DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on July 15, 2015, 08:05:25 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-deal-obama-sees-validation-diplomatic-gamble-164420085.html
According to the president this deal is better than war with them , better than an arms race in the region.
Lets observe , does this treaty have features that really do more to prevent war and inhibit a regional arms race than continued or increased sanctions and embargo?
-
Right, because flooding Iran with Money & ability to procure weapons, that they aren't already developing themselves, is the perfect recipe to "peace" :o
-
There is no alternative to negotiations than war.
We are not going to fight a war with Iran.
-
SANCTIONS........AND THEY WERE WORKING. All this "deal" accomplished was to give Iran a flood of money and weapon aquistions, to better launch a war on their terms & timetable
-
Chamberlain made this mistake .
A treaty does not bind a belligerent to much .
Molotov also made this mistake.
If this treaty has a feature that makes the potential of war less I would like to discuss that feature.
But if the Iranians want war then the war is best postponed with measures that make them weak and sap their confidence, if they are determined to make war , and a peace treaty makes them stronger and bolder the war might be all the sooner and all the worse for the treaty.
-
Chamberlain made this mistake .
A treaty does not bind a belligerent to much .
Molotov also made this mistake.
If this treaty has a feature that makes the potential of war less I would like to discuss that feature.
Barak Chamberlain (http://townhall.com/columnists/allenwest/2015/07/14/iran-agreement-déjà-vu-all-over-again-n2025437)
We awoke Tuesday morning to learn that history had indeed repeated itself. The lessons of Neville Chamberlain’s failed diplomatic effort were not studied nor learned by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. The claims of “peace in our time” are empty if dependent upon the goodwill of despots, dictators, theocrats, and autocrats – of which the Iranian regime can be classified.
There are those who seek to compare this agreement to President Reagan’s with the Soviet Union. There is a major difference. The Soviet Union was not a theocracy run by clerics who embrace the necessity of an apocalyptic event spurring the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. With the Soviet Union there was always a standing MAD theory – mutually assured destruction. That is not a viable consideration with Iran. Reagan also believed in the mantra “trust but verify.” How can we ever trust the Iranian regime, which has been at war with America since 1979 and has not changed its belligerent behavior since?
President Jimmy Carter gave us the Ayatollahs, President Obama just solidified their power.
Amazingly enough, it was during the Carter administration that Americans were taken hostage, and history again repeats itself as four Americans are held today by Iran – Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini, Jason Rezaian, and Robert Levinson. President Obama announced the signing of an agreement with a regime that chants “Death to America.” What more disqualifying evidence does one need? Not to mention the plethora of human rights violations of which Iran is guilty.
Economic sanctions are lifted which means the world’s lead sponsor of Islamic terrorism will receive billions of dollars. And, in the case of violations, the restoration of sanctions requires a committee to “snapback” these sanctions – a committee of which Iran is a participant. The agreement only delays uranium enrichment for ten years, and Iran has seen a 20% increase of enriched uranium during these negotiations. For fifteen years, there are to be no new nuclear reactors.
Therefore, in the short term, Iran will be able to heighten its support of terrorism. In the long term they will reach a threatening nuclear capability.
The agreement states that Iran must continue to live under the UN weapons embargo for another five years for conventional arms and eight years for missiles. Funny, that embargo has not stopped Iran from supplying the deadly EFP (explosive force penetrators) to Islamic jihadists responsible for the deaths and maiming of thousands of U.S. troops. As well, this embargo does not preclude Iran from supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis with weapons.
What should we have done or should we do?
- First, realize that Iran is our enemy, one that is holding Americans hostages and demand their release.
- Second, economic sanctions should be increased. The world failed to isolate and prevent the economic restoration of Germany in the 1930s and witnessed a full bore investment into one of the greatest war machines the world would come to know. We should implement a naval blockade against Iran and shrink the ability of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ naval forces from adversely influencing the sea lanes of commerce in the Persian Gulf.
