Iranian nuclear deal in 6 months?
Discussion
I'm reasonably happy with this. It's part of the jigsaw puzzle of fixing the Syrian clusterf
k, and this is like finally getting all of the sky done.
It's not the deal that Europe or the US wanted but it's a deal with Iran, and if we're talking to them, we're not dropping bombs on them. Iran now having something to lose in negotiations over Syria means we may get some traction there, which is all for the good.
k, and this is like finally getting all of the sky done. It's not the deal that Europe or the US wanted but it's a deal with Iran, and if we're talking to them, we're not dropping bombs on them. Iran now having something to lose in negotiations over Syria means we may get some traction there, which is all for the good.
Timing is everything of course. Relations with Shia nations was not possible while Saudi had it's hand on the oil tap.
As the States move towards energy independence I guess they've nothing to lose really in that regard.
I'm sure there's plenty in the GOP that will want to drop bombs on Iran until they give up their last AA battery, but hopefully this will eventually lead to more stability in the region.
As the States move towards energy independence I guess they've nothing to lose really in that regard.
I'm sure there's plenty in the GOP that will want to drop bombs on Iran until they give up their last AA battery, but hopefully this will eventually lead to more stability in the region.
Ozzie Osmond said:
NelsonR32 said:
Israel would not have been happy whatever the outcome.......
Very true. RoW has come to realise that Israel will never be happy so might as well be ignored. The risk for Israel is that unless it can learn to get along with its neighbours (and non-Jewish residents) it will become increasingly isolated and may eventually be squeezed out of existence.
Countdown said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
NelsonR32 said:
Israel would not have been happy whatever the outcome.......
Very true. RoW has come to realise that Israel will never be happy so might as well be ignored. The risk for Israel is that unless it can learn to get along with its neighbours (and non-Jewish residents) it will become increasingly isolated and may eventually be squeezed out of existence.Jimbeaux said:
This deal is laughable. The Iranians know now that they can continue to develop a weapon under cover. However, as the Democrats are jumping ship on Obamacare, they have now begun jumping ship on this deal as well. hey too know it is a bad one. The POTUS is so desperate to distract from the ACA that he was willing to sign anything to say he got a deal. A desperate POTUS has done something that will only hurt him more.
It's a bit early to be writing it off, isn't it? It's a step forwards, both sides are talking which is an improvement on the previous decades.The alternative would seem to be continued ramping up of sanctions which further entrenches their position, helps the less moderates maintain their power base and, as we've seen, fails to prevent them getting what they're after.
Art0ir said:
Timing is everything of course. Relations with Shia nations was not possible while Saudi had it's hand on the oil tap.
As the States move towards energy independence I guess they've nothing to lose really in that regard.
I'm sure there's plenty in the GOP that will want to drop bombs on Iran until they give up their last AA battery, but hopefully this will eventually lead to more stability in the region.
I am afraid you soon find that third parties magically got their hands on a nuke device. All of this " we are talking and not fighting" is blindness. Of course a deal is better than war but let's make a decent deal FFS. We held all of the chips, why give it away behind a weak deal?As the States move towards energy independence I guess they've nothing to lose really in that regard.
I'm sure there's plenty in the GOP that will want to drop bombs on Iran until they give up their last AA battery, but hopefully this will eventually lead to more stability in the region.
Jimbeaux said:
On an ironic twist, the Syrians with the worse wounds are being treated in Israel' s trauma centers. Those evil Israelis; it must be some sort of trick.
I don't think, at any point in this thread, anybody has described the Israelis as being 'evil'. Trying to reframe the discussion as being one of 'anybody who takes the other side of the argument is a bigot' is at best disingenuous, and at worst, dishonest. It does you, and the side of the argument you're trying to promote, no favours and makes those of us in the middle ground less likely to believe anything you say. Funnily enough, I'm actually lifting most of that from a discussion I had a while ago with somebody who'd had business dealings with Netanyahu in Israel years ago. They were not very complimentary about old Bibi!
spitsfire said:
Jimbeaux said:
On an ironic twist, the Syrians with the worse wounds are being treated in Israel' s trauma centers. Those evil Israelis; it must be some sort of trick.
