The Iran Deal

Hawk said:
I get that you wouldn't do anything that's been done the past ~20 years. That's all that you have repeated over and over for the past 5 pages.

The question is: What would YOU do (aside from cherry-picking, exaggerating, oversimplifying up the negatives [for example, if we have to hear the hollow, idiotacular comment that the United States 'created' ISIL one more time I'm going to puke]) ... ?

What would you have done after 9/11? Built fences around the country?
What would you do when our chief oil supplier (and ally) asked for assistance? Let them borrow a missile?
What is your solution to nation-building? FedEx over the Ross Perot tapes?
Click to expand...

Well I already described the easy stuff that I WOULDN'T do.

The problem is - I believe very strongly that our policies are what led to 9/11... so in this hypothetical scenario, I don't believe 9/11 would have happened.

For examples, when I say stop overthrowing governments, putting sanctions down, and occupying land - I believe we are less likely to get attached via blowback

When I say bring the troops home to defend this country - I mean having a heck of a lot more than 9 available air fighter pilots to protect the continental US (I believe we only had 9 on 9/11 - maybe less - which is why we weren't able to intercept them)

But say I just became the commander in chief and 9/11 happens. If I determined it was Bin Laden, I would have sent a small team via letter of marquee to go find him and bring him to us. I would not have invaded two countries that had nothing to do with the attack

I generally would not be open to assist any country using tax payer money. I would be happy to freely trade with all countries, and certainly assist with economic principles to help

I would never nation build

I guess my foreign policy is bascially what George W Bush campaigned on in 2000
 
57Brave said:
Would you agree that would accompany a sensible energy policy where our dependence on fossil fuels is all but eliminated.
Or do we continue to protect the oil industry?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be interested in protecting any "industry"

I do agree that the money we're using on defense could better be used on more sustainable energy... which would further strengthen us and weaken our enemies
 
Gotta love this quote from a former Presidential candidate (Wesley Clark - D)

...on a national policy level, we need to look at what self-radicalization means. Because we are at war with this group of terrorists. They do have an ideology. In World War II, if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn't say that was freedom of speech. We put him in a camp. They were prisoners of war. So if these people are radicalized and they don't support the United States and they're disloyal to the United States, as a matter of principle, fine, that's their right. It's our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict.
Click to expand...

It's amazing the propaganda that is out there... this guy is basically saying that those who don't blindly support the US government should be put in an internment camp.
 
sturg33 said:
Well I already described the easy stuff that I WOULDN'T do.

The problem is - I believe very strongly that our policies are what led to 9/11... so in this hypothetical scenario, I don't believe 9/11 would have happened.



For examples, when I say stop overthrowing governments, putting sanctions down, and occupying land - I believe we are less likely to get attached via blowback

When I say bring the troops home to defend this country - I mean having a heck of a lot more than 9 available air fighter pilots to protect the continental US (I believe we only had 9 on 9/11 - maybe less - which is why we weren't able to intercept them)

But say I just became the commander in chief and 9/11 happens. If I determined it was Bin Laden, I would have sent a small team via letter of marquee to go find him and bring him to us. I would not have invaded two countries that had nothing to do with the attack

I generally would not be open to assist any country using tax payer money. I would be happy to freely trade with all countries, and certainly assist with economic principles to help

I would never nation build

I guess my foreign policy is basically what George W Bush campaigned on in 2000
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I could agree with a lot of that in a vacuum, but that's always been my problem with your breed of foreign policy. It can't snap-back to re-accommodate for the rogue and unpredictable.

By the way, I do think one key element you are neglecting to consider is that while, yes, they do hate us for our entanglement in the Middle East, they also hate us for our culture and lifestyle (of sin). And that goes significantly beyond foreign policy.
 
Hawk said:
Thanks.

I could agree with a lot of that in a vacuum, but that's always been my problem with your breed of foreign policy. It can't snap-back to re-accommodate for the rogue and unpredictable.

