Obama's Iran Nuke Deal

[This_person]

So, where do we start? IF we're talking about US foreign policy, US national interest, in my view, when we say we'd like X to be the case, the next step is to look at the playing field and figure out how to make that happen.

In our most recent Iraq invasion we either did not take into consideration the likely Shia/Sunni/Baath/Kurd dynamics as well as the inputs of Syria, Saudi, Turkey and Iran OR we did and didn't care OR we considered them and gotten them amateurishly wrong. That we thought Sunni's and Shia's were gonna adapt Jeffersonian democracy was a nice idea. How we went about it made it impossible...because we either got wrong the dynamics there or didn't pay enough attention.

So, IF we see a non nuclear Iran as in our national interest, we have to look at their motivation to get nuke power. That STARTS, in my view, with the perfectly rational view that they, given their size, their economic abilities, the regional dynamics, what we've been doing over there, etc, it makes perfect, rational sense that they would want nuclear power to better their national interests.

I see that as far stronger than the international will to stop them. So, in that sense, Obama is right; if stopping them is THE goal, war is the only way to do it.

Iran is acting rationally, Especially when you take into consideration, as they must, how we behave. You, like most of us, could not care less what we do, my country, right or right; THEY'RE the irrational ones. I get that. I want us to win. I just see utter failure with that approach these bast 15 years. So, I could go along with the flag waving jingoism. If it worked.

Bush's mistake was not in going. It was in losing.

So, I ask you to talk withme about Iranian actions and specifically ask you to leave U.S. foreign policy out of the discussion, and you go off for multiple paragraphs on American foreign policy while never once addressing Iranian actions.

Why do you suppose you can't stay on topic?

 

[This_person]

no, its completely rational considering what we have done to Iran. Do you think it would be rational to 'love' or even 'like' a country that has meddled in your affairs to the point that it caused instability? How about one that held you down while supporting an enemy in your neighborhood?
I mean if we are talking rational....

So, you're saying that they hate us? And mocking me for saying the same thing?

 

[This_person]

So, where do we start? IF we're talking about US foreign policy, US national interest, in my view, when we say we'd like X to be the case, the next step is to look at the playing field and figure out how to make that happen.

In our most recent Iraq invasion we either did not take into consideration the likely Shia/Sunni/Baath/Kurd dynamics as well as the inputs of Syria, Saudi, Turkey and Iran OR we did and didn't care OR we considered them and gotten them amateurishly wrong. That we thought Sunni's and Shia's were gonna adapt Jeffersonian democracy was a nice idea. How we went about it made it impossible...because we either got wrong the dynamics there or didn't pay enough attention.

So, IF we see a non nuclear Iran as in our national interest, we have to look at their motivation to get nuke power. That STARTS, in my view, with the perfectly rational view that they, given their size, their economic abilities, the regional dynamics, what we've been doing over there, etc, it makes perfect, rational sense that they would want nuclear power to better their national interests.

I see that as far stronger than the international will to stop them. So, in that sense, Obama is right; if stopping them is THE goal, war is the only way to do it.

Iran is acting rationally, Especially when you take into consideration, as they must, how we behave. You, like most of us, could not care less what we do, my country, right or right; THEY'RE the irrational ones. I get that. I want us to win. I just see utter failure with that approach these bast 15 years. So, I could go along with the flag waving jingoism. If it worked.

Bush's mistake was not in going. It was in losing.

I'm going to try again: Do you believe the things I listed are accurate (of Iran's actions), and if so, do you find those rational actions of a nation-state? Notice that I did not say, "...in comparison with the Unites States' actions" or "...why do you think the Unites States drove Iran to act this way". PLEASE try and stay on subject of the question without going off on tangents.

 

[nhboy]

i'm going to try again:

lol!

 

[This_person]

lol!

I don't get why you think it's funny when you have or anyone else does just completely blow off a person's question and completely changes the subject. Larry, at least, pretends he's answering the question and is likely to respond. You don't have even that common courtesy.