I don't think, at any point in this thread, anybody has described the Israelis as being 'evil'. Trying to reframe the discussion as being one of 'anybody who takes the other side of the argument is a bigot' is at best disingenuous, and at worst, dishonest. It does you, and the side of the argument you're trying to promote, no favours and makes those of us in the middle ground less likely to believe anything you say. Funnily enough, I'm actually lifting most of that from a discussion I had a while ago with somebody who'd had business dealings with Netanyahu in Israel years ago. They were not very complimentary about old Bibi!
Jimbeaux said:
I am afraid you soon find that third parties magically got their hands on a nuke device. All of this " we are talking and not fighting" is blindness. Of course a deal is better than war but let's make a decent deal FFS. We held all of the chips, why give it away behind a weak deal?
And yet we never talk about Pakistan, who had Osama Bin Laden living there for ten years and "nobody noticed". In a choice between the Iranians and the Pakistanis, I think it's pretty clear who we could trust more to not let a nuclear weapon fall into the hands of terrorists.davepoth said:
Jimbeaux said:
I am afraid you soon find that third parties magically got their hands on a nuke device. All of this " we are talking and not fighting" is blindness. Of course a deal is better than war but let's make a decent deal FFS. We held all of the chips, why give it away behind a weak deal?
And yet we never talk about Pakistan, who had Osama Bin Laden living there for ten years and "nobody noticed". In a choice between the Iranians and the Pakistanis, I think it's pretty clear who we could trust more to not let a nuclear weapon fall into the hands of terrorists.Jimbeaux said:
davepoth said:
Jimbeaux said:
I am afraid you soon find that third parties magically got their hands on a nuke device. All of this " we are talking and not fighting" is blindness. Of course a deal is better than war but let's make a decent deal FFS. We held all of the chips, why give it away behind a weak deal?
And yet we never talk about Pakistan, who had Osama Bin Laden living there for ten years and "nobody noticed". In a choice between the Iranians and the Pakistanis, I think it's pretty clear who we could trust more to not let a nuclear weapon fall into the hands of terrorists.The Saudis?
Mermaid said:
Jimbeaux said:
davepoth said:
Jimbeaux said:
I am afraid you soon find that third parties magically got their hands on a nuke device. All of this " we are talking and not fighting" is blindness. Of course a deal is better than war but let's make a decent deal FFS. We held all of the chips, why give it away behind a weak deal?
And yet we never talk about Pakistan, who had Osama Bin Laden living there for ten years and "nobody noticed". In a choice between the Iranians and the Pakistanis, I think it's pretty clear who we could trust more to not let a nuclear weapon fall into the hands of terrorists.The Saudis?
Mermaid said:
Jimbeaux said:
About as far as I could push that fat jet stuck on that short runway.
That's reasonable. 
The Iranians will be better to deal with & their women are a lot prettier as far as I can see.
Mermaid said:
That's reasonable.
The Iranians will be better to deal with & their women are a lot prettier as far as I can see.
Arab women in general seem to be quite gorgeous. Until they get married AFAICS.The Iranians will be better to deal with & their women are a lot prettier as far as I can see.
Maybe if they're wrapped up in chadors and kept away from all male eyes there isn't the incentive?
Apologies for the blatant sexism.
To understand the functioning of the Saudis and their relationship with Iran, the USA, Islamic extremism etc. the book called Inside the kingdom by Robert Lacey is a brilliant read.
It does not paint a very pretty picture at all, although the chapter on the increase in heterosexually married, female Saudi bisexuals, was unexpected diversion.
It does not paint a very pretty picture at all, although the chapter on the increase in heterosexually married, female Saudi bisexuals, was unexpected diversion.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 25th November 20:26
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff