[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps they increased the volume of enriched uranium with the assumption they could bargain it away if need be. Still would retain the knowledge that has duel purpose. Smart move on their part.

Good to know that a perhaps is a smart move. But don't know how this is a response to what I said.

I'm waiting for those who oppose an Obama led deal, one that they are opposing before they know what's in it, to propose something that's actually feasible. Not the same empty rhetoric we got from Bibi on Capital Hill.

Oh, so your concern that nobody discussing an alternate solution precludes you from discussing it because you have to wait for somebody else to discuss it.

The "one that they are opposing before they know what's in it" is an overarching generalization. There may be some who absolutely oppose it at this point, but mostly there is a fear from what has been reported that it may not provide the assurance it seeks. And those pesky congress people want to have their rightful input in the final agreement. Congress wants its input on the feasibility of any agreement.

Now you're conflating issues. If the "real Islam" is as you say what ISIS is, and the goal of the Iranian theocrats is to ultimately destroy the west, why on earth would they collaborate with emerging markets who can't grow without a successful western economy?

ISIS is practicing real Islam in many ways, not just what we consider atrocities. It is doing "good" for the Muslims who it considers are not apostate. Practicing real Islam has nearly unlimited methods to relate to non-Muslims. It is not necessary to always do jihad of the sword. Though the ultimate goal is the spread and total dominance of Islam, the path has many ways. Tolerance can be practiced, so long as it does not diminish Islam in relation to others. If accommodation to the kafir (infidels) is called for, do it, so long as it does not diminish the faith of the umma (the Muslim nation) or debase Islam in relation to the infidel. If deception or lying is required to prevent loss or shame, or to achieve some gain, in any relation with the infidel it is allowed (taqiyya). There is not so much a basic Islamic conflict between ISIS and Iran so much as a difference in style derived partly from the Shia/Sunni split. Sort of like the difference between Catholics and Protestants, but both still being Christian. And the difference is accentuated by the fact that one has an established and uncontested territorial power and the other is trying to acquire it. So the accommodation that Iran makes with the West doesn't mean that it does not want to see the destruction of the great Satan. And any collaborations with emerging markets don't necessarily have to always depend on western economy. The Iranians (the rulers) might be hoping that the emerging anti-western alliances such as SCO and BRICS will grow and eventually not only catch up, but supersede the western economy. Which, among other reasons, is probably why they want to join them. And, I assume, Iran is quite comfortable if it can fool the West into believing that economic or military relations are based on some mutual lasting accord. And it, I believe, would be ecstatic if the West believed whatever Iran would say and agree to in any negotiation.

Perhaps their motives aren't as you describe, perhaps Islam isn't as you describe.

Perhaps they are, and it is.

Interesting thing I found earlier but forgot to post.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=124494788

This article isn't saying much in terms of present day problems with Islam. It talks about Christian violence in the past being more horrific than Islamic violence of the past. But it admits that biblical violence has achieved a "holy amnesia." That is, modern biblical interpreters conveniently forget or pay no attention or discount the violent passages. But Islam has not yet wholly achieved that holy amnesia. The article presents Jenkins postulation that Islam had achieved it for a while but recently has slid back to old ways. But the article also gives Bostum's narration that Jenkins's account is ridiculous. That the fundamentalism was never abandoned.

But there is a fundamental difference not noted in the article. When it points out Christian violence it does not point to that violence being promoted in actual Christian text, the words and actions of Jesus. On the other hand, Islamic violence is founded on actual Quranic texts and, especially the hadiths which were the words and actions of Mohammed. Which is probably why it is more difficult for Islam to get holy amnesia.

So what should Obama have done during the Green Revolution? Hired Oliver North to arrange an arms deal?

My point was that his message to the Iranian people didn't mean a whole lot. If Obama did nothing to influence the Iranian "Green Movement," the explanation is that nothing could have been done. And then to make some Alinsky type attempt to ridicule the idea that anything could have been done. On the other hand, Obama was able to interfere and attempt to influence outcomes in the "Arab Spring." Somehow that was doable. I guess because Obama did it.

This is a slow lean. There's a demographic change in Iran underway that will demand the authority come up with a new formula. The old mode of resisting Western influence isn't going to work when your younger population happens to love Americans.

The younger population has, I don't know if loved is too strong a word, but let's go with it, has loved Americans for a long time. Many of them are no longer so young. As far as demographic change goes, the world is constantly going through demographic change. It would be lovely if what makes the younger populations love America is not, itself, a victim of demographic change. The older West, Europe, has gone through massive demographic, cultural, and political changes and continues to do so. And the progressives here seem to want to move in Europe's direction rather than preserving Americanism. It would be lovely if we preserved the freedoms and liberties that have been a magnet to the rest of the world and caused the younger population of Iran to love us.