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

[Que]

I will express my bias that Zumi's meme from the blurt thread gave me a giggle:

I thought that if that is the way fans of the administration are going to spin this and it seems likely, it deserved its own thread.

Given that Obama likes to compare himself to the legendary achievements of others this doesn't shock me, but it seems a stretch to make even a partial parallel.

At issue on the nuclear "agreement" was not resolution of old conflict. discussion of boundary disputes or two sides weary of war and having economic incentives to live in prosperous peace alongside one another.

Iran has stated categorically that the elimination of the State of Israel is still on their to-do list, they have merely agreed to not assemble the nuclear bomb components that they are preparing.

Nothing at all is even under discussion about their support of and encouragement of current conflict in the region. As I understand it, )and I don't think the "agreement" was made public was it?) they have simply agreed not to be quite ready to nuke anyone.

Some have suggested, and although I don't agree it is a reasonable analytical point of view, that Iran having a bomb might cause some stability in the region from a standpoint of detente.

This agreement which like all the others before it merely has Iran issuing vague promises of putting off joining the nuclear club, accomplishes what that would lead to peace?

I really do not see any parallel at all.

Just because some numbers can be lined up in a meme doesn't make those numbers relevant to each other.

How long it takes to come to an accord matters not at all, what is in it and the willingness of the parties to abide by it does.

 

[PoppingTom]

Some have suggested, and although I don't agree it is a reasonable analytical point of view, that Iran having a bomb might cause some stability in the region from a standpoint of detente.

This agreement which like all the others before it merely has Iran issuing vague promises of putting off joining the nuclear club, accomplishes what that would lead to peace?

I really do not see any parallel at all.

Not even with North Korea?

 

[Que]

Not even with North Korea?

The choices on the table are the Camp David Accords which brokered a settlement that was mutually agreeable to Egypt an Israel, and the accords that brokered peace in Ireland.

Korea was not mentioned at all.

Korea would be an example of someone that joined the nuclear club when we did not want them to, this agreement is alleged to be aimed at preventing that sort of thing happing with Iran.

Did you have a point to make, even on a tangent here? Because I am puzzled.

 

[PoppingTom]

Did you have a point to make, even on a tangent here? Because I am puzzled.

North Korea - like any other in the nuclear group except the US - got the bomb and never used it, despite heavy anti-american rhetoric and much less trustworthyness than Iran.

So does Pakistan - despite the ISI is partially a known supporter of Ossama Bin Laden and the creator of the Taliban.


So all this "Iran is different to anybody in the nuclear club" is just paranoia, and all the Obama haters makes your president much dumber than he could even be if he wanted to. Anybody who says "we gave them the bomb" seems to not know anything about the deal at all.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Iran has stated categorically that the elimination of the State of Israel is still on their to-do list, they have merely agreed to not assemble the nuclear bomb components that they are preparing.

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

Oh, and this:

Nothing at all is even under discussion about their support of and encouragement of current conflict in the region.

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

 

[Que]

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

Lets assume that not only are they wrong about their future capabilities, the "right" is wrong about Iran having ever even considered such an idea.

Lets assume the whole thing was a tempest in a tea kettle and even without sanctions, without the world over their shoulder Iran never would have even wanted to, much less joined the nuclear club.

To the OP:

How is this agreement for something they were never going to do, apparently, going to bring peace to the region.

What is it that was negotiated that had the design or will have the effect of settling ages of dispute going back to Abraham, or even the much more recent quarrels between Shia and Sunni cousins?

According to the meme, we should be looking forward to a hopeful future of peace as a direct result of whatever is in this agreement.

Rob posted a piece from the Atlantic yesterday, I don't have handy that suggested we can play off the Saudis against the Iranians and that this agreement is akin to the opening of relations with China by Nixon.

You that hopeful about all this?

 

[Que]

North Korea - like any other in the nuclear group except the US - got the bomb and never used it, despite heavy anti-american rhetoric and much less trustworthyness than Iran.

So does Pakistan - despite the ISI is partially a known supporter of Ossama Bin Laden and the creator of the Taliban.


So all this "Iran is different to anybody in the nuclear club" is just paranoia, and all the Obama haters makes your president much dumber than he could even be if he wanted to. Anybody who says "we gave them the bomb" seems to not know anything about the deal at all.

Sounds like you are having an interesting but completely unrelated conversation with yourself. I will leave you to it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by query View Post

Iran has stated categorically that the elimination of the State of Israel is still on their to-do list, they have merely agreed to not assemble the nuclear bomb components that they are preparing.

