DIck Cheney Wrong then, Wrong now...

[Runnin]

Not stateside you crazy foreigner.

Just a heads up.

[The Chosen One]

I find it interesting how the Republican rhetoric on Iran has evolved.

2008 and 2012 election cycles: "We must stop Iran now! Any day now the clock is ticking they're going to attack us and Israel!"

Today: "Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, they don't pose a threat in their current state, their military is not that strong. With this deal, we're giving them the keys to a Corvette for free!"

[BedellBrave]

I wonder if POTUS's Iran deal is in part his means of dealing with ISIS.

[The Chosen One]

I wonder if POTUS's Iran deal is in part his means of dealing with ISIS.

Iran and ISIS do not see eye to eye.

I do think Iran long term is a better ally in helping us take down ISIS than Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistani governments.

[BedellBrave]

Iran and ISIS do not see eye to eye.

I do think Iran long term is a better ally in helping us take down ISIS than Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistani governments.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about - Shi'a vs. Sunni.

[Oklahomahawk]

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about - Shi'a vs. Sunni.

Remember a few years back when I got called names (not that that's unusual) for saying we should split Iraq up into 3 separate states, 1 Sunni, 1 Shi-ite, and 1 Kurdish state? We definite should be (and should HAVE BEEN) playing the Sunnis and Shi-ites off against each other, I just don't think the DUMAS's in our government have the sense to know how. I don't think they understand the Middle East now and I don't think they have ever really understood it.

[The Chosen One]

Remember a few years back when I got called names (not that that's unusual) for saying we should split Iraq up into 3 separate states, 1 Sunni, 1 Shi-ite, and 1 Kurdish state? We definite should be (and should HAVE BEEN) playing the Sunnis and Shi-ites off against each other, I just don't think the DUMAS's in our government have the sense to know how. I don't think they understand the Middle East now and I don't think they have ever really understood it.

Just to clarify are you saying separate countries or states/provinces within a united Iraq?

[Oklahomahawk]

Just to clarify are you saying separate countries or states/provinces within a united Iraq?

Wouldn't they have to be separate countries? Wouldn't making them separate states inside one united Iraq solve anything?

[The Chosen One]

Wouldn't they have to be separate countries? Wouldn't making them separate states inside one united Iraq solve anything?

That's what I was thinking. I remember reading problems with the 3 state solution is most of the oil is in one area which if Iraq were divided into 3 would be the Sunni territory I think?

[BedellBrave]

That's what I was thinking. I remember reading problems with the 3 state solution is most of the oil is in one area which if Iraq were divided into 3 would be the Sunni territory I think?

And they aren't all neatly separated communities - the Shia and Sunnis, though pockets can be found, are fairly interspersed. The Biden/Hawk plan, while sounding good initially, would have caused major dispersion and would have been equally (imo) easy to screw-up.

And OHawk, please don't consider my disagreeing with you on that as me calling you a name.

[Oklahomahawk]

And they aren't all neatly separated communities - the Shia and Sunnis, though pockets can be found, are fairly interspersed. The Biden/Hawk plan, while sounding good initially, would have caused major dispersion and would have been equally (imo) easy to screw-up.

And OHawk, please don't consider my disagreeing with you on that as me calling you a name.

Never crossed my mind. By the way, what's your solution here?

[BedellBrave]

To the Iran deal? ISIS? Iraq? The refugee crisis? Or all of the above?

[50PoundHead]

I wonder if POTUS's Iran deal is in part his means of dealing with ISIS.

I think that is part of it and it might be crazy on the part of the administration to think that. But as long as Iran was isolated, how could anyone make a request of them to help with anything? The Iran deal certainly is a risk, but so was doing nothing. The question is whether or not moving Iran from the kids' table to the adults' table is really going to accomplish anything. I've held all along that the agreement doesn't preclude the US or Israel from bombing the crap out of Iran if they violate the treaty (or even if they don't). One can argue that the revenue bump from the relaxation of the sanctions will fund Hezbolla and Hamas, but again, if there comes a point when the West views that as a violation that forces intervention, it can clearly intervene (and that intervention would likely have stronger validation as Iran would have re-entered the international community and would be treated as such).

The state-level actors in the Middle East have to step up on the ISIL issue. There are plenty of viable reasons why someone can oppose (or support) the Iran deal, but if it somehow gets the state level actors more involved in policing their region, it will be a net plus.

