Iran Deal, the reset..... and halt

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

@BS44325 Here is a good article by Larrison at the American Conservative that succinctly states our (lack of a) strategy in N. Korea and then also Iran. The administration seems to believe that bluster and saber rattling is the centerpiece of a comprehensive strategy, or that being "unpredictable" yields results. Read this.

Mike Pence describes the Trump administration’s North Korea policy:

But in an interview with me on Wednesday afternoon, he adopted a harder line: The Trump administration, he said, demands that North Korea abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile programs without any promise of direct negotiations with the United States.

This is a typical hard-liner position, and it has all of the flaws that go with it. Pence is saying that the U.S. expects North Korea to give up existing programs that North Korea’s leadership believes is necessary to protect their regime from being attacked, and they have to do this as a precondition before they can even start negotiations with Washington. There is not even a guarantee that there will be negotiations. North Korea is being told that they have to engage in significant disarmament on the off-chance that Washington might make a deal with them later.

That is not a policy so much as it is just a fantasy of total capitulation by the other side. Even if North Korea’s government didn’t think that having nuclear weapons was needed to stave off attack, no government is going to give up a costly program without some guarantees and incentives, and some governments would never give them up no matter how much they were offered. As usual, the hard-liners’ maximalist demands are sure to be rejected, and by making such demands our leaders confirm the North Korean government’s assumption that they should continue developing the programs that our government insists they dismantle.

The situation is complicated by the fact that the U.S. has attacked and toppled other regimes that had given up on their unconventional weapons programs. The North Korean government has seen the U.S. target other states that could not deter an attack and concluded that they weren’t going to suffer the same fate. Maybe fifteen years ago North Korea wouldn’t have been as insistent on having their own deterrent, but now they are and they aren’t going to be forced into giving it up. Pence can stare at North Korea as fiercely as he wants, but those realities aren’t going to change just because the Trump administration wants them to.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/substituting-fantasy-for-policy-on-north-korea/

Cheney's pre-emptive strike doctrine was the real selling out of America's soul. The invasion of Iraq reiterated the importance of being able to defend yourself or at least be able to cause enough pain to avoid a pre-emptive first strike. If you're Iran or NK, why wouldn't you develop nuclear weapons? They saw what happened to Sadam and they're not stupid. We won't even talk to them and if we do, it's empty rhetoric.

Agreed. Plus there is no option on first strike on N. Korea. They will just nuke Seoul the minute they see it coming. Mutually Assured Destruction on both sides of the DMZ.

Halifax2TheMax

Guaranteed that if you asked Trump to explain how Iran is not living up to the spirit of the agreement that he couldn't even begin to explain how. Furthermore, if he truly believes this and it is so and he filed a false report to congress, isn't he in violation of the law, contempt of congress, and could be impeached? And if not, then WTF is he blathering on about?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/20/trump-says-iran-has-not-lived-up-to-the-spirit-of-the-nuclear-agreement/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_mhp-card-politics:homepage/card&utm_term=.dd56c8917315

C'mon you trumpsters, defend this. I need a laugh today.

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

Because they are in compliance doesn't necessarily mean it it is a good deal. It is not hard to comply with something where the compliance obligations are minimal.

The time when they would have had enough fissile materials for a nuclear weapon passed already. They didn't "break out".
They are running far fewer centrifuges, and they don't seem to be cheating, so far.

It's time to suck it up and admit this deal beats the pants off the non-solutions that it supplanted.

Don't forget about the mullahs using all that new cash to prop up their regime, fund terrorism, hezbollah, and Assad. It sure beats the pants off the non-solutions.

A nuclear Iran sounds better? They were funding terrorism before. It's not as if this was new.

You're right. This deal will turn out perfect. Just like the North Korean deal of the 90's or just like the Syrian deal on chemical weapons where 100% of the weapons were removed. To see all of you defend the Iran deal with seemingly a straight face while Assad gasses his own people and the North Koreans develop long range missle technology is beyond absurd. All the Iran deal did was strenghten the mullahs, top them up with cash, and kick the can down the road. Heckuva job Barry.

So what's your solution? More nation building? Nuclear annihilation? It's easy to be against something, much harder to accomplish something.

The solution is victory.

Okay, good plan Donald. Brilliant. That was our plan in Korea and Vietnam too.

No. Your plan was victory against expansionist communism. Those were battlefields within the larger war. You were in the long run victorious. North Korea decided they weren't finished however and are still working towards their idea of victory. They have no intentions to quit.

Wait what? You consider Vietnam a success?

No. Read again what I wrote. Vietnam was a battlefield within the larger war against expansionist communism. The war in Vietnam was lost but in the long run it didn't deter your country from ultimate victory against the Soviet Union in the cold war. That was the real victory your country was aiming for and it achieved it.

