Quote:Being hit with a nuclear weapon is hardly ideal for anyone, but to suggest that it would cripple Israel seems like a stretch to me. They'd have ten more nukes stamped "From Israel with Love" on their way to Tehran in minutes. The Iranian government is not stupid. They can posture against Israel all they want, but they will not start a war that they have no chance at all of winning.
If Iran fires an ICBM at us, it would be shot down. That's really all there is to it. Iran might be able to build a long-range delivery platform--might--but making it stealthy enough to slip past the US' missile defenses is all but impossible for a country that still relies on F-14A-model Tomcats and reverse-engineered F-5's as its front line of defense. If Iran did fire at us, we would blast the government to pieces with conventional weapons, and as long as we didn't go nuclear, I doubt that Russia or China would be willing to engage on Iran's behalf. It's pretty hard to justify defending someone because they were dumb enough to fire a nuke at the biggest military powerhouse in the world.
Quote:Being hit with a nuclear weapon is hardly ideal for anyone, but to suggest that it would cripple Israel seems like a stretch to me. They'd have ten more nukes stamped "From Israel with Love" on their way to Tehran in minutes. The Iranian government is not stupid. They can posture against Israel all they want, but they will not start a war that they have no chance at all of winning.
If Iran fires an ICBM at us, it would be shot down. That's really all there is to it. Iran might be able to build a long-range delivery platform--might--but making it stealthy enough to slip past the US' missile defenses is all but impossible for a country that still relies on F-14A-model Tomcats and reverse-engineered F-5's as its front line of defense. If Iran did fire at us, we would blast the government to pieces with conventional weapons, and as long as we didn't go nuclear, I doubt that Russia or China would be willing to engage on Iran's behalf. It's pretty hard to justify defending someone because they were dumb enough to fire a nuke at the biggest military powerhouse in the world.
With all due respect, i think this is evidence of a frankly dangerous thought process.
1.) When you start off any point with "well i mean if one of our closest allies was nuked and suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties, would it really be that bad" you know that you are on the wrong footing.
2.) you don't need a conventional delivery system coming over the pole to devastate an american city. We already have a southern border that's unprotected and ports that only check about 5% of the freight that comes into this country. The idea of allowing weapons grade nuclear material into the hands of admitted unrepentant terrorists is asinine, and especially when you consider the fact that the key component to this foreign policy move is that we are talking about the Iranian apocalyptic cult hopefully going to war with the even more apocalyptic cult in the form of isis. What happens if one of their nuclear sites is compromised in 5 years.
3.) Most importantly and most missed, Nuclear weapons from a strategic standpoint are more about defense rather than offense. In essence, Yes even for a jihadi there could be a moment of pause before intentionally starting a thermonuclear by lobbing a bomb into Israel or the US. At the same time nukes make it almost impossible for another country to invade and change a regime. When you look at the policy of iran and its territorial ambitions they basically do as much as possible to exert influence and destabilize the region while staying just below the threshold of a country like ours or Israel saying that the transgressions are enough to merit a March on Tehran. The moment they become a nuclear power that option is completely off the table and they will be able to do almost whatever they want whenever they want and not have a real threat of a ground force in their country. Just imagine today if there was another 9-11 style attack on an american city and the iatola came on television and claimed responsibility. Flash forward 10 years and the 100 surface to surface nukes they will probably have and see how your demeanor changes.
Quote:Republicans (and some Democrats) seem to be forgetting that this was an international deal. It wasn't the United States vs Iran. It was a whole group of countries negotiating. And the other countries agreed to the deal, and thought it was a good deal. They have stronger economic ties to Iran than we do, and will be more likely to lift sanctions even if we don't. And how does it look to our European allies if we don't support a deal they think looks good?
Europe will likely do what they can to salvage the deal if we break out, and it'll be much more likely to lead to a nuclear Iran than if we're involved.
Then you have the fact that if we just walked away from the table, and waited for Iran on this one -- Iran would likely pursue a nuclear bomb in the meantime, rather than just come crawling back to us with us being in a stronger position. Which in turn leads us to the path to war with Iran. And what does Europe do if we back out of a deal they think is good and that leads to Iran getting a nuclear weapon? On the other hand, what does Europe do if we stick to our end of the deal, and Iran cheats? And what happens in the event that Iran shocks the world and actually upholds their end of the deal?
Some seem to want us to forsake our European Allies for Israel.
Just think about what you are saying.