- We should be enabling a deterioration of the stranglehold of the crazed clerics that control the Iranian people.
Some will decry fear mongering and castigate anyone opposing this agreement as seeking war. Such were the claims against Sir Winston Churchill, who warned that history has a way of punishing those who pay it no attention.
And history certainly remembers Churchill in a far more esteemed status than Chamberlain.
-
Iran is clearly not Nazi Germany.
Iran is not demanding territory of any other country.
Blathering constantly about Chamberlain is really, really stupid. People who parrot this deserve to be slapped upside the head with a large mackerel.
-
So, the lesson here is to ignore history, and allow Iran to become the next Fascist Germany?? (or in this case, Islamofacist Iran) Sorry too many lives were lost, when not exterminated in mass, to follow that path again. Oh wait, Neville Obama skipped History.....as well as when it came to educating the class on the Constitution. His legacy, preserved.
As Plane pointed out, hopefully that piece of paper that was signed by Iran, had some tangible value to it. Perhaps some goldleaf along the edges?
-
We could easily bring Iran to it's knees with a Bill Clinton no-invasion type Kosevo War.
-
I go sanctions 1st.....then more sanctions. I'd hold the military air for more isis-centric activities, until Iran flagrantly defies any arrangements
-
We could easily bring Iran to it's knees with a Bill Clinton no-invasion type Kosevo War.
This might be the point of developing atomic weapons.
-
SANCTIONS........AND THEY WERE WORKING.
Flashback to 2002. Deja vu. Repeat as necessary, lol.
-
Iran is not demanding territory of any other country.
Not that you would notice, but in Lebanon , Syria and Iraq there are a lot of people who know .
Hezbollah is their catspaw, they have been taking over Lebanon for years, the government of Syria is their sept and Iraq's Shia parties have been getting Iranian aid and arms since Saddam was fighting them.
-
SANCTIONS........AND THEY WERE WORKING.
Flashback to 2002. Deja vu. Repeat as necessary, lol.
You're gonna have to clarify a better, I'm afraid H
-
Flashback to 2002. Deja vu. Repeat as necessary, lol.
Actually I agree.
Probably for 100% different reasons from hnumpah.
I now believe we should have never invaded Iraq.
President Bush should have recognized the "5th Column" a.k.a the Left
and the mainstream media were never going to allow Iraq to be a success.
President Bush should have known the Left and their cohorts in the media
were going to sensationalize every minor poor result and sabotage the entire
post-combat operation every chance they got. The Left was also not going to
allow the US Military to do what it would have had to do to stabilize and bring security to Iraq.
Even US Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman in his "march to the sea"
that many think was the deciding factor in ending the Civil War had to keep his
plans secret from the press, the public, and even high gvt officals because of
the ruthlessness that needed to be carried out to finish off an enemy.
Yes as painful as it is...we and the Iraqi people would be better off
today if Saddam was still in power....we shouldn't have been there
knowing we were not going to be allowed to finish the job.
