Israel, Iran and obama
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5181
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| DanWeiss wrote: | | Please allow me the courtesy of pointing out the truly absurd (unlimited access to all Iranian military installations, whether nuclear sites or not!) without conflating very legitimate differences between Iran and the USA with a condition of agreement that Iran surrender sovereignty of all military interests. Those differences provide the very impetus for the negotiations in the first place. |
No they don't. The impetus for the negotiations came from the years of sanctions which finally forced Iran to the bargaining table. So allow me the courtesy of vehemently disagreeing with you. Iran has deliberately and flagrantly broken previous treaties and there is every reason to believe that the current leadership would do so again. They have publicly stated that they want the destruction of not only Israel, but also the United States. They are clearly pursuing a nuclear weapon and they are simultaneously developing ICBMs. I wouldn't trust them an inch and I simply don't care if some find a demand for unfettered access unreasonable. They don't have to agree to it. They can return to a sterner sanctions regime which, along with other encouragement from the West, may ultimately lead to a change in leadership.
These are incredibly high stakes games that are being played and if politicians are sacrificing our safety in some myopic attempt to add to their "legacy" they should be strongly resisted. We've seen that disaster movie before.
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep"
Neville Chamberlain shortly before the start of WWII. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9123
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mr G
Should we support ISIS the same way we supported the Baathists in order to blunt the influence of radical Shiites? In Iran , Syria, and maybe Iraq? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5181
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rather than asking questions all the time, why don't you express an opinion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | They can return to a sterner sanctions regime |
EVERY expert I've seen discuss that prospect say it isn't so, that the sanctions have helped a great deal but once lifted cannot be reinstated, for many reasons including the necessity of global cooperation. If these idiots let the sanctions out of the toothpaste tube, no one will be able to get that cat back in the barn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In support of the position of both Mr. Gybe, and Isobars; V.S. Naipaul, Br itish Nobel Prize winner for literature (what would HE know) writing in the Mail on Sunday today, states (After an analysis of the rise of IS and militant Islam - he does not differentiate between the two, as too many Western apologists insist on doing)-
He sees IS (and militant Islam) as the single greatest threat the world now faces. 'A grotesque love of propaganda', 'unspeakable barbarity', 'hatred of the Jews and the west', 'and a hunger for world domination, with a willingness to die for that aim.' He claims, 'IS is now the fourth Reich, with Islamic state dedicated to a world holocaust. (To which most would add, only a question of when, not if, they can obtain nuclear devices.
In conclusion, unlike Chamberlain and his appeasement policy, is that annihilation of IS MUST be the objective!
To that I would simply add, before it is too late! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9123
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | Rather than asking questions all the time, why don't you express an opinion? |
I'm not a foreign policy expert .. It seems like we have a lot of Henry Kissinger wannabees on this site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Rather than asking questions all the time, why don't you express an opinion?"
OK, I think you guys are nuts. The undercurrents from spouting such witless right wing mindlessness all points to a full blown military attack to literally end Iran as a nation state. Or maybe short of that, a quasi-military offensive to establish an all out siege and blockade to economically destroy any assemblage of their government and economy. Then, after reducing them to dirt, and we can take their oil. Nothing can stop us.
Only an idiot would rationalize the destruction of Iran as a productive strategy to set things straight in the Middle East. Just chickenhawk BS that doesn't come close to addressing the complex problems that exist there. Sounds to me like rerunning Iraq all over again, but on a much bigger scale.
Doesn't the world have enough turmoil going right now in North Africa, the Middle East and Asia? Sounds to me like some of you are stupid enough to think that we can simply rub out the Islamic religions in the world, to include all the people that believe in them. A new modern Crusade to save Christianity, and maybe Judaism, for the world? Oh wait, Judaism has ultimately got to go too, because the Jews killed Jesus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beaglebuddy
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 1120
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| boggsman1 wrote: | Mr G
Should we support ISIS the same way we supported the Baathists in order to blunt the influence of radical Shiites? In Iran , Syria, and maybe Iraq? |
I have been saying for a long while that we have a perfect storm here, ISIS, AlQueda and Iran all fighting each other, we should be doing everything we can to enable that war to continue for as long as possible.
But rather than selling arms to each side when the other would start to get the upper hand as we did during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80's we should instead bomb the one side that starts to get the upper hand over the other. Enable them destroy each other, it's what they want.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chandler. Your quote: 'Just chickenhawk bullshit that doesn't come close to addressing the complex problems that exist there.' (Shoot the messenger!)
So your analysis and solution is???
Quote: 'You guys are nuts. The undercurrent from spreading such right wing mindlessness...'
So the analysis of V.S. Naipaul identifying IS militant Islam, and world domination aspirations (equal to that of the Third Reich, which resulted in world war two, and over 50 million deaths) fits your above statement.
