Iran Hostage Apology Demand

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #12016
    duxrule
    Participant

    One wonders a bit about the timing, but this really isn’t an unreasonable demand.

    Former Iran Hostage: President Obama Must Demand Apology, Compensation for Americans Held in 1979

    http://news.yahoo.com/former-iran-hostage-president-obama-must-demand-apology-160048516.html

    #12020
    LurkingGrendel
    Participant

    I’d opine exactly the opposite.

    It’s completely unreasonable and the timing is more than suspect; it’s willful. I.e. Designed to create an impossible pre-condition.

    I’ll spare you the long form historical analysis of the incident, but let it suffice to say there’s approximately a 0.0% chance the current government of Iran would agree to such as a condition as a part of the nuclear agreements. There’s an equal chance of the Obama administration making such an asinine demand.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath looking for President Hassan Rouhani to demand the United States apologize for helping install and then supporting Shah Pahlavi prior to the Islamic revolution of 1979 as a precondition of the nuclear agreements, either. Had he done so, would that strike you as both incredibly silly as well as highly unlikely?

    Well, there you go. Same thing.

    To wit, there are people and organizations both here in the United States as well as The Islamic Republic of Iran who do not want an agreement of any kind. It’s not in their own political or economic self-interest. Disgusting, but completely accurate and easily variable with even a modicum of research.

    There are absolutely no real alternatives, other than eventual military conflict up to and including open warfare, being offered by anyone in opposition to the talks and attendant agreements. Interestingly, it’s the conservative elements in both the U.S. and Iran that are loudest in their opposition.

    The successful negotiation of the nuclear talks would create a number of positive outcomes. Among them, preventing (or at the least delaying) Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. The aforementioned avoidance of yet another disastrous war in the Middle East. Boosting the domestic and international support for the moderates within Iran. Opening the door to working with Iran combatting ISIS. And of course it creates more options for both current and future U.S. administrations.

    We have (by far) the largest and most expensive military apparatus in the world. What, exactly, are those in opposition to this deal afraid of? That in the event Iran violates the agreements in some manner that we would be unable to do something about it? Please.

    Or could it be, they’re more fearful those expensive toys might not have a chance to be used at all?

    Despite what a lot of what our vapid, corporatized, intellectually bankrupt “news” organizations have to say on the matter, (to say nothing of the ignorant, xenophobic fear mongering that thrives in all conservative media) avoiding a conflict with Iran is a good deal in every way for The United States.

    #12021
    Deane Johnson
    Participant

    There will be no nuclear deal with Iran. The only possibility will be if we give them everything they want and get nothing in return.

    Obama doesn’t get it that you have to have both parties wanting a settlement to get a workable agreement put together.

    Iran will have the upper hand or there will be no agreement.

    Earth to Obama, Earth to Obama.

    #12022
    LurkingGrendel
    Participant

    In the interest of attempting to have a reasoned and civil discourse with you, what precisely/exactly do you mean? What proposals are missing from this agreement?

    With respect, I could not disagree more with the attempts to characterize President Obama (and by proxy the entire State Department; not to mention our intelligence agencies and no doubt innumerable other government agencies) as somehow allowing the security of the United States to be put into jeopardy over the single minded pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran due to naiveté. While it’s a common narrative in some media circles, I’m sorry but that’s just (fact free) politically driven hyperbole and fear mongering.

    They (using the collective including the administration and their proxies for the moment) have outlined a host of positives for the U.S. associated with this impending agreement. I just outlined five off the top of my head a moment ago I’ve heard/read echoed from a number of informed quarters. We gain quite a bit in return.

    The only “demands” I have heard/read about from conservative elements/political opposition under which they might accept a nuclear deal with Iran are all of the poison pill variety. I.e. Demands they know very well are completely out of bounds for the leadership in Iran to be able to accept (notably, the far right elements of that government who don’t want an agreement with the U.S. with even more fervor than our domestic political opposition.) and therefore designed to stop a deal before it starts. It’s political theatre.

    There’s no downside, here. Either the deal accomplishes a variety of positive goals for both the short term and the longer term or it does not. And in the event of the latter, we still possess all of the same options then as we do today. We’re giving nothing away nor taking any options away from a future administration. How, exactly, is that allowing Iran “the upper hand”?

    As I’ve reminded some people from time to time a bit less eloquently, we have the ability to blow thousands of people into millions of bits now and will still have that option, later. What exactly is there to be afraid of?

    #12041
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Peace or some enduring political climate toxic to conservatives in both parts of the world.

    If there is some agreement made, there is also an implied agreement made to marginalize the most extreme factions and their desire for war. Holy war.

    There is an undercurrent of us vs them going way back and it is much older than the US and who are these people without that basic conflict defining them?

    #12317
    LurkingGrendel
    Participant

    “There will be no nuclear deal with Iran”

    -Deane.

    Your predictive powers are par for the course, mate.

    You’ll note the critics of the deal both here in forum and among the GOP punditry and innumerable presidential candidates have nothing to say in response to the Iran deal remotely resembling an intelligent and actionable counter proposal; just the same tired litany of non-starter/poison pill demands guaranteed to ensure there’s no change at all in the status quo. It’s all ignorant fear mongering, xenophobia, and chicken hawk saber rattling.

    Either we take steps towards potential improved relations or we double down on a march towards eventual (and pointless and ultimately ineffectual) military confrontation. The latter is all the GOP have to offer. (And it’s what an alarming number of them actually want. Because, presumably, #Jesus #Merica.)

    Reminder: We have all of the same options available for us down the road as we do today. We have nothing to lose. And nothing to fear.

    #12320
    Deane Johnson
    Participant

    You forgot the rest of my statement:

    “Iran will have the upper hand or there will be no agreement.”

    #12322
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    You’re an idiot if you truly believe that.

    Iran doesn’t have much of a hand to play.

    #12323
    paulwalker
    Participant

    I think this agreement is a calm-down. That in itself is good. However, it does not address the larger issue, that being Iran becoming a nuclear power that could eventually affect its neighbors.

    But, step by step. A good step, IMO. Now, we need to enforce and protect. I like the strategy of taking this one step at a time.

    The GOP will argue aggressively against this, and it isn’t out of the clear yet in congress, but I truly believe this is a good first step. Weakness from the the U.S.? No, I don’t see that. I see this as progress towards peace between Iran and the U.S.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.