Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Well you got your change alright. One dollar is now seventy five cents now, bravo!

Quote:No, the embargo prevented that.

 

The embargo really didn't do anything but solidify the theocratic government.  These types of sanctions don't work, isolating a country and it's people makes the situation worse.  Look at Sadamm in Iraq, and of course the Iranians.  How did the sanctions on Cuba turn out?  It makes the dictator stronger and weakens the the population because the economy dies so they are more beholded to the authoritarian government.  I mean, it's basic politics.

 

We engaged the USSR and China, and things have turned out pretty good for us.  It's when we disengage that causes the problems...

 

Quote:Right, so my argument is that their leadership and street is quite vocal about "DEATH TO AMERICA! DEATH TO ISRAEL!!!!!"

 

Your argument is "Most of em don't really mean it so we should totally do this deal that gives them the bomb in the next 20 years."

 

Great idea.

 

Oh man, you really need to think this through..;  Without the deal, they were much closer to getting a bomb.  I mean, do you even politics?   :blink:

 

Sorry, I was trying to be funny, not rude to you.  But I'm just trying to point out that the common consensus is that Iran was ramping up to a bomb in the very near future.  This buys us time to bring them into the World Community without having to go to war.  I think it's worth a shot.

 

On top of that, lifting the sanctions will help strengthen the citizens, as the citizens get more affluent, a cultural revolution can happen that may move the country away from being a theocracy...  Again, it's worth a shot.

Also, I believe I stated this earlier, but the majority of Persians are pro-Western culture.  The majority is being oppressed.  The death to America chants are propaganda by the government.  It's not real...  Persians are also not as religious as the rest of the Arabs are.  Unfortunately, the country is under the thumb of a totalitarian government that is pretty ruthless...

Quote:Right, so my argument is that their leadership and street is quite vocal about "DEATH TO AMERICA! DEATH TO ISRAEL!!!!!"

 

Your argument is "Most of em don't really mean it so we should totally do this deal that gives them the bomb in the next 20 years."

 

Great idea.

There's the apocalyptic attitude we love so much. 

Quote:Right, so my argument is that their leadership and street is quite vocal about "DEATH TO AMERICA! DEATH TO ISRAEL!!!!!"

 

Your argument is "Most of em don't really mean it so we should totally do this deal that gives them the bomb in the next 20 years."

 

Great idea.

 

 

You can't answer an impossible question so you make stuff up? That is not even remotely close to my argument. That's the argument you and your ilk have fabricated and attempted to pass off as the opposition's argument. That's what you guys do. 

Wars over in that region haven't accomplished anything. Why not try diplomacy? If it doesn't work, then with the backing of the other negotiating countries, they can decide how to deal with it... Not just the US again.


There are CIA reports that Iran stopped trying when the Iraq search for WMDs started, thinking they may be next. Sure..they may have started up again, but now they have a negotiated deal that the world knows about. Breaking it would not be good.

^^^This

Quote:Wars over in that region haven't accomplished anything. Why not try diplomacy? If it doesn't work, then with the backing of the other negotiating countries, they can decide how to deal with it... Not just the US again.


There are CIA reports that Iran stopped trying when the Iraq search for WMDs started, thinking they may be next. Sure..they may have started up again, but now they have a negotiated deal that the world knows about. Breaking it would not be good.

 

And when they do, what then? It will be too late, just like it is with the Norks.

Quote:Wars over in that region haven't accomplished anything. Why not try diplomacy? If it doesn't work, then with the backing of the other negotiating countries, they can decide how to deal with it... Not just the US again.


There are CIA reports that Iran stopped trying when the Iraq search for WMDs started, thinking they may be next. Sure..they may have started up again, but now they have a negotiated deal that the world knows about. Breaking it would not be good.

 

We have tried diplomacy.  This isn't the first time that iran has made a deal with the international community.  The problem that my side has with this accord is that we are at this point, precisely because they have broken every promise they have made in the past.  

 

And you're right.  Iran's behavior was accutely affected by our presence in IRAQ.  That's why the two events are connected.  When there was the threat of an deeper American influence in the region through a free Iraq then there was cause for pause.  That meant that there might be a credible enforcement mechanism for UN sanctions.  That's why it was so important for Iran to dislodge that foothold through funding the insurgency.  

