Iran deal.....

12930313234

Comments

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,812
    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,527
    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    Yep and yep.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,053
    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,812
    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,053
    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,812
    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,053
    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,527
    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,053
    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    That's bullshit. All options are on the table.

    Meanwhile.... this has to be read in it's entirety...it shows what harm the deal did.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 10,029
    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    That's bullshit. All options are on the table.

    Meanwhile.... this has to be read in it's entirety...it shows what harm the deal did.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
    What "options" are on the table? Put them up there on the table.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,812

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    That's bullshit. All options are on the table.

    Meanwhile.... this has to be read in it's entirety...it shows what harm the deal did.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
    What "options" are on the table? Put them up there on the table.
    Yeah dude...you're full of criticisms without solutions.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,053
    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    That's bullshit. All options are on the table.

    Meanwhile.... this has to be read in it's entirety...it shows what harm the deal did.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
    What "options" are on the table? Put them up there on the table.
    Yeah dude...you're full of criticisms without solutions.
    Ha. I have been posting strategies on here for what must be years now. They have all been met with scorn by the surrender caucus who has only moved backwards under Obama. But to simplify here is the plan...

    1) Re-declare the Iranian regime as an enemy of the west while making clear that their citizens are not.
    2) Establish that nuclear breakout is unacceptable and will be met with a guaranteed military strike on facilities if necessary
    3) Fund Sunni allies in meeting all forms of Iranian aggression across the middle east and "beat them back" in Syria, Iraq and Yemen as necessary.
    4) Re-establish strict sanctions that are not only tied to the nuclear issue but also to missile/military technology, military aggression, and funding of terrorism
    5) Renew DOJ investigations of all regime agents previously cancelled by the Obama Administration
    6) Give US naval vessels right to respond to provocative acts - no more taking of American sailors hostage
    7) At all times covertly and overtly support the Green Revolution through funding and arms where necessary
    8) Make Assad choose between partnership with Iran or survival. He cannot have both.
    9) Pressure other countries at the UN and elsewhere to accept the above. It really is now "with us or against us" when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The Sunni states are already on board and it is time for everybody else to buy in.

    This is the posture. It is not invasion and occupy. It is either the above or fake agreements that give away the store and eventual nuclear breakout. It's either Chamberlin or Churchill. Dude.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,812
    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    That's bullshit. All options are on the table.

    Meanwhile.... this has to be read in it's entirety...it shows what harm the deal did.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
    What "options" are on the table? Put them up there on the table.
    Yeah dude...you're full of criticisms without solutions.
    Ha. I have been posting strategies on here for what must be years now. They have all been met with scorn by the surrender caucus who has only moved backwards under Obama. But to simplify here is the plan...

    1) Re-declare the Iranian regime as an enemy of the west while making clear that their citizens are not. - This is worthless. It hasn't helped in N. Korea, Syria, etc.
    2) Establish that nuclear breakout is unacceptable and will be met with a guaranteed military strike on facilities if necessary - that's already essentially the posture.
    3) Fund Sunni allies in meeting all forms of Iranian aggression across the middle east and "beat them back" in Syria, Iraq and Yemen as necessary. - ok
    4) Re-establish strict sanctions that are not only tied to the nuclear issue but also to missile/military technology, military aggression, and funding of terrorism - Not going to work. Our allies have already moved against that stance. They insisted that the JPOA was only about nuclear ambitions.
    5) Renew DOJ investigations of all regime agents previously cancelled by the Obama Administration - Not following the value of this.
    6) Give US naval vessels right to respond to provocative acts - no more taking of American sailors hostage - okay to some extent. Starting a war over sailors that were immediately released seems a little trigger happy.
    7) At all times covertly and overtly support the Green Revolution through funding and arms where necessary - Ok
    8) Make Assad choose between partnership with Iran or survival. He cannot have both. - Fantasy strategy. We already declared that Assad was untenable. No one gives a shit until Russia does.
    9) Pressure other countries at the UN and elsewhere to accept the above. It really is now "with us or against us" when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The Sunni states are already on board and it is time for everybody else to buy in. - We have support in the UN as it relates to nuclear proliferation, but not about defense in general. Sanctions did not work before so there's no reason they will work again, even if the allies were open to it.