*As an aside though...40 years later Vietnam has become far more market oriented and seeks to be an ally of the US to protect them from a potentially expansionist China. It is interesting how previous enemies can now be friends.

No, no.. no. That is so wrong. The Domino Theory, of which was the basis of the war in Vietnam and Korea, was proven to be totally wrong. Cuba did not lead to other countries in Central America to fall to Communism. The fall of Saigon and pull of US troops did not lead to the ultimate takeover of Communism in SE Asia. We won the war against Communism because the economic philosophy failed in practice NOT because we fought to stem it in Vietnam. Every one of those deaths on all sides, was a wasted life.

You state.."it didn't deter your country from ultimate victory".. .is that really an argument that the 55k US lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives were sacrificed for a worthy cause? No fucking way.

Are you having trouble understanding? I didn't expect that from you. I am not justifying Vietnam or arguing that it was the right war. I am not sure why you persist down that road. While some might have insisted that it was necessary to be victorious there clearly that was not the case as eventual victory against the Soviet Union was achieved. Kennedy's entry in Vietnam can be called a mistake, the war can be called lost, and yet the US was still not deterred from it's end goal.

The larger point is defining victory properly. What is the end goal? Clearly in this case it is a nuclear free Korean Peninsula and a North Korea that does not pose a threat to its neighbours. Military action is not the only means of achieving this victory but it is a means and it is a means that will be necessary should they persist with long range missle technology.

No, I understand precisely what you are saying. I'm saying that's a fucked up viewpoint. There exists an argument that the ends justifies the means, but you are arguing that the end is great so "fuck the means even though those means not only didn't help the larger effort, it probably hurt the effort while killing a whole bunch of people". I don't get that. At all.

And second, this discussion was actually about Iran and the fact that you are slamming the deal, the only deal that our allies would support, when you have not yet offered a better solution.

And the N. Korean options are even more limited because any military action short of an undetected first strike nuclear launch (which I think is impossible) would lead to the elimination of Seoul.

No. You do not understand. I did not say "fuck the means". I said that even if a wrong choice is made to get to the "end" that doesn't mean the "end" is any less necessary. Some battles are mistakes. Some are lost. Yet the ultimate end is still necessary and you must adjust to get there. That is not the same as "fuck the means". This point should not flummox you. Second the goal in Iran is the end of the Mullocracy as it exits. It is rejectionist. It wants Israel dead. It wants the US dead and there is no "deal" that can be made with a regime that chants "death to...". This doesn't mean the alternative is war. The plan for Iran should be to promote change from within. That opportunity came once during the Green Revolution but Obama stayed silent...it was a massive missed opportunity. Obama actually sent someone to meet with the Iranians prior to his inauguration (Logan Act?) and bent over backwards throughout his presidency to get a deal...any deal. But the deal he constructed is actually worse then "no deal". It strengthed the Iranian regime, gave them cash, and only kicked the nuclear can down the road . It did nothing to improve the chances of victory, which is the end of the Mullocray, and if anything it may have made that outcome more difficult.

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

Because they are in compliance doesn't necessarily mean it it is a good deal. It is not hard to comply with something where the compliance obligations are minimal.

The time when they would have had enough fissile materials for a nuclear weapon passed already. They didn't "break out".
They are running far fewer centrifuges, and they don't seem to be cheating, so far.

It's time to suck it up and admit this deal beats the pants off the non-solutions that it supplanted.

Don't forget about the mullahs using all that new cash to prop up their regime, fund terrorism, hezbollah, and Assad. It sure beats the pants off the non-solutions.

A nuclear Iran sounds better? They were funding terrorism before. It's not as if this was new.

You're right. This deal will turn out perfect. Just like the North Korean deal of the 90's or just like the Syrian deal on chemical weapons where 100% of the weapons were removed. To see all of you defend the Iran deal with seemingly a straight face while Assad gasses his own people and the North Koreans develop long range missle technology is beyond absurd. All the Iran deal did was strenghten the mullahs, top them up with cash, and kick the can down the road. Heckuva job Barry.

So what's your solution? More nation building? Nuclear annihilation? It's easy to be against something, much harder to accomplish something.

The solution is victory.

Okay, good plan Donald. Brilliant. That was our plan in Korea and Vietnam too.

No. Your plan was victory against expansionist communism. Those were battlefields within the larger war. You were in the long run victorious. North Korea decided they weren't finished however and are still working towards their idea of victory. They have no intentions to quit.

Wait what? You consider Vietnam a success?

No. Read again what I wrote. Vietnam was a battlefield within the larger war against expansionist communism. The war in Vietnam was lost but in the long run it didn't deter your country from ultimate victory against the Soviet Union in the cold war. That was the real victory your country was aiming for and it achieved it.