 

Now you have a situation where we left precipitously, essentially surrendering what's left of IRAQ to IRAN, our military is being drawn down, and it

's plainly obvious that this president isn't really interested in a military incursion for the next 18 months.  When you have those conditions it creates a vaccum of leadership.  is it any surprise that the rest of the international community was so quick to make a deal with IRAN.  without the US who is going to stand up to really be the hammer in case things go bad?  I don't see France ready to put boots on the ground, if Iran does violate this agreement it will be with equipment protected by weapons systems they bought from Russia.  That created the weakness that i believe lead to a deal with a foundation of capitulation.  

Quote:And when they do, what then? It will be too late, just like it is with the Norks.

Quote:We have tried diplomacy. This isn't the first time that iran has made a deal with the international community. The problem that my side has with this accord is that we are at this point, precisely because they have broken every promise they have made in the past.


And you're right. Iran's behavior was accutely affected by our presence in IRAQ. That's why the two events are connected. When there was the threat of an deeper American influence in the region through a free Iraq then there was cause for pause. That meant that there might be a credible enforcement mechanism for UN sanctions. That's why it was so important for Iran to dislodge that foothold through funding the insurgency.


Now you have a situation where we left precipitously, essentially surrendering what's left of IRAQ to IRAN, our military is being drawn down, and it

's plainly obvious that this president isn't really interested in a military incursion for the next 18 months. When you have those conditions it creates a vaccum of leadership. is it any surprise that the rest of the international community was so quick to make a deal with IRAN. without the US who is going to stand up to really be the hammer in case things go bad? I don't see France ready to put boots on the ground, if Iran does violate this agreement it will be with equipment protected by weapons systems they bought from Russia. That created the weakness that i believe lead to a deal with a foundation of capitulation.

So. Bomb them right? Ok. Then let the Saudis, Turks, etc do it.

But the argument that negotiations have failed in the past...one can argue that bombing the hell out of someone and sending in the troops haven't faired any better. So if wars over there haven't solved anything. Negotiations haven't solved anything. Then either one keeps trying, or says the hell with it and turn their backs.

As far as Iran breaking promises, you think the US is credible with its promises over there? It's just one big cluster!!!!&$?!@.

Quote:So. Bomb them right? Ok. Then let the Saudis, Turks, etc do it.

But the argument that negotiations have failed in the past...one can argue that bombing the hell out of someone and sending in the troops haven't faired any better. So if wars over there haven't solved anything. Negotiations haven't solved anything. Then either one keeps trying, or says the hell with it and turn their backs.

As far as Iran breaking promises, you think the US is credible with its promises over there? It's just one big cluster!!!!&$?!@.

 

No, that's not what i'm saying and that's not what we're saying.  

 

Why relieve american sanctions?  Why allow them to get 150 billion dollars?  At what point do they have to show that they are responsible?  At what point do they have to demonstrate that we tangibly get something out of making these economic concessions?  

 

You could have left those sanctions in place until Iran came to the table with a reasonable proposal.  As it stands now, we KNOW that they are still violating deals with the international community, buying weapons systems from Russia (the exact weapons systems to defend against air strikes in the event they violate the deal) and their leader is publishing books about how to trick and ultimately destroy America.  It's like something out of the twilight zone.  

 

Also, you can't just say that "well last time we went over there it didn't really work out" without confronting the reality that the reason for most of our setbacks was military assistance from the very country that we are making concessions to?  Quasim Soelimani himself is personally responsible for between 500-1000 deaths of US troops and Iran basically funded the post Sadamm Insurgency in Iraq.  Why give these people more money more weapons when they openly tell anyone who listens they aren't going to change their behavior towards Israel, they aren't going to change their behavior towards our interest in the region, they are going to ramp up their sponsorship of international terrorism that potentially threatens our stateside national security.  

 

To TJBender's point, if this deal truly represented a normalizing of relations and a turning from terrorism on the world stage from Iran then i could live with some of the concessions because the chance for them to neutralize their aggression in the region and stabilize the middle east would be too great to ignore.  Right now it looks like we are just further arming the people we may be forced into engaging militarily in the near future anyway because THEY are heck bent on war, not us.

Quote:No, that's not what i'm saying and that's not what we're saying.  

 

Why relieve american sanctions?  Why allow them to get 150 billion dollars?  At what point do they have to show that they are responsible?  At what point do they have to demonstrate that we tangibly get something out of making these economic concessions?  

