After deal, Israel still vows to block an Iran nuclear bomb

[dexterm]

Obama: Iran nuclear deal debate is a choice between diplomacy and war

US president stresses that critics of historic agreement, including Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu, have failed to provide honest alternative to the deal

Barack Obama argued that the debate over the landmark nuclear agreement with Iran is a choice between diplomacy and war on Wednesday, urging critics in Israel and Washington to come clean that their only viable option to the globally agreed accord would be military action.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/15/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-diplomacy-war

Why does Israel always opt for conflict, and usually fought on their behalf by the rest of the world without Israel sending even a single medic. Israel is all gungho, but expects the rest of the world to suffer and do their dirty work for them.

Perhaps they hope that in the fog of war the world will forget the most dangerous pariah state in the Middle East ...nuclear armed Israel, still occupying another people after 48 years.

[Steely Dan]

Obama and Kerry invited the leaders of GCC nations to Washington on Thursday to convince them of the brilliance of the deal, the Saudis, UAE and others declined to attend, only Qatar and Kuwait are bothering to attend. It is not just Israel that doesn't trust Obama and can't tolerate an Iranian nuclear capability. Contrary to what delusional progressives try to convince themselves with the deal actually guarantees war. Let's hope it comes sooner rather than later seeing as later would likely be a nuclear war.

http://www.thomaswictor.com/it-was-a-rocket-powered-bunker-buster/

[MisterTee]

Obama and Kerry invited the leaders of GCC nations to Washington on Thursday to convince them of the brilliance of the deal, the Saudis, UAE and others declined to attend, only Qatar and Kuwait are bothering to attend. It is not just Israel that doesn't trust Obama and can't tolerate an Iranian nuclear capability. Contrary to what delusional progressives try to convince themselves with the deal actually guarantees war. Let's hope it comes sooner rather than later seeing as later would likely be a nuclear war.

http://www.thomaswictor.com/it-was-a-rocket-powered-bunker-buster/

The deal doesn't guarantee war... but no deal probably would, and that's what Israel wants.

[BKKBobby]

Obama and Kerry invited the leaders of GCC nations to Washington on Thursday to convince them of the brilliance of the deal, the Saudis, UAE and others declined to attend, only Qatar and Kuwait are bothering to attend. It is not just Israel that doesn't trust Obama and can't tolerate an Iranian nuclear capability. Contrary to what delusional progressives try to convince themselves with the deal actually guarantees war. Let's hope it comes sooner rather than later seeing as later would likely be a nuclear war.

http://www.thomaswictor.com/it-was-a-rocket-powered-bunker-buster/

No surprise.

Some of the ruling familys in the GCC countries are satisfied if Iran is isolated, contained and sanctioned.

Anyway...

Not attending is just a symbolic act, they are dependent on the US.

Edited July 18, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Jingthing]

Obama and Kerry invited the leaders of GCC nations to Washington on Thursday to convince them of the brilliance of the deal, the Saudis, UAE and others declined to attend, only Qatar and Kuwait are bothering to attend. It is not just Israel that doesn't trust Obama and can't tolerate an Iranian nuclear capability. Contrary to what delusional progressives try to convince themselves with the deal actually guarantees war. Let's hope it comes sooner rather than later seeing as later would likely be a nuclear war.

http://www.thomaswictor.com/it-was-a-rocket-powered-bunker-buster/

The deal doesn't guarantee war... but no deal probably would, and that's what Israel wants.

Israel is the country that wants war? Is that it?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/irans-khamenei-hails-his-people-for-demanding-death-to-america-and-israel/

Iran’s supreme leader on Saturday hailed the Iranian masses for demanding the destruction of Israel and America, and said he hoped that God would answer their prayers.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Jingthing

[Pinot]

As I predicted earlier in the thread nobody would try to defend the deal on its merits, as there are none. Instead we get a collection of hackneyed equivalence arguments plus the usual antisemitism from some of our esteemed members. As Charles Krauthammer remarked, this is the worst deal in U.S diplomatic history. As Clinton has promised to approve the deal there will never be enough democrats voting against it to overturn Obamas veto, so IMHO military action is inevitable, the only questions being by who and when.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/worse-than-we-could-have-imagined/2015/07/16/aa320b42-2bf0-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

Is the entire rest of the world anti semitic? The agreement is getting support in Israel, just not with the pols who staked their political lives on killing the deal. Netanyahu is screwed. Sorry, no war.

