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.
Define victory, please? Thing is, you can't. In Iran, Iraq, Syria and North Korea. And the thing is NK detonated their first nuke while GWB was POTUS. And what exactly did he do? Nada, zip, zero, since you brought up the 90's as a veiled knock on Clinton. Keep pretending you neocons have all the answers, professor.
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.
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.
Define victory, please? Thing is, you can't. In Iran, Iraq, Syria and North Korea. And the thing is NK detonated their first nuke while GWB was POTUS. And what exactly did he do? Nada, zip, zero, since you brought up the 90's as a veiled knock on Clinton. Keep pretending you neocons have all the answers, professor.
It wasn't a veiled knock on Clinton...it was a full on knock. That deal was a failure. Full stop. And you are incorrect that Bush did not respond...he attempted diplomacy through the six-party talks as demanded by all the multi-lateralists out there...but you are right that it failed. And since then...zero progress...just a crazy north korea getting more dangerous by the day. Now remember that leadership changed in North Korea during the Obama presidency and I don't blame him or anybody for trying to feel out the new leadership but that time has come and gone and it is clear that Kim Jong-un will not moderate. So the time has come for a change in policy. The era of strategic patience is over. It's time for North Korea to deal with a crazy leader.
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.
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?
There isn't a war BS hates. It's his solution to everything. He really thinks Trump, with his feigning and Pence, with his Members Only jacket and Trump's granddaughters serenading the Chinese premier are going to bring wholesale change to NK. He's just spouting failed neocon talking points. Ever notice how republicans are never at fault for the messes we're in? Revisionist history on the sand table in his basement. He still can't define victory.
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.
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.
Define victory, please? Thing is, you can't. In Iran, Iraq, Syria and North Korea. And the thing is NK detonated their first nuke while GWB was POTUS. And what exactly did he do? Nada, zip, zero, since you brought up the 90's as a veiled knock on Clinton. Keep pretending you neocons have all the answers, professor.
It wasn't a veiled knock on Clinton...it was a full on knock. That deal was a failure. Full stop. And you are incorrect that Bush did not respond...he attempted diplomacy through the six-party talks as demanded by all the multi-lateralists out there...but you are right that it failed. And since then...zero progress...just a crazy north korea getting more dangerous by the day. Now remember that leadership changed in North Korea during the Obama presidency and I don't blame him or anybody for trying to feel out the new leadership but that time has come and gone and it is clear that Kim Jong-un will not moderate. So the time has come for a change in policy. The era of strategic patience is over. It's time for North Korea to deal with a crazy leader.
Yeah, why not, it's only a few million South Korean lives on the line. No biggie. Won't hurt you, your family, or your country, so it's an easy gamble for you. Neoconservatism at it's finest.
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.
Hahaha sounds awfully similar to the crickets chirping in my yard.
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.
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.
Vietnam had absolutely nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was their invasion of Afghanistan, Chernobyl and most importantly, the inability of their economy to support the medium range missile build up in Europe approved by Carter. And it wasn't free for the US either. Look at the explosion of the deficit under Reagan while shrinking domestic spending. You're welcome. You can mail a check to the US Treasury, washington, DC.
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.
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.
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.
Define victory, please? Thing is, you can't. In Iran, Iraq, Syria and North Korea. And the thing is NK detonated their first nuke while GWB was POTUS. And what exactly did he do? Nada, zip, zero, since you brought up the 90's as a veiled knock on Clinton. Keep pretending you neocons have all the answers, professor.
It wasn't a veiled knock on Clinton...it was a full on knock. That deal was a failure. Full stop. And you are incorrect that Bush did not respond...he attempted diplomacy through the six-party talks as demanded by all the multi-lateralists out there...but you are right that it failed. And since then...zero progress...just a crazy north korea getting more dangerous by the day. Now remember that leadership changed in North Korea during the Obama presidency and I don't blame him or anybody for trying to feel out the new leadership but that time has come and gone and it is clear that Kim Jong-un will not moderate. So the time has come for a change in policy. The era of strategic patience is over. It's time for North Korea to deal with a crazy leader.
Yeah, why not, it's only a few million South Korean lives on the line. No biggie. Won't hurt you, your family, or your country, so it's an easy gamble for you. Neoconservatism at it's finest.
Except doing nothing could eventually hurt the west coast of north america. I am quite partial to Vancouver myself and I would like to see PJ play Seattle one more time or go back to see TOTD in San Fran eventually. Not an easy gamble at all.
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?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
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.
Define victory, please? Thing is, you can't. In Iran, Iraq, Syria and North Korea. And the thing is NK detonated their first nuke while GWB was POTUS. And what exactly did he do? Nada, zip, zero, since you brought up the 90's as a veiled knock on Clinton. Keep pretending you neocons have all the answers, professor.
It wasn't a veiled knock on Clinton...it was a full on knock. That deal was a failure. Full stop. And you are incorrect that Bush did not respond...he attempted diplomacy through the six-party talks as demanded by all the multi-lateralists out there...but you are right that it failed. And since then...zero progress...just a crazy north korea getting more dangerous by the day. Now remember that leadership changed in North Korea during the Obama presidency and I don't blame him or anybody for trying to feel out the new leadership but that time has come and gone and it is clear that Kim Jong-un will not moderate. So the time has come for a change in policy. The era of strategic patience is over. It's time for North Korea to deal with a crazy leader.
Yeah, why not, it's only a few million South Korean lives on the line. No biggie. Won't hurt you, your family, or your country, so it's an easy gamble for you. Neoconservatism at it's finest.
Except doing nothing could eventually hurt the west coast of north america. I am quite partial to Vancouver myself and I would like to see PJ play Seattle one more time or go back to see TOTD in San Fran eventually. Not an easy gamble at all.
Well, if something could eventually hurt us we'd better start a war!
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?
@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/
@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.
@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.
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?
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.
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 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/
@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?
@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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.google.ca/amp/amp.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2017/04/is_donald_trump_s_unpredictability_an_advantage_in_handling_north_korea.html
Trump's so crazy it might work.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
*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.
Won't hurt you, your family, or your country, so it's an easy gamble for you.
Neoconservatism at it's finest.
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.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
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.
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.
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?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
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?
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/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
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.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
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.