(07-29-2015 12:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Probably not the most tactful way to express his opinion, but at least he put it out there. Not his fault if others can't see that what he said is an eventual possible outcome.

It's a possible outcome without the deal. That's why it's idiotic.

they all have to do something to get attention now. Is Rubio still running? What about the doctor guy?

(07-29-2015 10:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 10:35 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  The viral faux outrage from the SJWs just isn't working anymore. Not a Huckabee fan by any means, but glad he isn't cucking to the whiners on this one.

Those whiners you speak of are mostly Jews.

(07-29-2015 12:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 12:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Probably not the most tactful way to express his opinion, but at least he put it out there. Not his fault if others can't see that what he said is an eventual possible outcome.

It's a possible outcome without the deal. That's why it's idiotic.

Iran's development or acquisition of nuke weapons is a virtual certainty, with or without the deal. What I contest is the idea that this deal has any material impact on the outcome of that. Having this deal means Iran will get nukes, not having it does not significantly increase the chances of war. Two problems are that 1) it will be harder for the US to stay out of that war considering our responsibilities under this treaty, and 2) I think we run considerable risk of pissing off the Saudis and other Arabs and driving them into the Russian or, more likely, Chinese camp. I would rather have punted the nuke issue, since I don't think we accomplished much in that regard, and instead tied removal of sanctions and release of assets to things like reduction of Iran's role as a state sponsor of terrorism and release of any Americans held captive in Iran.

Iran's use of such weapons against Israel, ever, probably has less likelihood than the chance that Iran won't get nukes at all.

That's not why Iran wants nukes. They want nukes as a bargaining chip with the Arabs who occupy most of the old Persian Empire. Israel is a side show in this.

To be clear, I am posting those as opinions, not facts. It is not possible to know facts about the future. But those are pretty well informed opinions, in case anybody is wondering.

(07-29-2015 02:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 12:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 12:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Probably not the most tactful way to express his opinion, but at least he put it out there. Not his fault if others can't see that what he said is an eventual possible outcome.

It's a possible outcome without the deal. That's why it's idiotic.

Iran's development or acquisition of nuke weapons is a virtual certainty, with or without the deal. What I contest is the idea that this deal has any material impact on the outcome of that. Having this deal means Iran will get nukes, not having it does not significantly increase the chances of war. Two problems are that 1) it will be harder for the US to stay out of that war considering our responsibilities under this treaty, and 2) I think we run considerable risk of pissing off the Saudis and other Arabs and driving them into the Russian or, more likely, Chinese camp. I would rather have punted the nuke issue, since I don't think we accomplished much in that regard, and instead tied removal of sanctions and release of assets to things like reduction of Iran's role as a state sponsor of terrorism and release of any Americans held captive in Iran.

Iran's use of such weapons against Israel, ever, probably has less likelihood than the chance that Iran won't get nukes at all.

That's not why Iran wants nukes. They want nukes as a bargaining chip with the Arabs who occupy most of the old Persian Empire. Israel is a side show in this.

To be clear, I am posting those as opinions, not facts. It is not possible to know facts about the future. But those are pretty well informed opinions, in case anybody is wondering.

My view of the Iran deal is that it's a deal that Obama struck primarily to constrain the actions of future presidents, which is consistent with Obama's postcolonialist philosophy. He tends to put a policy in place and then declare to the country that this is the way that the country is going to go for all eternity... we've tried every other approach before Obama came in, none of that worked, now Obama will put in the correct policy, and that can't ever be changed from here on out, because it is correct and Obama knows best. Thus, every policy shift includes a poison pill to prevent his successors from changing Obama's policy. The policy shift is to bless the Islamic Republic and welcome it back to the community of nations, and the deal that he brought to the UN is the poison pill for future presidents.

