Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Iran Deal
#21
I agree with you, John, that the Vatican will likely be the first or at least foremost target of an Islamic nuke. This will likely produce what Revelation 13:3, 12 refer to as "the Deadly Wound." But the Papal tyranny will survive, and come to rule over a Europe at war with Islam.
Reply
#22
(07-15-2015, 02:19 PM)Palladin Wrote: Couple of other groups dislike this deal, ISIS among them.

What surprises me is what do you guys want instead of this deal? More of the old program that has failed?

Nope. In retrospect, instead of going to war with Iraq, we should have remained in place, and continued the "No Fly Zone" over Kurdistan. We should have declared war on Iran during the Hostage Standoff. It was clearly an act of war. Same thing with the Lebanon bombing by Hezbollah. We should have gone to the source of this aggression, and taken them out then and there.

Had we done the hard decision making then, none of this crap would be going on. And not only that, but Iran would almost certainly be our friend. Reagan really dropped the ball on that one. Granted he concentrated on the Soviets, but the Soviets had not declared war on us: the Iranians had. And when one lets such things go unanswered, it only emboldens them to commit more.

As you know, I am for keeping our noses out of other's business. But taking out Iran didn't fall into that category. We should have taken them out, just as we did Afghanistan.

BUT,.....after doing all that, we should Always get out and not act under this misguided utopian thinking that we should make them good little democrats(little "d").
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#23
I don't disagree with that, but, you can't make war on an event from 1979 in 2015 and that's the real point here. We are not in the market for warfare with Iran.

IF Israel were to attempt a strategic bombing campaign( which I do not believe they have the capability to do BTW because the Iran program is not in one locale), the entire region according to the last Mossad director will pay heavily for it. Including Israel. IF that man is accurate, war is really not on the table. Talk is bluster at this point.

Iran has had 35 years to prepare for this stuff, they are not fools.

So, that's where I start, war is off the table under the current conditions.

Is it better to keep the sanctions and hope Iran stops their program whatever it is OR make the deal and keep a close eye on them. Obama made some excellent points today, w/o the deal, we do not have the ability to look at the program up close and the truth is our intell sucks over there.

Downside is they get back their money in increments, but, it is their money after all.

We can always stop observing the deal, but, bottom line, occupying Iran may be needed to make them do what we want and I just don't think we have it in us to occupy a state 2X the size of Iraq where 95% of the pop are monolithic shiites, unlike Iraq where we faced mainly 20% Sunni Arabs only.
Reply
#24
I'm not a big fan of sanctions to begin with. The ones hurt by those sanctions are the very ones that are innocent of what their country does. The overwhelming majority of Iranians just want to get along and live their lives without a huge hassle. They are highly educated and under utilized. It is the zealots who are a tiny minority, and creating all the trouble.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#25
(07-15-2015, 02:19 PM)Palladin Wrote: What surprises me is what do you guys want instead of this deal? More of the old program that has failed?

Why are you projecting what people 'want' based on what they predict? I'm predicting a nuclear exchange ... do you really think I want that? There was no likelihood of a U.S. attack. Everyone knows that. The bunker buster fluff pieces that appeared in the media a couple weeks ago were simply to get people on board with the latest agreement. A military attack (by the U.S.) was a non-starter. The sanctions would have probably delayed Iran's effort rather than stop it. The best outcome would be the ouster of the Mullahs. Now our President has essentially committed to financing the regime and legitimizing their efforts to go forward. This is a situation where the "do nothing" approach was probably the least harmful. But Obama apparently didn't like the idea of writing about "doing nothing" in his memoir. Instead he's doubled down on being the absolute worst President in history. It seems like a pretty shitty way to redeem Bush.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#26
Obama was acting as Iran's lawyer for the Iran deal.
Reply
#27
Yak,

I asked what do you guys want?? I didn't tell you what you think.

You want to continue the current sanctions path and we really don't know what the deal is, isn't it obvious we don't know much about these people over there? You want to try some more war? Haven't you noticed how pitiful the results are lately? Haven't you seen we can no longer win a war effort strategically since WWII with the possible exception of intimidating Serbia?

The USA is no longer the big bad fearful guy out here, we've ignorantly shown everyone our limitations.

Why is an Iranian A bomb more likely with this deal than with the current program?