If you watched any thing else than Fox News you'd know the deal is a good one and that it's going to work. And giving credence to anything Krauthammer says is ridiculous. He's always wrong about everything. Just another Fox News hack, spewing whatever Roger Ailes tells him to say. He doesn't have an ounce of credibility in the real world of journalism. Not what the ministry of propaganda puts out, real journalism. The agreement is getting worldwide praise. Sorry, the deal is going down, another huge victory for Obama.

The Republicans don't want diplomacy to work. They want war. Don't talk to them, kill them.

Again the Republicans are on the wrong side of an important issue...a nuclear proliferation treaty. The Republicans are on the wrong side of everything. Doesn't matter what it is, from health insurance, women's rights, immigration, taxes, gay marriage, it's always wrong. That's why you get racist idiots like Trump leading the pack. Republicans are out of their minds with hate and frustration

"As Charles Krauthammer remarked..." Oh my Buddha

[Jingthing]

Pinot, who do you think you're fooling?

YOU don't know this deal is going to "work" any more than Krauthammer knows that is isn't going to work.

Based on intellectual level, I would respect Krauthammer a lot more.

There is a massive amount of risk in this deal, Iran remains a HORRIBLE NASTY player in the region, and this deal doesn't magically change their stripes.

Instead it gives their awful regime a massive injection of CASH.

Of course for those who share the evil goals (Death to the USA / Death to Israel) of the Iran regime ... maybe their definition of the deal "working" is different.

I will add that it is not only U.S. republicans who have issues with this deal. A significant percentage of democrats do too.

Also based on my reading the vast majority of Israelis are against the deal ... obviously not everyone ... but a significant consensus and not only right wing Israelis.

To be clear I don't know if the deal is going to work for good or not over the long run ... but I see so many ways that things can go wrong I think that people who are so sure it will work are being VERY FOOLISH.

(See North Korea.)

I realize in politics you need to take risks and sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. So I don't blame Obama for trying. We'll know sooner or later whether the risk proved wise.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Some background on understanding why most Israelis have deep concern about this deal.

It is NOT a friendship deal.

Peace has NOT broken out.
Celebrations (outside Iran and supporters of Iran's horrible goals) are VERY premature.

If anything, Iran, a major Middle East force AGAINST peace is now getting a boatload of cash to make even LESS peace.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-iran-nuclear-deal-is-not-a-friendship-agreement/2015/07/17/649102a0-2c09-11e5-a250-42bd812efc09_story.html?hpid=z3

It is against this backdrop of anti-Semitism that stretches back centuries that I turn to the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said that Israel must be destroyed. Israelis aren’t the only targets.

Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is bankrolled by Iran, said: “If all the Jews were gathered in Israel, it would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” Despicable.
...
A mullah-controlled Iran, economically enriched by the lifting of sanctions, is in an even better position to retain its position on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Jingthing

[Steely Dan]

As I predicted earlier in the thread nobody would try to defend the deal on its merits, as there are none. Instead we get a collection of hackneyed equivalence arguments plus the usual antisemitism from some of our esteemed members. As Charles Krauthammer remarked, this is the worst deal in U.S diplomatic history. As Clinton has promised to approve the deal there will never be enough democrats voting against it to overturn Obamas veto, so IMHO military action is inevitable, the only questions being by who and when.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/worse-than-we-could-have-imagined/2015/07/16/aa320b42-2bf0-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

Is the entire rest of the world anti semitic? The agreement is getting support in Israel, just not with the pols who staked their political lives on killing the deal. Netanyahu is screwed. Sorry, no war.