On what basis are YOU calling HIM mindless and witless?? (Or naive?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17752
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The nattering nabobs are working overtime, and appear to be relying on Breitbart instead of any rational analysis. The right has been wrong on Iran for decades now. Particularly offensive, as usual, are mrgybe's claims that all who favor diplomacy are neo-Chamberlin's, or worse, as he puts words in Dan Weiss's mouth to make a point he is not capable of otherwise making. Perhaps even more offensive are bigot bard's comments about a religion he has no understanding of.
Iran is one of the wicked problems that is not easily solvable. Efforts at diplomacy broke down in 2003 with Bush's position that Iran could not have a single centrifuge. So Iran stopped negotiating and started buying more centrifuges. They have 10,000 operating centrifuges, and another 8,000 that they have bought (more modern) but are not yet operating. There is some thoughtful, not partisan discussion here: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2014_0708/Features/Agreeing-on-Limits-for-Irans-Centrifuge-Program-A-Two-Stage-Strategy
by people more interested in limiting nuclear power than in bashing Obama and liberals.
Most on the right opposed diplomacy and sanctions, and argued that it would never work. Now that the sanctions have had an impact on Iran's economy and economic well being, and brought Iran to the table, Republicans want to double down--without any coherent end game. The most extreme, Cheney and crew, proposed a pre-emptive attack on Iran's facilities. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/11/27/the-next-act
From that article:
| Quote: | The Administration’s planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House’s assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency. (The C.I.A. declined to comment on this story.)
The C.I.A.’s analysis, which has been circulated to other agencies for comment, was based on technical intelligence collected by overhead satellites, and on other empirical evidence, such as measurements of the radioactivity of water samples and smoke plumes from factories and power plants. Additional data have been gathered, intelligence sources told me, by high-tech (and highly classified) radioactivity-detection devices that clandestine American and Israeli agents placed near suspected nuclear-weapons facilities inside Iran in the past year or so. No significant amounts of radioactivity were found.
..The former senior intelligence official added that the C.I.A. assessment raised the possibility that an American attack on Iran could end up serving as a rallying point to unite Sunni and Shiite populations. “An American attack will paper over any differences in the Arab world, and we’ll have Syrians, Iranians, Hamas, and Hezbollah fighting against us—and the Saudis and the Egyptians questioning their ties to the West. It’s an analyst’s worst nightmare—for the first time since the caliphate there will be common cause in the Middle East.” (An Islamic caliphate ruled the Middle East for over six hundred years, until the thirteenth century.)
According to the Pentagon consultant, “The C.I.A.’s view is that, without more intelligence, a large-scale bombing attack would not stop Iran’s nuclear program. And a low-end campaign of subversion and sabotage would play into Iran’s hands—bolstering support for the religious leadership and deepening anti-American Muslim rage.”
The Pentagon consultant said that he and many of his colleagues in the military believe that Iran is intent on developing nuclear-weapons capability. But he added that the Bush Administration’s options for dealing with that threat are diminished, because of a lack of good intelligence and also because “we’ve cried wolf” before.. |
Now we have better intelligence since then, and I don't trust Iran leadership any more than the right. But the difficulties remain. The CIA has made it clear that the Iran facilities cannot be taken out with a conventional bombing attack, use of a nuclear approach in a pre-emptive war is unthinkable, and threatens the whole world, and use ground troops would be opposed by the American public and would unite all warring factions against us. Given that, diplomacy seems a pretty good idea.
Neither the righties, nor their wing-nuts in Congress, seem to have any appreciation of the generational shift in Iran. The old guard is exactly that--old. The country is actually quite young and well educated, further along in modernization than virtually all of the rest of the Muslim countries across Northern Africa, the Middle East, and southern Asia. Losing the hearts and minds of another generation of Iranians would be a mistake of even greater magnitude than invading Iraq. Considering military operations such as a bombing strategy or invasion is sheer folly. One of the many great mistakes of the Iraq war was that it undermined the credibility of threatening military action. The US was quickly bogged down in an insurrection that paralyzed most of our efforts. Iran is a more populous and more modern country, and the American public will never stomach another war unless attacked.
The militarists and the right wing have been wrong about Iran since the coup of 1953. The current batch of Re-thug/Teabaggers have no program beyond bashing Obama. No less than "Yee hah" in the Bush era, Nihilism is not a foreign policy.
Arguing, as I have here, that a successful effort to reduce the operating centrifuges--bought for the most part during the Bush administration--from 10,000 to 6,000, and gain 10 or more years for the generational roll-over to perhaps change Iran's governance is not appeasement. It is a recognition that the other options are not good, and that at the end of the day Iran is a more modern country, and less volatile, than North Korea, Pakistan, and perhaps even Israel under Netanyahu. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
  |
iWindsurf Community Forum Index
-> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
|
| Page 3 of 10 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
