4
4
0
From "The Washington Times"
Obama, allies hail Iran nuclear deal as critics slam concessions
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/2/obama-allies-hail-iran-nuclear-deal-as-critics-sla/?page=1
President Obama and other world leaders on Thursday hailed what they said was a breakthrough accord setting the stage for a historic agreement that will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, even though Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium under the agreement and the schedule for easing international sanctions remains to be negotiated.
After 12 years of deadlock over Iran’s disputed nuclear activities — and a sleepless marathon of negotiations in Switzerland over the past week — Iranian and Western diplomats said the final terms of a 15-year phased deal will be hammered out and signed by all sides this summer.
An ebullient Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s top negotiator, hailed the agreement reached in Lausanne as a “win-win” for both sides.
In Washington, Mr. Obama said that “if this framework leads to a comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies and our world safer.”
Even as critics on Capitol Hill and Israel pointed out shortcomings and omissions in the deal, Mr. Obama told reporters in the White House Rose Garden that Iran agreed to dramatically limit the scope of its nuclear program and committed to “the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history.”
“It is a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives,” the president said.
Obama, allies hail Iran nuclear deal as critics slam concessions
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/2/obama-allies-hail-iran-nuclear-deal-as-critics-sla/?page=1
President Obama and other world leaders on Thursday hailed what they said was a breakthrough accord setting the stage for a historic agreement that will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, even though Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium under the agreement and the schedule for easing international sanctions remains to be negotiated.
After 12 years of deadlock over Iran’s disputed nuclear activities — and a sleepless marathon of negotiations in Switzerland over the past week — Iranian and Western diplomats said the final terms of a 15-year phased deal will be hammered out and signed by all sides this summer.
An ebullient Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s top negotiator, hailed the agreement reached in Lausanne as a “win-win” for both sides.
In Washington, Mr. Obama said that “if this framework leads to a comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies and our world safer.”
Even as critics on Capitol Hill and Israel pointed out shortcomings and omissions in the deal, Mr. Obama told reporters in the White House Rose Garden that Iran agreed to dramatically limit the scope of its nuclear program and committed to “the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history.”
“It is a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives,” the president said.
Iran
Middle East
Nuclear
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 10
2
2
0
I vote that it's potentially a good thing, sir, but I was reminded - on CNN of all places - that North Korea has made promises like these in the past and they are now likely a nuclear power, at least in their geographic region.
I also heard the White House Press Secretary (Josh Earnest) reassure Wolf Blitzer (and the American public) that Congress has an important role to play in the sanctions arena. Mr. Earnest said that there will be no free passes -- If Iran does not do what is promised, Congress will not lift the crippling sanctions, so Iran is motivated to do what has been promised.
In yet another sound bite, I heard Prime Minister Netanyahu claim that this deal "paves the way" for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.
I think the truth is in the middle of all of the sound bites, and for me that means this deal is potentially a good thing.
I also heard the White House Press Secretary (Josh Earnest) reassure Wolf Blitzer (and the American public) that Congress has an important role to play in the sanctions arena. Mr. Earnest said that there will be no free passes -- If Iran does not do what is promised, Congress will not lift the crippling sanctions, so Iran is motivated to do what has been promised.
In yet another sound bite, I heard Prime Minister Netanyahu claim that this deal "paves the way" for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.
I think the truth is in the middle of all of the sound bites, and for me that means this deal is potentially a good thing.
(2)
(0)
How can we possibly trust Iran's leadership. And since we will more then likely never know the full details who the heck knows. Hopefully our Sunni allies Saudi Arabia, Egypt won't think we abandon them and have sided with Iran and the Shiites. Oh what a web we weave!
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MSgt (Join to see) Master Sergeant; "We" can trust "them" in direct proportion to the amount that "they" can trust "us". So far all the Iranians have against the United States of America is the totally inconsequential facts that the American governments overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in order to establish a brutal and corrupt absolute monarchy (in the name of freedom and democracy) and that the American governments promoted, funded, supplied, and supported the Iraqi war against Iran (in the name of peace and freedom).
As far as siding with Iran and the Shi'ite, you do realize that the United States of America tossed out the Sunni government of Iraq and installed a Shi'ite one, don't you?