-
Well, ..... I can't support a President that makes decisions based on what he perceives that "the left and MSM" would criticize, or not support after he's no longer in office. You have to make decisions based on current reality and intel at that time. That's called leadership. And while H has been able to credibly demonstrate that there were conflicting intel with that of Saddam/Iraq having stockpiles of WMD, Bush made a judgement call following the events of 911, and went with the predominant majority conclusion that he indeed possessed them. It was the right call at the right time, and was based on not just our CIA's conclusions, but by the vast majority of nearly every other country's intelligence gathering apparatus
What there is no credible evidence of, is that Bush/Cheney KNEW there were NO WMD, but took us into Iraq anyways. THAT is what's required to validate the erroneous "Bush lied, people died" mantra
-
Well, ..... I can't support a President that makes decisions based on what he perceives that "the left and MSM" would criticize, or not support after he's no longer in office. You have to make decisions based on current reality and intel at that time. That's called leadership. And while H has been able to credibly demonstrate that there were conflicting intel with that of Saddam/Iraq having stockpiles of WMD, Bush made a judgement call following the events of 911, and went with the predominant majority conclusion that he indeed possessed them. It was the right call at the right time, and was based on not just our CIA's conclusions, but by the vast majority of nearly every other country's intelligence gathering apparatus
What there is no credible evidence of, is that Bush/Cheney KNEW there were NO WMD, but took us into Iraq anyways. THAT is what's required to validate the erroneous "Bush lied, people died" mantra
There are so many things wrong with that statement it is incredible, but...You cannot tell those who will not hear, nor show those who will not see, nor, especially, teach those who will not learn. I have better things to do than keep repeating myself. Look to the results. I do, and they indicate the invasion of Iraq was 100 percent wrong, for 100 percent the wrong reasons. It was not worth the lives lost, American, coalition or Iraqi, nor the loss of American credibility. There is no party line here, no hidden agenda, just pointing out it was an incredibly stupid move.
-
Your opinion is greatly appreciated H. I'm of the opinion, based on the facts and predominant intel at the time that it was 85% the right call, and every life lost was just as sacred a sacrifice as every soul lost in WWII. Just my opinion
-
This reminds me of Pascal's conjecture.
The decision is not only based on the available facts , and history, but also on conjecture of what the potential benefits and penalties are.
There was certainly not enough evidence of Saddam's goodwill to trust him with our back turned. Nor really certain proof that he had squirreled away a lot of WMD.
But the potential for being wrong in all directions could be examined at once (Thank you Mr Schrödinger).
If Saddam were left alone and we fought in Afghanistan, he could stab us in the butt whether he had WMD or not, and if the DID have WMD he could cut our troops off and gut them.
Or if we left Saddam alone with his full suite of resources and stable of scientists , he might not have working WMD but he could soon develop them from scratch again the way that he had done before.
If we deposed Saddam , we would have a chance to remake the situation, this obviously has not been optimal so far.
But , considering that the potential downside of the decisions we did not make were greater problems , and all the good news to the contrary were state secrets of Saddam Inc.
Then..
It doesn't seem unreasonable to choose the path we did, all the other paths also had unpredictable elements , and the visible cards were favorable to bold betting.
-
It's easy to look back now, and play Monday morning QB, proclaim that there were no WMD, so it was the wrong thing to do. NO ONE has that power, except for God. You can call it a bad judgement call. You might even be able to call it impatient. Both are definitely arguable. What isn't, is the notion that Bush knew Saddam didn't have any WMD, and somehow managed to coax nearly every other intelligence agency into supporting our trumped up CIA's version. That's the ONLY means to make the claim that Bush lied us into war.
I'm all for considering criticizing Bush for making bad decisions based on bad intel, although I'd opine it was the right decision, based on the intel at the time, but I'm not going to throw common sense out the window, in the process, either
-
Look back now? As far back as, what, about the time Bushco started clamoring for war and claiming WMD's, I was right here, saying bullshit. Their claims were crap, their intelligence was cherry picked crap, all meant to divert attention from the real objective and turn attention toward toppling Saddam. The shame is, they succeeded. And their supporters go merrily on their way, blinders firmly in place.
At least Oblather is trying to find a peaceful solution instead of clamoring for another war. It may work, it may not, but he's trying. And I'm enjoying watching the warmongers turn purple with frustration.
