Obama's Iran Nuke Deal

[Larry Gude]

And yet North Korea is still isolated today. What is the alternative? Would you invade North Korea? How many Americans would you sacrifice to ensure that North Korea can't lob an atom bomb at South Korea or Japan? You do a tactical strike and suddenly we are risking war with China. The country that holds the majority of our debt, not to mention the one who chased us down the entire Korean peninsula in the Korean War when General McArthur ignored all of the reports about Chinese armies massing on the border. Seems to me the only choice is either sanctions with the promise of a retaliatory strike if North Korea uses a weapon against us or an ally, or total war with the largest army in the world that no matter what would leave us devastated even if we won.

And this is what lends credibility to Obama's Iran deal; knowing they most likely will not hold up there end and simply act in what they see as their national interest, maybe what happens is it buys time. Time for maybe a bad actor to get old and die off or dynamics to similarly change whereby war just makes less and less sense.

The great diplomatic travesty of our age was Chamberlain. He is thought popularly of as a fool and a dupe that Hitler used. Well, as a simple matter of fact, Chamberlain, by that time, had NO cards to play. if Hitler was going to be stopped it was when he entered Alsace-Lorraine OR when he took over Czechoslovakia. The allies had the power to do something about it AND Hitler was gambling his ass off. Most historians agree if he'd been called out then, he'd have collapsed from within. With no fighting. His gamble paid off and by the time of Munich England was now drawing lines in the sand, Danzig, they had ZERO ability and even less reason to do ANYTHING about. We derisively call it 'appeasement' but it was exactly the right thing for Chamberlain to do and had his domestic opponents not decided their personal advantage was to call him out, there may well have not been war in Western Europe. Hitler never had plans to attack England. he saw them as peers.

In any event, it's not wise to commit suicide out of fear of death or to go to war out of fear of war.

 

[SamSpade]

Japan was pro West in WWI and pro West up to when we started threatening boycotts. What did that actually serve for us? What if we had stayed friends, kept doing business with them?

You realize that we did this in response to their war on China, which had been raging for over three years at that point.
So if we had done nothing to "provoke" them - a nation already rolling over China and Southeast Asia - we'd actually be HELPING them continue to invade the South Pacific?

Since we were trying to get them to end the war in China, they decided to invade the Dutch West Indies and the rest of Europe's colonies in Asia.

--------------

People have friends. Nations don't have friends; they have allies, based on self-interest. You know we wanted to stay out of the war, but as it got bigger, we had to take sides when it reached our shores.

 

[SamSpade]

but it was exactly the right thing for Chamberlain to do and had his domestic opponents not decided their personal advantage was to call him out, there may well have not been war in Western Europe. Hitler never had plans to attack England.

Not strictly true - he needed them to stay out of the war he fully intended to instigate. Shirer in "Rise and Fall" said that while France and England might have been in a better position to fight, Hitler himself wasn't bluffing. He was motivated by a lot of things; bigotry, revenge, and a personal ambition to exceed the military prowess of Napoleon and Frederick the Great. Seriously. This guy was casting himself along side of the Pharaohs and the Caesars. Some of his written stuff is creepy.

He fully intended to - sooner or later - conquer the Continent. I can't find the source - I think it's Speer (who was there) but I can't find it - that after the Berghof meeting with Chamberlain, Hitler threw a fit, because ultimately, he WANTED to pick a fight. (He did say he never wanted to be a part of an international conference again).

I'm not sure where you're going with this, because it certainly seems to me that had the rest of Europe zoomed in and kicked the crap out of him - nipped it in the bud - World War 2 might not have happened, but by caving in, they gave him the time he needed.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm not sure where you're going with this, because it certainly seems to me that had the rest of Europe zoomed in and kicked the crap out of him - nipped it in the bud - World War 2 might not have happened, but by caving in, they gave him the time he needed.

Point being Munich was too late. September of '38


And there was NO point in mobilizing to go defend the Germans in Dazing from German reunification.

Had France opposed his re-entry into the Rhineland, early '36, THAT was the point in time to stop him cold.

 

[Larry Gude]

Y . You know we wanted to stay out of the war, but as it got bigger, we had to take sides when it reached our shores.

I know no such thing and in fact disagree. 'We' wanted in.