If you watched any thing else than Fox News you'd know the deal is a good one and that it's going to work. And giving credence to anything Krauthammer says is ridiculous. He's always wrong about everything. Just another Fox News hack, spewing whatever Roger Ailes tells him to say. He doesn't have an ounce of credibility in the real world of journalism. Not what the ministry of propaganda puts out, real journalism. The agreement is getting worldwide praise. Sorry, the deal is going down, another huge victory for Obama.

The Republicans don't want diplomacy to work. They want war. Don't talk to them, kill them.

Again the Republicans are on the wrong side of an important issue...a nuclear proliferation treaty. The Republicans are on the wrong side of everything. Doesn't matter what it is, from health insurance, women's rights, immigration, taxes, gay marriage, it's always wrong. That's why you get racist idiots like Trump leading the pack. Republicans are out of their minds with hate and frustration

"As Charles Krauthammer remarked..." Oh my Buddha

You are writing nonsense. 76% of Israelis think the deal is a disaster, this is a rare area of cross party agreement which includes the leader of the opposition. This puts J-Street and other useful idiots in a tricky position.

[sdanielmcev]

As I predicted earlier in the thread nobody would try to defend the deal on its merits, as there are none. Instead we get a collection of hackneyed equivalence arguments plus the usual antisemitism from some of our esteemed members. As Charles Krauthammer remarked, this is the worst deal in U.S diplomatic history. As Clinton has promised to approve the deal there will never be enough democrats voting against it to overturn Obamas veto, so IMHO military action is inevitable, the only questions being by who and when.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/worse-than-we-could-have-imagined/2015/07/16/aa320b42-2bf0-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

Is the entire rest of the world anti semitic? The agreement is getting support in Israel, just not with the pols who staked their political lives on killing the deal. Netanyahu is screwed. Sorry, no war.

If you watched any thing else than Fox News you'd know the deal is a good one and that it's going to work. And giving credence to anything Krauthammer says is ridiculous. He's always wrong about everything. Just another Fox News hack, spewing whatever Roger Ailes tells him to say. He doesn't have an ounce of credibility in the real world of journalism. Not what the ministry of propaganda puts out, real journalism. The agreement is getting worldwide praise. Sorry, the deal is going down, another huge victory for Obama.

The Republicans don't want diplomacy to work. They want war. Don't talk to them, kill them.

Again the Republicans are on the wrong side of an important issue...a nuclear proliferation treaty. The Republicans are on the wrong side of everything. Doesn't matter what it is, from health insurance, women's rights, immigration, taxes, gay marriage, it's always wrong. That's why you get racist idiots like Trump leading the pack. Republicans are out of their minds with hate and frustration

"As Charles Krauthammer remarked..." Oh my Buddha

You do know Charles Krauthammer is jewish? Also, you might want to read his books, and then you might know why he's against this retarded idea. While you're at it look up how George Soros and his buddies influence the main stream liberal media before you say it is one-sided. And read the book 'Bias.'

[Steely Dan]

Not any more are the GCC relying on the U.S, if you have been paying attention you would note how the Saudis, Egypt, the UAE and even Israel have been cooperating with one another to thwart Obama. The massive explosion in the Yemen video I posted was due to Saudi Arabian munitions, both they and Israel have ordinance that can destroy the Iranian underground nuclear sites.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Credo]

Not any more are the GCC relying on the U.S, if you have been paying attention you would note how the Saudis, Egypt, the UAE and even Israel have been cooperating with one another to thwart Obama. The massive explosion in the Yemen video I posted was due to Saudi Arabian munitions, both they and Israel have ordinance that can destroy the Iranian underground nuclear sites.

I doubt very much that there will be much, if any repercussions, from the US if those countries decided to take it out. They might want to act quickly before the Iranians get their hands on all the money to start buying weapons and make for a much more dangerous situation.

If countries need to protect themselves, then they need to participate in their own protection. The current US administration will assist our allies, but they are no longer being the World's Police. If you want help call your own military first.

[Pinot]

I know how devastating it is for the Repubs to accept that diplomacy has won out. Another big win by that black man in the White House has got to be unbearable.