-
Oblather is forsaking every possible bit of leverage we had, INCLUDING 4 AMERICANS STILL BEING HELD, to simply have something Iran will merely sign. And we all know how well that kept Germany in check when it was Chamberlain seeking a "peaceful" solution. Oblather's administration admits that ‘We Should Expect’ Iran Will Spend Some of the $150 Billion in revenues Oblather’s deal gives them on their Military and possibly terrorist endeavors". That should have been a red flag right there
Yes, you and a very small minority of folks didn't believe that Saddam still had is WMD stockpiles, way back then. Yes, you made that painfully clear, and made some credible arguments to that end. However, the vast majority of intel concluded otherwise. And given the weight and references of a "slam dunk", Bush made the appropriate judgement call, based on the predominant intel at the time. And it wasn't just our CIA, it was a vast majority of the rest of the globe's intelligence agencies as well. Were they ALL cherry picking as well? Or did they simply decide to go with the predeominence of intel that said he did? I'm going with logic on this one, minus the blinders.
It was a judgement call, H......I'd opine 85% intel says he had them....15% was inconclusive or he didn't have them. He, as would most leaders in that situation, and following the events of 911, went with the 85 answer. I know I sure as hell would have, and I had no interest in some "real objective of toppling Saddam". We all know now the 15% were the ones who had it right, but that doesn't mean that Bush lied us into war or even took us in on false pretenses. The region was made better, and was stabilizing. Had Oblather not foolishly put a timetable on everything, and pulled all our troops out, without any option of a residual force, that we've had in so many other countries following conflict, the current ISIS & Iran mutations would not be metastasizing, and we wouldn't be heading back down that Chamberlain road
-
I've gone over and over it in here. Posted articles, reports, links, all of it. All ignored. Blinders. Meh. I refuse to repeat myself and re-spend the time re-presenting it, especially as it is extremely difficult for me to do so these days due to physical limitations, for a small minded group of Flavor Aid drinkers. Feel free to look it up yourself.
-
Look back now? As far back as, what, about the time Bushco started clamoring for war and claiming WMD's, I was right here, saying bullshit. Their claims were crap, their intelligence was cherry picked crap, all meant to divert attention from the real objective and turn attention toward toppling Saddam. The shame is, they succeeded. And their supporters go merrily on their way, blinders firmly in place.
====================================================================
This is exactly what I said at the time and say now.
The war was a hideous mistake, based on contrived nonsense.
It is unfortunate that Americans died in that war. It is also unfortunate that so many Iraqis have had their lives ruined and ended because of this grossly stupid blunder.
-
I've gone over and over it in here. Posted articles, reports, links, all of it. All ignored. Blinders. Meh. I refuse to repeat myself and re-spend the time re-presenting it, especially as it is extremely difficult for me to do so these days due to physical limitations, for a small minded group of Flavor Aid drinkers. Feel free to look it up yourself.
Ditto. It is funny though in how a vast majority of the globe and intelligence agencies are designated as a "small minded group of flavor aid drinkers".
-
I've gone over and over it in here. .........
Hey, I appreciate the effort.
-
I've gone over and over it in here. Posted articles, reports, links, all of it. All ignored. Blinders. Meh. I refuse to repeat myself and re-spend the time re-presenting it, especially as it is extremely difficult for me to do so these days due to physical limitations, for a small minded group of Flavor Aid drinkers. Feel free to look it up yourself.
Ditto. It is funny though in how a vast majority of the globe and intelligence agencies are designated as a "small minded group of flavor aid drinkers".
Do tell - specifically who knew what and when. With reliable sources and links. Um, rather than just a general 'vast majority of the globe and intelligence agencies'. Take your time.
-
That was provided copiously, over, and over and over again, when this subject was broached over and over and over. I have no need to reinvent the wheel, and start this circular argument, all over again, repeating the same links, articles, reports, conclusions, etc. I suggest the same recommendation you provided......Feel free to look it up yourself. And by all means, take as much time as you wish, if you so wish.
-
Do tell - specifically who knew what and when. With reliable sources and links.
Um, rather than just a general 'vast majority of the globe and intelligence agencies'. Take your time.
As stated earlier, I now think we should have left Saddam in power....
but I think there were a lot of countries around the globe on board that Saddam was a major threat.
the video below certainly shows lots of important Democrats saw Saddam as a very serious WMD threat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhZ2ZvS2t_E