As far as Saudi Arabia being an "ally" of the United States of America you might want to consider that Saudi Arabia does not allow "Freedom of Religion" and has Wahhabism (one of the most aggressively conservative reactionary forms of Islam available) as its dominant form of Islam (the state religion) and has a history of covertly funding violent extremist groups [on the proviso that they go someplace else to do their murdering and leave the Saudi royal family alone].
It appears to me that a good lace to start rebuilding would be to get rid of all the duplicitous people in the US government who suffer from a paranoid fear of attack and replace them with people who are prepared to deal with the other peoples/nations of the world in a fair, honest, and trusting manner (with, of course, the option to squash anyone who doesn't reciprocate). The difficulty in that would be finding replacements for approximately 65% of the entire US government.
As far as siding with Iran and the Shi'ite, you do realize that the United States of America tossed out the Sunni government of Iraq and installed a Shi'ite one, don't you?
As far as Saudi Arabia being an "ally" of the United States of America you might want to consider that Saudi Arabia does not allow "Freedom of Religion" and has Wahhabism (one of the most aggressively conservative reactionary forms of Islam available) as its dominant form of Islam (the state religion) and has a history of covertly funding violent extremist groups [on the proviso that they go someplace else to do their murdering and leave the Saudi royal family alone].
It appears to me that a good lace to start rebuilding would be to get rid of all the duplicitous people in the US government who suffer from a paranoid fear of attack and replace them with people who are prepared to deal with the other peoples/nations of the world in a fair, honest, and trusting manner (with, of course, the option to squash anyone who doesn't reciprocate). The difficulty in that would be finding replacements for approximately 65% of the entire US government.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
In my opinion being allied with Saudi Arabia is like sleeping with the devil. So I do not have much trust with them also. I'm sorry you appear to have so much anger toward America. I will agree with you that some of our problems in the Middle East are from our own making. But that hate by Islam toward Christians, Jews and other non Muslims will never change. Does Iran have the capability to engineer nukes? Don't think anyone has a definitive answer. Is it a bad deal, only time will tell. I also do not believe in your assessment of people who suffer a paranoid fear of attack. Past events speak for themselves and more will come. Sticking our head in the sand is not the answer.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MSgt (Join to see) Master Sergeant; You appear to be confusing "hate" with "facing reality".
The "American Ideal" is outstanding. The American people are (on balance) one of the best peoples in the world - as individuals. As a physical country America is probably the most diversely beautiful and resource laden country in the world. That's on the plus side.
However, the American political system now functions in almost the exact reverse of the way that the Founding Fathers envisioned it functioning and the American people - as a polity - are also functioning in almost the exact reverse of the way that the Founding Fathers envisioned the American polity functioning.
To recognize reality is NOT to "hate" it is merely to recognize reality. People have the capacity to love even the things which 99.99% of the world would hate if they knew it well - just ask any mother whose child has been convicted of cold-blooded murder. You don't have to like something to love it - just ask almost any cat owner.
The "American Ideal" is outstanding. The American people are (on balance) one of the best peoples in the world - as individuals. As a physical country America is probably the most diversely beautiful and resource laden country in the world. That's on the plus side.
However, the American political system now functions in almost the exact reverse of the way that the Founding Fathers envisioned it functioning and the American people - as a polity - are also functioning in almost the exact reverse of the way that the Founding Fathers envisioned the American polity functioning.
To recognize reality is NOT to "hate" it is merely to recognize reality. People have the capacity to love even the things which 99.99% of the world would hate if they knew it well - just ask any mother whose child has been convicted of cold-blooded murder. You don't have to like something to love it - just ask almost any cat owner.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Iranians dancing in the streets, celebrating victory tell the story. They have made no concessions. They are the beneficiaries of President Obama's failed Administration and his attempt to cobble together some sort of legacy.
Now, before someone attempts to rebut my central premise - "...President Obama's failed Administration..." - name one achievement and back it up with verifiable data.
Sadly, I expect Congress to cave on this one as they have on all other failures.
Terrorists with nuclear weapons.
God help us and the US...
Now, before someone attempts to rebut my central premise - "...President Obama's failed Administration..." - name one achievement and back it up with verifiable data.
Sadly, I expect Congress to cave on this one as they have on all other failures.