    This is the posture. It is not invasion and occupy. It is either the above or fake agreements that give away the store and eventual nuclear breakout. It's either Chamberlin or Churchill. Dude.
    I've replied but what you have outlined here is all just more "strategic patience" again. There's no real material difference between this and what we've done in the past 40 years coupled with the JPOA. It's criticism at the margins, not a new strategy. It's slightly different tactics of the same strategy.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,053
    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    That's bullshit. All options are on the table.

    Meanwhile.... this has to be read in it's entirety...it shows what harm the deal did.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
    What "options" are on the table? Put them up there on the table.
    Yeah dude...you're full of criticisms without solutions.
    Ha. I have been posting strategies on here for what must be years now. They have all been met with scorn by the surrender caucus who has only moved backwards under Obama. But to simplify here is the plan...

    1) Re-declare the Iranian regime as an enemy of the west while making clear that their citizens are not. - This is worthless. It hasn't helped in N. Korea, Syria, etc.
    2) Establish that nuclear breakout is unacceptable and will be met with a guaranteed military strike on facilities if necessary - that's already essentially the posture.
    3) Fund Sunni allies in meeting all forms of Iranian aggression across the middle east and "beat them back" in Syria, Iraq and Yemen as necessary. - ok
    4) Re-establish strict sanctions that are not only tied to the nuclear issue but also to missile/military technology, military aggression, and funding of terrorism - Not going to work. Our allies have already moved against that stance. They insisted that the JPOA was only about nuclear ambitions.
    5) Renew DOJ investigations of all regime agents previously cancelled by the Obama Administration - Not following the value of this.
    6) Give US naval vessels right to respond to provocative acts - no more taking of American sailors hostage - okay to some extent. Starting a war over sailors that were immediately released seems a little trigger happy.
    7) At all times covertly and overtly support the Green Revolution through funding and arms where necessary - Ok
    8) Make Assad choose between partnership with Iran or survival. He cannot have both. - Fantasy strategy. We already declared that Assad was untenable. No one gives a shit until Russia does.
    9) Pressure other countries at the UN and elsewhere to accept the above. It really is now "with us or against us" when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The Sunni states are already on board and it is time for everybody else to buy in. - We have support in the UN as it relates to nuclear proliferation, but not about defense in general. Sanctions did not work before so there's no reason they will work again, even if the allies were open to it.

    This is the posture. It is not invasion and occupy. It is either the above or fake agreements that give away the store and eventual nuclear breakout. It's either Chamberlin or Churchill. Dude.
    I've replied but what you have outlined here is all just more "strategic patience" again. There's no real material difference between this and what we've done in the past 40 years coupled with the JPOA. It's criticism at the margins, not a new strategy. It's slightly different tactics of the same strategy.
    It was not the strategy of the last 8 years and the 8 years before it did not get fleshed out fully. It is far more "aggressive" then strategic patience which involves sanctions and waiting but not military response where appropriate. Far more offence then defence.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,527
    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    That's bullshit. All options are on the table.

    Meanwhile.... this has to be read in it's entirety...it shows what harm the deal did.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
    What "options" are on the table? Put them up there on the table.
    Yeah dude...you're full of criticisms without solutions.
    Ha. I have been posting strategies on here for what must be years now. They have all been met with scorn by the surrender caucus who has only moved backwards under Obama. But to simplify here is the plan...