*As an aside though...40 years later Vietnam has become far more market oriented and seeks to be an ally of the US to protect them from a potentially expansionist China. It is interesting how previous enemies can now be friends.

No, no.. no. That is so wrong. The Domino Theory, of which was the basis of the war in Vietnam and Korea, was proven to be totally wrong. Cuba did not lead to other countries in Central America to fall to Communism. The fall of Saigon and pull of US troops did not lead to the ultimate takeover of Communism in SE Asia. We won the war against Communism because the economic philosophy failed in practice NOT because we fought to stem it in Vietnam. Every one of those deaths on all sides, was a wasted life.

You state.."it didn't deter your country from ultimate victory".. .is that really an argument that the 55k US lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives were sacrificed for a worthy cause? No fucking way.

Are you having trouble understanding? I didn't expect that from you. I am not justifying Vietnam or arguing that it was the right war. I am not sure why you persist down that road. While some might have insisted that it was necessary to be victorious there clearly that was not the case as eventual victory against the Soviet Union was achieved. Kennedy's entry in Vietnam can be called a mistake, the war can be called lost, and yet the US was still not deterred from it's end goal.

The larger point is defining victory properly. What is the end goal? Clearly in this case it is a nuclear free Korean Peninsula and a North Korea that does not pose a threat to its neighbours. Military action is not the only means of achieving this victory but it is a means and it is a means that will be necessary should they persist with long range missle technology.

No, I understand precisely what you are saying. I'm saying that's a fucked up viewpoint. There exists an argument that the ends justifies the means, but you are arguing that the end is great so "fuck the means even though those means not only didn't help the larger effort, it probably hurt the effort while killing a whole bunch of people". I don't get that. At all.

And second, this discussion was actually about Iran and the fact that you are slamming the deal, the only deal that our allies would support, when you have not yet offered a better solution.

And the N. Korean options are even more limited because any military action short of an undetected first strike nuclear launch (which I think is impossible) would lead to the elimination of Seoul.

I didn't see anything heartless like that in BS' post; he just has a simple and purely empirical view on most matters.

The US attempted to combat expansionist communism. If the premise is that the natural trajectory of communist nations in the Vietnam era was to expand and that communism is dangerous, then it's hard to argue that democratic interventionism failed, because most of the world does not partake in communism today, and it is not showing signs of expanding. In addition, that statement is compatible with being sympathetic to the cost of war measured in lives.

As with anything, at the end of the day it boils down to a cost/benefit analysis: What happens if we do nothing, what happens if we do something, and which costs us less?

We have the benefit of hindsight. The prevailing strategic opinion of the 50's and 60's was that of the Domino Theory... should one country in a region fall to Communism, the rest will follow suit. Therefore we must make a stand where that first threat materializes. The fall of Saigon did not lead to more countries falling. The fall of Cuba did not either. Turns out the Domino Theory was wrong. The fall of Communism was that the economic system does not work, pure and simple. Because it was wrong, we can now determine that the war was a waste of blood and treasure. I am taking issue with the point he was making that (my paraphrasing) because we eventually won the war with Communism, the expedition wasn't a terrible thing. My point is that we won despite Vietnam and yes... it was a terrible thing.
Which leads us back to N. Korea and now... Iran. I'm still waiting for a better idea than the JPOA to deter Iranian nuclear ambitions and in N. Korea..what kind of idea OTHER than a similar JPOA could possibly work?

"The expedition wasn't a terrible thing" is not something I said. It is not even close as paraphrasing. You laughed at the concept of victory using Vietnam as an example and it was MY point that you won the cold war despite of it. Victory happened. It can happen now.

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

@BS44325 Here is a good article by Larrison at the American Conservative that succinctly states our (lack of a) strategy in N. Korea and then also Iran. The administration seems to believe that bluster and saber rattling is the centerpiece of a comprehensive strategy, or that being "unpredictable" yields results. Read this.

Mike Pence describes the Trump administration’s North Korea policy:

But in an interview with me on Wednesday afternoon, he adopted a harder line: The Trump administration, he said, demands that North Korea abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile programs without any promise of direct negotiations with the United States.

This is a typical hard-liner position, and it has all of the flaws that go with it. Pence is saying that the U.S. expects North Korea to give up existing programs that North Korea’s leadership believes is necessary to protect their regime from being attacked, and they have to do this as a precondition before they can even start negotiations with Washington. There is not even a guarantee that there will be negotiations. North Korea is being told that they have to engage in significant disarmament on the off-chance that Washington might make a deal with them later.