 

[Gilligan]

And this is what lends credibility to Obama's Iran deal; knowing they most likely will not hold up there end and simply act in what they see as their national interest, maybe what happens is it buys time. .

Of course it buys them time. That has always been the goal of every "negotiation" Iran has ever entertained..to buy time and expand their space to maneuver.

The agreement is beyond worthless to us and worth hundreds of billions in new dollars for Iran. That's all it is. Anyone who wants to pretend otherwise is welcome to continue doing so.

 

[Gilligan]

Not strictly true - he needed them to stay out of the war he fully intended to instigate. Shirer in "Rise and Fall" said that while France and England might have been in a better position to fight, Hitler himself wasn't bluffing. He was motivated by a lot of things; bigotry, revenge, and a personal ambition to exceed the military prowess of Napoleon and Frederick the Great. Seriously. This guy was casting himself along side of the Pharaohs and the Caesars. Some of his written stuff is creepy.

He fully intended to - sooner or later - conquer the Continent. I can't find the source - I think it's Speer (who was there) but I can't find it - that after the Berghof meeting with Chamberlain, Hitler threw a fit, because ultimately, he WANTED to pick a fight. (He did say he never wanted to be a part of an international conference again).

I'm not sure where you're going with this, because it certainly seems to me that had the rest of Europe zoomed in and kicked the crap out of him - nipped it in the bud - World War 2 might not have happened, but by caving in, they gave him the time he needed.

Hitler assumed at one point that once he had conquered the rest of Europe and beaten the "common enemy" of the west, the Soviets, that he could make nice with England on terms he liked. Had he followed through on that thread....he might have won..although whether he could have achieved the eventual conquest of the Soviet Union fighting only a one-front war, instead of three (western front, North Africa, Eastern Front) will always be argued.

 

[SamSpade]

Hitler assumed at one point that once he had conquered the rest of Europe and beaten the "common enemy" of the west, the Soviets, that he could make nice with England on terms he liked. Had he followed through on that thread....he might have won..although whether he could have achieved the eventual conquest of the Soviet Union fighting only a one-front war, instead of three (western front, North Africa, Eastern Front) will always be argued.

I sometimes wonder that if he'd ignored Western Europe and put all his energies into the East, the West might well have shrugged and figured "not my problem".
It's not as though France and England were going to rush to help the Russians.

 

[Gilligan]

I sometimes wonder that if he'd ignored Western Europe and put all his energies into the East, the West might well have shrugged and figured "not my problem".
It's not as though France and England were going to rush to help the Russians.

I think he always had conquering France on his bucket list. The smaller countries in eastern Europe and the Balkans...inconsequential and obviously ripe for conquering. But he thought that because Germans and Englishmen shared a lot in common all around, incuding a deep distrust if not outright loathing of the Soviet Union, that it would be natural that England would have no real problem with his eastern conquests. The British response to the invasion of Poland surprised Hitler.

 

[Gilligan]

Mullahs gonna go shopping.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mullahs-military-shopping-list_995052.html

 

[PsyOps]

Trust? The United States, supposedly the beacon of freedom and liberty for all, sabotaged a free and fair election in Iran and then returned them to a monarchy. The US...supported a monarchy. Now, we can say 1953 doesn't matter. That they should have no trust issues with us, at all, or, we can say, yeah, we ####ed them first.



If we're being generous and taking the position that the President thinks this will actually help make the world a better place, then engagement of this sort is better than no engagement, a poor deal is better than no deal, baby steps are better than no steps.

All you’ve done is support my point. We went into this deal to do what we’ve been doing… set the stage for conflict. I’m not making any assertion whatsoever about whether Iran trusts us. It’s obvious they don’t. But they still went to the table; for no other reason than the belief that we somehow trust them.

Stick with ‘the deal’; forget history for a moment… Do you think this was a real deal that Obama/Kerry really believed Iran would abide by?

 

[This_person]

Let's start with the easy part; I already said I think Iran is acting rationally; any nation that has the potential resources to have nuclear energy and nuclear weapons would be perfectly rational in trying to achieve both. You, I presume, rejected that by asking if I meant that and, seeings how you'd rejected it once, I tried to use the first step in describing what 'rational' is; context.

