Is Iran deal really a no-brainer?

[gpatt0n]

 

On his Friday night talk show, Bill Maher attacked the opposition to the Obama administration’s Iran treaty that limits Iran’s nuclear potential.

“I want to start off with Iran, the Iran deal, we’ve never really talked about it in detail on this show, but its going to be coming up for a vote in a month. For those people who have tuned out because it seems very technical, let me break it down: Its a no-brainer.

“The only argument not to do the deal is pretty much the argument Mitch McConnel put forward the week before Obama took office. Say ‘no’ to everything he does no matter what it is.”

Maher then explained the details surrounding the Iran deal.

“I’ll give you a few of the facts. It calls for Iran to get rid of 98 percent of their enriched uranium. They now have 20,000 centrifuges, after this they have to get rid of all but 6,000 of them; those are the oldest ones that are useless to making a bomb. They have two big reactors, those will be constantly monitored, one of them is in a mountain so an airstrike probably wouldn’t wipe it out anyway.”

Maher articulated that if the agreement is not approved, the U.S. won’t gain any concessions from Iran.

“And the kicker is, if we don’t do this then the sanctions are going to go away anyway, because the other countries aren’t going to keep them up. So we either do the deal and get all this, or we get nothing. So that’s what I mean by no-brainer.”

Even Lawrence Wilkerson, who worked in the George W. Bush administration as Chief of Staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, said the opposition to Obama’s Iran deal is “bizarre.” He also mentioned America’s long history in meddling with the domestic politics of Iran.

Doug Heye, the former communications direction to Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, attempted to defend the Republican position against Obama’s Iran deal. But when pressed by Maher, even Heye admitted that there isn’t an argument against the deal.

Maher further affirmed his point.

“Exactly. There isn’t one. And that’s why you have to filibuster, because there just isn’t one. And by the way the arrogance that we can just knock down any door in their house. Can Iran be trusted? As you [Wilkerson], just pointed out: Can we be trusted? Can they be trusted? Says the country that fomented a coup in Iran in 1953.”

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2337348/bill-maher-iran-deal-is-no-brainer/#VvUkck5ufxFZubbq.99

 

The conversation continued and it was mentioned that the we still have all the same options we had before the deal beginning with bombing or going to war.

 

Literally, the choice to oppose the deal is literally saying you don't want to give peace a chance.

 

pubby

 

 

 

 

 

[LPPT]

 

The conversation continued and it was mentioned that the we still have all the same options we had before the deal beginning with bombing or going to war.

 

Literally, the choice to oppose the deal is literally saying you don't want to give peace a chance.

 

pubby

 

 

 

 

 

I am not sure about peace Pubby, it sometimes seems impossible when it comes to middle eastern countries.

Americans don't really understand how they are perceived around the world. In some instances comes off as our way or the highway. Or war. A lot of Americans see our foreign affairs as very simple. The good democracies are on our side. Those not on our side are in the wrong. They will do as we say or face being bombed. Seems reasonable right. We don't realize just how scary we are to the rest of the world when we start pushing a country around then end up in a war.

 

When it comes to dealing with other countries we need agreements, strict guidelines so the rest of the world sees us as fair, not scary. I had a discussion with someone who believed that Iran bombing Israel was a foregone conclusion. I guess we are seen in the position of using intelligence to preemptively strike before Israel is harmed.

 

The issue is the world would never really know if they were going to bomb Israel if we bombed first. This is why we have to have the rules and regulation for an agreement. Not especially for Iran or even Israel that does not like the agreement and I think my example will show why they don't above the reason that they would be pleased for us to make preemptive strikes in Iran.

 

It also demonstrates why there is so much distrust of us in even moderate middle eastern countries. Lets use our continent as an example.

 

We have recently been blaming the Mexican people for a lot of our problems. Some think we should take very strong measures to keep them out. So someone starts floating the idea of regularly bombing the border.

The Mexican government goes to Canada claiming we hate them, we are shooting at them and planning to bomb them.

The Canadian government takes the stance that if any of your people shoot Mexicans or you point a bomb at them we are going to attack you.

So Canada is going to take Mexico's word that we are shooting at them and planning to bomb them. No rules, no guide lines or agreements. All they have to do is say Americans hate us and are going to bomb us and the Canadians will retaliate. We have been the Canadians for years. We can not threaten or start a war based on the Israeli's being scared.

The guidelines are clear of what they can and can not do.

The UN agrees that it is fair. We have never been in a better position than we are right now as it relates to Iran.

Our arrogance along with our military and weapons scare all other countries. We are not seen as heroes to many,we are seen as bullies. We have got to have agreements to avoid wars and to keep our allies on our side.

This agreement has approval of the UN as it should have. We should not be exempt from reason any more than any other country. Rules are the basis for society there is no reason for us to be exempt unless we are a lawless society.

[gpatt0n]

I re-watched that segment and found a youtube of it.

 

 

The thing that Maher points out is our history with them.

 

What have we done?

 

Watch the video and you'll see we shot down an Iranian airliner with over 200 civilians onboard; we negotiated some dirty deals with them (IRan/Contra come to mind?) and heck, even that nicest of Presidents - I liked IKE too - sent the CIA in to overthrow their democratically elected government in 1953. Frankly, I am amazed they are still talking with us.

 

pubby