By the way, I do think one key element you are neglecting to consider is that while, yes, they do hate us for our entanglement in the Middle East, they also hate us for our culture and lifestyle (of sin). And that goes significantly beyond foreign policy.
Click to expand...

This would be true regardless of what our history with that area would have been. It is their mission to make as many people as possible live under their world vision. They see the West as a threat to that lifestyle.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/

A majority of Americans want Congress to reject the recently-negotiated nuclear deal with Iran, even as President Barack Obama's approval rating continues to stand in net-positive territory for the second month in a row, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

The new CNN/ORC poll finds 49% approve of the way Obama is handling his job, 47% disapprove, about the same as in a June survey, which found the President's approval rating at 50% for the first time since 2013. But on the President's biggest accomplishment since then -- the nuclear agreement reached between the U.S., its allies and Iran -- most say they would like to see Congress reject it. Overall, 52% say Congress should reject the deal, 44% say it should be approved.
 
Hawk said:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/

A majority of Americans want Congress to reject the recently-negotiated nuclear deal with Iran, even as President Barack Obama's approval rating continues to stand in net-positive territory for the second month in a row, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

The new CNN/ORC poll finds 49% approve of the way Obama is handling his job, 47% disapprove, about the same as in a June survey, which found the President's approval rating at 50% for the first time since 2013. But on the President's biggest accomplishment since then -- the nuclear agreement reached between the U.S., its allies and Iran -- most say they would like to see Congress reject it. Overall, 52% say Congress should reject the deal, 44% say it should be approved.
Click to expand...

Well, since any treaty must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, I'd say the chances of it being passed aren't extremely high to say the least. I hope if the Repub use this as a major campaign issue (which they surely will) I hope they actually have a real alternative, for a change. Personally I think the Iranian leaders (the ones with the real power) are about as trustworthy as the North Korean leaders were when both Clinton AND W made a treaty with the North Koreans and both praised their own agreement, and blasted their opponents and in the end what really changed for the better?
 
sturg33 said:
Gotta love this quote from a former Presidential candidate (Wesley Clark - D)

It's amazing the propaganda that is out there... this guy is basically saying that those who don't blindly support the US government should be put in an internment camp.
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw that one too sturg - glad he never had a snowball's chance.
 
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/09/13/429072/Iran-Hassan-Rouhani-Jews-Rosh-Hashana-Tehran

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has wished a happy new year for the Jewish community all over the world.

On Sunday, Rouhani congratulated Jews on the occasion of their new year, also called , voicing hope that common “Abrahamic roots” would pave the way for the creation of more “respect” and “understanding” between Muslims and Jews..
Click to expand...

According to reports, about 9,000 Jews currently live in Iran, mostly in the cities of Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz. Under the Iranian constitution, the country’s Jews are represented in the parliament (Majlis).
Click to expand...

I would've thought with 9k jews and so much hatred for Israel that you'd see open season murdering of all these Jews.
 
from twitter:

Just like Ted Cruz warned us.

BREAKING: UN agency says Iran has started cutting back on nuclear technology in line with 6-nation deal.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-prison-idUSKCN12I1HX

An Iranian court has sentenced an Iranian-American businessman and his elderly father to 10 years in prison on charges of cooperating with the United States, Iranian media reported on Tuesday, the latest sign of an intensifying crackdown against Iranians with ties to the West.

I thought things were going to get better?

Last week we heard about Iran-funded Houthis shooting rockets at US ships in Yemen.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/yemen-war-ship-faces-houthi-missiles-161016034018318.html

Interesting that buying 100 Boeing planes doesn't constitute 'cooperation' though: http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/21/news/airbus-iran-planes-us/

---

So sad. This is the product of horrible diplomacy.
 
I guess Trump's plan to destroy ISIS in a few months was so successful, that now he can start focusing on other things in the Middle East.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top