Iran Nuclear Deal Reached • Hacker News Board

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#101

Post by jballanc » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 1:50 PM UTC

bsaul wrote: post #54

skylan_q wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to realize that Iran is threatened by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. I won't be surprised when they break this deal and have their own nuclear weapons.

? Are you being sarcastic ? Since when did the US or Israel threatened Iran of anything ? It seems to me you're inversing causes and consequences. Hopefully looking at events chronologically will help you get things back in order.

Are you ignorant? or being willingly obtuse? Between the US and Iran, one of these countries supported a successful overthrow of the other country's democratically elected government. I'll let you figure out which country was the aggressor in that situation and then we can reconsider why Iran feels threatened by the US and its allies.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#102

Post by jballanc » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 1:53 PM UTC

evgen wrote: post #87

afarrell wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Partly because we once overthrew their democratically-elected prime minister out of fear he would align with the USSR. In our defense, China had just become communist and Britain was convincing us this would happen because their PM was saying he would nationalize the Anglo-Iranian oil company (now known as BP). Have a CrashCourse video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4Ku6l7OEI

It is also worth noting that Mohammad Pahlavi (aka 'the Shah' and the person we backed after the coup) was a really, really heinous individual who did some incredibly nasty shit over a couple of decades as he clung to power. Like many revolutionaries of that period, the people who overthrew him had a lot of very legitimate grievances.

Furthermore, as most of the student leaders and politicians opposed to the Shah were leftists, the US continued to undermine efforts for them to organize (lest they side with the USSR). So that, when a popular uprising finally did occur, the clergy were the only group with sufficient organizational structure left that they could form a new administration...thus bringing us to today.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#103

Post by Retric » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 1:53 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #49

Retric wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre existing conditions are no longer a thing with Heath insurance, that's minimal universal healthcare.

How can you claim universal healthcare, with 12% [1] of the population not covered by any form of health insurance? The US system has very little in common with European style universal healthcare. To say nothing of the extreme cost most Americans still pay for their health insurance, or the bankruptcies that are still overwhelming in the system. Universal healthcare that bankrupts millions of people? That's an inher…

Universal! = free or total.

If you test positive for AIDS you can after the fact buy health insurance long before you need significant medical care. That implies a defacto basic level of coverage for long term chronic conditions which is by far the largest issue.

PS: As to the 11.9% figure, that does not include large numbers of people with significant access to health care that’s not based on insurance. EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_White_Care_Act 'improve availability of care for low-income, uninsured and under-insured victims of AIDS and their families.'

The VA also provides a lot of free healthcare for people without insurance. Not to mention prisoners getting free healthcare.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#104

Post by icegreentea » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 1:54 PM UTC

bsaul wrote: post #40

colinplamondon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, there's a lot of bubbling neutral-to-pro-US sentiment in the younger, wealthier segments of Iran. If we purposefully, wantonly destroy their economy without even negotiating, that disappears, and we turn potential allies into absolute enemies. The level of currency devastation they've had since the beginning of these sanctions, and resulting unemployment, have already pushed their finances to the brink. No…

"We may not like their government but at least they're rational" Well, a theocracy is almost by definition not rational, in the modern sense. It's based on divine laws, obedience, and absolute faith on an ideology. Not logic, provability, and the scientific method. Dealing with the iranian regime the same way you would deal with an occidental country is the greatest mistake i think. Thinking "sure, they apply shariah…

Democracy don't inherently have any of the traits you flag as rational either. Democracies tend to be based on a constitution which are generally as hard as divine laws to change, require obedience (does it really matter if God or the judge/police hands out the punishment) and absolute faith on an ideology (democracy).

Nothing about democracy is provability optimal, and North American democratic discourse spirals away from logic and scientific method based thinking every day.

Your point that it would be a mistake to approach them exactly as another western democracy is absolutely valid, but it would be mistake to swing too far to the other side. Iran is more like us than the majority of powers in the region.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#105

Post by user_0001 » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 1:55 PM UTC

>(besides Israel, obviously) Out of interest, why obviously? The unfaltering support given to Israel seems strange (to most outside of the US who I have spoken to).

Israel has it's religious fundamentalists (just like the rest of the region).

Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other countries to at least abstain from votes), has actual developed the nuclear bomb, is destabilising to the region, discusses attacking their neighbours (sorry not attacking - pre-emptive...

Yet this is never questioned, nor discussed from what I can tell. They are "the good guys" so the rules are different for them.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#106

Post by user_0001 » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

afarrell wrote: post #81

bsaul wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out or curiosity, why does the (religious) iranian regime keeps calling USA "the great devil" then ? Ps :reading some answers, i know about the history of conflicts between usa and iran. I was just pointing the fact that calling Iran a "natural ally" is a bit of a stretch.

Partly because we once overthrew their democratically-elected prime minister out of fear he would align with the USSR. In our defense, China had just become communist and Britain was convincing us this would happen because their PM was saying he would nationalize the Anglo-Iranian oil company (now known as BP). Have a CrashCourse video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4Ku6l7OEI

> out of fear he would align with the USSR.

oh come on. That was not the fear (although perhaps "portrayed" as that, but it was never the fear by those who commanded the action. The fear was he wanted to use the profits of the resources of their country to benefit the people of the country. This would never do as the profits were being directed to Britain and the US.

It is like China overthrowing the US government because they wanted the control of the oil and profits from the surge in the US oil industry due to fracking.

Then framing the attack and overthrow of a sovereign, elected government as something to do with US being aligned with a fictitious enemy

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#107

Post by Tomte » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

afiedler wrote: post #92

maxerickson wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re your second paragraph, keep in mind that the US Congress gets to vote on it.

It's extremely likely to pass. Since this isn't technically a "treaty", Congress can only pass a bill to disapprove of it [1]. Obama can then veto the disapproval, and there are enough Democrats to override the veto. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/congress-...

Does the president need approval by Congress for lifting the sanctions? I don't know the answer, but I suppose that might be an issue.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#108

Post by dsfyu404ed » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

hni wrote: post #76

bsaul wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only justified because trying to get a nuclear weapon has an impact on everyone's peace. Especially for a country that's been at war with its neighbours for the last 50 years at least, in a chaotic region filled with international terrorists groups and active war zones right at the moment.

Please list all wars initiated by Iran during the last 50 years. As that will probably not take too long, maybe you can also tell us with which neighbours Iran has been at war during the last 50 years.

Better yet, try listing wars between nuclear armed nations.

When everyone can hurt everyone regardless of size you get a "mexican standoff" which is good for stability

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#109

Post by at-fates-hands » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 2:02 PM UTC

Not sure how this benefits the US at all. Iran reaps billions in frozen assets and the end to their oil embargo. Plus, the US caved on giving the Iranians a 14 day windows to prep for UN inspections which is more than enough time to cover up their non-compliance.

This is a huge win for the Iranians, not sure what we get out of it besides a shaky ally in the region who's never backed us up and essentially undermined everything we've attempted to do in the region.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#110

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 2:02 PM UTC

user_0001 wrote: post #105

>(besides Israel, obviously) Out of interest, why obviously? The unfaltering support given to Israel seems strange (to most outside of the US who I have spoken to). Israel has it's religious fundamentalists (just like the rest of the region). Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other…

> Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other countries to at least abstain from votes),

Israel is our ally not because they're the "good guys" but because they share, and can help spread, our basic values about democratic government. You can have militarily aggressive democracies (e.g. the Roman Republic). Democracy is not a matter of being the "good guy" or the "bad guy" but a matter of how people relate to each other and the government.