That is not a policy so much as it is just a fantasy of total capitulation by the other side. Even if North Korea’s government didn’t think that having nuclear weapons was needed to stave off attack, no government is going to give up a costly program without some guarantees and incentives, and some governments would never give them up no matter how much they were offered. As usual, the hard-liners’ maximalist demands are sure to be rejected, and by making such demands our leaders confirm the North Korean government’s assumption that they should continue developing the programs that our government insists they dismantle.

The situation is complicated by the fact that the U.S. has attacked and toppled other regimes that had given up on their unconventional weapons programs. The North Korean government has seen the U.S. target other states that could not deter an attack and concluded that they weren’t going to suffer the same fate. Maybe fifteen years ago North Korea wouldn’t have been as insistent on having their own deterrent, but now they are and they aren’t going to be forced into giving it up. Pence can stare at North Korea as fiercely as he wants, but those realities aren’t going to change just because the Trump administration wants them to.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/substituting-fantasy-for-policy-on-north-korea/

People said the same thing about Reagan.

BS44325

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

@BS44325 Here is a good article by Larrison at the American Conservative that succinctly states our (lack of a) strategy in N. Korea and then also Iran. The administration seems to believe that bluster and saber rattling is the centerpiece of a comprehensive strategy, or that being "unpredictable" yields results. Read this.

Mike Pence describes the Trump administration’s North Korea policy:

But in an interview with me on Wednesday afternoon, he adopted a harder line: The Trump administration, he said, demands that North Korea abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile programs without any promise of direct negotiations with the United States.

This is a typical hard-liner position, and it has all of the flaws that go with it. Pence is saying that the U.S. expects North Korea to give up existing programs that North Korea’s leadership believes is necessary to protect their regime from being attacked, and they have to do this as a precondition before they can even start negotiations with Washington. There is not even a guarantee that there will be negotiations. North Korea is being told that they have to engage in significant disarmament on the off-chance that Washington might make a deal with them later.

That is not a policy so much as it is just a fantasy of total capitulation by the other side. Even if North Korea’s government didn’t think that having nuclear weapons was needed to stave off attack, no government is going to give up a costly program without some guarantees and incentives, and some governments would never give them up no matter how much they were offered. As usual, the hard-liners’ maximalist demands are sure to be rejected, and by making such demands our leaders confirm the North Korean government’s assumption that they should continue developing the programs that our government insists they dismantle.

The situation is complicated by the fact that the U.S. has attacked and toppled other regimes that had given up on their unconventional weapons programs. The North Korean government has seen the U.S. target other states that could not deter an attack and concluded that they weren’t going to suffer the same fate. Maybe fifteen years ago North Korea wouldn’t have been as insistent on having their own deterrent, but now they are and they aren’t going to be forced into giving it up. Pence can stare at North Korea as fiercely as he wants, but those realities aren’t going to change just because the Trump administration wants them to.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/substituting-fantasy-for-policy-on-north-korea/

Cheney's pre-emptive strike doctrine was the real selling out of America's soul. The invasion of Iraq reiterated the importance of being able to defend yourself or at least be able to cause enough pain to avoid a pre-emptive first strike. If you're Iran or NK, why wouldn't you develop nuclear weapons? They saw what happened to Sadam and they're not stupid. We won't even talk to them and if we do, it's empty rhetoric.

Actually they saw what happened to Gaddafi and they're not stupid. Gaddafi gave up his weapons after Iraq and then Obama and Hillary took him out. Why give up your weapons to a country that will eventually screw you over?

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

@BS44325 Here is a good article by Larrison at the American Conservative that succinctly states our (lack of a) strategy in N. Korea and then also Iran. The administration seems to believe that bluster and saber rattling is the centerpiece of a comprehensive strategy, or that being "unpredictable" yields results. Read this.

Mike Pence describes the Trump administration’s North Korea policy:

But in an interview with me on Wednesday afternoon, he adopted a harder line: The Trump administration, he said, demands that North Korea abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile programs without any promise of direct negotiations with the United States.

This is a typical hard-liner position, and it has all of the flaws that go with it. Pence is saying that the U.S. expects North Korea to give up existing programs that North Korea’s leadership believes is necessary to protect their regime from being attacked, and they have to do this as a precondition before they can even start negotiations with Washington. There is not even a guarantee that there will be negotiations. North Korea is being told that they have to engage in significant disarmament on the off-chance that Washington might make a deal with them later.

That is not a policy so much as it is just a fantasy of total capitulation by the other side. Even if North Korea’s government didn’t think that having nuclear weapons was needed to stave off attack, no government is going to give up a costly program without some guarantees and incentives, and some governments would never give them up no matter how much they were offered. As usual, the hard-liners’ maximalist demands are sure to be rejected, and by making such demands our leaders confirm the North Korean government’s assumption that they should continue developing the programs that our government insists they dismantle.