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

Are you actually saying that the destruction of Israel is not a goal of the government of Iran?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/05/i...oal-is-the-destruction-of-america-and-israel/

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...an_s_khamenei_israel_must_be_annihilated.html

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-supreme-leader-touts-9-point-plan-to-destroy-israel/

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Lets assume that not only are they wrong about their future capabilities, the "right" is wrong about Iran having ever even considered such an idea.

Lets assume the whole thing was a tempest in a tea kettle and even without sanctions, without the world over their shoulder Iran never would have even wanted to, much less joined the nuclear club.

To the OP:

How is this agreement for something they were never going to do, apparently, going to bring peace to the region.

What is it that was negotiated that had the design or will have the effect of settling ages of dispute going back to Abraham, or even the much more recent quarrels between Shia and Sunni cousins?

According to the meme, we should be looking forward to a hopeful future of peace as a direct result of whatever is in this agreement.

Rob posted a piece from the Atlantic yesterday, I don't have handy that suggested we can play off the Saudis against the Iranians and that this agreement is akin to the opening of relations with China by Nixon.

You that hopeful about all this?

Forgotten or intentionally ignored in the entire debate about Iran's supposed nuclear ambitions is the fact that all 16 US intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran actually abandoned its active nuclear weapons program in 2003. The US has known this since at least 2007, when a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which undercut George W Bush’s burgeoning Iran war talk, was leaked to the media. In 2010 and 2012 two other NIEs were issued by the US government that concluded, as the LA Times put it: “US intelligence agencies don’t believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb”.

That hasn't stopped the "right" (and Israel) from continually perpetuating the idea that Iran is just months away from building a nuclear bomb. A bit of fiction they have been pushing for 3 decades.

The part of the agreement that will help to promote peace is inspections by the IAEA that will stop certain countries *ahem* from arbitrarily bombing Iran as they have in the past.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Originally Posted by query View Post

Iran has stated categorically that the elimination of the State of Israel is still on their to-do list, they have merely agreed to not assemble the nuclear bomb components that they are preparing.



Are you actually saying that the destruction of Israel is not a goal of the government of Iran?

No dumbass.

Go back and read my post and pay particular attention to the part of Query's that I bolded.

Jesus fucking Christ you're dense

 

[PoppingTom]

Sounds like you are having an interesting but completely unrelated conversation with yourself. I will leave you to it.

Your way to ignore facts.

 

[Que]

Forgotten or intentionally ignored in the entire debate about Iran's supposed nuclear ambitions is the fact that all 16 US intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran actually abandoned its active nuclear weapons program in 2003. The US has known this since at least 2007, when a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which undercut George W Bush’s burgeoning Iran war talk, was leaked to the media. In 2010 and 2012 two other NIEs were issued by the US government that concluded, as the LA Times put it: “US intelligence agencies don’t believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb”.

That hasn't stopped the "right" (and Israel) from continually perpetuating the idea that Iran is just months away from building a nuclear bomb. A bit of fiction they have been pushing for 3 decades.

The part of the agreement that will help to promote peace is inspections by the IAEA that will stop certain countries *ahem* from arbitrarily bombing Iran as they have in the past.

Um...so stipulated above.

So what is your feeling about how this agreement will in anyway bring peace to the region when it was not even a topic for discussion in the agreement?

Just good vibes?

A starting point for future agreement?

I am not saying it is necessarily any sort of a hindrance to peace, but what part of this process was designed to impact peace in general?

 

[Que]

Your way to ignore facts.

No, It is me ignoring a completely different line of country for discussion.

To even have that discussion one would have to assume that Iran WILL get the bomb, and then argue about whether they are likely to behave as North Korea (this far) has and argue whether if they did behave in THEIR region as North Korea has would it be stabilizing or destabilizing. Imagine if Iran was "test firing" intercontinental ballistic missiles over Saudi Arabia or over Israel.

Since they don't have one now, I don't see the point of the discussion.

I hate to play along at all on your weird tangent because you never say die even when people agree with you, but here goes. Briefly:

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?

Wait.

Rhetorical. Please do not answer.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No dumbass.

Go back and read my post and pay particular attention to the part of Query's that I bolded.

Jesus fucking Christ you're dense

I read his post and yours, where you say his post is "utter horseshit" When such strong language is used about a short post, I take it to mean you mean the entire post is horseshit. Therefore, I refuted your comment. Iran has repeatedly sworn to destroy the state of Israel, and have even included that goal in their constitution.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I read his post and yours, where you say his post is "utter horseshit" When such strong language is used about a short post, I take it to mean you mean the entire post is horseshit. Therefore, I refuted your comment. Iran has repeatedly sworn to destroy the state of Israel, and have even included that goal in their constitution.