[50PoundHead]

Remember a few years back when I got called names (not that that's unusual) for saying we should split Iraq up into 3 separate states, 1 Sunni, 1 Shi-ite, and 1 Kurdish state? We definite should be (and should HAVE BEEN) playing the Sunnis and Shi-ites off against each other, I just don't think the DUMAS's in our government have the sense to know how. I don't think they understand the Middle East now and I don't think they have ever really understood it.

That was a plan floated by some, including then Presidential candidate Joe Biden. Like you, I always thought that made sense. The problem is that Turkey doesn't like it because it would have established a legitimate Kurdish state.

[Hawk]

Not that countries you're describing are actually on the market to be bought and dominated by the U.S., but does $12 billion a month sound reasonable? (The Business Insider, June, 2014)

Oh really? You mean like Russia and the Ukraine? Or the Chechen Republic? Or Georgia? This type of sentiment is precisely what I referred to in my original post as 'rose colored naivete' -- a pampered and unrealistic worldview. Sure, it would be swell if the major players behaved as peaceably as you seem to think they are capable of ... but they don't, haven't, and never will.

Why do you think Japan is modifying Article 9?

That's what happens when the public realizes it has once again been bamboozled into an unnecessary war.

This had nothing to do with it, whatsoever. I'm talking about events that unfolded a decade later.

Spoken like a true hawk.

"in a March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview of Vice President Dick Cheney, held less than a week before the Iraq War began, host Tim Russert reported that "every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement." Wiki

It's a sad day when we gauge the success of conflicts based solely on dollars spent.

[Julio3000]

Oh really? You mean like Russia and the Ukraine? Or the Chechen Republic? Or Georgia? This type of sentiment is precisely what I referred to in my original post as 'rose colored naivete' -- a pampered and unrealistic worldview. Sure, it would be swell if the major players behaved as peaceably as you seem to think they are capable of ... but they don't, haven't, and never will.

Why do you think Japan is modifying Article 9?




This had nothing to do with it, whatsoever. I'm talking about events that unfolded a decade later.



It's a sad day when we gauge the success of conflicts based solely on dollars spent.

Again, it's rich and ironic for any supporter of the Iraq War and its putative after-effects to criticize anyone else for "rose-colored naivete." A democratic Iraq, allied with the US and influencing the region in favor of our interests, was the stated goal of the war, and is the ultimate expression of naive foreign policy.

[Hawk]

Again, it's rich and ironic for any supporter of the Iraq War and its putative after-effects to criticize anyone else for "rose-colored naivete." A democratic Iraq, allied with the US and influencing the region in favor of our interests, was the stated goal of the war, and is the ultimate expression of naive foreign policy.

Well, it's wide-eyed in and of itself to believe that our chief goal in the Iraqi engagement was liberation.

[Julio3000]

Well, it's wide-eyed in and of itself to believe that our chief goal in the Iraqi engagement was liberation.

It sure is. You can make an argument—which would surely be disputed, but you could make it—that it was the best and noblest by-product of the invasion, but to say that it was the chief goal of the war's architects is a lovely, blissful bit of naivete.

[Hawk]

It sure is. You can make an argument—which would surely be disputed, but you could make it—that it was the best and noblest by-product of the invasion, but to say that it was the chief goal of the war's architects is a lovely, blissful bit of naivete.

It would be fair, of course, to say that's how it was packaged and (quite successfully) sold.

[BedellBrave]

I think that is part of it and it might be crazy on the part of the administration to think that. But as long as Iran was isolated, how could anyone make a request of them to help with anything? The Iran deal certainly is a risk, but so was doing nothing. The question is whether or not moving Iran from the kids' table to the adults' table is really going to accomplish anything. I've held all along that the agreement doesn't preclude the US or Israel from bombing the crap out of Iran if they violate the treaty (or even if they don't). One can argue that the revenue bump from the relaxation of the sanctions will fund Hezbolla and Hamas, but again, if there comes a point when the West views that as a violation that forces intervention, it can clearly intervene (and that intervention would likely have stronger validation as Iran would have re-entered the international community and would be treated as such).

The state-level actors in the Middle East have to step up on the ISIL issue. There are plenty of viable reasons why someone can oppose (or support) the Iran deal, but if it somehow gets the state level actors more involved in policing their region, it will be a net plus.

Shia hate Sunnis and Jews
ISIS Sunni hate Shia and Jews
Jews more fearful of Shia/Iran than Sunnis (at least until ISIS)

POTUS is now elevating the Iran-Assad axis to counter ISIS and to curry favor with those who hate Israel's influence. The next POTUS will probably go in another direction to keep things "balanced."