Terrorists with nuclear weapons.
God help us and the US...
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish Captain; If the Iranians never intended to build nuclear weapons in the first place, would it be correct to say that they "made no concessions"?
Of course it would.
If I have a paper bag that you think contains $1,000,000 but which I know is empty - how dumb do I have to be to sell you the bag (and all its contents) for $500,000?
As long as the Iranians keep on not doing the things which they say they were not doing (and didn't want to do in any event), America is going to find it almost impossible to re-impose the sanctions.
Of course the Iranians are happy with the deal - America just upped its bid for the paper bag to $750,000 and the Iranian government took it.
PS - It wasn't Mr. Obama's administration that started the rumor that the Iranians were trying to build nuclear weapons. Can you guess whose administration it was?
Of course it would.
If I have a paper bag that you think contains $1,000,000 but which I know is empty - how dumb do I have to be to sell you the bag (and all its contents) for $500,000?
As long as the Iranians keep on not doing the things which they say they were not doing (and didn't want to do in any event), America is going to find it almost impossible to re-impose the sanctions.
Of course the Iranians are happy with the deal - America just upped its bid for the paper bag to $750,000 and the Iranian government took it.
PS - It wasn't Mr. Obama's administration that started the rumor that the Iranians were trying to build nuclear weapons. Can you guess whose administration it was?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Iran nuclear pact stirs hope — and fear — of new political order in Mideast
As Iranian officials celebrated the deal, Saudi Arabia’s king gave it a cautious nod and Israel dug in.
(1)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
Only time will tell. But, I think it may have some serious undesirable consequences, and I do not see any positive benefits to the U.S.A.
I hope time proves me wrong.
I hope time proves me wrong.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CW5 Charlie Poulton Mr. Poulton; Under "normal" circumstances you might be right.
On the other hand, the political points which Iran can score by sticking by the deal while the United States of America continues to wail and moan that it isn't going to stick by the deal are going to be pretty valuable in the long-term Middle Easter politics.
Capt (Join to see) Captain; Indeed, "only time will tell".
As far as long-term benefits (and not just in the Middle East) for the US are concerned, the chances of the US getting any took a nose dive about 11 years ago and STILL aren't back up to where they were when Saddam Hussein was running Iraq.
I'm not saying that Mr. Bush didn't try to do what he (probably honestly) thought was the right thing, but what he DID do was analogous to trying to get rid of a 1" scratch to your car's paint job by soaking the area with solvent and then trying to buff it out with "00" steel wool.
On the other hand, the political points which Iran can score by sticking by the deal while the United States of America continues to wail and moan that it isn't going to stick by the deal are going to be pretty valuable in the long-term Middle Easter politics.
Capt (Join to see) Captain; Indeed, "only time will tell".
As far as long-term benefits (and not just in the Middle East) for the US are concerned, the chances of the US getting any took a nose dive about 11 years ago and STILL aren't back up to where they were when Saddam Hussein was running Iraq.
I'm not saying that Mr. Bush didn't try to do what he (probably honestly) thought was the right thing, but what he DID do was analogous to trying to get rid of a 1" scratch to your car's paint job by soaking the area with solvent and then trying to buff it out with "00" steel wool.
Charlie Poulton at Lakewood Health Systems | Former CW5 - 713A: Legal Administrator | RallyPoint
CW5 Charlie Poulton, Army | RallyPoint professional military profile.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CW5 Charlie Poulton Mr. Poulton; Roughly 90% of the international agreements that the United States of America has entered into in the past 50 years have been entered into without the "advice and consent" of Congress.
But don't worry. If there is even the slightest chance of this preliminary agreement on the framework of the draft discussion papers which might lead to a final agreement that would prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons - Congress will totally defeat it (until March 2016 - if there is a Republican President - at which point Congress will heartily endorse an almost identical agreement in a triumph of diplomatic negotiations).
You, of course, have heard about the person who got off the aircraft in Washington DC and announced that they were looking for political asylum. The cab driver took them to the corner of East Capitol St NE & First St SE and told him that that was the finest political asylum in the country.