WB,

Obama has no alternatives here, Americans have warred out for a generation, IMO.
Reply
#28
(07-16-2015, 12:39 PM)Palladin Wrote: The USA is no longer the big bad fearful guy out here, we've ignorantly shown everyone our limitations.

Now, that part of your statement is about the best one you have made in a long time. Everybody now knows that persistence, a willingness to take casualties, and blending in with the rest of the public, will always result in the long term loss of the US.

We not only have this misguided assumption that we can show them the values of "so called" Democracy, but we also have little to no patience to persevere.

That's it in a nutshell. S22

Quote: WB,

Obama has no alternatives here, Americans have warred out for a generation, IMO.

I believe the correct East Tennessed word there "warded", as in "worn". "Americans are have been warded out for a generation. S6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#29
All the super hawks, which included myself for most my life are thoughtless and harmful to the nation.

War has never been a guaranteed proposition and now days we don't do it like WWII so it is most often going to fail. Now everyone knows this. The paradigm has changed.

I recall us debating about the civil war years ago and you said IF the CSA had acted more like these modern guerilla types, they probably would have worn down the USA and won, just would have taken a long time. I agree with that.

You can't win wars anymore unless you're willing to just explode entire cities IF the opponent is determined.

As much as this Iran deal has flaws, that's what is driving it. The options are few.
Reply
#30
(07-16-2015, 03:53 PM)Palladin Wrote: I recall us debating about the civil war years ago and you said IF the CSA had acted more like these modern guerilla types, they probably would have worn down the USA and won, just would have taken a long time. I agree with that.

Thats not what I said. What I said is that instead of firing on Ft. Sumpter, or relieving supply ships, the smartest thing to do would be to keep boats filled with women and children, along with reporters from all over the world and surround the fort 24/7. When a supply ship would appear, the boats would get in the way of the ship, causing it to either turn back or run over the protesters.

This would almost certainly result in the death of women and children, and the reporters would publish ever single detail of how the evil Union disregarded the safety of innocents. The Union would be forced to vacate the fort, and the secession would win.

Same thing with any state trying to secede from the current establishment. When the military shows up to put down the rebellion, people should lay down in front of the convoys. All it would take would be for anyone to be run over, and the world would almost instantly know about it. Can you imagine the uproar, and anti-US sentiment this would create?

Martin Luther King, and Gandhi, got things right. Nonviolent civil disobedience does a far better job than the use of force. And especially in today's world of high tech communications.

That's the very best way to secede. I'll bet it will work every time it is tried. S5
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#31
(07-16-2015, 12:39 PM)Palladin Wrote: I asked what do you guys want?? I didn't tell you what you think.

Sorry, I re-read it. I did not realize it was a question rather than a statement.

(07-16-2015, 12:39 PM)Palladin Wrote: Why is an Iranian A bomb more likely with this deal than with the current program?

Because they will be able to afford it more easily. We are releasing $billion$ in cash to the regime. And we are facilitating their economy rather than obstructing it. They will have more money to spend on centrifuges and the activities of groups like Hezbollah. Do you think rewarding them will improve anything? They're still shouting "Death to America" ... do you really want to subsidize that??

(07-16-2015, 12:39 PM)Palladin Wrote: WB,
Obama has no alternatives here, Americans have warred out for a generation, IMO.

In decision making, the very first option is always to DO NOTHING. IMO that would be preferable. It wouldn't preclude them from getting the bomb ... but it would probably delay it a bit and increase the pressure on the regime by their own people. This deal basically releases that all pressure like some shrill flatulent sounding balloon. The theory is that this will make them love us more. Do you believe that Palladin? We got absolutely nothing of value from this deal ... not even a single hostage released. If you can name one thing, please let me know.

This U.S. template was set long ago by Clinton's dealings with North Korea. Our approach to nuclear proliferation is to reward the proliferator with piles of cash, aid, concessions and compromises. Compare and contrast with Putin's approach which at least has the virtue making some money off the deal(s). The world will blunder along this path until at least one (or more) of these actors manages to detonate one (or more) of these devices in anger ... and then we'll collectively shit our pants and wonder what went wrong. It will suck, but it won't be the end of the world. Like I said earlier, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in Nevada, Arizona and Utah lived through a nuclear war in the late '50s and early '60s and most of them didn't even know it.