    1) Re-declare the Iranian regime as an enemy of the west while making clear that their citizens are not. - This is worthless. It hasn't helped in N. Korea, Syria, etc.
    2) Establish that nuclear breakout is unacceptable and will be met with a guaranteed military strike on facilities if necessary - that's already essentially the posture.
    3) Fund Sunni allies in meeting all forms of Iranian aggression across the middle east and "beat them back" in Syria, Iraq and Yemen as necessary. - ok
    4) Re-establish strict sanctions that are not only tied to the nuclear issue but also to missile/military technology, military aggression, and funding of terrorism - Not going to work. Our allies have already moved against that stance. They insisted that the JPOA was only about nuclear ambitions.
    5) Renew DOJ investigations of all regime agents previously cancelled by the Obama Administration - Not following the value of this.
    6) Give US naval vessels right to respond to provocative acts - no more taking of American sailors hostage - okay to some extent. Starting a war over sailors that were immediately released seems a little trigger happy.
    7) At all times covertly and overtly support the Green Revolution through funding and arms where necessary - Ok
    8) Make Assad choose between partnership with Iran or survival. He cannot have both. - Fantasy strategy. We already declared that Assad was untenable. No one gives a shit until Russia does.
    9) Pressure other countries at the UN and elsewhere to accept the above. It really is now "with us or against us" when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The Sunni states are already on board and it is time for everybody else to buy in. - We have support in the UN as it relates to nuclear proliferation, but not about defense in general. Sanctions did not work before so there's no reason they will work again, even if the allies were open to it.

    This is the posture. It is not invasion and occupy. It is either the above or fake agreements that give away the store and eventual nuclear breakout. It's either Chamberlin or Churchill. Dude.
    I've replied but what you have outlined here is all just more "strategic patience" again. There's no real material difference between this and what we've done in the past 40 years coupled with the JPOA. It's criticism at the margins, not a new strategy. It's slightly different tactics of the same strategy.
    It was not the strategy of the last 8 years and the 8 years before it did not get fleshed out fully. It is far more "aggressive" then strategic patience which involves sanctions and waiting but not military response where appropriate. Far more offence then defence.
    Matt is right, this is essentially the strategy that has been in effect for a long time. The only true difference is that you want to increase the threat of military force.
    So, as your position was fairly labeled from the start, you want to start a war.
    For another country to fight.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 10,029
    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    That's bullshit. All options are on the table.

    Meanwhile.... this has to be read in it's entirety...it shows what harm the deal did.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
    What "options" are on the table? Put them up there on the table.
    Yeah dude...you're full of criticisms without solutions.
    Ha. I have been posting strategies on here for what must be years now. They have all been met with scorn by the surrender caucus who has only moved backwards under Obama. But to simplify here is the plan...

    1) Re-declare the Iranian regime as an enemy of the west while making clear that their citizens are not.
    2) Establish that nuclear breakout is unacceptable and will be met with a guaranteed military strike on facilities if necessary
    3) Fund Sunni allies in meeting all forms of Iranian aggression across the middle east and "beat them back" in Syria, Iraq and Yemen as necessary.
    4) Re-establish strict sanctions that are not only tied to the nuclear issue but also to missile/military technology, military aggression, and funding of terrorism
    5) Renew DOJ investigations of all regime agents previously cancelled by the Obama Administration
    6) Give US naval vessels right to respond to provocative acts - no more taking of American sailors hostage
    7) At all times covertly and overtly support the Green Revolution through funding and arms where necessary
    8) Make Assad choose between partnership with Iran or survival. He cannot have both.
    9) Pressure other countries at the UN and elsewhere to accept the above. It really is now "with us or against us" when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The Sunni states are already on board and it is time for everybody else to buy in.

    This is the posture. It is not invasion and occupy. It is either the above or fake agreements that give away the store and eventual nuclear breakout. It's either Chamberlin or Churchill. Dude.
    Let me know when the Canadian Navy enforces the blockade, escorts the oil tankers and keeps the Straight of Hormuz open, will ya please, dude? When were American sailors held hostage, by the way? How do you propose making Assad choose between Iran and survival? Is Canada going to drop a bomb on an empty airfield too? Are you advocating for Israel to strike Iranian nuclear facilities? Does the "west" really believe Iran is the enemy? How does Britain feel? France? Germany? The Netherlands? Who are you including in the "west?" Is Canada going to supply arms? What other countries should be pressured in the UN? The UN you neocons have no faith in, I might add? Oh, the vaunted UN that Trump wanted to defund. The Sunni states can feel free to bomb Iran whenever they're ready but I wont hold my breath. Maybe Canada can entice them to act? Good luck with your wet dream fantasy.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,053
    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    That's bullshit. All options are on the table.

