Compare and contrast: Camp David Accords vs The Iran "Negotiation."

[Que]

Oh really? then why the categories of "years of peace" with a ? for the Iran deal as if it was merely the number of years that we are uncertain about when no such negotiation for anything that can be called peace was even on the table.

Why not compare it to historic trade agreements?

Or show some fast food receipts?

 

[Que]

The negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 group did exactly what they were meant to do. The fact that they don't live up to what you think that they should be is moot. You started from the opening post lamenting the fact that the negotiations weren't broad enough when they have been, from the very beginning, very narrow in scope.

You made assumptions about how everyone felt about the "Negotiation" by pretending that everyone expected world peace to be negotiated in this deal (Cute trick that, putting that in quotes right there in the title) and then asked everyone to play along with your version of reality.

The meme wasn't actually making a direct comparison between the three items listed, but was commentary on the value of diplomacy.

I'm sure things would go so much smoother, for you, if everyone would just agree with your point of view. If that's what you expect then I guarantee that all of your threads will be a colossal waste of time.

No..it has "negotiation" in the title because a negotiation implies give and take. Obama merely asked the Iranians what would it take for them to agree to a joint statement that there is an "agreement"

"Would you like fries with that?" is order taking, not negotiating.

I wasn't the one that suggested this "diplomacy' (giving away the store) was on par with actual high-level, actual negotiations by actual, qualified, skilled diplomats between two parties that want to accomplish something.

But hey, it doesn't take much for the administration fan-boys to get up and dance. If this is something you see crowing about 30-40 years from now, more power to you.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Boy howdy, do I wish I could be negative to everything Obama does. Not just disagreeing with a few things or wishing some actions were a bit more than just a bit little, but ALL OF IT.

Or better yet, just be bully to everything under a liberal/Democratic sun. I mean, to constantly see the dark clouds instead of the silver linings? When things aren't ever a binary measure?

Life sure would be simpler that way, ayup. I'd call myself Vetteman or something.

 

[phrodeau]

How many years of peace has there been between Iran and Israel so far? They seem to be able to coexist all right.

At least, Iran hasn't attacked Israel.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

No..it has "negotiation" in the title because a negotiation implies give and take. Obama merely asked the Iranians what would it take for them to agree to a joint statement that there is an "agreement"

"Would you like fries with that?" is order taking, not negotiating.

I wasn't the one that suggested this "diplomacy' (giving away the store) was on par with actual high-level, actual negotiations by actual, qualified, skilled diplomats between two parties that want to accomplish something.

But hey, it doesn't take much for the administration fan-boys to get up and dance. If this is something you see crowing about 30-40 years from now, more power to you.

Iran has agreed to a number of concessions in the negotiation of this agreement.

These include:

* Submitting to the most intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection ever devised. IAEA inspectors will have carte blanche to enter any site or facility in Iran that they deem “suspicious” in perpetuity.

* Dramatically curtailing Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium and its existing stockpile of enriched uranium. For the next 10 years, Iran will be allowed to operate just 5,060 of its 19,000 centrifuges and those it does operate must be “first-generation,” i.e., extremely slow.

* The dismantling of much of Iran’s civil nuclear infrastructure. The core of the heavy reactor at Iran’s Arak heavy water research reactor is to be “destroyed or removed from the country” and the facility redesigned and rebuilt so as to prevent the production of weapons-grade plutonium.

The punishing US and EU sanctions that have halved Iran’s oil exports since 2011 and frozen it out of the world banking system will be “suspended”—not permanently removed. Moreover, their suspension will begin only when Iran has made good on all parts of the deal that are immediately applicable.

If it any time the US and EU declare that Iran has not complied with any aspect of the agreement, the “sanctions will snap back into place.”

Tehran will have to fulfill even more onerous conditions before the UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted. Iran will not only have to implement all the above-enumerated “key nuclear steps,” but also “address the IAEA’s concerns about the Possible Military Dimensions” (PMDs) of its nuclear program. The US used this device against Saddam Hussein, demanding that he prove Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

This is what you call asking if they want fries with that?

