There is also the additional mitigating factor that the Iranian people, in the person of Rouhani, had elected the most moderate person they could in an explicit expectation of improving relations with the west. Failing to treat with Rouhani would have lost us a window for encouraging Iran back to a modern society. It would have ensured a headliner back in office.
I mean the die was cast in uncertainty, but the process and timing are night and day. There was real reason to look at the deal, the measures in place, and the politics of Iran, and see a possible way to defuse a long standing tense relationship.
But I think when all is said and done, China is actually the one driving this whole thing. They have plenty of leverage (with respect to his business dealings) they can employ with Trump if he gets too far off script.
I’ll also mention there are some very strong geopolitical differences between Iran and North Korea. They certainly play into the decision making of handling each in a different manner. Most notably, the DPRK actually has nukes and is backed by the largest individual trading partner of the US. That would seem to be a call for being extra delicate, which… isn’t exactly how things have gone.
If I remember correctly, the Iran deal had a time limit after which it speaks nothing to future enrichment. The conservatives where making hay with that, insisting that what Obama did was short sighted.
I had thought that the approach was good in that it entice the Iranians into economic development and show them that the western way is better.
It gave us a decade to figure out something better. Remember, prior to the deal, Israel was saying that their Intel said that Iran was going to have a functional nuclear weapon within mere months. Months!
So a plan that pushes that out from months to a decade? That’s a good freaking deal.
The fact that we gave Iran all of the benefits of the deal, and THEN we backed out of it, just heaped nonsensical idiocy upon it by letting them off the hook.
Why would whatabouttism derail a thread? :) Besides, it’s not like there’s going to be anything else to talk about until Kim Jong Un detonates a test nuke, lobs another missile toward Japan, or kidnaps, imprisons, and tortures someone from another country. The only question is whether he’ll do it before the midterms and deprive the Republicans of another Gorsuch talking point.
As @Timex is explaining, it’s not the same thing at all. You might feel there are similarities, and I don’t think anyone would disagree with you. But “the same thing”?
In addition to what’s being said, I’m all for as much engagement with Iran as we can allow. They’ve been disproportionately villainized for far too long. That’s been a centerpiece of American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Apologies for not being more careful with my statement. “the same thing” referred to reproachment with the enemy.
But yes I agree that NK intentions should be discerned properly before any agreements are made. It’s one of the harshest regimes, if not the most, known in modern times.
Yet diplomacy being what it is, should not be dismissed out of hand just because immoral, despicable president and dictator are doing it.
So which is it? Last time you asserted, with dismissive condescension, that you’d never claimed that gman was responsible for all 300 posts. Now you’re back to claiming that gman bears sole responsibility for all 300 posts. Isn’t that moving the goalposts? Or is that only a forum crime when someone else does it?
And “look what he made us do” is still a sucky argument.
It’s telling that there’s no third option here. Can you really not admit the possibility that I’ve reached different conclusion than you have, and am saying what I think because that is what I think based on the evidence I’ve seen? Assuming evil motivations is mostly just a bit of lazy self-justification; if you question my motives then you don’t have to deal with my arguments. IMO it’s at the core of this whole bit of drama.
Jesus dude, you are being such a jerk here. The actual words I used were ‘the cause of the vast majority of the 300 posts is gman and the people who are responding to his posts’ how can that be construed to be me saying that gman posted 300 times? You are constantly claiming that I use words I do not use, and intend things that I do not intend. Constant strawmans. As this is the fourth time I’ve used my actual words to prove what my actrual words were, I’m done with explaining. I hereby name you tool as well, but you are a dense tool without any nuance. Perhaps an anvil. Please prove me wrong. I beg you.
Mark, you waited 7 years to return to P&R to pick a fight with a guy over his statement about 300 replies and HE’S the one causing this drama? What the fuck? Nothing weird about this at all.
Well OK, look, I thought you were being a jerk too, but maybe I’m just pissing you off by not communicating clearly.
So, my problem is that you seemed to be holding gman solely to blame for all 300 posts. I didn’t mean to imply that you literally think he wrote them all. I used the word “responsibility” a few times, but maybe that was conveying the wrong meaning? What I was aiming at was that you seemed to be saying that everyone’s reactions to gman, no matter how extreme, no matter whether they’re replying to him or pre-emptively trolling him, were all gman’s fault.
That’s what I’m disagreeing with, and if it’s not your opinion then I apologise.
You know, everyone has their hot-button issues, for some reason this was mine.
So is your self-assigned role to check everyone’s posting history and pronounce on the level of “weirdness”? If you want to say something about me, why don’t you stop dropping hints and actually say it?