But don't worry. If there is even the slightest chance of this preliminary agreement on the framework of the draft discussion papers which might lead to a final agreement that would prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons - Congress will totally defeat it (until March 2016 - if there is a Republican President - at which point Congress will heartily endorse an almost identical agreement in a triumph of diplomatic negotiations).
You, of course, have heard about the person who got off the aircraft in Washington DC and announced that they were looking for political asylum. The cab driver took them to the corner of East Capitol St NE & First St SE and told him that that was the finest political asylum in the country.
Charlie Poulton at Lakewood Health Systems | Former CW5 - 713A: Legal Administrator | RallyPoint
CW5 Charlie Poulton, Army | RallyPoint professional military profile.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SSG Roger Ayscue
WOW...Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. World leaders come to the table to Play Chess, Obama comes to play chutes and ladders. He is outclassed, or he is purposefully fouling up. FUBAR either by design or by choice and the Nation will pay the price.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Old (insert name) went to town, riding on a pony, put a feather in his cap and called it "an arms deal."
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
How, could they even discuss lifting sanctions without first discussing what they did in 1979 to our people and our embassy? That's why the sanctions exist. If they are not going to hold Iran accountable for their past behavior; what makes our leadership think they are going to follow the rules now? I guarantee you if we do not hold their feet to the fire, they will burn us again.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGT Francis Wright Sergeant; How could they even discuss what they did to our embassy in 1979 without first discussing what we did to their government in 1953 or our support for Saddam Hussein and his attempted invasion of Iran in 1980 (contrary to the Algiers Accords)?
At some time everyone simply has to say "FIFTP" and get on with living in the present so that they can move on to the future.
Hell, the Canadians don't hate the United States of America just because the United States of America tried (unsuccessfully) to conquer their country (on more than one occasion). Maybe there is a lesson to be learned there.
At some time everyone simply has to say "FIFTP" and get on with living in the present so that they can move on to the future.
Hell, the Canadians don't hate the United States of America just because the United States of America tried (unsuccessfully) to conquer their country (on more than one occasion). Maybe there is a lesson to be learned there.
(1)
(0)
SGT Francis Wright
Good point sir. I don't have an answer. But no one can say we have violated an embassy in NYC. I guess that is where my heart is. Since I grew up in NYC and there was a feeling amongst New Yorkers to go to the Iranian Embassy and do the same to them.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGT Francis Wright Sergeant; You say "But no one can say we have violated an embassy in NYC." and you are quite correct.
However if there had been a (venal, corrupt, brutal, and dictatorial) government) of the United States of America which had been imposed on the US by the Iranians and it had been overthrown by Americans who were intent on running their own country and the Iranians had then been attempting to isolate America from the world, sheltering the deposed leader of America, assisting those who had looted the American economy to keep their ill gotten gains, and doing everything possible to ensure that the American revolution failed so that they could install a new (venal, corrupt, brutal, and dictatorial) government) I wouldn't be so sure that the same would still hold true.
I appreciate where your heart is but you also have to realize that other people in other countries love their country just as much as Americans love theirs (and resent being pushed around [even by the American government] just as much as Americans do).
However if there had been a (venal, corrupt, brutal, and dictatorial) government) of the United States of America which had been imposed on the US by the Iranians and it had been overthrown by Americans who were intent on running their own country and the Iranians had then been attempting to isolate America from the world, sheltering the deposed leader of America, assisting those who had looted the American economy to keep their ill gotten gains, and doing everything possible to ensure that the American revolution failed so that they could install a new (venal, corrupt, brutal, and dictatorial) government) I wouldn't be so sure that the same would still hold true.
I appreciate where your heart is but you also have to realize that other people in other countries love their country just as much as Americans love theirs (and resent being pushed around [even by the American government] just as much as Americans do).
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I look at this event much like that of The Munich Agreement. I have no doubt that history will regarded this deal as a failed act of appeasement toward Iran. This deal is the precursor in Iran becoming a nuclear power. I don't see anywhere in our history books where a state that has been repressed by outside influence act in a benevolent way towards those responsible for the repression. One has to remember this is also where the Islamic Revolution was born when they ran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi out of Iran. Scheduled lifting of sanctions and granting the development of a nuclear program has the makings for retaliation.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC David S. Spec; I think that the key to the problem is where you say "I don't see anywhere in our history books where a state that has been repressed by outside influence act in a benevolent way towards those responsible for the repression."
