I'm not sure I understand the question. How is this relevant to the Iran deal? Iran doesn't even have nuclear warheads, let alone missiles, much less anything armed.

The deal was absurdly good for the US, since it allowed it to get rid of an embargo that was damaging trade and start diplomatic relations with an important power in a volatile region.

Finally, since the US doesn't have the power to stop Iran from having nukes without committing an absurd number of acts of war, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, the question is irrelevant even if you assume the deal magically gave Iran nuclear weapons.

You follow up question is fallacious. The nuclear deal was undertaken so that Iran won't build nuclear weapons.

Iran doesn't have missiles? Dumbest comment of the week. Go Google "Shahab-6." or Shahab-5. Or any of the ten other missiles in their arsenal. Next time you feel the urge to say something stupid, open a web browser and do a 2 second fact check.

Beyond that.... your spineless approach to international relations is duly noted. If you'd been in charge in the 50s, we'd all be speaking Russian. I'm always amused when people are both self-righteous, and cowardly, at the same time. That's a whole lot of bravado for a guy that would trade security for profit, and is afraid to use military force to prevent the use of military force. You've got a great mindset..... for a guy waiting around to get enslaved.

I don't see why you had to insult the guy

Atheos, those missiles do not have a nuclear warhead. As such, they are not going to obliterate New York, London or Jerusalem any time soon. Even if they did have a nuclear warhead, ever wonder why India, Pakistan, China, or Israel haven't ever used nuclear weapons? They are a deterrent. The only time nuclear weapons have been used was when there was one single power with access to them.

I live in a country that was speaking Russian in the 50s. Despite living in an area that still bears the scars of a brutal occupation, I am glad the Cold War never heated up, and that sane heads prevailed on both sides in the various crises during the Cold War, because that means my country still exists. You probably would have launched nukes during the Cuban Missile Crisis, wouldn't you? That would have turned out just great, except for all the dead people from blasts on both sides, along with the lasting effects of nuclear fallout making our planet an unlivable hellscape.

I don't want to trade security for profit, but am aware that that is all the US government is charged with caring about these days. Personally, I am glad that the Iranian people finally have access to goods that they desperately needed.

The question in the OP is an absurd strawman. America has not allowed Iran to build nuclear weapons. Go home, troll.

I'd have launched nukes. First one would have hit Hanoi. Second one would have hit Habana.

If I was gonna haven to launch nukes in the modern day to keep the world safe from socialism, I'd have to start with Washington DC. And, yeah... I'd do that too.

That is to say.... only I'm allowed to nuke Washington, not the Iranians. :-D

Looks like Krellin has an understudy.

This is authentic Eric Grinnell, baby. Ask around.

I asked Google. The most famous "Eric Grinnell" alive today is a Kentucky-based lawyer. I very much doubt you are he.

At least we can be sure you're not Krellin. We all know he is an Alabama goat-farmer.

krellin at least claims not to enjoy the brutal murder (check out what happened to the victims in Hiroshima, if you dare) of innocent people on a city-wide scale. This is not krellin style. krellin looks bad because of his presentation style, and also he's just a little bit unhinged. He's frequently wrong and insulting, but not in the same way dear Atheos is.

Atheos, do I understand correctly that you would condemn millions to death for the crime of living in a city under a Communist dictatorship, from which it was absurdly difficult to emigrate? In a move that would almost certainly prompt reprisals against the US or its allies from the Soviets, who also had nukes, so you'd also effectively be condemning either your or your allies citizens to death. Best case scenario, you've just murdered millions of people and forever ruined the international reputation of the US. Worst case scenario, you've annihilated most of the human race, and ruined the planet.

Eric Grinnel the lawyer and Diplomacy Tournament goer is indeed atheos.

Bullshit. He's barely literate. Who would hire a solicitor who can hardly read or write?