Because to me these sound like some pretty damned restrictive terms. But then, I didn't expect world peace to be negotiated there.

 

[PoppingTom]

I gather you are saying that Iran with the bomb is OK because North Korea. Fine. Lets assume you are right they DO want a bomb and they WILL behave responsibly with it, not just not set it off, but also not use the threat of doing so to annoy, harass or frighten their neighbors or coerce unjust agreements or the like. They have a figurative "come to Jesus" moment and love everyone.

Great.

That handles them and nukes, as this agreement is alleged to do.

How does that affect the non nuke related behavior that they are engaged in right now that threatens the region and the people that live there?

Don't ask me. I never made the assumption that this is a deal to give Iran the bomb.

I say, if they really really want it, it'll be hard to inhibit, as even North Korea managed to get one. And if they had, it wouldn't make much difference, because North Korea and Pakistan.

The good thing on the deal is that it allows better control - for the price of loosening the sanctions. I don't see the destabilizing part. Maybe lack of paranoia.

 

[KingOrfeo]

. . . The Iran "Negotiation."

It is a negotiation. Why the scare-quotes?

 

[dan_c00000]

Utter horse shit.
The "right" has been pushing that narrative for 30 years.

Oh, and this:

Support and encouragement? Yeah, they're providing arms to Iraq to fight against ISIS.

He has no evidence that Iran has a nuclear bomb. Query lives in the Fox "News" bubble where if it was said on Fox "News" it's gotta be true!

Furthermore, to his point of Iran-Israel I'm pretty sure all the Arab countries of the middle east would love to wipe Israel off the map. It's gone really well for them so far right Query?

I'm guessing you didn't even bother to look up why Egypt was so eager to sign a treaty with Israel in the first place did you? Here I did it for you.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

dan has its head up its own ass, looking for gold

He has no evidence that Iran has a nuclear bomb. Query lives in the Fox "News" bubble where if it was said on Fox "News" it's gotta be true!

Furthermore, to his point of Iran-Israel I'm pretty sure all the Arab countries of the middle east would love to wipe Israel off the map. It's gone really well for them so far right Query?

I'm guessing you didn't even bother to look up why Egypt was so eager to sign a treaty with Israel in the first place did you? Here I did it for you.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Pub reaction ain't getting any smarter.

WALKER: Absolutely. If I ultimately choose to run, and if I’m honored to be elected by the people of this country, I will pull back on that on January 20, 2017, because the last thing — not just for the region but for this world — we need is a nuclear-armed Iran. It leaves not only problems for Israel, because they want to annihilate Israel, it leaves the problems in the sense that the Saudis, the Jordanians and others are gonna want to have access to their own nuclear weapons…

That’s about as vacant a response as you can offer, and it makes clear that Walker’s grasp of the issue doesn’t extend too far beyond “Iran is bad.” If an agreement is reached and President Walker does back out of it, then all he’ll have done is make it more likely that Iran obtains a nuclear weapon. He’s already acknowledged that whatever sanctions might be imposed will lack the backing of the international community, which he’ll have alienated with his unilateral action to demolish the diplomatic framework in place. So, as Jim Newell points out, that would leave Walker with two options: pray that nothing bad happens until the Iranian regime collapses, or drop a bunch of bombs.

Would dropping those bombs deprive Iran of a nuke? Well, John Bolton – who places more faith than anyone in the power of bombs to solve problems – says that an enthusiastic application of explosives to Iranian nuclear sites could set the program back a whopping three to five years. The framework under discussion would freeze things in place for at least 10 years. So we’d be putting Americans in harm’s way and pissing off all our friends, all for less than what we’d get than if we stick to our commitments.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It is true, at any rate, that Obama is now actually earning his Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[miles]

dan has its head up its own ass, looking for gold

He found Throb there.

 

[dan_c00000]

dan has its head up its own ass, looking for gold

At least this time you used the correct "its".

Anyway, how's your book business going? Are you still pretending to be a girl on the internet?