In context of the US's behavior the last 25 years, Iran is readily seen as even more rational. In fact, it would be irrational to NOT seek nuclear weapons if another nation keeps sending their military to your region to do a bunch of killing and destroying stuff with no tangible results other than creating instability and chaos.

If you'd like to make excuses for why we have been acting irrationally, that's fine and I'm very much interested in WTF is wrong with us (it sure isn't because we have elections), but that wasn't the question. By asking it I think you support my contention that Iran is behaving rationally, ie, administration after administration, the US acts irrationally. Bush had more than enough time and resources to win a war and establish whatever we chose. He decided not to and I still don't get it. Obama has had more than enough time and resources to do as he sees fit. Both have helped, enormously, to see to it that Iran has the money to do nuke programs.

So, why do you think Iran's behavior is irrational?

You're using two different standards. For Iran you are limiting "rational" to only the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and power generation. Even though they've signed repeatedly that they won't pursue these things they have been caught repeatedly violating the agreements. You call that rational.

For the U.S. you discuss every action we have taken, though legally, with which you disagree. Taking those legal actions you call irrational.

I believe declaring that a nation and its people do not have a right to exist is irrational. I believe consistent funding of terrorist groups to be irrational for a world actor. I believe taking a foreign nation's embassy and holding the inhabitants as kidnap victims to be irrational. I believe repeatedly cheating on treaties to be irrational. I believe declaring that your nation will annihilate another nation in a nuclear attack and then covertly working to obtain the means to accomplish that is irrational.

If you find those things rational for a nation-state, then we simply disagree.

 

[This_person]

Bet I guess, to me, the kid analogy gets right to the heart of it; that we see it as our business to 'parent' them and tell them what they can and can't have while at the same time being a HUGE reason why they'd want it.

I ask you again, do you think anyone in the world believes we will nuke Iran? And, has Iran threatened to nuke Israel and then taken action towards making that happen?

 

[Midnightrider]

All you’ve done is support my point. We went into this deal to do what we’ve been doing… set the stage for conflict. I’m not making any assertion whatsoever about whether Iran trusts us. It’s obvious they don’t. But they still went to the table; for no other reason than the belief that we somehow trust them.

Stick with ‘the deal’; forget history for a moment… Do you think this was a real deal that Obama/Kerry really believed Iran would abide by?

You have developed a rap knack for missing the point.

You're using two different standards. For Iran you are limiting "rational" to only the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and power generation. Even though they've signed repeatedly that they won't pursue these things they have been caught repeatedly violating the agreements. You call that rational.

For the U.S. you discuss every action we have taken, though legally, with which you disagree. Taking those legal actions you call irrational.

I believe declaring that a nation and its people do not have a right to exist is irrational. I believe consistent funding of terrorist groups to be irrational for a world actor. I believe taking a foreign nation's embassy and holding the inhabitants as kidnap victims to be irrational. I believe repeatedly cheating on treaties to be irrational. I believe declaring that your nation will annihilate another nation in a nuclear attack and then covertly working to obtain the means to accomplish that is irrational.

If you find those things rational for a nation-state, then we simply disagree.

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

 

[Larry Gude]

I ask you again, do you think anyone in the world believes we will nuke Iran? And, has Iran threatened to nuke Israel and then taken action towards making that happen?

We're having two different conversations and mine is about policy and yours is coffee house philosophizing

 

[This_person]

We're having two different conversations and mine is about policy and yours is coffee house philosophizing

I agree we're having two different conversations, but I would not characterize them as you have.

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.

 

[This_person]

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

Do you think Iran likes us?

I'm not suggesting that they do or do not have a reason, caused by us or not. But, to think that they have not demonstrated their hate for us - justified not - is less than irrational; it's just plain stupid.

 

[Larry Gude]

I agree we're having two different conversations, but I would not characterize them as you have.

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.

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.

 

[Midnightrider]

Do you think Iran likes us?

I'm not suggesting that they do or do not have a reason, caused by us or not. But, to think that they have not demonstrated their hate for us - justified not - is less than irrational; it's just plain stupid.

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....

 

[Amused_despair]

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....

Iraq attacks one of our ships in international waters while it is at war with Iran (a war that Iraq started by attacking Iran), kills our sailors and we retaliate by backing Iraq and whenever possible attacking Iran. Makes perfect sense. I have no idea why they would hate us.