[Image: RECACoveredAreas.jpg]
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#32
(07-16-2015, 08:09 PM)mr_yak Wrote: Like I said earlier, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in Nevada, Arizona and Utah lived through a nuclear war in the late '50s and early '60s and most of them didn't even know it.

[Image: RECACoveredAreas.jpg]

I wonder how I missed out on this? Do you have any good sources to this nuclear war that I was totally unaware of taking place?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#33
Good call today on Limbaugh: History - Clinton's legacy speech bragging on his treaty with North Korea to forever solve the nuclear problem there. Almost word for word what Obama said. ...and how long did that take to implode?
Reply
#34
(07-16-2015, 08:16 PM)John L Wrote: I wonder how I missed out on this? Do you have any good sources to this nuclear war that I was totally unaware of taking place?

Here you go John. I mentioned this earlier. You might argue it wasn't a 'war' but the long term effects were effectively the same. AFIK, nobody got incinerated, but a cloud of radioactive shit is a cloud of radioactive shit ... regardless if it is created by a global enemy or your own government. If you get a dose, eventually end up just as dead. A number of my classmates from have died from it. Sky high cancer rates, mostly years later. Probably a lot more than I know as the cause of the 'illnesses' of the people who got sick right away were kept quiet until decades later. Many were H bombs. Russia probably popped off many more than we did. I believe they hold the record for energy yield from an above ground test. I would argue that these exposures are probably far higher and more deadly than anything that might waft over here from the future craters in Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea or any of the new would be players. And even if they did manage to build a missile capable of hitting LA, NY or DC ... the rest of the country still wouldn't get as big a dose as we got in the '50s and '60s.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#35
(07-16-2015, 08:42 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Good call today on Limbaugh: History - Clinton's legacy speech bragging on his treaty with North Korea to forever solve the nuclear problem there. Almost word for word what Obama said. ...and how long did that take to implode?

What all did he say? I took all I could, early on, and had to turn him off or I would probably go postal.

His subconscious drive to placate his dead daddy, by using his daddy's language is more than I can take sometimes. He's a psychologically myopic dupe. America's Truth Detector my ass! He should be ashamed of himself, but he's not. And all over placating his late father, so he won't be thought a failure in life. If his father had left him a letter, diredting him to jump off a tall cliff come his next birthday, he'd probably do it. Gah
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#36
Yak,

Valid point about them having more cash. It allegedly does come in increments though, so IF they are not abiding by the agreement based on inspections, cut the flow back off.


Honestly, since I was old enough to think about these type issues, I have always opposed these type deals, including SALT/START/Conventional arms treaties. Not sure I was ever right though on reflection.

You are not crediting our inspections of their program enough(IMO) and since I feel we know nothing about Iran, it is a huge plus they will allow inspectors in. We can always stop the program and do military action, that's as easy to do 5 years from now as it is tonight and we simply are not up for war tonight.
Reply
#37
(07-16-2015, 10:49 PM)Palladin Wrote: You are not crediting our inspections of their program enough(IMO) and since I feel we know nothing about Iran, it is a huge plus they will allow inspectors in. We can always stop the program and do military action, that's as easy to do 5 years from now as it is tonight and we simply are not up for war tonight.

Has someone informed the Iranians that they might be subject to inspections? You really wouldn't know it by their internal rhetoric and 'leaked' details. Are you really certain that this 'agreement' itself might not be "top secret" ... like ObamaTrade? Congress passed that, but I'm not certain that the text of the agreement has ever been published for the general public in the Federal Register. If you know where that text is, please let me know, I'd like to read it. AFIK, it hasn't seen much of the light of day yet. Presumably, Congress will have an opportunity to approve the "Obama/Kerry Munich II" accord and, presumably, they will actually be able to review what they are approving. Stay tuned. At least Nevile Chamberlain had the balls to actually publish what he had negotiated.