    Meanwhile.... this has to be read in it's entirety...it shows what harm the deal did.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
    What "options" are on the table? Put them up there on the table.
    Yeah dude...you're full of criticisms without solutions.
    Ha. I have been posting strategies on here for what must be years now. They have all been met with scorn by the surrender caucus who has only moved backwards under Obama. But to simplify here is the plan...

    1) Re-declare the Iranian regime as an enemy of the west while making clear that their citizens are not. - This is worthless. It hasn't helped in N. Korea, Syria, etc.
    2) Establish that nuclear breakout is unacceptable and will be met with a guaranteed military strike on facilities if necessary - that's already essentially the posture.
    3) Fund Sunni allies in meeting all forms of Iranian aggression across the middle east and "beat them back" in Syria, Iraq and Yemen as necessary. - ok
    4) Re-establish strict sanctions that are not only tied to the nuclear issue but also to missile/military technology, military aggression, and funding of terrorism - Not going to work. Our allies have already moved against that stance. They insisted that the JPOA was only about nuclear ambitions.
    5) Renew DOJ investigations of all regime agents previously cancelled by the Obama Administration - Not following the value of this.
    6) Give US naval vessels right to respond to provocative acts - no more taking of American sailors hostage - okay to some extent. Starting a war over sailors that were immediately released seems a little trigger happy.
    7) At all times covertly and overtly support the Green Revolution through funding and arms where necessary - Ok
    8) Make Assad choose between partnership with Iran or survival. He cannot have both. - Fantasy strategy. We already declared that Assad was untenable. No one gives a shit until Russia does.
    9) Pressure other countries at the UN and elsewhere to accept the above. It really is now "with us or against us" when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The Sunni states are already on board and it is time for everybody else to buy in. - We have support in the UN as it relates to nuclear proliferation, but not about defense in general. Sanctions did not work before so there's no reason they will work again, even if the allies were open to it.

    This is the posture. It is not invasion and occupy. It is either the above or fake agreements that give away the store and eventual nuclear breakout. It's either Chamberlin or Churchill. Dude.
    I've replied but what you have outlined here is all just more "strategic patience" again. There's no real material difference between this and what we've done in the past 40 years coupled with the JPOA. It's criticism at the margins, not a new strategy. It's slightly different tactics of the same strategy.
    It was not the strategy of the last 8 years and the 8 years before it did not get fleshed out fully. It is far more "aggressive" then strategic patience which involves sanctions and waiting but not military response where appropriate. Far more offence then defence.
    Matt is right, this is essentially the strategy that has been in effect for a long time. The only true difference is that you want to increase the threat of military force.
    So, as your position was fairly labeled from the start, you want to start a war.
    For another country to fight.
    Oh really? After reading the politico link on the deal you think this strategy has been in place for a long time? No. No it hasn't. The last eight years have been the exact opposite of this strategy.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,053
    edited April 24

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    That's bullshit. All options are on the table.

    Meanwhile.... this has to be read in it's entirety...it shows what harm the deal did.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
    What "options" are on the table? Put them up there on the table.
    Yeah dude...you're full of criticisms without solutions.
    Ha. I have been posting strategies on here for what must be years now. They have all been met with scorn by the surrender caucus who has only moved backwards under Obama. But to simplify here is the plan...

    1) Re-declare the Iranian regime as an enemy of the west while making clear that their citizens are not.
    2) Establish that nuclear breakout is unacceptable and will be met with a guaranteed military strike on facilities if necessary
    3) Fund Sunni allies in meeting all forms of Iranian aggression across the middle east and "beat them back" in Syria, Iraq and Yemen as necessary.
    4) Re-establish strict sanctions that are not only tied to the nuclear issue but also to missile/military technology, military aggression, and funding of terrorism
    5) Renew DOJ investigations of all regime agents previously cancelled by the Obama Administration
    6) Give US naval vessels right to respond to provocative acts - no more taking of American sailors hostage
    7) At all times covertly and overtly support the Green Revolution through funding and arms where necessary
    8) Make Assad choose between partnership with Iran or survival. He cannot have both.
    9) Pressure other countries at the UN and elsewhere to accept the above. It really is now "with us or against us" when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The Sunni states are already on board and it is time for everybody else to buy in.