I'll let the words of the American Commander in Chief, Barrack Obama (that still hurts doesn't it?) do the splaining:

"On questions of war and peace, we should have tough, honest, serious debates. We’ve seen what happens when we don’t. That’s why this deal is online for the whole world to see. I welcome all scrutiny. I fear no questions. As Commander-in-Chief, I make no apology for keeping this country safe and secure through the hard work of diplomacy over the easy rush to war."

The president's refutations:

• No, the deal does not make it easier for Iran to get a nuclear weapons.
• No, it won't be easy for Iran to cheat because there will be "unprecedented" monitoring of the country's nuclear facilities.
• No, it's not true that Iran would face no consequences for violations. Sanctions would snap back into place.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Scott

[Steely Dan]

I know how devastating it is for the Repugs to accept that diplomacy has won out. Another big win by that black man in the White House has got to be unbearable.

I'll let the words of the American Commander in Chief, Barrack Obama (that still hurts doesn't it?) do the splaining:

"On questions of war and peace, we should have tough, honest, serious debates. We’ve seen what happens when we don’t. That’s why this deal is online for the whole world to see. I welcome all scrutiny. I fear no questions. As Commander-in-Chief, I make no apology for keeping this country safe and secure through the hard work of diplomacy over the easy rush to war."

The president's refutations:

• No, the deal does not make it easier for Iran to get a nuclear weapons.
• No, it won't be easy for Iran to cheat because there will be "unprecedented" monitoring of the country's nuclear facilities.
• No, it's not true that Iran would face no consequences for violations. Sanctions would snap back into place.

What a crock of crap. First, your deity is half white so quit the race baiting, it is his mendacity and incompetence that are the problem, along with his narcissism, which required a deal, any old deal.

As for you 'refutations' (lol)

Iran need only wait ten years and it will be able to get nuclear weapons, even if it complies in total and has nothing to hide that has not and will not be verified beforehand.

Unprecedented monitoring, what an abuse of language that is! Iran has to agree to the time and place of any inspection. A refusal leads to arbitration with Iran present at all stages meaning it could take up to 24 days to force an inspection, by which time any evidence would be long gone.

Iran will receive $100 billion very quickly meaning that if sanctions did snap back it could proceed for years funding terrorism and spinning centrifuges. The Europeans, Russians and Chinese are in serious economic difficulties and have been chomping at the bit to trade with Iran, I see little prospect of sanctions snapping back unless Iran is in egregious violation, which would mean it was about to announce a fait accompli and nuclear capability just as North Korea did when another Democrat called Clinton messed things up.

[Pinot]

Obama is half white, mendacious, incompetent and narcissistic? Okey dokey.

The US won on every major issue in the agreement. Diplomacy won. I know it hurts but try and deal with it.

[Linky]

Funny how some think this is all about Obama. It isnt.

The world is happy about this deal, exept the Israel nutters.

[chuckd]

I know how devastating it is for the Repugs to accept that diplomacy has won out. Another big win by that black man in the White House has got to be unbearable.

I'll let the words of the American Commander in Chief, Barrack Obama (that still hurts doesn't it?) do the splaining:

"On questions of war and peace, we should have tough, honest, serious debates. We’ve seen what happens when we don’t. That’s why this deal is online for the whole world to see. I welcome all scrutiny. I fear no questions. As Commander-in-Chief, I make no apology for keeping this country safe and secure through the hard work of diplomacy over the easy rush to war."

The president's refutations:

• No, the deal does not make it easier for Iran to get a nuclear weapons.
• No, it won't be easy for Iran to cheat because there will be "unprecedented" monitoring of the country's nuclear facilities.
• No, it's not true that Iran would face no consequences for violations. Sanctions would snap back into place.

• Sanctions would snap back into place.

Once Iran gets their hands on the cash, the Executive Agreement will be as worthless as the paper it is written on. Iran will have no problem with violating the conditions of the agreement by prohibiting IAEA inspectors from doing their jobs.

Nothing will "snap back" into place because the P5+1 will not permit it to. They will be too busy getting their snouts in the trough to worry about the bomb.

However, since the agreement failed to secure the current standing of Iran's nuclear program to begin with, there is no bench mark for the IAEA to compare with. I cannot see what good inspections will do in light of the lack of knowledge obtained by this agreement.