1.) America, like it or not, is the leader in the world. When we shrink from the battlefield there isn't another country like ours that can pick up the flag and run with it. Over the last 6 plus years we have been following a path of capitulation and surrender. So its no wonder that the other countries would go along with a deal that serves their short term financial interests when its clear that under this president that america isn't committed long term to the pursuit of our security interests.
2.) Last time i checked, Israel didn't fund the insurgency in Iraq or help Arm the Taliban so this whole lefty thing of wanting to stick it to ISRAEL is hard to understand.
3.) While this deal may financially benefit some of our European Allies, it completely throws our middle eastern allies under the bus and puts them on the path to either war or capitulation to the coming IRANIAN super state. So i'm sorry if france doesn't get to sell cell phones to kids in tehran to bolster the current repressive theocratic terrorist regime if it means that we aren't seeing the beginnings of WWIII ten years!
Quote:I didn't say it was peaceful. I also didn't imply it. I also don't think it's the case. What I said was that its not reasonable to expect complete dismantling of a nuclear program due to the reasons you latched onto. Not sure why you keep putting words into my mouth.
Scientific progress is a right. How you use it is a different matter entirely.
A nuclear weapons program is completely different and if the sanctions lifted actually are related to anything than those invited due to the weopons program than I do have a problem with that. I'm working late and havnt had a chance to read the whole thing yet.
Sanctions against the Kudz force, Iranian personell and embargoes against the sale or purchase of conventional weapons are all part of this deal and were put in place for various terrorist activities across the world. This completely blows away the idea that this is JUST a Nuclear deal.
Second, which is it. Is it a nuclear weapons program or is it a benign forray into energy and medicine. The world knows that it's a nuclear weapons program. As such don't give me this backhanded garbage about "well we can't ask them to abandon the program because of medicine.... and energy" Especially when their entire enrichment capability was developed in direct violation of the will and expressed law of the international community.
And i would argue that the ability to cross certain scientific boundaries are a privilege not a right. That is unless now you're arguing that we let Charles Manson run a nuclear reactor. And even if you consider it a right to develop certain technologies, rights also come with RESPONSIBILITIES! If Iran wants to develop a peaceful nuclear program like a RESPONSIBLE nation then let it act like one!
Again, for anyone even remotely think about supporting this agreement then the enforcement mechanism has to be credible.
New revelations as the president runs off to the UN to life Iranian Sanctions,
US inspectors BANNED from Iran. Let that sink in for a moment. US inspectors will never set foot in one Iranian Nuclear site. We're leaving it up to international inspectors that aren't directly accountable to US. Last time i checked they weren't chanting death to the IAEA in the streets of Tehran. And this is after we gave them 24 days notice of inspections.
To all those who have made the argument "well that sounds reasonable we wouldn't want potential foreign enemies inspecting our nuclear facilities," Under the start treaty, RUSSIA can conduct up to 18 short notice inspections on US soil whenever they want! It got so bad, that when they invaded Crimea they threatened to kick our inspectors out of their country if we supported Crimea and at the same time that they violated international law and threatened to kick us out of their country we let their inspectors into our country!
AMATEUR HOUR!
And the all important snap back provisions... If Iran is found in violation of this accord then the sanctions are supposed to SNAP BACK. Only problem, they exempt any LONG TERM deals negotiated prior to the SNAP BACK. So Iran will bring home all its unfrozen assets and negotiate tons of deals to sell oil abroad and bring in foreign vendors to sell products to their citizens and there won't be a thing to stop them.
As said before, we had a change. In 2009 The people of IRAN wanted to through the zealots out of power. All they needed was our support. We showed them the back of our hand. Now six years later we are surrendering the region and throwing away sanctions that took decades to fully implement and have an effect that we will never get back again. I don't care how smart you think you are, this course is simply indefensible.
Quote:Given the abortions will occur regardless of the method, and the body tissue goes to medical research, and the costs are reimbursed, then...yes, I am ok with that.
Couldn't disagree more I have a big problem with all of it.
Quote:Couldn't disagree more I have a big problem with all of it.
Hell, why don't we just build a factory and pay them to get pregnant so we can have a good crop?
Quote:Hell, why don't we just build a factory and pay them to get pregnant so we can have a good crop?
Private industry making people rich based on personal freedoms? Make it a religion and you'd be all for it.
Quote:Sanctions against the Kudz force, Iranian personell and embargoes against the sale or purchase of conventional weapons are all part of this deal and were put in place for various terrorist activities across the world. This completely blows away the idea that this is JUST a Nuclear deal.