    This is the posture. It is not invasion and occupy. It is either the above or fake agreements that give away the store and eventual nuclear breakout. It's either Chamberlin or Churchill. Dude.
    Let me know when the Canadian Navy enforces the blockade, escorts the oil tankers and keeps the Straight of Hormuz open, will ya please, dude? When were American sailors held hostage, by the way? How do you propose making Assad choose between Iran and survival? Is Canada going to drop a bomb on an empty airfield too? Are you advocating for Israel to strike Iranian nuclear facilities? Does the "west" really believe Iran is the enemy? How does Britain feel? France? Germany? The Netherlands? Who are you including in the "west?" Is Canada going to supply arms? What other countries should be pressured in the UN? The UN you neocons have no faith in, I might add? Oh, the vaunted UN that Trump wanted to defund. The Sunni states can feel free to bomb Iran whenever they're ready but I wont hold my breath. Maybe Canada can entice them to act? Good luck with your wet dream fantasy.

    Hey look! It's the return of 100 questions guy! Your "when were American sailors held hostage, by the way?" is my favourite. Read a paper.
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,053
    Trump freed Aya Hijazi. Obama couldn't do it. There is a reason. That reason applies to Iran.
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 10,029
    BS44325 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    That's bullshit. All options are on the table.

    Meanwhile.... this has to be read in it's entirety...it shows what harm the deal did.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
    What "options" are on the table? Put them up there on the table.
    Yeah dude...you're full of criticisms without solutions.
    Ha. I have been posting strategies on here for what must be years now. They have all been met with scorn by the surrender caucus who has only moved backwards under Obama. But to simplify here is the plan...

    1) Re-declare the Iranian regime as an enemy of the west while making clear that their citizens are not.
    2) Establish that nuclear breakout is unacceptable and will be met with a guaranteed military strike on facilities if necessary
    3) Fund Sunni allies in meeting all forms of Iranian aggression across the middle east and "beat them back" in Syria, Iraq and Yemen as necessary.
    4) Re-establish strict sanctions that are not only tied to the nuclear issue but also to missile/military technology, military aggression, and funding of terrorism
    5) Renew DOJ investigations of all regime agents previously cancelled by the Obama Administration
    6) Give US naval vessels right to respond to provocative acts - no more taking of American sailors hostage
    7) At all times covertly and overtly support the Green Revolution through funding and arms where necessary
    8) Make Assad choose between partnership with Iran or survival. He cannot have both.
    9) Pressure other countries at the UN and elsewhere to accept the above. It really is now "with us or against us" when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The Sunni states are already on board and it is time for everybody else to buy in.

    This is the posture. It is not invasion and occupy. It is either the above or fake agreements that give away the store and eventual nuclear breakout. It's either Chamberlin or Churchill. Dude.
    Let me know when the Canadian Navy enforces the blockade, escorts the oil tankers and keeps the Straight of Hormuz open, will ya please, dude? When were American sailors held hostage, by the way? How do you propose making Assad choose between Iran and survival? Is Canada going to drop a bomb on an empty airfield too? Are you advocating for Israel to strike Iranian nuclear facilities? Does the "west" really believe Iran is the enemy? How does Britain feel? France? Germany? The Netherlands? Who are you including in the "west?" Is Canada going to supply arms? What other countries should be pressured in the UN? The UN you neocons have no faith in, I might add? Oh, the vaunted UN that Trump wanted to defund. The Sunni states can feel free to bomb Iran whenever they're ready but I wont hold my breath. Maybe Canada can entice them to act? Good luck with your wet dream fantasy.

    Hey look! It's the return of 100 questions guy! Your "when were American sailors held hostage, by the way?" is my favourite. Read a paper.
    They were never hostages. They were detained by the Iranian Navy after straying into Iranian territorial waters and were treated well. Those American sailors responsible for their poor navigation and seamanship were reprimanded. Stop misrepresenting facts and living up to your forum name, BS.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 10,029
    BS44325 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    That's bullshit. All options are on the table.