The situation is complicated by the fact that the U.S. has attacked and toppled other regimes that had given up on their unconventional weapons programs. The North Korean government has seen the U.S. target other states that could not deter an attack and concluded that they weren’t going to suffer the same fate. Maybe fifteen years ago North Korea wouldn’t have been as insistent on having their own deterrent, but now they are and they aren’t going to be forced into giving it up. Pence can stare at North Korea as fiercely as he wants, but those realities aren’t going to change just because the Trump administration wants them to.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/substituting-fantasy-for-policy-on-north-korea/

Cheney's pre-emptive strike doctrine was the real selling out of America's soul. The invasion of Iraq reiterated the importance of being able to defend yourself or at least be able to cause enough pain to avoid a pre-emptive first strike. If you're Iran or NK, why wouldn't you develop nuclear weapons? They saw what happened to Sadam and they're not stupid. We won't even talk to them and if we do, it's empty rhetoric.

Actually they saw what happened to Gaddafi and they're not stupid. Gaddafi gave up his weapons after Iraq and then Obama and Hillary took him out. Why give up your weapons to a country that will eventually screw you over?

Neocons get everything right and are faultless. Marines in Beirut with no ammo is a lot like hurling tomahawks at a runway. We get it. Democrats are responsible for all of the ills in the world. Sadam never had them but for the weapons cheney sold him during the Iran/Iraq war. But we'll gloss over that and blame the black guy. Has it been 6 months yet? Iran got a nuke? Check with bibi. Obama created the space for Trump to negotiate further yet the neocons threaten war. Because they just want the oil and instability of the region. Just ask 'ol Rexy boy.

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

Because they are in compliance doesn't necessarily mean it it is a good deal. It is not hard to comply with something where the compliance obligations are minimal.

The time when they would have had enough fissile materials for a nuclear weapon passed already. They didn't "break out".
They are running far fewer centrifuges, and they don't seem to be cheating, so far.

It's time to suck it up and admit this deal beats the pants off the non-solutions that it supplanted.

Don't forget about the mullahs using all that new cash to prop up their regime, fund terrorism, hezbollah, and Assad. It sure beats the pants off the non-solutions.

A nuclear Iran sounds better? They were funding terrorism before. It's not as if this was new.

You're right. This deal will turn out perfect. Just like the North Korean deal of the 90's or just like the Syrian deal on chemical weapons where 100% of the weapons were removed. To see all of you defend the Iran deal with seemingly a straight face while Assad gasses his own people and the North Koreans develop long range missle technology is beyond absurd. All the Iran deal did was strenghten the mullahs, top them up with cash, and kick the can down the road. Heckuva job Barry.

So what's your solution? More nation building? Nuclear annihilation? It's easy to be against something, much harder to accomplish something.

The solution is victory.

Okay, good plan Donald. Brilliant. That was our plan in Korea and Vietnam too.

No. Your plan was victory against expansionist communism. Those were battlefields within the larger war. You were in the long run victorious. North Korea decided they weren't finished however and are still working towards their idea of victory. They have no intentions to quit.

Wait what? You consider Vietnam a success?

No. Read again what I wrote. Vietnam was a battlefield within the larger war against expansionist communism. The war in Vietnam was lost but in the long run it didn't deter your country from ultimate victory against the Soviet Union in the cold war. That was the real victory your country was aiming for and it achieved it.

*As an aside though...40 years later Vietnam has become far more market oriented and seeks to be an ally of the US to protect them from a potentially expansionist China. It is interesting how previous enemies can now be friends.

No, no.. no. That is so wrong. The Domino Theory, of which was the basis of the war in Vietnam and Korea, was proven to be totally wrong. Cuba did not lead to other countries in Central America to fall to Communism. The fall of Saigon and pull of US troops did not lead to the ultimate takeover of Communism in SE Asia. We won the war against Communism because the economic philosophy failed in practice NOT because we fought to stem it in Vietnam. Every one of those deaths on all sides, was a wasted life.

You state.."it didn't deter your country from ultimate victory".. .is that really an argument that the 55k US lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives were sacrificed for a worthy cause? No fucking way.

Are you having trouble understanding? I didn't expect that from you. I am not justifying Vietnam or arguing that it was the right war. I am not sure why you persist down that road. While some might have insisted that it was necessary to be victorious there clearly that was not the case as eventual victory against the Soviet Union was achieved. Kennedy's entry in Vietnam can be called a mistake, the war can be called lost, and yet the US was still not deterred from it's end goal.

The larger point is defining victory properly. What is the end goal? Clearly in this case it is a nuclear free Korean Peninsula and a North Korea that does not pose a threat to its neighbours. Military action is not the only means of achieving this victory but it is a means and it is a means that will be necessary should they persist with long range missle technology.