 

You could have left those sanctions in place until Iran came to the table with a reasonable proposal.  As it stands now, we KNOW that they are still violating deals with the international community, buying weapons systems from Russia (the exact weapons systems to defend against air strikes in the event they violate the deal) and their leader is publishing books about how to trick and ultimately destroy America.  It's like something out of the twilight zone.  

 

Also, you can't just say that "well last time we went over there it didn't really work out" without confronting the reality that the reason for most of our setbacks was military assistance from the very country that we are making concessions to?  Quasim Soelimani himself is personally responsible for between 500-1000 deaths of US troops and Iran basically funded the post Sadamm Insurgency in Iraq.  Why give these people more money more weapons when they openly tell anyone who listens they aren't going to change their behavior towards Israel, they aren't going to change their behavior towards our interest in the region, they are going to ramp up their sponsorship of international terrorism that potentially threatens our stateside national security.  

 

To TJBender's point, if this deal truly represented a normalizing of relations and a turning from terrorism on the world stage from Iran then i could live with some of the concessions because the chance for them to neutralize their aggression in the region and stabilize the middle east would be too great to ignore.  Right now it looks like we are just further arming the people we may be forced into engaging militarily in the near future anyway because THEY are heck bent on war, not us.

 

 

 
Our history in our comparatively short existence as a country would beg to differ. 10 major wars in our 1st 200 years. Yeah I know..we're saving the world.

Quote:No, that's not what i'm saying and that's not what we're saying.  

 

Why relieve american sanctions?  Why allow them to get 150 billion dollars?  At what point do they have to show that they are responsible?  At what point do they have to demonstrate that we tangibly get something out of making these economic concessions?  

 

You could have left those sanctions in place until Iran came to the table with a reasonable proposal.  As it stands now, we KNOW that they are still violating deals with the international community, buying weapons systems from Russia (the exact weapons systems to defend against air strikes in the event they violate the deal) and their leader is publishing books about how to trick and ultimately destroy America.  It's like something out of the twilight zone.  

 

Also, you can't just say that "well last time we went over there it didn't really work out" without confronting the reality that the reason for most of our setbacks was military assistance from the very country that we are making concessions to?  Quasim Soelimani himself is personally responsible for between 500-1000 deaths of US troops and Iran basically funded the post Sadamm Insurgency in Iraq.  Why give these people more money more weapons when they openly tell anyone who listens they aren't going to change their behavior towards Israel, they aren't going to change their behavior towards our interest in the region, they are going to ramp up their sponsorship of international terrorism that potentially threatens our stateside national security.  

 

To TJBender's point, if this deal truly represented a normalizing of relations and a turning from terrorism on the world stage from Iran then i could live with some of the concessions because the chance for them to neutralize their aggression in the region and stabilize the middle east would be too great to ignore.  Right now it looks like we are just further arming the people we may be forced into engaging militarily in the near future anyway because THEY are heck bent on war, not us.

To that argument, if I were on the other side of the table, would be...and this differs from what the US sends to Israel?

Yes they hate them, and yes Israel is our ally. Fine. That does not compute in their way of thinking. Its basic. Oh..they can have weapons and nukes..but we cant?  To try to get into their head is futile. To get into the minds of the reformers over there is another. However with overthrowing govts, we've seen how great that can work out. So, its complicated. We dont trust them and they dont trust us. Then we have cat and mouse with the Russians. 

But, Trump says he has a plan for all this that would work, but dadgummit, he wont tell anyone.

 

Keeping sanctions? That is basically trying to enforce your will. In negotiations both sides need to feel theyve won something. The smarter negotiator gets the bigger slice of the pie.

Quote: 

<div> 
Our history in our comparatively short existence as a country would beg to differ. 10 major wars in our 1st 200 years. Yeah I know..we're saving the world.
 

</div>

 

Frankly unless you are willing to take each incursion and fundamentally detail the motivating factors just citing "10 major wars" is not only irrelevant but insulting.  By that logic stopping the Nazis from throwing people into ovens demonstrates that we are just bloodthirsty.  

Quote:To that argument, if I were on the other side of the table, would be...and this differs from what the US sends to Israel?

 

Hezbollah lobs unprovoked rockets against innocent civilians in Israel. Israel builds weapons systems to protect their civilian populations.  Hezbollah uses civilians to protect their weapons systems Israel uses weapons systems to protect their citizens.  Do i really need to keep going?


