, a couple of miscalculations and misreadings. This is not even to mention the possibility of accidental nuclear war.

My feeling, in light of the above, is that it should be each generation’s goal not to be the last one.To willingly create multiple pockets of acute nuclear tension in unstable geopolitical regions is to run counter to this goal.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I’m about the most intellectually honest member of this board.
[/quote]
I would totally agree with this. If nothing else you are honest as the day is long. I never have to question where I sit with you.

He ain’t got no PhD, he’s just a student.[/quote]

Ignoring a preponderance of evidence contrary to one’s predetermined conclusion Is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. If Angry truly believes that treaties under Article II of the constitution are the only source of international law, he is either intentionally ignoring the vast and unanimous literature that demonstrates otherwise, or he is a fool. I don’t believe he is a fool, far from it. So I logically have to conclude the former.
[/quote]I’d say I’m an idealist. And I don’t give a shit about “international law”. There is no such thing because international law ENFORCEMENT is inconsistent at best - they try one brutal dictator as a war criminal, and they bring the next one to lunch at the White House. History shows us the most likely consequence of “violating” international law is a strongly worded letter from the UN, but I digress. What I care about is the Constitution and how it’s being trampled. The MANNER in which this TREATY has been adopted is a prime example of the erosion of the Constitution. Forget about how shitty the treaty is and how my seven year old could have negotiated a better deal, the PROCESS, IMHO, violated the Constitution by #1 bypassing the Senate and #2 giving aid and comfort TO OUR ENEMY. In my opinion, Obama and Kerry committed treason with this “deal”. Look up the definition for Treaty and look up the definition for Treason. They both fit in this context, but everyone seems to forget the English language and tries to twist things to push some bullshit agenda funded by large corporations who are chomping at the bit to get into that market and sell their shit.[quote]

No, I don’t have a doctoral degree (yet), but I do have a BA in International Relations and am currently pursuing an MA in Security Studies. It’s curious that you would bring up my credentials (or lack thereof) as if doing so somehow debases my arguments, yet you are unwilling to learn the very basics of the topic at hand. It’s frustrating to put on my pads to play football only to have you sodomize yourself with a cricket bat on the fifty yard line while you declare that you’ve scored a touchdown. [/quote]

Perhaps everyone seems to bring up your “credentials” because you have an annoying habit of telling everyone they are “not qualified to have this discussion”. Well it turns out, neither are you! LOL

YOU are the one who brings qualifications and by implication, credentials, into the discussion. Why not try being less of a dick about people’s opinions and chose the arguments you want to address and ignore the one’s you don’t want to address? You don’t HAVE to insult everyone you speak with. But when the very first sentence of EVERY. SINGLE. REPLY. begins with, “you’re not qualified to have this discussion”, it tends to rub people the wrong way.

I’m not graduate student, I’m a commercial electrician with computer access. But guess what? I’m a CITIZEN. I have CHILDREN who are likely to pay the consequences of these foreign policy blunders. THAT MAKES ME QUALIFIED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION![/quote]

I think your a big teddy bear actually. Tough veneer, but soft and squishy on the inside. I mean that as a compliment. I think your a nice guy, who learned his lessons the hard way, but learned them nonetheless. And I do think you are qualified to have this or any other discussion.[/quote]

Guilty as charged! LOL I appreciate the vote of confidence, Pat - right back atcha.

“If we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them, you are going to have to obey our rules and sanctions anyway, that is a recipe, very quickly … for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world,”

WHAT?

  1. How does he make that connection?

  2. If that is true, what did they promise or negotiate in this deal that would make it so?

  3. Is he saying this because its going to happen anyway, and now he can say “told you so.”

Can we please find out what is in this deal for Christ sake? Not some second hand glossed over bullshit, we deserve to see whats at stake.

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
Can we please find out what is in this deal for Christ sake? Not some second hand glossed over bullshit, we deserve to see whats at stake.[/quote]

Do you think it’s a secret?