Saddam regretted not getting a nuclear weapon before he invaded Kuwait. In that context, the nuke is a defensive weapon, meant to prevent anyone from invading Iraq after he's given everyone good reason to do so (i.e. by his aggression toward Kuwait and Saudi Arabia). The same is probably true of Iran. Iran will push forward in the Arab world - both against the Arabs and against Israel - with Hezbollah, HAMAS, and associated groups. The nuclear option will provide them a way to defend against counter-measures... invasion, bombing, etc. It gives Iran a way to respond if Israel were to threaten nuclear retaliation against Iran for stirring up trouble with it's proxies on Israel's borders. I don't think Iran intends to sit back and threaten anyone with nuclear weapons. I do think they will push forward with proxy wars both against Arabs and against Israel, and the nuclear option gives them a way to defend against actions against Iran proper.

(07-29-2015 03:59 PM)I45owl Wrote:  My view of the Iran deal is that it's a deal that Obama struck primarily to constrain the actions of future presidents, which is consistent with Obama's postcolonialist philosophy. He tends to put a policy in place and then declare to the country that this is the way that the country is going to go for all eternity... we've tried every other approach before Obama came in, none of that worked, now Obama will put in the correct policy, and that can't ever be changed from here on out, because it is correct and Obama knows best. Thus, every policy shift includes a poison pill to prevent his successors from changing Obama's policy. The policy shift is to bless the Islamic Republic and welcome it back to the community of nations, and the deal that he brought to the UN is the poison pill for future presidents.
Saddam regretted not getting a nuclear weapon before he invaded Kuwait. In that context, the nuke is a defensive weapon, meant to prevent anyone from invading Iraq after he's given everyone good reason to do so (i.e. by his aggression toward Kuwait and Saudi Arabia). The same is probably true of Iran. Iran will push forward in the Arab world - both against the Arabs and against Israel - with Hezbollah, HAMAS, and associated groups. The nuclear option will provide them a way to defend against counter-measures... invasion, bombing, etc. It gives Iran a way to respond if Israel were to threaten nuclear retaliation against Iran for stirring up trouble with it's proxies on Israel's borders. I don't think Iran intends to sit back and threaten anyone with nuclear weapons. I do think they will push forward with proxy wars both against Arabs and against Israel, and the nuclear option gives them a way to defend against actions against Iran proper.

Which is pretty much why I would rather have tied this to shutting down the proxy terror organizations than to the nuke.

Again, I see three risk areas of concern for us in the future--Russia in Europe, China in the China Sea, and any dominant power in the Middle East. I think our best strategy is to focus diplomatic efforts on 1) keeping any regional conflict in any of the regions from spreading beyond the region, and 2) maintaining some sort of balance of power within each region to keep anyone from becoming a dominant power. Fortunately, the players in each region are land powers without the ability to project power at great distance, so keeping things regionalized is possible in each case. We need Europe to counterbalance Russia, and probably Japan to counterbalance China, both of which are doable. What's dicey is the Middle East. I worry that we are making Iran too strong with this deal. The Arabs will respond some way, probably with the Saudis getting nukes. Israel is really not in play for Iran at this point; you're not going to shoot your one, or ten, nukes at somebody who has 400 to shoot back at you. I don't think Israel will ever be in play for Iran, despite what Netanyahu says. The other thing that could really screw things up is an attack on Iran by anyone, to which Iran responds by trying to shut down the Straits of Hormuz. I don't think they actually can; it's a much wider and deeper area than people realize; we used to play ASW games and do gun shoots in the Straits, neither of which you are going to do in a tightly constrained area.

Huckabee and Trump aren't really candidates for President. They are just actors in an RNC reality show. Their role is to be so outrageous that when the party does pick a nominee - any nominee - he will look downright reasonable by comparison. And considering the other members of the cast, that's not an easy task.

How trusting you all are of Iran's intentions. The way I see it we will have war in the middle east, bomb or no bomb. Israel will not stand by twiddling their thumbs while Iran builds the bomb they will make sure that they don't. It's better to have war with Iran without the bomb than with. You watch.

(07-29-2015 07:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  Huckabee and trump aren't really candidates for President. They are just actors in an RNC reality show. Their role is to be so outrageous that when the party does pick a nominee - any nominee - he will look downright reasonable by comparison. And considering the other members of the cast, that's not an easy task.

Lulz... As compared to Hillary, Sanders the Socialist and the Maryland Moonbat? They're all losers except Paul, Cruz and perhaps Rubio or MAYBE Walker.

You can't out trump Trump