Second, which is it. Is it a nuclear weapons program or is it a benign forray into energy and medicine. The world knows that it's a nuclear weapons program. As such don't give me this backhanded garbage about "well we can't ask them to abandon the program because of medicine.... and energy" Especially when their entire enrichment capability was developed in direct violation of the will and expressed law of the international community.
And i would argue that the ability to cross certain scientific boundaries are a privilege not a right. That is unless now you're arguing that we let Charles Manson run a nuclear reactor. And even if you consider it a right to develop certain technologies, rights also come with RESPONSIBILITIES! If Iran wants to develop a peaceful nuclear program like a RESPONSIBLE nation then let it act like one!
Nuclear science is a science. How that science is used is a different matter. I'm sorry you are too blinded by your black Nd white preconceived notions that you can't see it being used for multiple end results.
I can explain it to you but I can't make you understand it.
Quote:Private industry making people rich based on personal freedoms? Make it a religion and you'd be all for it.
Abortion on demand is already the tenet of a religion, it's just not called such.
Quote:Again, for anyone even remotely think about supporting this agreement then the enforcement mechanism has to be credible.
New revelations as the president runs off to the UN to life Iranian Sanctions,
US inspectors BANNED from Iran. Let that sink in for a moment. US inspectors will never set foot in one Iranian Nuclear site. We're leaving it up to international inspectors that aren't directly accountable to US. Last time i checked they weren't chanting death to the IAEA in the streets of Tehran. And this is after we gave them 24 days notice of inspections.
To all those who have made the argument "well that sounds reasonable we wouldn't want potential foreign enemies inspecting our nuclear facilities," Under the start treaty, RUSSIA can conduct up to 18 short notice inspections on US soil whenever they want! It got so bad, that when they invaded Crimea they threatened to kick our inspectors out of their country if we supported Crimea and at the same time that they violated international law and threatened to kick us out of their country we let their inspectors into our country!
AMATEUR HOUR!
And the all important snap back provisions... If Iran is found in violation of this accord then the sanctions are supposed to SNAP BACK. Only problem, they exempt any LONG TERM deals negotiated prior to the SNAP BACK. So Iran will bring home all its unfrozen assets and negotiate tons of deals to sell oil abroad and bring in foreign vendors to sell products to their citizens and there won't be a thing to stop them.
As said before, we had a change. In 2009 The people of IRAN wanted to through the zealots out of power. All they needed was our support. We showed them the back of our hand. Now six years later we are surrendering the region and throwing away sanctions that took decades to fully implement and have an effect that we will never get back again. I don't care how smart you think you are, this course is simply indefensible.
None of this matters.
Iran isn't going to live up to their end of the deal on this joke of an arrangement anyway. They'll violate it and flaunt it to the world, and you know what will happen? You'll get a sternly written message that will be put up on the president's teleprompter, he'll read it, then run off to play a round of golf or get some body time in with Reggie Love. John Kerry will trot out in front of a camera and issue a similar rebuke before racing off to Rhode Island to hop on his yacht and enjoy the trappings of his wife's wealth.
This whole deal is nothing but more of the same ineptitude that this administration has made their trademark when it comes to foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. Obama is just praying to Allah right now that Iran doesn't turn Israel into a parking lot before he gets out of office so they can blame it on the next president.
Quote:None of this matters.
Iran isn't going to live up to their end of the deal on this joke of an arrangement anyway. They'll violate it and flaunt it to the world, and you know what will happen? You'll get a sternly written message that will be put up on the president's teleprompter, he'll read it, then run off to play a round of golf or get some body time in with Reggie Love. John Kerry will trot out in front of a camera and issue a similar rebuke before racing off to Rhode Island to hop on his yacht and enjoy the trappings of his wife's wealth.
This whole deal is nothing but more of the same ineptitude that this administration has made their trademark when it comes to foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. Obama is just praying to Allah right now that Iran doesn't turn Israel into a parking lot before he gets out of office so they can blame it on the next president.
Pretty much the truth. Hillary couldn't even bring herself back to earth to answer questions regarding this.
Quote:Yea, I wouldn't worry about that. What would you prefer? The sanctions continue and they get the bomb anyways. Or we agree to phase out the sanctions and they phase out their nuclear-bomb program? Seems like a no brainer to me.
This is in essence the message of Obama and those under him. Believe it if you want. I disagree with it 1 zillion percent.
The sanctions are certainly the better of these two alternatives if the attempt is to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. But realistically, what needs to be done is military strikes that will set Iran's nuclear program back many years, if not permanently.