No, I understand precisely what you are saying. I'm saying that's a fucked up viewpoint. There exists an argument that the ends justifies the means, but you are arguing that the end is great so "fuck the means even though those means not only didn't help the larger effort, it probably hurt the effort while killing a whole bunch of people". I don't get that. At all.

And second, this discussion was actually about Iran and the fact that you are slamming the deal, the only deal that our allies would support, when you have not yet offered a better solution.

And the N. Korean options are even more limited because any military action short of an undetected first strike nuclear launch (which I think is impossible) would lead to the elimination of Seoul.

No. You do not understand. I did not say "fuck the means". I said that even if a wrong choice is made to get to the "end" that doesn't mean the "end" is any less necessary. Some battles are mistakes. Some are lost. Yet the ultimate end is still necessary and you must adjust to get there. That is not the same as "fuck the means". This point should not flummox you. Second the goal in Iran is the end of the Mullocracy as it exits. It is rejectionist. It wants Israel dead. It wants the US dead and there is no "deal" that can be made with a regime that chants "death to...". This doesn't mean the alternative is war. The plan for Iran should be to promote change from within. That opportunity came once during the Green Revolution but Obama stayed silent...it was a massive missed opportunity. Obama actually sent someone to meet with the Iranians prior to his inauguration (Logan Act?) and bent over backwards throughout his presidency to get a deal...any deal. But the deal he constructed is actually worse then "no deal". It strengthed the Iranian regime, gave them cash, and only kicked the nuclear can down the road . It did nothing to improve the chances of victory, which is the end of the Mullocray, and if anything it may have made that outcome more difficult.

This would be true if Vietnam was a battle. It wasn't. Tonkin was a battle. Tet was a battle. Vietnam was a 10,000 day folly. That's very different. And we kept doubling down on the folly, like the European generals in 1915 who just sent assault after assault into the fortifications.

Re: Iran, I agree that change within is the solution. And I agree that Obama probably lost a small window. But Trump and Tillerson made a big strategic mistake yesterday with that pointless, blustering news conference. I guess the administration doesn't know that Rouhani is up for re-election and he is actually a moderate (on the spectrum of Iranian presidents). Do we think that lambasting the deal fortifies his position? No of course not, it strengthens the hard liners. It's yet another blunder from the political side of our administration that has zero actual experience doing this.

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

Because they are in compliance doesn't necessarily mean it it is a good deal. It is not hard to comply with something where the compliance obligations are minimal.

The time when they would have had enough fissile materials for a nuclear weapon passed already. They didn't "break out".
They are running far fewer centrifuges, and they don't seem to be cheating, so far.

It's time to suck it up and admit this deal beats the pants off the non-solutions that it supplanted.

Don't forget about the mullahs using all that new cash to prop up their regime, fund terrorism, hezbollah, and Assad. It sure beats the pants off the non-solutions.

A nuclear Iran sounds better? They were funding terrorism before. It's not as if this was new.

You're right. This deal will turn out perfect. Just like the North Korean deal of the 90's or just like the Syrian deal on chemical weapons where 100% of the weapons were removed. To see all of you defend the Iran deal with seemingly a straight face while Assad gasses his own people and the North Koreans develop long range missle technology is beyond absurd. All the Iran deal did was strenghten the mullahs, top them up with cash, and kick the can down the road. Heckuva job Barry.

So what's your solution? More nation building? Nuclear annihilation? It's easy to be against something, much harder to accomplish something.

The solution is victory.

Okay, good plan Donald. Brilliant. That was our plan in Korea and Vietnam too.

No. Your plan was victory against expansionist communism. Those were battlefields within the larger war. You were in the long run victorious. North Korea decided they weren't finished however and are still working towards their idea of victory. They have no intentions to quit.

Wait what? You consider Vietnam a success?

No. Read again what I wrote. Vietnam was a battlefield within the larger war against expansionist communism. The war in Vietnam was lost but in the long run it didn't deter your country from ultimate victory against the Soviet Union in the cold war. That was the real victory your country was aiming for and it achieved it.

*As an aside though...40 years later Vietnam has become far more market oriented and seeks to be an ally of the US to protect them from a potentially expansionist China. It is interesting how previous enemies can now be friends.

No, no.. no. That is so wrong. The Domino Theory, of which was the basis of the war in Vietnam and Korea, was proven to be totally wrong. Cuba did not lead to other countries in Central America to fall to Communism. The fall of Saigon and pull of US troops did not lead to the ultimate takeover of Communism in SE Asia. We won the war against Communism because the economic philosophy failed in practice NOT because we fought to stem it in Vietnam. Every one of those deaths on all sides, was a wasted life.

You state.."it didn't deter your country from ultimate victory".. .is that really an argument that the 55k US lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives were sacrificed for a worthy cause? No fucking way.