 

Yes they hate them, and yes Israel is our ally. Fine. That does not compute in their way of thinking. Its basic. Oh..they can have weapons and nukes..but we cant?  To try to get into their head is futile. To get into the minds of the reformers over there is another. However with overthrowing govts, we've seen how great that can work out. So, its complicated. We dont trust them and they dont trust us. Then we have cat and mouse with the Russians. 

 

We had an opportunity to allow for the situation to resolve itself naturally.  In 2009 the reform movement reached critical mass and they could have very well overthrown the Iranian regime themselves.  What did we do?  we backed the repressive regime.  Just like we backed the Muslim brotherhood incorrectly.  Just like we toppled libya with no plan for regime change which has lead to chaos and the death of a US ambassador.  Just like we allowed the crimea to be annexed etc. etc. etc.  By any account, this foreign policy has been a complete disaster
.  

 

But, Trump says he has a plan for all this that would work, but dadgummit, he wont tell anyone.

 

given the fact that the person he would be running against is the author of the foreign policy that has lead to the world to burn around us how much does he really have to prove?


 

Keeping sanctions? That is basically trying to enforce your will. In negotiations both sides need to feel theyve won something. The smarter negotiator gets the bigger slice of the pie.

 

1.) that's keeping your leverage.  

 

2.) negotiation and diplomacy is a tactic to provide the best outcome within your foreign policy, its not a foreign policy in and of itself.  If a country or entity demonstrates that it cannot and does not want to negotiate or deal in good faith then callously surrendering your position against your own self interest is foolishness not statesmanship or good governance.  

 

There are those who look first to find moral equivalence or blame this country for our perceived sins, but when you are dealing with real actors on the world stage that have a political ideology rooted in centuries of conquest and domination you have to have the moral authority to stand up and say this far no further we will not sacrifice the life and safety of our citizens to FEEL GOOD!

Quote:Frankly unless you are willing to take each incursion and fundamentally detail the motivating factors just citing "10 major wars" is not only irrelevant but insulting. By that logic stopping the Nazis from throwing people into ovens demonstrates that we are just bloodthirsty.

Using the WW2 excuse or reasoning by justifying all other " incursions" is typical. Why is it insulting when the facts are facts. You say WW2 and I say Nam.

Of course Stalin , our ally, was ok then, even knowing his atrocities. In fact there a few things blamed on Nazis that that Russians did...Tiurning a blind eye to fit an agenda.

The US were heroes then and justifiably so. But let's not cherry pick, let's look at the whole history of warfare. I won't even go into Iran Contra.

Quote:Using the WW2 excuse or reasoning by justifying all other " incursions" is typical. Why is it insulting when the facts are facts. You say WW2 and I say Nam.

Of course Stalin , our ally, was ok then, even knowing his atrocities. Tiurning a blind eye to fit an agenda.

 

No, no, you're right. America bad, everyone trying to kill America good.

Quote:No, no, you're right. America bad, everyone trying to kill America good.

Like? Russia...ex ally? Germans...past enemy? Japan? Iraq that we have funded. Iran that we have funded?

Quote:Like? Russia...ex ally? Germans...past enemy? Japan? Iraq that we have funded. Iran that we have funded?

And of course, let's not forget England.  And Spain.  And ourselves.

 

The thing I have against the "WE COULDA GOTTA BETTER DEAL!" pundits is that I really don't think we could have.  Our allies not named Israel or Saudi Arabia all wanted a deal.

 

We can reject this deal, but Russia, France, U.K., Germany, China and the European Union aren't going to.  So we'd be going it alone on Iran sanctions, which is next to useless, or going to war, which sucks for everybody and ticks off our allies, who are kind of sick of us making excuses for nation-building in the Middle East.  It also costs a hell of a lot of money and more American lives.

 

If we sign off on this deal, and Iran goes ahead and cheats, we are now in a much better position with our allies to go to war, which is what the hawks, and their leader, the Prime Minister of Israel, really seem to want.  We have nothing to lose by passing an agreement, seeing if they cheat, and then take over their country with international blessing.

 

And who knows - shrug - maybe they won't cheat.

 

All due respect thats missing very pertinent facts. 1.) this deal arms iran exponentially. 2.) our allies are reluctant because we have not lead in the world stage. 3.) nukes are an invasion deturant. After they cross that threshhold u cant just take out the regime with a hundred k troops. Casualty projections become unthinkable let alone the potential for terrorism