    Meanwhile.... this has to be read in it's entirety...it shows what harm the deal did.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
    What "options" are on the table? Put them up there on the table.
    Yeah dude...you're full of criticisms without solutions.
    Ha. I have been posting strategies on here for what must be years now. They have all been met with scorn by the surrender caucus who has only moved backwards under Obama. But to simplify here is the plan...

    1) Re-declare the Iranian regime as an enemy of the west while making clear that their citizens are not.
    2) Establish that nuclear breakout is unacceptable and will be met with a guaranteed military strike on facilities if necessary
    3) Fund Sunni allies in meeting all forms of Iranian aggression across the middle east and "beat them back" in Syria, Iraq and Yemen as necessary.
    4) Re-establish strict sanctions that are not only tied to the nuclear issue but also to missile/military technology, military aggression, and funding of terrorism
    5) Renew DOJ investigations of all regime agents previously cancelled by the Obama Administration
    6) Give US naval vessels right to respond to provocative acts - no more taking of American sailors hostage
    7) At all times covertly and overtly support the Green Revolution through funding and arms where necessary
    8) Make Assad choose between partnership with Iran or survival. He cannot have both.
    9) Pressure other countries at the UN and elsewhere to accept the above. It really is now "with us or against us" when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The Sunni states are already on board and it is time for everybody else to buy in.

    This is the posture. It is not invasion and occupy. It is either the above or fake agreements that give away the store and eventual nuclear breakout. It's either Chamberlin or Churchill. Dude.
    Let me know when the Canadian Navy enforces the blockade, escorts the oil tankers and keeps the Straight of Hormuz open, will ya please, dude? When were American sailors held hostage, by the way? How do you propose making Assad choose between Iran and survival? Is Canada going to drop a bomb on an empty airfield too? Are you advocating for Israel to strike Iranian nuclear facilities? Does the "west" really believe Iran is the enemy? How does Britain feel? France? Germany? The Netherlands? Who are you including in the "west?" Is Canada going to supply arms? What other countries should be pressured in the UN? The UN you neocons have no faith in, I might add? Oh, the vaunted UN that Trump wanted to defund. The Sunni states can feel free to bomb Iran whenever they're ready but I wont hold my breath. Maybe Canada can entice them to act? Good luck with your wet dream fantasy.

    Hey look! It's the return of 100 questions guy! Your "when were American sailors held hostage, by the way?" is my favourite. Read a paper.
    Hey look! It's the return of the start a 100 wars with someone else's country guy! Your hold Assad to a choice is my favorite. Write to your PM.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 5,053

    BS44325 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    That's bullshit. All options are on the table.

    Meanwhile.... this has to be read in it's entirety...it shows what harm the deal did.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
    What "options" are on the table? Put them up there on the table.
    Yeah dude...you're full of criticisms without solutions.
    Ha. I have been posting strategies on here for what must be years now. They have all been met with scorn by the surrender caucus who has only moved backwards under Obama. But to simplify here is the plan...

    1) Re-declare the Iranian regime as an enemy of the west while making clear that their citizens are not.
    2) Establish that nuclear breakout is unacceptable and will be met with a guaranteed military strike on facilities if necessary
    3) Fund Sunni allies in meeting all forms of Iranian aggression across the middle east and "beat them back" in Syria, Iraq and Yemen as necessary.
    4) Re-establish strict sanctions that are not only tied to the nuclear issue but also to missile/military technology, military aggression, and funding of terrorism
    5) Renew DOJ investigations of all regime agents previously cancelled by the Obama Administration
    6) Give US naval vessels right to respond to provocative acts - no more taking of American sailors hostage
    7) At all times covertly and overtly support the Green Revolution through funding and arms where necessary
    8) Make Assad choose between partnership with Iran or survival. He cannot have both.
    9) Pressure other countries at the UN and elsewhere to accept the above. It really is now "with us or against us" when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The Sunni states are already on board and it is time for everybody else to buy in.