Are you having trouble understanding? I didn't expect that from you. I am not justifying Vietnam or arguing that it was the right war. I am not sure why you persist down that road. While some might have insisted that it was necessary to be victorious there clearly that was not the case as eventual victory against the Soviet Union was achieved. Kennedy's entry in Vietnam can be called a mistake, the war can be called lost, and yet the US was still not deterred from it's end goal.

The larger point is defining victory properly. What is the end goal? Clearly in this case it is a nuclear free Korean Peninsula and a North Korea that does not pose a threat to its neighbours. Military action is not the only means of achieving this victory but it is a means and it is a means that will be necessary should they persist with long range missle technology.

No, I understand precisely what you are saying. I'm saying that's a fucked up viewpoint. There exists an argument that the ends justifies the means, but you are arguing that the end is great so "fuck the means even though those means not only didn't help the larger effort, it probably hurt the effort while killing a whole bunch of people". I don't get that. At all.

And second, this discussion was actually about Iran and the fact that you are slamming the deal, the only deal that our allies would support, when you have not yet offered a better solution.

And the N. Korean options are even more limited because any military action short of an undetected first strike nuclear launch (which I think is impossible) would lead to the elimination of Seoul.

No. You do not understand. I did not say "fuck the means". I said that even if a wrong choice is made to get to the "end" that doesn't mean the "end" is any less necessary. Some battles are mistakes. Some are lost. Yet the ultimate end is still necessary and you must adjust to get there. That is not the same as "fuck the means". This point should not flummox you. Second the goal in Iran is the end of the Mullocracy as it exits. It is rejectionist. It wants Israel dead. It wants the US dead and there is no "deal" that can be made with a regime that chants "death to...". This doesn't mean the alternative is war. The plan for Iran should be to promote change from within. That opportunity came once during the Green Revolution but Obama stayed silent...it was a massive missed opportunity. Obama actually sent someone to meet with the Iranians prior to his inauguration (Logan Act?) and bent over backwards throughout his presidency to get a deal...any deal. But the deal he constructed is actually worse then "no deal". It strengthed the Iranian regime, gave them cash, and only kicked the nuclear can down the road . It did nothing to improve the chances of victory, which is the end of the Mullocray, and if anything it may have made that outcome more difficult.

This would be true if Vietnam was a battle. It wasn't. Tonkin was a battle. Tet was a battle. Vietnam was a 10,000 day folly. That's very different. And we kept doubling down on the folly, like the European generals in 1915 who just sent assault after assault into the fortifications.

Re: Iran, I agree that change within is the solution. And I agree that Obama probably lost a small window. But Trump and Tillerson made a big strategic mistake yesterday with that pointless, blustering news conference. I guess the administration doesn't know that Rouhani is up for re-election and he is actually a moderate (on the spectrum of Iranian presidents). Do we think that lambasting the deal fortifies his position? No of course not, it strengthens the hard liners. It's yet another blunder from the political side of our administration that has zero actual experience doing this.

I disagree on Iran and this is the classic mistake that keeps getting repeated. Rouhani is irrelevant. Iran always plays this "hardliner" vs "moderate" game but it is the Ayatollah and the Iranian Guard who control everything. Who wins the presidency is of zero consequence to Iran's ultimate posture. They want the west to think the election matters in the hopes that negotiations continue with the moderate mirage...buying time until the moment of breakout. The days of accepting that lie is done. The era of strategic patience is over.

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

Because they are in compliance doesn't necessarily mean it it is a good deal. It is not hard to comply with something where the compliance obligations are minimal.

The time when they would have had enough fissile materials for a nuclear weapon passed already. They didn't "break out".
They are running far fewer centrifuges, and they don't seem to be cheating, so far.

It's time to suck it up and admit this deal beats the pants off the non-solutions that it supplanted.

Don't forget about the mullahs using all that new cash to prop up their regime, fund terrorism, hezbollah, and Assad. It sure beats the pants off the non-solutions.

A nuclear Iran sounds better? They were funding terrorism before. It's not as if this was new.

You're right. This deal will turn out perfect. Just like the North Korean deal of the 90's or just like the Syrian deal on chemical weapons where 100% of the weapons were removed. To see all of you defend the Iran deal with seemingly a straight face while Assad gasses his own people and the North Koreans develop long range missle technology is beyond absurd. All the Iran deal did was strenghten the mullahs, top them up with cash, and kick the can down the road. Heckuva job Barry.

So what's your solution? More nation building? Nuclear annihilation? It's easy to be against something, much harder to accomplish something.

The solution is victory.

Okay, good plan Donald. Brilliant. That was our plan in Korea and Vietnam too.

No. Your plan was victory against expansionist communism. Those were battlefields within the larger war. You were in the long run victorious. North Korea decided they weren't finished however and are still working towards their idea of victory. They have no intentions to quit.

