Iran Nuclear Deal

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
381

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.[/quote]

True, some have read the propaganda and are buying the fact that a terrorist country that has never kept their word is now going to play nice–uh huh.

More sanctions and if they attempt to develop nuclear weapons unleash Israel on them. Simple and very effective.

[/quote]

So simple and effective that none of the people within the intelligence services thinks it is a valid approach. But what do those people know, the professionals, the average Joe has a better grasp on incredibly complicated geo-political matters.[/quote]

First of all I agree there are some very complicated geo-political matters. But, the Iran Nuclear deal is NOT one of them. It’s basically a no brainer

You should read what about 200 high level retired military folks think of the bad deal that Kerry and Obama are so proud of:

What do they know right?
[/quote]

I would imagine retired military personnel have very little insight compared to current and active members of the intelligence services.

My brother was in the military and served his country in multiple deployments. He however wouldn’t be the person I want handling policy, I want my nations secret service and intelligence community to do that, alongside the politicians who are briefed by these people and have all the information me you and retired military personnel do not have access to.[/quote]

Lol, 24 year old analyst > than 30+ year retired military officer, right…

You guys crack me up. I’m pretty sure the intelligence community briefed George W. Bush, Condalisa Rice, Colin Powel, and Dick Cheney ever signal day about WMDs in Iraq. How’d that turn out?

382

That’s an odd way of putting it, “my brother was in the military and served his country in multiple deployments.”

383

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.[/quote]

True, some have read the propaganda and are buying the fact that a terrorist country that has never kept their word is now going to play nice–uh huh.

More sanctions and if they attempt to develop nuclear weapons unleash Israel on them. Simple and very effective.

[/quote]

So simple and effective that none of the people within the intelligence services thinks it is a valid approach. But what do those people know, the professionals, the average Joe has a better grasp on incredibly complicated geo-political matters.[/quote]

First of all I agree there are some very complicated geo-political matters. But, the Iran Nuclear deal is NOT one of them. It’s basically a no brainer

You should read what about 200 high level retired military folks think of the bad deal that Kerry and Obama are so proud of:

What do they know right?
[/quote]

I would imagine retired military personnel have very little insight compared to current and active members of the intelligence services.

My brother was in the military and served his country in multiple deployments. He however wouldn’t be the person I want handling policy, I want my nations secret service and intelligence community to do that, alongside the politicians who are briefed by these people and have all the information me you and retired military personnel do not have access to.[/quote]

Lol, 24 year old analyst > than 30+ year retired military officer, right…

You guys crack me up. I’m pretty sure the intelligence community briefed George W. Bush, Condalisa Rice, Colin Powel, and Dick Cheney ever signal day about WMDs in Iraq. How’d that turn out? [/quote]

Do you think the higher positions of mI5 and the CIA are made up of 24 year olds? Do you think military personnel have any clue about what intel, what insight the intelligence services have?

And yes the intelligence services were basically told what position to have by the political leadership in regards to the Iraq war. They basically did what was asked of them, which was provide support for the launching of war.

However almost every single intelligence service worldwide deemed Saddam to have access to biological weaponry and to be pursuing a WMD capability, including for example, the Russians. No one is saying intel is never wrong, they are saying the intelligence community actually have access to sensitive and secret information and details military personnel and the general public do not.

Why on earth would serving or retired military personnel have any clue about the intel and everything that goes in to making these decisions?

384

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.[/quote]

True, some have read the propaganda and are buying the fact that a terrorist country that has never kept their word is now going to play nice–uh huh.

More sanctions and if they attempt to develop nuclear weapons unleash Israel on them. Simple and very effective.

[/quote]

So simple and effective that none of the people within the intelligence services thinks it is a valid approach. But what do those people know, the professionals, the average Joe has a better grasp on incredibly complicated geo-political matters.[/quote]

First of all I agree there are some very complicated geo-political matters. But, the Iran Nuclear deal is NOT one of them. It’s basically a no brainer

You should read what about 200 high level retired military folks think of the bad deal that Kerry and Obama are so proud of:

What do they know right?
[/quote]

I would imagine retired military personnel have very little insight compared to current and active members of the intelligence services.

My brother was in the military and served his country in multiple deployments. He however wouldn’t be the person I want handling policy, I want my nations secret service and intelligence community to do that, alongside the politicians who are briefed by these people and have all the information me you and retired military personnel do not have access to.[/quote]

Was your brother a General? No? Okay.

As for the eggheads who think it’s a good idea I have on respect for them. We elected one to the White House a left leaning inexperienced one at that and now we have a world wide mess on our hands.

I’ll take the advice of those who have lived it and understand it better than the left leaning intellectual set. They usually get it wrong most every time.

385

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That’s an odd way of putting it, “my brother was in the military and served his country in multiple deployments.” [/quote]

That’s what you say when …YOU GOT NOTHIN!

386

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.[/quote]

True, some have read the propaganda and are buying the fact that a terrorist country that has never kept their word is now going to play nice–uh huh.

More sanctions and if they attempt to develop nuclear weapons unleash Israel on them. Simple and very effective.

[/quote]

So simple and effective that none of the people within the intelligence services thinks it is a valid approach. But what do those people know, the professionals, the average Joe has a better grasp on incredibly complicated geo-political matters.[/quote]

First of all I agree there are some very complicated geo-political matters. But, the Iran Nuclear deal is NOT one of them. It’s basically a no brainer

You should read what about 200 high level retired military folks think of the bad deal that Kerry and Obama are so proud of:

What do they know right?
[/quote]

I would imagine retired military personnel have very little insight compared to current and active members of the intelligence services.

My brother was in the military and served his country in multiple deployments. He however wouldn’t be the person I want handling policy, I want my nations secret service and intelligence community to do that, alongside the politicians who are briefed by these people and have all the information me you and retired military personnel do not have access to.[/quote]

Lol, 24 year old analyst > than 30+ year retired military officer, right…

You guys crack me up. I’m pretty sure the intelligence community briefed George W. Bush, Condalisa Rice, Colin Powel, and Dick Cheney ever signal day about WMDs in Iraq. How’d that turn out? [/quote]

Do you think the higher positions of mI5 and the CIA are made up of 24 year olds? Do you think military personnel have any clue about what intel, what insight the intelligence services have?

And yes the intelligence services were basically told what position to have by the political leadership in regards to the Iraq war. They basically did what was asked of them, which was provide support for the launching of war.

However almost every single intelligence service worldwide deemed Saddam to have access to biological weaponry and to be pursuing a WMD capability, including for example, the Russians. No one is saying intel is never wrong, they are saying the intelligence community actually have access to sensitive and secret information and details military personnel and the general public do not.

Why on earth would serving or retired military personnel have any clue about the intel and everything that goes in to making these decisions?[/quote]

Again, lol. Whatever, I don’t really care at this point. You and Bismark got what you wanted. The deal will stand. It is what it is.

I’ll make sure and resurrect this thread in 5 years when we are bombing Tehran.

387

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.[/quote]

True, some have read the propaganda and are buying the fact that a terrorist country that has never kept their word is now going to play nice–uh huh.

More sanctions and if they attempt to develop nuclear weapons unleash Israel on them. Simple and very effective.

[/quote]

So simple and effective that none of the people within the intelligence services thinks it is a valid approach. But what do those people know, the professionals, the average Joe has a better grasp on incredibly complicated geo-political matters.[/quote]

First of all I agree there are some very complicated geo-political matters. But, the Iran Nuclear deal is NOT one of them. It’s basically a no brainer

You should read what about 200 high level retired military folks think of the bad deal that Kerry and Obama are so proud of:

What do they know right?
[/quote]

I would imagine retired military personnel have very little insight compared to current and active members of the intelligence services.

My brother was in the military and served his country in multiple deployments. He however wouldn’t be the person I want handling policy, I want my nations secret service and intelligence community to do that, alongside the politicians who are briefed by these people and have all the information me you and retired military personnel do not have access to.[/quote]

Lol, 24 year old analyst > than 30+ year retired military officer, right…

You guys crack me up. I’m pretty sure the intelligence community briefed George W. Bush, Condalisa Rice, Colin Powel, and Dick Cheney ever signal day about WMDs in Iraq. How’d that turn out? [/quote]

Do you think the higher positions of mI5 and the CIA are made up of 24 year olds? Do you think military personnel have any clue about what intel, what insight the intelligence services have?

And yes the intelligence services were basically told what position to have by the political leadership in regards to the Iraq war. They basically did what was asked of them, which was provide support for the launching of war.

However almost every single intelligence service worldwide deemed Saddam to have access to biological weaponry and to be pursuing a WMD capability, including for example, the Russians. No one is saying intel is never wrong, they are saying the intelligence community actually have access to sensitive and secret information and details military personnel and the general public do not.

Why on earth would serving or retired military personnel have any clue about the intel and everything that goes in to making these decisions?[/quote]

Again, lol. Whatever, I don’t really care at this point. You and Bismark got what you wanted. The deal will stand. It is what it is.

I’ll make sure and resurrect this thread in 5 years when we are bombing Tehran. [/quote]

In 10 years when Iran have become a main ally in the region via their Shia surrogates in Iraq and Syria and we are arming them and sanctions are gone and our countries have become allies of necessity to offset Sunni overreach, I will humbly avoid resurrecting the thread.

388

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.[/quote]

True, some have read the propaganda and are buying the fact that a terrorist country that has never kept their word is now going to play nice–uh huh.

More sanctions and if they attempt to develop nuclear weapons unleash Israel on them. Simple and very effective.

[/quote]

So simple and effective that none of the people within the intelligence services thinks it is a valid approach. But what do those people know, the professionals, the average Joe has a better grasp on incredibly complicated geo-political matters.[/quote]

First of all I agree there are some very complicated geo-political matters. But, the Iran Nuclear deal is NOT one of them. It’s basically a no brainer

You should read what about 200 high level retired military folks think of the bad deal that Kerry and Obama are so proud of:

What do they know right?
[/quote]

I would imagine retired military personnel have very little insight compared to current and active members of the intelligence services.

My brother was in the military and served his country in multiple deployments. He however wouldn’t be the person I want handling policy, I want my nations secret service and intelligence community to do that, alongside the politicians who are briefed by these people and have all the information me you and retired military personnel do not have access to.[/quote]

Lol, 24 year old analyst > than 30+ year retired military officer, right…

You guys crack me up. I’m pretty sure the intelligence community briefed George W. Bush, Condalisa Rice, Colin Powel, and Dick Cheney ever signal day about WMDs in Iraq. How’d that turn out? [/quote]

Do you think the higher positions of mI5 and the CIA are made up of 24 year olds? Do you think military personnel have any clue about what intel, what insight the intelligence services have?

And yes the intelligence services were basically told what position to have by the political leadership in regards to the Iraq war. They basically did what was asked of them, which was provide support for the launching of war.

However almost every single intelligence service worldwide deemed Saddam to have access to biological weaponry and to be pursuing a WMD capability, including for example, the Russians. No one is saying intel is never wrong, they are saying the intelligence community actually have access to sensitive and secret information and details military personnel and the general public do not.

Why on earth would serving or retired military personnel have any clue about the intel and everything that goes in to making these decisions?[/quote]

Again, lol. Whatever, I don’t really care at this point. You and Bismark got what you wanted. The deal will stand. It is what it is.

I’ll make sure and resurrect this thread in 5 years when we are bombing Tehran. [/quote]

In 10 years when Iran have become a main ally in the region via their Shia surrogates in Iraq and Syria and we are arming them and sanctions are gone and our countries have become allies of necessity to offset Sunni overreach, I will humbly avoid resurrecting the thread.
[/quote]

Someone skipped history class a few times.

390

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
And yes the intelligence services were basically told what position to have by the political leadership in regards to the Iraq war. They basically did what was asked of them, which was provide support for the launching of war.
[/quote]

… And you don’t think this is true of the Iran agreement why?

391

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
And yes the intelligence services were basically told what position to have by the political leadership in regards to the Iraq war. They basically did what was asked of them, which was provide support for the launching of war.
[/quote]

… And you don’t think this is true of the Iran agreement why? [/quote]

Because the logical choice was the Iran deal, the covert agenda for the past year has been to readdress the position in the region. The intelligence is wary of the situation we have, Pakistan, a sunni, nuclear power with a popular insurgency of Sunni radicals. Iraq and Syria collapsing and being devoured by civil war in which Sunni radicals have taken thousands of square miles and could very well over the next 10 years take the whole region.

We have tightened our ties to Shia forces on the ground, we are very likely to be arming and funding them through Kurdish forces in the region. Our entire posturing and attitude seems to be pointing to the natural ally in the region being the force on the ground, that is isolated and hated by every other Sunni group around them.

Basically I think the intelligence community and the political community know that the only worthwhile play they have is to slowly normalise relations with Iran, keep working with Iranian surrogates on the ground and hope to try and maintain the situation and avoid the nightmare of the entire region falling to Sunni control and the construction of a powerful, militarily competent Sunni superstate which is armed with nukes and won’t hesitate to use them immediately on Israel and Iran.

This is why as I said above there is much talk about the intelligence community thinking Iran need a bomb and Iran will become an ally over the next decade. Internally the situation in Iran looks good, the moderates have gained a great deal through this deal and the economic ramifications and public reaction there to it.

I am not saying any choice is foolproof. I am simply saying this seems the best bet and the most likely.

392

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
And yes the intelligence services were basically told what position to have by the political leadership in regards to the Iraq war. They basically did what was asked of them, which was provide support for the launching of war.
[/quote]

… And you don’t think this is true of the Iran agreement why? [/quote]

Because the logical choice was the Iran deal, the covert agenda for the past year has been to readdress the position in the region. The intelligence is wary of the situation we have, Pakistan, a sunni, nuclear power with a popular insurgency of Sunni radicals. Iraq and Syria collapsing and being devoured by civil war in which Sunni radicals have taken thousands of square miles and could very well over the next 10 years take the whole region.

We have tightened our ties to Shia forces on the ground, we are very likely to be arming and funding them through Kurdish forces in the region. Our entire posturing and attitude seems to be pointing to the natural ally in the region being the force on the ground, that is isolated and hated by every other Sunni group around them.

Basically I think the intelligence community and the political community know that the only worthwhile play they have is to slowly normalise relations with Iran, keep working with Iranian surrogates on the ground and hope to try and maintain the situation and avoid the nightmare of the entire region falling to Sunni control and the construction of a powerful, militarily competent Sunni superstate which is armed with nukes and won’t hesitate to use them immediately on Israel and Iran.

This is why as I said above there is much talk about the intelligence community thinking Iran need a bomb and Iran will become an ally over the next decade. Internally the situation in Iran looks good, the moderates have gained a great deal through this deal and the economic ramifications and public reaction there to it.

I am not saying any choice is foolproof. I am simply saying this seems the best bet and the most likely.[/quote]

You are basing all of the above on what intelligence services have said in regard to the Iran Nuclear Deal yet you just admitted those same services serve at leisure of and are clearly pushed by the current administration in order to further said administration’s goals. All of the European countries, China, and Russia benefit economically from this deal. President Obama thinks it is part of his legacy and you’ve bought wholly into the notion that the intelligence communities around the globe have supported the deal, “Because the logical choice was the Iran deal,” in your opinion.

There are clear alternative motives at play here.

393

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
And yes the intelligence services were basically told what position to have by the political leadership in regards to the Iraq war. They basically did what was asked of them, which was provide support for the launching of war.
[/quote]

… And you don’t think this is true of the Iran agreement why? [/quote]

Because the logical choice was the Iran deal, the covert agenda for the past year has been to readdress the position in the region. The intelligence is wary of the situation we have, Pakistan, a sunni, nuclear power with a popular insurgency of Sunni radicals. Iraq and Syria collapsing and being devoured by civil war in which Sunni radicals have taken thousands of square miles and could very well over the next 10 years take the whole region.

We have tightened our ties to Shia forces on the ground, we are very likely to be arming and funding them through Kurdish forces in the region. Our entire posturing and attitude seems to be pointing to the natural ally in the region being the force on the ground, that is isolated and hated by every other Sunni group around them.

Basically I think the intelligence community and the political community know that the only worthwhile play they have is to slowly normalise relations with Iran, keep working with Iranian surrogates on the ground and hope to try and maintain the situation and avoid the nightmare of the entire region falling to Sunni control and the construction of a powerful, militarily competent Sunni superstate which is armed with nukes and won’t hesitate to use them immediately on Israel and Iran.

This is why as I said above there is much talk about the intelligence community thinking Iran need a bomb and Iran will become an ally over the next decade. Internally the situation in Iran looks good, the moderates have gained a great deal through this deal and the economic ramifications and public reaction there to it.

I am not saying any choice is foolproof. I am simply saying this seems the best bet and the most likely.[/quote]

You are basing all of the above on what intelligence services have said in regard to the Iran Nuclear Deal yet you just admitted those same services serve at leisure of and are clearly pushed by the current administration in order to further said administration’s goals. All of the European countries, China, and Russia benefit economically from this deal. President Obama thinks it is part of his legacy and you’ve bought wholly into the notion that the intelligence communities around the globe have supported the deal, “Because the logical choice was the Iran deal,” in your opinion.

There are clear alternative motives at play here. [/quote]

The intelligence community wanted to remove Saddam and they used the widely held belief that Saddam did have chemical weapons and was actively trying to acquire WMD’s (which he certainly was) in order to push through the validity of the war, for the administration. However they didn’t conspiratorially make up the entire line of reasoning for removing Saddam. They were calling for Saddam’s removal during the first Gulf war.

And of course there are political motives at play, but that does not mean the view is held that the Iran deal and closer relations with Iran isn’t the smart Geopolitical play and the smart choice. What is scarier in an all out situation. Iran having nukes or a consolidated Sunni superstate controlled by the liked of the IS leadership full of Islamic radicals (far more radical and irrational than even the hardest line Iranians) and former Baath Generals who will likely immediately strike Israel?

Given how much the Iran deal strengthens the moderates in Iran and will lead to economic stabilisation and public driven reform, it is the best option.

394

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
And yes the intelligence services were basically told what position to have by the political leadership in regards to the Iraq war. They basically did what was asked of them, which was provide support for the launching of war.
[/quote]

… And you don’t think this is true of the Iran agreement why? [/quote]

Because the logical choice was the Iran deal, the covert agenda for the past year has been to readdress the position in the region. The intelligence is wary of the situation we have, Pakistan, a sunni, nuclear power with a popular insurgency of Sunni radicals. Iraq and Syria collapsing and being devoured by civil war in which Sunni radicals have taken thousands of square miles and could very well over the next 10 years take the whole region.

We have tightened our ties to Shia forces on the ground, we are very likely to be arming and funding them through Kurdish forces in the region. Our entire posturing and attitude seems to be pointing to the natural ally in the region being the force on the ground, that is isolated and hated by every other Sunni group around them.

Basically I think the intelligence community and the political community know that the only worthwhile play they have is to slowly normalise relations with Iran, keep working with Iranian surrogates on the ground and hope to try and maintain the situation and avoid the nightmare of the entire region falling to Sunni control and the construction of a powerful, militarily competent Sunni superstate which is armed with nukes and won’t hesitate to use them immediately on Israel and Iran.

This is why as I said above there is much talk about the intelligence community thinking Iran need a bomb and Iran will become an ally over the next decade. Internally the situation in Iran looks good, the moderates have gained a great deal through this deal and the economic ramifications and public reaction there to it.

I am not saying any choice is foolproof. I am simply saying this seems the best bet and the most likely.[/quote]

You are basing all of the above on what intelligence services have said in regard to the Iran Nuclear Deal yet you just admitted those same services serve at leisure of and are clearly pushed by the current administration in order to further said administration’s goals. All of the European countries, China, and Russia benefit economically from this deal. President Obama thinks it is part of his legacy and you’ve bought wholly into the notion that the intelligence communities around the globe have supported the deal, “Because the logical choice was the Iran deal,” in your opinion.

There are clear alternative motives at play here. [/quote]

The intelligence community wanted to remove Saddam and they used the widely held belief that Saddam did have chemical weapons and was actively trying to acquire WMD’s (which he certainly was) in order to push through the validity of the war, for the administration. However they didn’t conspiratorially make up the entire line of reasoning for removing Saddam. They were calling for Saddam’s removal during the first Gulf war.

And of course there are political motives at play, but that does not mean the view is held that the Iran deal and closer relations with Iran isn’t the smart Geopolitical play and the smart choice. What is scarier in an all out situation. Iran having nukes or a consolidated Sunni superstate controlled by the liked of the IS leadership full of Islamic radicals (far more radical and irrational than even the hardest line Iranians) and former Baath Generals who will likely immediately strike Israel?

Given how much the Iran deal strengthens the moderates in Iran and will lead to economic stabilisation and public driven reform, it is the best option.[/quote]

You still don’t get it.

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
If the Iran deal is so bad why do the secret services and intelligence agencies of the majority of the western world seem pretty happy with it? [/quote]

Because politicians, much like during the ramp up to the war in Iraq, have likely pushed their intelligence communities to favor the deal for a myriad of reason, mainly money and legacy, already stated. The intelligence community, as you’ve pointed out, is not objective yet you and Bismark have repeatedly pointed to their stance as the reason to support the deal while rejecting other perspectives (like the retired military personnel). It’s logically inconsistent.

Now we are hearing U.S. intelligence is being manipulated by higher ranking officials in regards to Islamic State.

395

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

When you simplify a position to a point of absurdity, it becomes easy to knock its straw body down. [/quote]

Go for it.[/quote]

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.

Again, it is not enough to lambast the deal. Critics must offer a viable alternative. Foreign policy is rarely constituted by choosing the ideal. What is the alternative? No one has answered this question satisfactorily. [/quote]

I have offered many potential alternatives, alternatives posited by experts sitting in high seats whose job it is to deal with foreign affairs. It’s your own damn fault if you skipped it.

396

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.[/quote]

True, some have read the propaganda and are buying the fact that a terrorist country that has never kept their word is now going to play nice–uh huh.

More sanctions and if they attempt to develop nuclear weapons unleash Israel on them. Simple and very effective.

[/quote]

So simple and effective that none of the people within the intelligence services thinks it is a valid approach. But what do those people know, the professionals, the average Joe has a better grasp on incredibly complicated geo-political matters.[/quote]

First of all I agree there are some very complicated geo-political matters. But, the Iran Nuclear deal is NOT one of them. It’s basically a no brainer

You should read what about 200 high level retired military folks think of the bad deal that Kerry and Obama are so proud of:

What do they know right?
[/quote]

I would imagine retired military personnel have very little insight compared to current and active members of the intelligence services.

My brother was in the military and served his country in multiple deployments. He however wouldn’t be the person I want handling policy, I want my nations secret service and intelligence community to do that, alongside the politicians who are briefed by these people and have all the information me you and retired military personnel do not have access to.[/quote]

Lol, 24 year old analyst > than 30+ year retired military officer, right…

You guys crack me up. I’m pretty sure the intelligence community briefed George W. Bush, Condalisa Rice, Colin Powel, and Dick Cheney ever signal day about WMDs in Iraq. How’d that turn out? [/quote]

Do you think the higher positions of mI5 and the CIA are made up of 24 year olds? Do you think military personnel have any clue about what intel, what insight the intelligence services have?

And yes the intelligence services were basically told what position to have by the political leadership in regards to the Iraq war. They basically did what was asked of them, which was provide support for the launching of war.

However almost every single intelligence service worldwide deemed Saddam to have access to biological weaponry and to be pursuing a WMD capability, including for example, the Russians. No one is saying intel is never wrong, they are saying the intelligence community actually have access to sensitive and secret information and details military personnel and the general public do not.

Why on earth would serving or retired military personnel have any clue about the intel and everything that goes in to making these decisions?[/quote]

Again, lol. Whatever, I don’t really care at this point. You and Bismark got what you wanted. The deal will stand. It is what it is.

I’ll make sure and resurrect this thread in 5 years when we are bombing Tehran. [/quote]

In 10 years when Iran have become a main ally in the region via their Shia surrogates in Iraq and Syria and we are arming them and sanctions are gone and our countries have become allies of necessity to offset Sunni overreach, I will humbly avoid resurrecting the thread.
[/quote]

This must all happen in between them shouting “DEATH TO AMERICA”

397

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.[/quote]

True, some have read the propaganda and are buying the fact that a terrorist country that has never kept their word is now going to play nice–uh huh.

More sanctions and if they attempt to develop nuclear weapons unleash Israel on them. Simple and very effective.

[/quote]

So simple and effective that none of the people within the intelligence services thinks it is a valid approach. But what do those people know, the professionals, the average Joe has a better grasp on incredibly complicated geo-political matters.[/quote]

First of all I agree there are some very complicated geo-political matters. But, the Iran Nuclear deal is NOT one of them. It’s basically a no brainer

You should read what about 200 high level retired military folks think of the bad deal that Kerry and Obama are so proud of:

What do they know right?
[/quote]

I would imagine retired military personnel have very little insight compared to current and active members of the intelligence services.

My brother was in the military and served his country in multiple deployments. He however wouldn’t be the person I want handling policy, I want my nations secret service and intelligence community to do that, alongside the politicians who are briefed by these people and have all the information me you and retired military personnel do not have access to.[/quote]

Lol, 24 year old analyst > than 30+ year retired military officer, right…

You guys crack me up. I’m pretty sure the intelligence community briefed George W. Bush, Condalisa Rice, Colin Powel, and Dick Cheney ever signal day about WMDs in Iraq. How’d that turn out? [/quote]

Do you think the higher positions of mI5 and the CIA are made up of 24 year olds? Do you think military personnel have any clue about what intel, what insight the intelligence services have?

And yes the intelligence services were basically told what position to have by the political leadership in regards to the Iraq war. They basically did what was asked of them, which was provide support for the launching of war.

However almost every single intelligence service worldwide deemed Saddam to have access to biological weaponry and to be pursuing a WMD capability, including for example, the Russians. No one is saying intel is never wrong, they are saying the intelligence community actually have access to sensitive and secret information and details military personnel and the general public do not.

Why on earth would serving or retired military personnel have any clue about the intel and everything that goes in to making these decisions?[/quote]

Again, lol. Whatever, I don’t really care at this point. You and Bismark got what you wanted. The deal will stand. It is what it is.

I’ll make sure and resurrect this thread in 5 years when we are bombing Tehran. [/quote]

In 10 years when Iran have become a main ally in the region via their Shia surrogates in Iraq and Syria and we are arming them and sanctions are gone and our countries have become allies of necessity to offset Sunni overreach, I will humbly avoid resurrecting the thread.
[/quote]

This must all happen in between them shouting “DEATH TO AMERICA”[/quote]

If Iran had removed democratic leaders in America or the UK and installed a dictator who repressed and tortured thousands and basically handed over control of domestic natural resources, do you think folks in Montana and Manchester might be chanting DEATH TO IRAN?

Before the removal of the democratically elected leader Mohammad Mosaddegh Islamic fundamentalists held almost zero public support. When Mosaddegh sweeped to victory in the elections and planned on nationalising oil the west toppled him, installed a ruthless dictator who oppressed and tortured the population. This caused mass support for the Islamic revolutionaries who wanted to overthrow the dictator. It is something called blow back.

So if the roles were reversed and Iran toppled the democratically elected leaders of the U.S and took control of the natural resources and installed a dictator who tortured the population and had dissenters killed, would you join in chants of DEATH TO IRAN?

399

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.[/quote]

True, some have read the propaganda and are buying the fact that a terrorist country that has never kept their word is now going to play nice–uh huh.

More sanctions and if they attempt to develop nuclear weapons unleash Israel on them. Simple and very effective.

[/quote]

Applying more sanctions won’t be effective in this case since the rest of the world isn’t going to forgo their own respective national interests to appease one segment of US legislators. I’m not sure there’s a viable path to more sanctions, but I would be interested in reading well thought out scenarios where this could work.

With the agreement, there’s at least a mechanism in place for sanctions to resume that major world powers have already agreed to. Even if you scoff at this idea, surely it is the superior option to having the international sanctions regime simply crumble.

There will still be unilateral US sanctions in place. So no one needs to freak out about the idea of Exxon going into Iran build out its energy infrastructure (companies like Shell, Total, and Eni will be responsible for that). But unilateral US sanctions never crippled the Iranian regime like the recent-ish UN sanctions have.

Broad international support of UN sanctions against Iran are what catalyzed this whole process in the first place. And the reality is that UN sanctions have zero chance of surviving, regardless of what the Israeli PM and Republican members of Congress want. UN sanctions were only going to survive if Iran acted irresponsible at negotiations.

In any case, we live in a world where an agreement has been reached and has been given public support from an overwhelming majority of domestic and international strategists. Going forward, there is no rational option but to live with it. Even if, hypothetically, US Congress was able to scuttle the deal, this would backfire against US interests. We would alienate and piss off our European allies, and China and Russia would mock us. Sanctions would crumble and Russia, China, Pakistan, India, South Korea, Japan and other nations would be ready to do business with Iran in short order. Additionally, from an international perspective, the US would be ceding moral high ground to Iran and would lose a considerable amount of credibility that we can ill afford to lose more of.

400

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

When you simplify a position to a point of absurdity, it becomes easy to knock its straw body down. [/quote]

Go for it.[/quote]

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.

Again, it is not enough to lambast the deal. Critics must offer a viable alternative. Foreign policy is rarely constituted by choosing the ideal. What is the alternative? No one has answered this question satisfactorily. [/quote]

I have offered many potential alternatives, alternatives posited by experts sitting in high seats whose job it is to deal with foreign affairs. It’s your own damn fault if you skipped it.[/quote]

Bistro’s definitely been the ostrich in that regard.[/quote]

Except he hasn’t. You yourself have done nothing but criticize the deal. Do you have an alternative Push? He came into this discussion with his mind made up despite being wholly unfamiliar with something as basic as the Treaty on the Non-Prologeration of Nulear Weapons. The alternatives he did offer were the result of magical thinking. Increased sanctions? Nope, ignores international political economics. Israeli military action? Nope, it ignores the military-technical and political reasons why a preventative strike by the IAF is not viable. Covert action? Nope, the scale of Iran’s nuclear program and the demonstrate proficiency of Iran’s internal security organs precludes that option.