 

[This_person]

no, its completely rational considering what we have done to Iran. Do you think it would be rational to 'love' or even 'like' a country that has meddled in your affairs to the point that it caused instability? How about one that held you down while supporting an enemy in your neighborhood?
I mean if we are talking rational....

and then there is the master point mister, doubling down on the 'Iran hates us'

 

[littlelady]

and then there is the master point mister, doubling down on the 'Iran hates us'

Yes. I don't understand this deal. Iran cannot be trusted just like N. Korea. They chant death to America, Israel, and all infidels, at the same time Kerry etal sit around a table talking about a deal to make it all better. Talk about something that makes absolutely no sense. Dumbest attempt at diplomacy ever, and then throw in the Cuba thing. I shake my head so many times a day at all the crap going on that it gives me a headache. I never used to get headaches.

 

[Midnightrider]

Yes. I don't understand this deal. Iran cannot be trusted just like N. Korea. They chant death to America, Israel, and all infidels, at the same time Kerry etal sit around a table talking about a deal to make it all better. Talk about something that makes absolutely no sense. Dumbest attempt at diplomacy ever, and then throw in the Cuba thing. I shake my head so many times a day at all the crap going on that it gives me a headache. I never used to get headaches.

yeah, because 'the Cuba thing' is working out so terribly

 

[Salvador]

Yes. I don't understand this deal. Iran cannot be trusted just like N. Korea. They chant death to America, Israel, and all infidels, at the same time Kerry etal sit around a table talking about a deal to make it all better. Talk about something that makes absolutely no sense. Dumbest attempt at diplomacy ever, and then throw in the Cuba thing. I shake my head so many times a day at all the crap going on that it gives me a headache. I never used to get headaches.

You are a headache!

 

[littlelady]

You are a headache!

Then, don't read my posts. That was easy. You are weak at best, otherwise you wouldn't bother responding with trolling posts. What are your thoughts on the topic of this thread?

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Yes. I don't understand this deal. Iran cannot be trusted just like N. Korea. They chant death to America, Israel, and all infidels, at the same time Kerry etal sit around a table talking about a deal to make it all better. Talk about something that makes absolutely no sense. Dumbest attempt at diplomacy ever, and then throw in the Cuba thing. I shake my head so many times a day at all the crap going on that it gives me a headache. I never used to get headaches.

STFU you dumb bint.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm going to try again: Do you believe the things I listed are accurate (of Iran's actions), and if so, do you find those rational actions of a nation-state? Notice that I did not say, "...in comparison with the Unites States' actions" or "...why do you think the Unites States drove Iran to act this way". PLEASE try and stay on subject of the question without going off on tangents.

Your argument is that context is a tangent. Your argument is to discuss Iran in a vacuum. Your argument is to ask if Iran is behaving as a rational nation state absent any parameters of what a rational nation state looks like. Even if we discuss it in a purely textbook fashion, in your vacuum, the question remains: rational based on what? On whose standards? Ours?

We can write out theoretical standards of national behavior and there is still no rational way to exclude the context of the world they live in and what others do. They have no choice but to deal with things as they are and context is everything. So in that sense to get to your unicorn of what a rational nation looks like absent context and acts like absent context it makes even more sense, rational sense, for them to want the bomb: so they can consider behavior more from a position of strength.

 

[This_person]

Your argument is that context is a tangent. Your argument is to discuss Iran in a vacuum. Your argument is to ask if Iran is behaving as a rational nation state absent any parameters of what a rational nation state looks like. Even if we discuss it in a purely textbook fashion, in your vacuum, the question remains: rational based on what? On whose standards? Ours?

We can write out theoretical standards of national behavior and there is still no rational way to exclude the context of the world they live in and what others do. They have no choice but to deal with things as they are and context is everything. So in that sense to get to your unicorn of what a rational nation looks like absent context and acts like absent context it makes even more sense, rational sense, for them to want the bomb: so they can consider behavior more from a position of strength.

But, I'm not asking if seeking the bomb is rational. I gave a whole list of things, and just seeking a bomb was not on the list of what I was asking you.

It's my personal opinion that no nation has the right to tell another what weapons they may have. However, Iran agreed to NOT get the bomb, and went ahead and tried to make one anyway. So, my questions about Iranian actions were not from a vacuum. They were from the point of view of Iranian actions versus promises and responsibilities.

They hate us. I don't really care if that's for good reason or not, they do. Given that context and all of the irrational things Iran has done as a nation, we have a responsibility at the negotiating table to seek certain agreements. We didn't accomplish that.

 

[Larry Gude]

It's my personal opinion that no nation has the right to tell another what weapons they may have. However, Iran agreed to NOT get the bomb, and went ahead and tried to make one anyway. So, my questions about Iranian actions were not from a vacuum. They were from the point of view of Iranian actions versus promises and responsibilities. No nation ever breaks treaties? The letter of the treaty? The spirit of it??? If you understand national interest as simply that, then, clearly, a treaty is only worth honoring in so far as it serves national interest. Of us. Of them. Of Russia. Cuba. North Korea. Anyone.

They hate us. I don't really care if that's for good reason or not, they do. Given that context and all of the irrational things Iran has done as a nation, we have a responsibility at the negotiating table to seek certain agreements. We didn't accomplish that.

I know you don't care what they think of us or why. Most American's don't. They just wanna sing 'Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iraq" or Iran or whomever and not be bothered with the details. Not be bothered with what WE did. Not get into the details of, just maybe, whether it is in OUR national interest to understand what we're dealing with and why. We just wanna assume that what we do, based on our party affiliation, is the RIGHT choice and the other choice, the other parties ideas, are wrong. That's not rational.

One of the greatest foreign policy decisions in our history was when Reagan swallowed the death of 200 marines and pulled us out of Lebanon. We had NO business there and could do nothing but make things worse had we taken some other course. Bomb them! Invade! Whatever problems there are in Lebanon, they're not ours and we'd likely not do any good if they were. We don't do empire very well.

Maybe Reagan makes different decision and invades and we win and then what?

Iran is acting rationally as a nation. They are getting things accomplished that serve THEIR national interest. Are we? Anh, probably not. We don't act rationally. :shrug:

 

[This_person]

I know you don't care what they think of us or why. Most American's don't. They just wanna sing 'Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iraq" or Iran or whomever and not be bothered with the details. Not be bothered with what WE did. Not get into the details of, just maybe, whether it is in OUR national interest to understand what we're dealing with and why. We just wanna assume that what we do, based on our party affiliation, is the RIGHT choice and the other choice, the other parties ideas, are wrong. That's not rational.

One of the greatest foreign policy decisions in our history was when Reagan swallowed the death of 200 marines and pulled us out of Lebanon. We had NO business there and could do nothing but make things worse had we taken some other course. Bomb them! Invade! Whatever problems there are in Lebanon, they're not ours and we'd likely not do any good if they were. We don't do empire very well.

Maybe Reagan makes different decision and invades and we win and then what?

Iran is acting rationally as a nation. They are getting things accomplished that serve THEIR national interest. Are we? Anh, probably not. We don't act rationally. :shrug:

So, the Gude plan is to simply say, " I know you have promised to nuke Israel and you hate us more, but let's recognize we deserve to be hated and in peril so we're going to ignore YOUR actions. Have fun with the bomb!"?

 

[Larry Gude]

So, the Gude plan is to simply say, " I know you have promised to nuke Israel and you hate us more, but let's recognize we deserve to be hated and in peril so we're going to ignore YOUR actions. Have fun with the bomb!"?

here's an idea; what would OUR plan be, you and me?

My inputs; Presumption #1, they ARE going to pursue nuke power, including weapons, as a rational national interest whether we're on board or not.

Therefore, we get involved. We PROact instead of REact. We say "Look, we know we've had a ####ty relationship and we know we started it. You've done some ####ty stuff as well but we want to extend the olive branch of peace and friendship and move on. So, your interests and ours; You want nuke power. We're the best there is. We want regional peace and stability and you are key. Part of that is recognition of Israel. Publicly and as a proud, reasonable position of a nation seeking to not return to old greatness of empire but new greatness as a member of the brotherhood of man as a free nation that celebrates it's heritage as well as new leadership in celebration of the Iranian people. Steady flow of oil at agreed upon prices is good for us all. Ending support of terror is needed and to be replaced with above board stating of and arguing for Iranian national interests in YOUR region. A place at our common table. Be part of a new union, us, Israel, you, Saudi, Jordan, nations that seek peace and acceptance of one another"

Now, the ball is in their court. Russia and China will #### themselves trying to sabotage it and go back to being the bad guys instead of us. My intent here is US national interest. We did and do better when we LEAD the way for peace and freedom and liberty. That starts with understanding we are NOT going to impose it through force. We want to attract people to our ways, as Reagan did, by being good at being us; doing business, celebrating OUR ways, letting other see us as the beacon of freedom.

If Iran rejects it, swats away the peace offering that recognizes THEIR rights, our mistakes, their opportunity to be part of regional leadership then they can be the bad guys. And we go from there.

Your turn.

 

[This_person]

here's an idea; what would OUR plan be, you and me?

My inputs; Presumption #1, they ARE going to pursue nuke power, including weapons, as a rational national interest whether we're on board or not.

Therefore, we get involved. We PROact instead of REact. We say "Look, we know we've had a ####ty relationship and we know we started it. You've done some ####ty stuff as well but we want to extend the olive branch of peace and friendship and move on. So, your interests and ours; You want nuke power. We're the best there is. We want regional peace and stability and you are key. Part of that is recognition of Israel. Publicly and as a proud, reasonable position of a nation seeking to not return to old greatness of empire but new greatness as a member of the brotherhood of man as a free nation that celebrates it's heritage as well as new leadership in celebration of the Iranian people. Steady flow of oil at agreed upon prices is good for us all. Ending support of terror is needed and to be replaced with above board stating of and arguing for Iranian national interests in YOUR region. A place at our common table. Be part of a new union, us, Israel, you, Saudi, Jordan, nations that seek peace and acceptance of one another"

Now, the ball is in their court. Russia and China will #### themselves trying to sabotage it and go back to being the bad guys instead of us. My intent here is US national interest. We did and do better when we LEAD the way for peace and freedom and liberty. That starts with understanding we are NOT going to impose it through force. We want to attract people to our ways, as Reagan did, by being good at being us; doing business, celebrating OUR ways, letting other see us as the beacon of freedom.

If Iran rejects it, swats away the peace offering that recognizes THEIR rights, our mistakes, their opportunity to be part of regional leadership then they can be the bad guys. And we go from there.

Your turn.

Recognizing Israel and a verifiable way of stopping Iranian support of terrorism are big parts of what I have suggested. Now, add in giving us back the hostages they hold and a verifiable way of ensuring that Iran doesn't obtain nuclear weapons, and I am all for the U.S. and France (who are actually at least as good as us at nuclear power plants) doing all we can to support their electric grid. Slowly release small amounts (say 10% of their GDP per year) while monitoring what they do with the money to ensure they are not funding terrorist groups and activities and we could have a huge win-win situation going. Included in the release of frozen assets would be a slow and controlled release of other sanctions like selling oil and re-entering the world banking system.

I would be happy for our government admitting that over six decades ago we involved ourselves inappropriately, which they corrected internally almost four decades ago.

That seems pretty reasonable. What we got does not.

 

[This_person]

If Iran rejects it, swats away the peace offering that recognizes THEIR rights, our mistakes, their opportunity to be part of regional leadership then they can be the bad guys. And we go from there.

Let's agree, for argument's sake, they reject our plan, "and we go from there." To where are you willing for us to go?

 

[Bann]

Allen West

"Mr. Obama, it's a damned stupid thing that you just did. And if people are upset about what I just said, I really don't care."


https://www.facebook.com/AllenBWest/videos/10153915542446729/

 

[LibertyBeacon]

"Mr. Obama, it's a damned stupid thing that you just did. And if people are upset about what I just said, I really don't care."


https://www.facebook.com/AllenBWest/videos/10153915542446729/

I don't think anyone with half a brain gives a rats ass about what West has to say on this.

Now get back in that kitchen and get to work on that blueberry pie.

Bheeeelch!