Wait what? You consider Vietnam a success?

No. Read again what I wrote. Vietnam was a battlefield within the larger war against expansionist communism. The war in Vietnam was lost but in the long run it didn't deter your country from ultimate victory against the Soviet Union in the cold war. That was the real victory your country was aiming for and it achieved it.

*As an aside though...40 years later Vietnam has become far more market oriented and seeks to be an ally of the US to protect them from a potentially expansionist China. It is interesting how previous enemies can now be friends.

No, no.. no. That is so wrong. The Domino Theory, of which was the basis of the war in Vietnam and Korea, was proven to be totally wrong. Cuba did not lead to other countries in Central America to fall to Communism. The fall of Saigon and pull of US troops did not lead to the ultimate takeover of Communism in SE Asia. We won the war against Communism because the economic philosophy failed in practice NOT because we fought to stem it in Vietnam. Every one of those deaths on all sides, was a wasted life.

You state.."it didn't deter your country from ultimate victory".. .is that really an argument that the 55k US lives and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives were sacrificed for a worthy cause? No fucking way.

Are you having trouble understanding? I didn't expect that from you. I am not justifying Vietnam or arguing that it was the right war. I am not sure why you persist down that road. While some might have insisted that it was necessary to be victorious there clearly that was not the case as eventual victory against the Soviet Union was achieved. Kennedy's entry in Vietnam can be called a mistake, the war can be called lost, and yet the US was still not deterred from it's end goal.

The larger point is defining victory properly. What is the end goal? Clearly in this case it is a nuclear free Korean Peninsula and a North Korea that does not pose a threat to its neighbours. Military action is not the only means of achieving this victory but it is a means and it is a means that will be necessary should they persist with long range missle technology.

No, I understand precisely what you are saying. I'm saying that's a fucked up viewpoint. There exists an argument that the ends justifies the means, but you are arguing that the end is great so "fuck the means even though those means not only didn't help the larger effort, it probably hurt the effort while killing a whole bunch of people". I don't get that. At all.

And second, this discussion was actually about Iran and the fact that you are slamming the deal, the only deal that our allies would support, when you have not yet offered a better solution.

And the N. Korean options are even more limited because any military action short of an undetected first strike nuclear launch (which I think is impossible) would lead to the elimination of Seoul.

No. You do not understand. I did not say "fuck the means". I said that even if a wrong choice is made to get to the "end" that doesn't mean the "end" is any less necessary. Some battles are mistakes. Some are lost. Yet the ultimate end is still necessary and you must adjust to get there. That is not the same as "fuck the means". This point should not flummox you. Second the goal in Iran is the end of the Mullocracy as it exits. It is rejectionist. It wants Israel dead. It wants the US dead and there is no "deal" that can be made with a regime that chants "death to...". This doesn't mean the alternative is war. The plan for Iran should be to promote change from within. That opportunity came once during the Green Revolution but Obama stayed silent...it was a massive missed opportunity. Obama actually sent someone to meet with the Iranians prior to his inauguration (Logan Act?) and bent over backwards throughout his presidency to get a deal...any deal. But the deal he constructed is actually worse then "no deal". It strengthed the Iranian regime, gave them cash, and only kicked the nuclear can down the road . It did nothing to improve the chances of victory, which is the end of the Mullocray, and if anything it may have made that outcome more difficult.

This would be true if Vietnam was a battle. It wasn't. Tonkin was a battle. Tet was a battle. Vietnam was a 10,000 day folly. That's very different. And we kept doubling down on the folly, like the European generals in 1915 who just sent assault after assault into the fortifications.

Re: Iran, I agree that change within is the solution. And I agree that Obama probably lost a small window. But Trump and Tillerson made a big strategic mistake yesterday with that pointless, blustering news conference. I guess the administration doesn't know that Rouhani is up for re-election and he is actually a moderate (on the spectrum of Iranian presidents). Do we think that lambasting the deal fortifies his position? No of course not, it strengthens the hard liners. It's yet another blunder from the political side of our administration that has zero actual experience doing this.

I disagree on Iran and this is the classic mistake that keeps getting repeated. Rouhani is irrelevant. Iran always plays this "hardliner" vs "moderate" game but it is the Ayatollah and the Iranian Guard who control everything. Who wins the presidency is of zero consequence to Iran's ultimate posture. They want the west to think the election matters in the hopes that negotiations continue with the moderate mirage...buying time until the moment of breakout. The days of accepting that lie is done. The era of strategic patience is over.

.

mrussel1

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.

rgambs

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.

BS44325

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.

mrussel1

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.

BS44325

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.

mrussel1

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.

BS44325

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.

rgambs

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.

BS44325

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

Halifax2TheMax

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.