Iran Nuclear Deal: A Raw Deal? A Done Deal?



7/31/2015 Don't you have to wonder if Russia and China might be FOR this "deal"/treaty in light of the fact that they are most likely to be direct beneficiaries in the form of 1) $$CASH$$, as a result of weapons purchases made by Iran with its 'newfound' capitol; and 2) Strategic Power/Might, being recipients designated to take control of Iran's excess uranium, such that Iran remains 'in compliance' with the reduced uranium limits imposed by the treaty for the upcoming calendar (and subsequent "scaled increase") years.  I know Russia is to be a designated recipient of uranium, per treaty terms; I'm not entirely certain about China.  Of course, one altruistically hopes that a substantial portion of Iran's newly freed-up capitol will used to the benefit of the Iranian people (i.e., food, housing, services and education).  I would venture the Iranian people are, the majority of them, good people with families of their own to care for.  That being said, in the light of day, any realist has well-found reason to be skeptical in believing the Iranian leadership will finally choose to make its people a priority given the Iranian government's years of past poor performance in this regard.

8/5/2015  Per President's Obama's speech today: it is NOT some phantom faction shouting "Death to America!"  These words come right from the top leaders in the Iranian government, the very same people the President negotiated with in making his Iran Nuclear Deal a reality.  And how very sad that our President would liken the Republican Congressional opposition to his deal to that of Iranian hard-liners shouting for death to America???!!!??? Although, these days the Iranian hard-liners are likely shouting "Stupid Americans!", in light of the ludicrous deal our government signed up for.

8/6/2015 Just found this:  Full Text of Iran Nuclear Deal.  Now we, the people, can read the details of this signed treaty directly for ourselves.

10/12/2013 Concerning President Obama's "60-Minutes" interview over this past weekend:  I made an interesting connection today.  Okay, for the sake of argument let's nose-dive headlong into the open arms of " "climate change" ".  Say for a moment you actually have bought into the whole scenario that man is the culprit for this trend* in the 'climate's change' and say for a moment that you are willing to put on blinders with only a tiny pin-hole through which to view the rest of the world.  Given the latter, it would be easy enough to completely dismiss the fact that the Middle East is currently on fire and that the blood of the innocent & defenseless has thus far been insufficient to quench the maddening flames which could easily grow to apocalyptic proportions in our lifetime, especially given the terms of the recent Iranian Nuclear deal and release of billions of dollars in funds to the Iranian regime.  But the thing is, if you're wearing the 'blinders' and all you can see with this limited vision truly IS " "climate change" " in such a scenario a nuclear apocalypse actually becomes your salvation.  Because from the pin-holed blinder perspective "man is the problem."  If you let the fire in the Middle East burn, the planet becomes unburdened from having to support --and deal with the poisonous footprints-- of hundreds of thousands, potentially even millions of lives.  And when Iran finally accomplishes their nuclear objective they'll blow us all back to the Stone-age, such that Mother Earth will finally stand "a legitimate chance at survival" with the elimination of the majority of the human race and its accompanying technological evils.  Sadly, if this is your mindset: then what President Obama firmly reiterated this past weekend in his "60-Minute" interview is "truth", albeit truth from a pretty warped (******-up!) perspective.  I suppose, if man must be wiped-out in such a large scale fashion it is only fitting his demise be accomplished by his own hands, by means of his very own instruments of destruction.  Is it not?

*(? can we really call it a bonafide trend given the all of massaging of data over the past decade?  Guess, I will have to read Mark Stein's book in order gain some additional insight in this respect.)

10/15/2015  Been thinking some more on the above perspective, that is the perspective of imminent "gloom & doom via " "climate change" "."  It occurs to me that those embracing this mindset have decided beyond a shadow of doubt man is not an integral part of nature. Rather in the above mindset "man is a plague on nature."  But to my way of thinking, man is in fact an integral part of nature --even though so very many of us have forgotten this and lost touch with our inherent connection to nature-- and the illusion is that we have any meaningful 'measure of control' where nature is concerned.  We are absolutely called to be good stewards of our precious spinning Blue planet.  That being said, it is simply mind-boggling to me, that so many truly believe in the notion that we, humans, must 'think for the planet' because the planet, by way of nature --and a higher creation power-- is simply incapable of finding its own way to back to balance.  I wonder, however did our poor planet ever manage for hundreds of thousands of years before the dawn of the age of reasonable-reasoning man?  Those periods of global warming and cooling (ice ages) were just brought on by random chance, I suppose?  Man's inherent ability to destroy that which he cannot understand never ceases to amaze me.  Late nights up pondering, wondering alone ...... Guess, I'll close with a thought quoted from a recent movie release "Search for those who haven't given up yet.  They are our Hope."

4/26/2017 And when the latter, the lovers, the dreamers and the creators ... when they (we) finally give up: this world of ours will be FUC***?!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking a moment to share your thoughts. I'll read them and post them soon! God Bless! M