You completely ignored the fact that I truncated his post and bolded the portion I was addressing and instead chose the battle you thought that you could win. So delighted and eager to post your Google-Fu links to prove me wrong.

You should stick to the shallow end of the pool.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Um...so stipulated above.

So what is your feeling about how this agreement will in anyway bring peace to the region when it was not even a topic for discussion in the agreement?

Just good vibes?

A starting point for future agreement?

I am not saying it is necessarily any sort of a hindrance to peace, but what part of this process was designed to impact peace in general?

Did you just ignore the final sentence of my post?

The agreement of Iran to allow IAEA inspectors into the country will go a long way toward furthering the cause of peace even if it only makes it so that unsubstantiated claims can no longer be used to send unilateral sorties into Iran to bomb supposed nuclear weapons facilities.

They may be more amenable to more permanent accords without the threat of incursions into their territory to bomb nonexistent nuclear weapons facilities.

 

[Que]

Did you just ignore the final sentence of my post?

The agreement of Iran to allow IAEA inspectors into the country will go a long way toward furthering the cause of peace even if it only makes it so that unsubstantiated claims can no longer be used to send unilateral sorties into Iran to bomb supposed nuclear weapons facilities.

They may be more amenable to more permanent accords without the threat of incursions into their territory to bomb nonexistent nuclear weapons facilities.

Ok, so all the saber rattling and discord they currently sow in all of the middle east is because they were worried they MIGHT get bombed?

Take that away, they chill and live in peace and harmony?

If you are saying ~shrug~ well its a starting point, I buy that. I just do not see how that relates to Zumi's picture comparing it to the other actual peace plans. Where people talked about their actual differences and agreed to not fight with each other.

Unless I missing something this only maybe says they wont fight with the backing of nukes.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Ok, so all the saber rattling and discord they currently sow in all of the middle east is because they were worried they MIGHT get bombed?

Take that away, they chill and live in peace and harmony?

If you are saying ~shrug~ well its a starting point, I buy that. I just do not see how that relates to Zumi's picture comparing it to the other actual peace plans. Where people talked about their actual differences and agreed to not fight with each other.

Unless I missing something this only maybe says they wont fight with the backing of nukes.

Not that they MIGHT get bombed, that they HAD been bombed and certain countries *ahem* are nearly constantly threatening to do so again despite the fact that by all intelligence accounts (including Israel's) Iran's nuclear weapons program was stopped in 2003.

Will removing the constant threat of bombardment make them chill out and live in peace and harmony? How would we know? It hasn't been tried has it? Mostly there has been mutual sabre rattling from both the Iranians and the Israeli governments.

However, In January 2014, during a plenary session at the 9th World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the President of Israel Shimon Peres said in response to a question about the threat of Iran's nuclear program that "Iran is not an enemy", and there are no historical hostilities between the two countries. In that regard he added: "I don't see a reason to spend so much money in the name of hatred"

Perhaps the President should reign in the rhetoric of his Prime Minister who during his bid for re-election was still talking about bombing Iran...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Wat Is Duh Darkie Up To?

The Senate wont approve the treaty, and Obama pissed off most Jews in America and many Arabs in the Middle East. So whats he up to?

Kerry wants a Nobel Peace Prize. Obama wants sanctuary for when he leaves office and we discover his treacheries.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Nothing at all is even under discussion about their support of and encouragement of current conflict in the region.

Why should it be?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

There are 2 differences: Carter got on his knees, and Obama grabbed his ankles.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Why should it be?

The purpose of the negotiations was to curb Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions and allow IAEA inspectors to verify that (as intelligence from well, everyone says) Iran has stopped it's nuclear weapons research and development. Now that progress is being made in that direction it's not enough.

I can only assume that "enough" would be Iran agreeing to dismantle it's government and pledge fealty to Netanyahu.

 

[Que]

I can see this was a waste. The usual apologists want to make this much more than it is. When called on "well exactly what is this, and how is it going to lead to the sort of peace in Zumi's meme?" then that is projected on the right as complaining that it is not enough.

If the left is going to pretend this is some momentous agreement rather than a minor PR face save, it is perfectly reasonable to ask, "how so?"

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I can see this was a waste. The usual apologists want to make this much more than it is. When called on "well exactly what is this, and how is it going to lead to the sort of peace in Zumi's meme?" then that is projected on the right as complaining that it is not enough.

If the left is going to pretend this is some momentous agreement rather than a minor PR face save, it is perfectly reasonable to ask, "how so?"

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.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

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

THANK YOU.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0nlwiuBkV1qzogo3.gif

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.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1xyppwBTN1r5cg2h.gif