When you mention the ouster of Shah Pahlavi, you should also remember that he was placed in power by the ousting of a democratically elected, secular, government of Mohammad Mosaddegh (a government that committed the cardinal sin of nationalizing Iran's petrochemical reserves) in a coup that was orchestrated through an Anglo-American covert operation. You should also remember that Shah Pahlavi had one of the most brutal secret police operations in the world while being backed by the government of the United States of America which supported his absolute monarchy in the name of freedom and democracy.
On the other hand, if you believe that the governments of the United States of America have never acted in any "unlegal" manner towards Iran (say, for example, by supporting Iraq in a war against Iran) and has adhered completely to its agreement not to interfere with Iran in any political or military manner [as required by the Algiers Accords], then your position makes perfect sense as the Iranians have absolutely no cause to fear, or be suspicious of, the governments of the United States of America and are acting in a completely irrational manner.
When you mention the ouster of Shah Pahlavi, you should also remember that he was placed in power by the ousting of a democratically elected, secular, government of Mohammad Mosaddegh (a government that committed the cardinal sin of nationalizing Iran's petrochemical reserves) in a coup that was orchestrated through an Anglo-American covert operation. You should also remember that Shah Pahlavi had one of the most brutal secret police operations in the world while being backed by the government of the United States of America which supported his absolute monarchy in the name of freedom and democracy.
On the other hand, if you believe that the governments of the United States of America have never acted in any "unlegal" manner towards Iran (say, for example, by supporting Iraq in a war against Iran) and has adhered completely to its agreement not to interfere with Iran in any political or military manner [as required by the Algiers Accords], then your position makes perfect sense as the Iranians have absolutely no cause to fear, or be suspicious of, the governments of the United States of America and are acting in a completely irrational manner.
David Stephenson at ion exhibits | Former SPC - 75B: Personnel Administration Specialist |...
SPC David Stephenson, Army National Guard | RallyPoint professional military profile.
(0)
(0)
SPC David S.
What I am saying is that we are the ones indirectly or directly responsible for many years of repression in Iran and that they do not like us for better terms because they knows this more clearly than most Americans know of our tinkerings with Iran. If you beat a man with a stick for 100 years don't expect him to not strike you back when you hand them the stick. The ousting of the Shah was the first strike back. Then the Embassy take over, they would have kept hitting back if it were not for the severe global sanctions place on Iran. This type of reaction only drove the wedge in deeper. What Iran is doing now is leveraging there intent on becoming a nuclear state for the lifting of such sanctions. With sanctions lifted they will subversively continue to build a nuclear program. It a bluff hand worst case for Iran is we say no deal and they are where they are now, sanctions and developing a nuclear program. They have nothing to lose only gain in this deal.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC David S. Spec; Iran "wins" if they sign the deal and then keep to it while America(ns) continue to accuse them of not keeping to it. Iran "wins" if they agree to the deal and then the US government rejects it. Iran "wins" if they get what they say is all they were ever doing in the first place (which is what the deal appears to give them).
American diplomacy and politics have very cleverly maneuvered the Iranians into the position where about the only way that they can lose is to start painting big signs saying "We ARE building nuclear weapons and we WILL nuke Israel back to the Stone Age." on the sides of its public buildings.
I most certainly sounds like it's about time to declare victory and go home.
American diplomacy and politics have very cleverly maneuvered the Iranians into the position where about the only way that they can lose is to start painting big signs saying "We ARE building nuclear weapons and we WILL nuke Israel back to the Stone Age." on the sides of its public buildings.
I most certainly sounds like it's about time to declare victory and go home.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
What stick are we willing to enforce the bargain with? Military options have been put on the table ostensibly, but there's nothing credible there to actually put real force on the table.
The real worrying thing about this for me is, if and when the Iranians uproot this current ruling elite, will they be replaced with moderates or more buffoons? And would anyone be safe while this is occurring and they have nuclear infrastructure. This deal only works insofar as we know who we are dealing with. To be honest, the government in Iran only speaks for a tiny clique. What do the rest of the Iranians really think or believe? We are assuming the ones we are dealing with are still going to be the ones calling the shots into the future, and that's a highly dangerous presumption.