He can read, but doesn't bother paying attention to anything that doesn't support his opinion, apparently he's more willing to do so if you support his preconceived notions, because that is how debate works. Perhaps this is a cognitive reflex (or limitation, perhaps sloth?) developed from a career of lawyering, where changing your opinion will presumably lose you the case? Even then though, you'd want to be able to actually respond to the opposition, and reading their case seems like it would be vital, as does responding.

Just out of curiosity, which branches of lawyery do you perform? Prosecution, defense, legal consultation, something else entirely?

Who, me, or "Eric"?

His website says Divorce and Family Issues.

Ah. I know some decent Divorce lawyers. And then I know Joe Stafford. Mr. Grinnel might be of that ilk.

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2012/03/08/joseph-staffords-law-license-suspended-for-twelve-months-by-ohio-supreme-court

You all will pardon me for my two unforgivable sins of [1] not bothering to correct the vagaries of my cell phone's voice to text feature; and [2] not treating my political posts on a bloody BOARD GAME website with enough seriousness and reverence to meet your high-minded self-righteous condescending standards. So.... if you want me to write something that meets your grammatical and ethical standards, all it will cost you is $350 pounds -- plus VAT since you're British. So until you've got that quid ready to lay in my hand, you can kiss my ass.

Good thing Atheos isn't in charge. Nuking from orbit only works...from orbit.

The nuclear deal was a good thing. In fact, the point that no one seems to be talking about is the structure of the politics behind the deal.

The Republicans in Congress *KNEW* this was a good deal, but *POLITICALLY* they couldn't support it. So instead of having Obama put up a signed treaty for approval which would require the two-thirds majority, Obama cut a deal with Congress: Congress gives him authority to approve the deal, *IN ADVANCE.* Then after the deal with Iran was in place, then Congress would only be able to *VOTE AGAINST* the treaty, which would then be filibustered and or vetoed by the President.

Any posturing by Republicans at this point has *ZERO* to do with the details of the deal, which they had already agreed to prior to completion of negotiations, and *EVERYTHING* to do with scoring political points. The GOP gave up the right to complain when they struck the deal with the POTUS. It's actually pretty pathetic that the Republicans *WHO CONTROL CONGRESS* couldn't agree to a serious up-down vote on a treaty of this magnitude. COWARDS ALL.

Jeff Kuta.... treaties require ratification by 2/3 of the senate. Of course, obama knew he would never get support of 2/3 of the senate, so he just called it something else. Not that liberals give a damn about the constitution...

Atheos, I wonder what the constitution would say about getting a Supreme Court appointed partly by your father, and controlled by your party, to decide the electoral result of a vital state in an election, along with electoral tampering by your brother, the Governor of the aforementioned state? Al Gore may have been a terrible candidate, but there is at least a pretty good chance he did win that election.

Also, care to justify your support for potential crimes against humanity, or to at least reaffirm that you would have committed them given half a chance? I would really like to see that.

If the GOP really wanted to stop the Iran nuclear deal, they could have. They control Congress and love to filibuster. They went into the deal with eyes wide open when *THEY PASSED LEGISLATION THAT OBAMA WANTED.* Funny, considering the GOP's position of trying to stop every other piece of legislation the Democrats have pushed recently.

If you want to believe that Obama pulled a fast one on the entire Congress, go ahead. That's highly unlikely, though Obama has successfully played 'rope-a-dope' with the GOP many times over the past 6+ years.

The more likely scenario is that *both* parties knew a deal was necessary to cripple Iran's enrichment capability. Moreover, both wanted to have something to talk about during the peak fund-raising season leading up to the 2016 election season.

"treaties require ratification by 2/3 of the senate." They gave him that before the treaty existed. The Senate said, "Oh, you're making a treaty here? Let's go ahead and prematurely approve it so you can do whatever."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/07/senate-votes-98-1-to-give-congress-a-say-on-the-iran-nuke-deal/

This is The Blaze. The headline should read: "GOP Gives Away Any Real Say on the Iran Nuke Deal"

I always love when people vocally oppose something but still vote yes on it. This is why I don't trust career politicians any further than I can throw them.

How far can you throw them?

Well, considering their security would probably stop me before I could even pick them up, not far.