I have no idea why you and your sort can honestly believe Iran will honor the terms of the agreement. They will break it at will and there is nothing Obama can or will do about it.

You must have missed this little missive today. Talk about making the world a safer place?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuclear deal: Saudis signal they'll act before Iran gets the money

Christian Science Monitor By Taylor Luck

July 17, 2015 7:00 AM

The nuclear deal that will lift tough sanctions on Iran is mobilizing Saudi Arabia to turn the tide against its regional rival in Yemen and Syria before it makes an economic recovery, military officials and analysts say.

According to the sources, the military component of the Saudi offensive will include the use of special forces on the ground in Yemen, and a potentially widened use of Saudi and allied Sunni air power in Syria.

The Saudis have signaled their intent to employ ground forces in Yemen previously, but have not done so. But the potential military initiatives, coupled with signs that the Saudis are cultivating better diplomatic ties with Russia and China, would be a strong indication of how the Iran nuclear deal could impact the regional order in the Middle East.

http://news.yahoo.com/nuclear-deal-saudis-signal-theyll-act-iran-gets-110003003.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as Obama's attempt at honesty...

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"

"If you like your health care, you can keep your health care."

[BKKBobby]

Not any more are the GCC relying on the U.S, if you have been paying attention you would note how the Saudis, Egypt, the UAE and even Israel have been cooperating with one another to thwart Obama. The massive explosion in the Yemen video I posted was due to Saudi Arabian munitions, both they and Israel have ordinance that can destroy the Iranian underground nuclear sites.

Yes, its a possibility that the Arab countries you mention does that on their own or Israel does it. If Israel does it the Arab countries in the Gulf might lend their airspace and let them refuel but Im sure they wont strike Iran in a joint action with the Jewish state of Israel. Iran is Shia and not Arab but its a Muslim country and the gulf countries are surely concerned about appearing as "legitimate" rulers in the eyes of their own population.

The GCC countries do depend on the US. They are not going to abandon the US anytime soon and the US are soon going to have a new president.

Edited July 19, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Chicog]

Krauthammer's opinions are about as credible as his hair colour

[Seastallion]

Once Iran gets their hands on the cash, the Executive Agreement will be as worthless as the paper it is written on. Iran will have no problem with violating the conditions of the agreement by prohibiting IAEA inspectors from doing their jobs.

Nothing will "snap back" into place because the P5+1 will not permit it to. They will be too busy getting their snouts in the trough to worry about the bomb.

However, since the agreement failed to secure the current standing of Iran's nuclear program to begin with, there is no bench mark for the IAEA to compare with. I cannot see what good inspections will do in light of the lack of knowledge obtained by this agreement.

I have no idea why you and your sort can honestly believe Iran will honor the terms of the agreement. They will break it at will and there is nothing Obama can or will do about it.

Great!

While a regional rogue state that is nuclear armed and is threatening, the sooner Iran can defend itself, the better for world peace.

MAD works.

[arjunadawn]

There is another perspective regarding this absurdly, impossible deal. While discussing whether the deal will work or not all actions with regard to Iran and the West should have the context of Which Path to Persia think tank roadmap considered. At least it should be considered. This roadmap produced some years ago has actually laid out a detailed set of steps with contingencies for basically neutering Iran. Most of the objectives have come to pass thus giving this think tank blueprint greater credibility. It should also be noted that much of the neocon playbook frequently finds its way into think tank pubs before implementation. So, what do they suggest?

It is suggested cause belli be provided Iran in the nature of a deal they cannot possibly turn down, and one in which they are certain to violate. The explicit goal is the rallying point for international military action.

I do not know what to believe but I am certain, on its face, the deal is ridiculous. Not only does Obama totally nullify his previous red line statements with regard to Iran but he has in fact legitimized a nuclear track openly. Whether the point I raise above is a valid 3rd consideration or not I remain unsure. However, it is always wise to consider all possibilities objectively. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/6/iran%20strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/brookings-which-path-to-persia.html

[sdanielmcev]

Krauthammer's opinions are about as credible as his hair colour

This from a guy with curlers in his hair while wearing lipstick?