The real worrying thing about this for me is, if and when the Iranians uproot this current ruling elite, will they be replaced with moderates or more buffoons? And would anyone be safe while this is occurring and they have nuclear infrastructure. This deal only works insofar as we know who we are dealing with. To be honest, the government in Iran only speaks for a tiny clique. What do the rest of the Iranians really think or believe? We are assuming the ones we are dealing with are still going to be the ones calling the shots into the future, and that's a highly dangerous presumption.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Angel Guma Spec; Good question. I don't think that there is any answer to that question other than "We will go to war with the forces we have rather than the forces we would like to have or the forces that we might have in the future.".
When you ask if ANY government will be "replaced" by moderates or more buffoons you are asking a question which depends solely on your definitions of the terms "moderates" and "buffoons". I am sure that the Republicans would consider a resurgence in the strength of the Democrats as putting "more buffoons" into power [and the opposite would be putting "moderates" into power] just as much as the Democrats would consider a resurgence in the strength of the Republicans as putting "more buffoons" into power [and the opposite would be putting "moderates" into power].
I don't want to get into a discussion of exactly how large the "clique" the government of the United States of America speaks for since that is a question which is almost impossible to answer without knowing exactly how much of what people say to get elected/re-elected is more than tangentially related to reality.
When you ask if ANY government will be "replaced" by moderates or more buffoons you are asking a question which depends solely on your definitions of the terms "moderates" and "buffoons". I am sure that the Republicans would consider a resurgence in the strength of the Democrats as putting "more buffoons" into power [and the opposite would be putting "moderates" into power] just as much as the Democrats would consider a resurgence in the strength of the Republicans as putting "more buffoons" into power [and the opposite would be putting "moderates" into power].
I don't want to get into a discussion of exactly how large the "clique" the government of the United States of America speaks for since that is a question which is almost impossible to answer without knowing exactly how much of what people say to get elected/re-elected is more than tangentially related to reality.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
TSgt Jaime Jones Sergeant; When you say "... the Iranian people generally like the American people, but really don't like the American government. In that regard they're a lot like us." you are repeating what anyone who actually looks at reality already knows. This excludes the chronic consumers of "open mouth" media programs.
Face it, if Canada had engineered the overthrow of the American government simply because the America government imposed illegal duties on the importation of softwood lumber and then installed an absolute monarchy, the American people would be a bit miffed at Canada. And then, if - after the American people had tossed out the Canadian imposed King of the United States of America and the Americans had adopted a home grown constitution that had been approved by a popular referendum - Canada had funded Mexico's war with the United States of America (as well as providing the Mexicans with supplies and technical assistance), don't you think that the American people would be rather distrustful of the Canadian government (regardless of how much they like the Canadians as individuals)?
Face it, if Canada had engineered the overthrow of the American government simply because the America government imposed illegal duties on the importation of softwood lumber and then installed an absolute monarchy, the American people would be a bit miffed at Canada. And then, if - after the American people had tossed out the Canadian imposed King of the United States of America and the Americans had adopted a home grown constitution that had been approved by a popular referendum - Canada had funded Mexico's war with the United States of America (as well as providing the Mexicans with supplies and technical assistance), don't you think that the American people would be rather distrustful of the Canadian government (regardless of how much they like the Canadians as individuals)?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Positive step. I think it shows that our economic sanctions were effective and we were able to force Iran to the bargaining table.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
1LT (Join to see) Lieutenant; You should also remember that America's sanctions forced Colonel Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi to give up Libya's nuclear weapons development program.
The fact that Col Gaddafi was well aware that Libya's nuclear weapons development program was a total bust and wasn't ever likely to go any further than being a phantom stick he could wave is totally irrelevant.
The fact that America's economic sanctions were effective and were able to force Iraq to abandon its WMD development programs back in the early to mid 1990s is also totally irrelevant.
The fact that Col Gaddafi was well aware that Libya's nuclear weapons development program was a total bust and wasn't ever likely to go any further than being a phantom stick he could wave is totally irrelevant.
The fact that America's economic sanctions were effective and were able to force Iraq to abandon its WMD development programs back in the early to mid 1990s is also totally irrelevant.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google