    This is the posture. It is not invasion and occupy. It is either the above or fake agreements that give away the store and eventual nuclear breakout. It's either Chamberlin or Churchill. Dude.
    Let me know when the Canadian Navy enforces the blockade, escorts the oil tankers and keeps the Straight of Hormuz open, will ya please, dude? When were American sailors held hostage, by the way? How do you propose making Assad choose between Iran and survival? Is Canada going to drop a bomb on an empty airfield too? Are you advocating for Israel to strike Iranian nuclear facilities? Does the "west" really believe Iran is the enemy? How does Britain feel? France? Germany? The Netherlands? Who are you including in the "west?" Is Canada going to supply arms? What other countries should be pressured in the UN? The UN you neocons have no faith in, I might add? Oh, the vaunted UN that Trump wanted to defund. The Sunni states can feel free to bomb Iran whenever they're ready but I wont hold my breath. Maybe Canada can entice them to act? Good luck with your wet dream fantasy.

    Hey look! It's the return of 100 questions guy! Your "when were American sailors held hostage, by the way?" is my favourite. Read a paper.
    They were never hostages. They were detained by the Iranian Navy after straying into Iranian territorial waters and were treated well. Those American sailors responsible for their poor navigation and seamanship were reprimanded. Stop misrepresenting facts and living up to your forum name, BS.
    You should probably cross-post this in your "Help Iran Go Nuclear" thread.
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 10,029
    BS44325 said:

    BS44325 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    rgambs said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Ignore that comment. It is jacked up and the site isn't working.

    Strategic patience won the Cold War, so let's not be so quick to drop the Tillerson line here.

    Of course the Ayatollah is in charge, but was Achmadejianaajdjedsnado;jdsndfiojdasf (sp?) the one that pushed through the JPOA? No. It was the moderate Rouhani. He's not irrelevant, that's a massive overstatement. No one ever said Ahmadinejad was irrelevant. The Ayatollah and his closest advisers may be hard liners, but the youth of the country (which is a massive number) inherently wants to be closer to the West. If we are able to be portrayed as an enemy, we lose another generation. Remember the Revolution generation is in their 70's now. The youth is who we need to win, not the Ayatollah. The worthless threats yesterday only emboldens the hard liners.

    I think we are on the exact same page in terms of the youth and the strategy but I think you put way to much faith into these so called "moderates". Rouhani was "elected" in 2013 with permission from the Ayatollahs. His presence was to placate those of the green revolution (that Obama failed to back) and give the appearance of moderation while the regime cracked down on dissenters. Since that time they have not "moderated" in the foreign policy arena in any way at all. They continue to act provocatively in Syria, in Yemen, against US troops in the gulf...even capturing/humiliating some from time to time. They continue to work on advanced missle technology that is banned under UN resolutions. The JPOA might be seen as "moderation" by you but Iran has already received everything they needed from the deal with only a promise to delay. There is no real moderation at the Presidential level as the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary guard controls all. A wedge can be driven between the Ayatollah and the people we shouldn't fear that taking a harder line will drive the people into the hands of their oppressors.
    Provide me evidence where we have successfully fomented the type of revolution you are speaking of, using force. There is no historical precedent that I can think of where invading, bombing or general aggressive foreign posture would do anything but pin the citizens closer to the Ayatollah. Just like in this country, when war breaks out, people grow closer to the government not further. The Iranian people have national pride and strong Persian history. I don't see how military action will achieve the ends you are advocating.
    I haven't advocated for "force" in the way that you're describing.
    Fine, then no JPOA, no strategic patience and no force. What's the solution? I'm open to something in between those.
    I didn't say no force. I said no force in the way that you are describing.
    Well, quit playing coy and explain what you think should be done!
    You are reinforcing the notion that the right has no plan for Iran besides opposition to whatever actions the left takes or decides not to take.
    That's bullshit. All options are on the table.

    Meanwhile.... this has to be read in it's entirety...it shows what harm the deal did.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966
    What "options" are on the table? Put them up there on the table.
    Yeah dude...you're full of criticisms without solutions.
    Ha. I have been posting strategies on here for what must be years now. They have all been met with scorn by the surrender caucus who has only moved backwards under Obama. But to simplify here is the plan...