Quote:The sanctions are certainly the better of these two alternatives if the attempt is to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. But realistically, what needs to be done is military strikes that will set Iran's nuclear program back many years, if not permanently.
Looking to start World War III, then? Because that's what an unprovoked attack on Iran would accomplish.
Quote:Looking to start World War III, then? Because that's what an unprovoked attack on Iran would accomplish.
The current path the United States and Europe is on is going to inevitably lead to a major war. I rather deal from strength than from weakness.
Considering the amount of terrorism that Iran has sponsored, including the loss of life of Americans, not to mention they are holding 4 American hostages, an attack on them would be fully justified.
Quote: The current path the United States and Europe is on is going to inevitably lead to a major war. I rather deal from strength than from weakness.
Considering the amount of terrorism that Iran has sponsored, including the loss of life of Americans, not to mention they are holding 4 American hostages, an attack on them would be fully justified.
So if it were up to you, you'd want your name in the history books as the guy who kicked off World War III because he figured it was probably going to happen anyway?
Sounds like a crappy reason to get tens of millions of people killed, far more if it goes nuclear. Real-life diplomacy doesn't work like that. You don't just get to fire cruise missiles at another country because it can't control its citizens and has imprisoned four people (
four people), then expect that allies of that nation--particularly Russia--won't respond aggressively. You think that the nuclear accord will lead to a global war? Try backing up a few days and proceeding through door number two, where instead of delivering a signed nuclear deal, the US delivers a few dozen cruise missiles to destroy Iran's military capabilities and take out any suspected nuclear research sites. Iran's allies would strike back hard against US military bases in the region, maybe even Israel, and Russia would have several hundred nukes with "USA! USA! USA!" printed on the side of them ready to go if we so much as fired a cap gun in the Middle East again.
Starting a war for the sake of starting a war is not "dealing from strength". It's an elaborate, expensive form of suicide in which you take a couple hundred million people with you.
Quote: The current path the United States and Europe is on is going to inevitably lead to a major war. I rather deal from strength than from weakness.
Considering the amount of terrorism that Iran has sponsored, including the loss of life of Americans, not to mention they are holding 4 American hostages, an attack on them would be fully justified.
You have a funny idea what the word strength means. Some might call your proposition insanity.
Doling out death and destruction out of a sense of fear or superiority isn't strength, it's weakness. Many bloody dictators in the past have done such things.
Quote:So if it were up to you, you'd want your name in the history books as the guy who kicked off World War III because he figured it was probably going to happen anyway?
Sounds like a crappy reason to get tens of millions of people killed, far more if it goes nuclear. Real-life diplomacy doesn't work like that. You don't just get to fire cruise missiles at another country because it can't control its citizens and has imprisoned four people (four people), then expect that allies of that nation--particularly Russia--won't respond aggressively. You think that the nuclear accord will lead to a global war? Try backing up a few days and proceeding through door number two, where instead of delivering a signed nuclear deal, the US delivers a few dozen cruise missiles to destroy Iran's military capabilities and take out any suspected nuclear research sites. Iran's allies would strike back hard against US military bases in the region, maybe even Israel, and Russia would have several hundred nukes with "USA! USA! USA!" printed on the side of them ready to go if we so much as fired a cap gun in the Middle East again.
Starting a war for the sake of starting a war is not "dealing from strength". It's an elaborate, expensive form of suicide in which you take a couple hundred million people with you.
If the Iranian Government wanted the 4 hostages to be freed, they would be. This is a government that has cracked down on its citizens to the nth degree.
The bottom line from my perspective is the dangers are greater if Iran gets nuclear weapons than if the U.S. takes out Iranian's nuclear program. Iran's # 1 goal is to take down the ' Great Satan'. They will stop at nothing to achieve this. If a nuclear attack occurs on U.S. soil, in addition to the hundreds of thousands to millions of lives lost, the economy of America will be shattered to pieces.
Quote:The bottom line from my perspective is the dangers are greater if Iran gets nuclear weapons than if the U.S. takes out Iranian's nuclear program.
I'd rather take my chances with Iran, a nation with all the military capability of a third-world ghost town, than have a few hundred Russian nukes aimed at every major population center in the United States, but that's just me.
Quote:You have a funny idea what the word strength means. Some might call your proposition insanity.
Doling out death and destruction out of a sense of fear or superiority isn't strength, it's weakness. Many bloody dictators in the past have done such things.
Call it what you want. But look at the appeasement policy of former British P.M. Neville Chamberlain. That contributed greatly to WWII. Obama is putting the U.S. on a similar path.