Iran has thousands and thousands of centrifuges running 24/7. Very few of these will be taken off line. None will be destroyed. The agreement itself (purportedly) provides for "international assistance" to help them develop and refine these machines. Assuming that we have 5 years? ... that's wishful thinking at best Palladin. This is a bit like "global warming" ... or cooling ... or "climate change" or whatever. Whether or not it is actually occurring, regardless of how it might be occurring ... all are irrelevant ... and all we can do, at least for the immediate future, is adapt. This is the nuclear equivalent of opening the Oklahoma Territory. Saudi Arabia and every other would be nuclear state has heard the cannon and the wagons are now rolling. I've lived through one round of fallout when I was a child* ... please don't ask me to be thrilled about the prospect of my kid getting even higher doses. Like I said, it's not the end of the world, but it's not exactly mankind's finest moment is it Palladin? I'm not kidding when I tell you that I keep the means on hand to clear my family's thyroids for a couple of months. I don't consider it an 'if' anymore. I've already been exposed once ... and have been lucky ... so far.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#38
JL Wrote:Israel and Saudi Arabia present united front over Iran deal

WB Wrote:Israeli; Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel will probably attack the Iranian nuclear plants within the next two years.

Palladin Wrote:What surprises me is what do you guys want instead of this deal? More of the old program that has failed?

,,,,
, w/o the deal, we do not have the ability to look at the program up close and the truth is our intell sucks over there.

For the carrot and the stick to work, you also need a carrot. So far there hasn't been any incentive for the Iranian to open the gates of their facilites because they knew that we won't lift sanction anyway. Now that there is a comprehensive deal, we release some of their fund and they let us visit their military bases and underground labs.

One thing is good about this deal: It's the opinion of the population toward the West. The US urgently need populations in the M-E who think positively about them. And this deal has been overwhelmingly popular among the pro-West youths, and not popular among the islamic conservatives.
The US policy in Iraq failed because the US lacked popular support. And they lacked it because of 20 years of sanction followed by aerial bombing and military invasion and 10 years of occupation.
Let's do the opposite on Iran. These poeple would love to be our friends because they hate the Mullahs. But the Mullahs always have good reasons to blame the US.

Cheap oil may also be part of the plan.
Reply
#39
(07-17-2015, 05:16 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: For the carrot and the stick to work, you also need a carrot. So far there hasn't been any incentive for the Iranian to open the gates of their facilites because they knew that we won't lift sanction anyway. Now that there is a comprehensive deal, we release some of their fund and they let us visit their military bases and underground labs.

One thing is good about this deal: It's the opinion of the population toward the West. The US urgently need populations in the M-E who think positively about them. And this deal has been overwhelmingly popular among the pro-West youths, and not popular among the islamic conservatives.
The US policy in Iraq failed because the US lacked popular support. And they lacked it because of 20 years of sanction followed by aerial bombing and military invasion and 10 years of occupation.
Let's do the opposite on Iran. These poeple would love to be our friends because they hate the Mullahs. But the Mullahs always have good reasons to blame the US.

Cheap oil may also be part of the plan.

Fred,

The carrot goes almost exclusively to the Mullahs. The have virtually no accountability with regards to their nuke program. The West has caved on virtually everything. And we release funds ... to the government of Iran ... not the people of Iran but their religious rulers. The will be able to fund their centrifuges unimpeded and Hezbollah with newly freed funds ... it's not clear what will "trickle down" to the average Iranian citizen. In the mean time they continue to shout "Death to America" in the streets. This is all carrot ... to the wrong people. I'm not aware of any stick. There's talk that we'll 'rescind' if they cheat. But they have been cheating for years and we haven't done shit. If you were the Iranian leadership would you really be worried about this?

Your post to WL was about SA and Israel. AFIK they are not constrained by this agreement. They likely have plans and 'deals' of their own in motion.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#40
There's something else to consider with regard to SA and Israel forming a loose partnership. And that is energy related. In a few short years, Israel is going to be one of the region's big time oil and natural gas producers, in the same territory as SA. They will be the big dogs over there, and together they can yield a whole lot of power by coordinating their resources.

What surprises me most is that nobody is talking, or even writing, about this possibility. I think it has Huge implications, at least within the power equation for OPEC. If Israel does join OPEC, they would almost certainly form part of the Gulf States block.

Keep that in mind as we go forward. S5
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Woolsey Advice on How to Deal With Iran And Russia John L 4 813 07-22-2014, 12:35 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  Iran sanctions 'will not affect' Russia missile deal Kamil 25 3,845 09-25-2010, 08:20 AM
Last Post: John L
  What's The Deal in Iran? Palladin 0 462 05-14-2006, 07:33 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  Pakistan and Israel deal Iran a blow Kamil 3 962 09-07-2005, 11:45 AM
Last Post: ag

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)