    1) Re-declare the Iranian regime as an enemy of the west while making clear that their citizens are not.
    2) Establish that nuclear breakout is unacceptable and will be met with a guaranteed military strike on facilities if necessary
    3) Fund Sunni allies in meeting all forms of Iranian aggression across the middle east and "beat them back" in Syria, Iraq and Yemen as necessary.
    4) Re-establish strict sanctions that are not only tied to the nuclear issue but also to missile/military technology, military aggression, and funding of terrorism
    5) Renew DOJ investigations of all regime agents previously cancelled by the Obama Administration
    6) Give US naval vessels right to respond to provocative acts - no more taking of American sailors hostage
    7) At all times covertly and overtly support the Green Revolution through funding and arms where necessary
    8) Make Assad choose between partnership with Iran or survival. He cannot have both.
    9) Pressure other countries at the UN and elsewhere to accept the above. It really is now "with us or against us" when it comes to nuclear proliferation. The Sunni states are already on board and it is time for everybody else to buy in.

    This is the posture. It is not invasion and occupy. It is either the above or fake agreements that give away the store and eventual nuclear breakout. It's either Chamberlin or Churchill. Dude.
    Let me know when the Canadian Navy enforces the blockade, escorts the oil tankers and keeps the Straight of Hormuz open, will ya please, dude? When were American sailors held hostage, by the way? How do you propose making Assad choose between Iran and survival? Is Canada going to drop a bomb on an empty airfield too? Are you advocating for Israel to strike Iranian nuclear facilities? Does the "west" really believe Iran is the enemy? How does Britain feel? France? Germany? The Netherlands? Who are you including in the "west?" Is Canada going to supply arms? What other countries should be pressured in the UN? The UN you neocons have no faith in, I might add? Oh, the vaunted UN that Trump wanted to defund. The Sunni states can feel free to bomb Iran whenever they're ready but I wont hold my breath. Maybe Canada can entice them to act? Good luck with your wet dream fantasy.

    Hey look! It's the return of 100 questions guy! Your "when were American sailors held hostage, by the way?" is my favourite. Read a paper.
    They were never hostages. They were detained by the Iranian Navy after straying into Iranian territorial waters and were treated well. Those American sailors responsible for their poor navigation and seamanship were reprimanded. Stop misrepresenting facts and living up to your forum name, BS.
    You should probably cross-post this in your "Help Iran Go Nuclear" thread.
    I'm not afraid of a nuclear Iran. You seem to be obsessed with the third axis of evil, however. All because of Israel, seeing how Canada has nothing to worry about?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 10,029
    Will someone please wake me up when the Saudis, fresh off their $110 BILLION arms purchase, conquer those pesky Iranian backed Houthi rebels?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 10,029
    Iran launching old inventory at ISIS in Syria. Maybe the Saudis can do something about that?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 8,770
    my first ever live pj show ed talked about looking at your history books. today in history 29 years ago we shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, murdering 290 humans including 66 children.

    https://theintercept.com/2015/04/07/10-things-didnt-know-weve-done-iran/
    (And these questions can be re-phrased and asked about 90% of what you asked)
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 15,991
    JC29856 said:
    my first ever live pj show ed talked about looking at your history books. today in history 29 years ago we shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, murdering 290 humans including 66 children.

    https://theintercept.com/2015/04/07/10-things-didnt-know-weve-done-iran/
    i remember that. i was a kid, but i remember tragedy.
    "There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed."- Hemingway

    "i'm not here to start the fire. i am here to fan the flames..."

    If you have never failed, you have never lived.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 13,467
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 10,029
    mickeyrat said:
    That terrible deal? That terrible, terrible deal? The one Obama negotiated? And he thinks he's a deal maker? The only deal he'll be making is a plea deal.

    #sickofwinningyet?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 7,812
    edited July 14
    mickeyrat said:
    That terrible deal? That terrible, terrible deal? The one Obama negotiated? And he thinks he's a deal maker? The only deal he'll be making is a plea deal.

    #sickofwinningyet?
    I thought he was voiding it day one.. right after repealing Obamacare... 

    In other news, Boeing has outlined the framework of a 22 billion dollar deal with Iran to provide new airplanes to Iranian commercial airlines.  That alone will likely stop Trump from tearing up the deal.  
    Post edited by mrussel1 on
Sign In or Register to comment.