Amazing how the swishy libs say only one side can have an opinion.

[Chicog]

Not any more are the GCC relying on the U.S, if you have been paying attention you would note how the Saudis, Egypt, the UAE and even Israel have been cooperating with one another to thwart Obama. The massive explosion in the Yemen video I posted was due to Saudi Arabian munitions, both they and Israel have ordinance that can destroy the Iranian underground nuclear sites.

Don't be daft. Saudi are pushing the buttons the US tell them. None of the GCC can defend themselves.

[Chicog]

Krauthammer's opinions are about as credible as his hair colour

This from a guy with curlers in his hair while wearing lipstick?

Amazing how the swishy libs say only one side can have an opinion.

That isn't really me. I'm much younger.

[BKKBobby]

There is another perspective regarding this absurdly, impossible deal. While discussing whether the deal will work or not all actions with regard to Iran and the West should have the context of Which Path to Persia think tank roadmap considered. At least it should be considered. This roadmap produced some years ago has actually laid out a detailed set of steps with contingencies for basically neutering Iran. Most of the objectives have come to pass thus giving this think tank blueprint greater credibility. It should also be noted that much of the neocon playbook frequently finds its way into think tank pubs before implementation. So, what do they suggest?

It is suggested cause belli be provided Iran in the nature of a deal they cannot possibly turn down, and one in which they are certain to violate. The explicit goal is the rallying point for international military action.

I do not know what to believe but I am certain, on its face, the deal is ridiculous. Not only does Obama totally nullify his previous red line statements with regard to Iran but he has in fact legitimized a nuclear track openly. Whether the point I raise above is a valid 3rd consideration or not I remain unsure. However, it is always wise to consider all possibilities objectively. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/6/iran%20strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/brookings-which-path-to-persia.html

I started reading, I find it disturbing.

History tells us that everything is possible though.

Why do a guide like this become public, it doesnt seem like something you want ordinary people to know about...

[sdanielmcev]

I know how devastating it is for the Repubs to accept that diplomacy has won out. Another big win by that black man in the White House has got to be unbearable.

I'll let the words of the American Commander in Chief, Barrack Obama (that still hurts doesn't it?) do the splaining:

"On questions of war and peace, we should have tough, honest, serious debates. Weve seen what happens when we dont. Thats why this deal is online for the whole world to see. I welcome all scrutiny. I fear no questions. As Commander-in-Chief, I make no apology for keeping this country safe and secure through the hard work of diplomacy over the easy rush to war."

The president's refutations:

• No, the deal does not make it easier for Iran to get a nuclear weapons.
• No, it won't be easy for Iran to cheat because there will be "unprecedented" monitoring of the country's nuclear facilities.
• No, it's not true that Iran would face no consequences for violations. Sanctions would snap back into place.

There is no "black man in the White House. " Have some respect for the office. And, while I do not agree with many of his policies, I have respect for the man himself.

And as far as that non-sensical 'easy rush to war,' liberals and dems have agreed to it. Both in Irag, twice, and Afghanistan. In Viet Nam and Korea. And both World Wars.

So before you point any fingers, look at yourself.

[Steely Dan]

I'm not sure how much of this is true, but I would read the formation of a national unity government as a precursor for war.

http://app.debka.com/p/article/24753/For-a-unity-government-Netanyahu-offers-Herzog-hard-to-refuse-deal-Seven-cabinet-posts-in-centrist-cabinet

In other developments Dennis Ross former Obama adviser recommended Israel be supplied with B52's and the latest bunker busters.

[Publicus]

Recall that SecDef Ashton Carter in 2006 publicly advocated attacking and destroying the North Korean ballistic missile program and capabilities, using high explosive cruise missiles launched by boomer subs continuously off the coast of Korea. I'll go with Secretary Carter in defense and military strategies and operations thx and in his interpretation of certain coalition or so-called unity governments.

Other people who btw like to talk about pointing fingers (or who like the cliche' of telling others to look in the mirror) should think of one finger in particular and buy some mirrors that are not distorted in their reflections.