SURPRISE!!...better be sitting down...Iran backs out of "Framework" "Deal"

[Coyote]

so we should have gone to war 9 months ago??? Is that what you are implying?

Talking nicely to them hasn't worked thus far. Most powerful military force on the planet sits on its ass, while Iran gets ready to wipe Israel off the map (figuratively speaking).

Liberals like you don't give a damn about Israel do you? Answer me honestly.

Boy, that was an answer to my question????? Not!!!

I support Israel over Iran, any day of the week....So stop your bull CRAP....

I don't support the US sending our fathers and sons and husbands to their possible deaths for another nation....our founding fathers felt the same way...and only if Iran becomes a threat to the USA, should US Citizens be sent to die.

I DO NOT, IN ANY WAY SUPPORT PREEMPTIVE WAR....the Bush Doctrine....it goes against everything our founders stood for.

If Iran becomes a real threat to Israel, and tries to attack Israel, then Israel should blow them up to smithereens.

I do like your black-white view of the world. IF Iran becomes a real threat to Israel? If? ..... Amazing.

Yes. "If".

We have the capability to save a million lives, and you don't think we should. Instead, we should sit on our ass and do nothing. Amazing.

What million lives need saving?

The Syrians in the wake of ISIS?
Iraqi civilians, after we mucked up their state?
The Congolese, in the wake of a decades long civil war?

We have the capability to establish an influence in a critical portion of the world, and you don't think we should. I guess your great-great grandfather probably felt the same about California and Texas. Amazing.

"Pre-emptive" war gave us today's Iraq. Is this the "influence" you wish to establish?

First --- do you have any doubt that millions will die if Iran secures the bomb? We - and only we - have the capability to stop that. If we don't, then we deserve their blood on our hands.

It's highly speculative what will happen IF they do. If you are thinking they will turn around and start nuking countries - I doubt it. If you mean it will set off another arms race, further destabilize the region, increase their regional footprint - possibly to probably.

Does that mean we should just go to war without attempting a negotiated settlement first? No.

Second - the failure of our political leaders to do what is right and just should not be used as justification for not doing it again.

What's "right"? What is "right"? A negotiated deal to limit them and buy time for something better? Or yet another war in a region that already has multiple conflicts destabilizing formerly stable regimes, stemming from one of our brilliant "pre-emptive" strategies?

Third - The 'pre-emptive' war did NOT give us today's Iraq. The failure of the current administration to properly execute the end game of the war is what gave us today's Iraq.

The current administration is not responsible for today's Iraq. That is directly on the shoulders of those who were so naive they had no clue what would really happen when they toppled Saddam. They broke it and the current administration is being tasked with fixing it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

BOTH Clintons and a shitload of other liberal Democrats assured us all that Saddam had WMD -- both before 9/11/2001 and after.

Were they lying?

If not, then what is the justification for saying that W lied when he made the self same claim?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

True. But honestly - is what you see there today, or in the years of sectarian civil war - better than what they had under Saddam?

Better. Way better.
According to a NYT study Saddam mass murdered as many as 1,000,000 of his own people. Obviously that number would still be growing.
We know that Saddam created over 2,000,000 refugees in his various raids.
A Stanford University study concluded that the number of deaths is closer to 1.2 million.
This does not include the est. 500,000 that died during his appalling war against Iran where he continually got his ass kicked but kept throwing people at the front line anyway.
The report concluded, that during his 24 year reign, the total = about 75 deaths per day by execution or his military raids.

You also have to include his constant attacks on all of his neighbors. His seemingly insane border charges on a regular basis etc.
So, as for the number of deaths...it is better now.
And considering we now know he had WMD's, and most likely would have had a nuke by now? This guy was not too far different than the insanity of the North Korea regime....onlu much, much much richer and more powerful.
Who knows what he would have done since his execution.

 

[Coyote]

Iraqis were not doing all that well under Saddam's regime, frankly. Rape rooms. Torture rooms. Random executions. Gassing his own people. Invading other lands (i.e., war) which causes lots of death to his own people, too.

True. But honestly - is what you see there today, or in the years of sectarian civil war - better than what they had under Saddam?

Not particularly --- and the blame for that has to lay at the feet of the current administration.

Exactly how? The last administration oversaw horrendous sectarian civil war as a result of it's invasion. They supported a sectarian leader that promptly abandoned it's Kurdish and Sunni populations and installed a sectarian and corrupt administration that persecuted them - allowing ISIS to get a foothold. They made it clear our troops had to go and our people made it clear we did not want our troops to be there. Remember - this was a war of choice.

 

[Coyote]

BOTH Clintons and a shitload of other liberal Democrats assured us all that Saddam had WMD -- both before 9/11/2001 and after.

Were they lying?

If not, then what is the justification for saying that W lied when he made the self same claim?

The intelligence they relied on was not considered a good source. Critics of it were ignored. I don't care if the Democrats agreed or not - they were a bunch of cowards and few had the guts to ask the hard questions. Why do you supposed Bush 1 stopped short of regime change?

 

[Darkwind]

A significant portion of the sanctions have already been lifted,

Sorry, your right. I meant to say "Will have been lifted when Russia.....trying to cover to many topics at once.

 

[BlindBoo]

The failure of the current administration to properly execute the end game of the war is what gave us today's Iraq.

What are you talking about? The current administration executed the Bush Bug Out right on schedule. Why would Bush sign such an agreement without first securing a long term commitment? Oh yeah, I remember, he had to or else the troops wold have had to leave by the end of 2008.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

BOTH Clintons and a shitload of other liberal Democrats assured us all that Saddam had WMD -- both before 9/11/2001 and after.

Were they lying?

If not, then what is the justification for saying that W lied when he made the self same claim?

The intelligence they relied on was not considered a good source. Critics of it were ignored. I don't care if the Democrats agreed or not - they were a bunch of cowards and few had the guts to ask the hard questions. Why do you supposed Bush 1 stopped short of regime change?

Possibly because he recognized the invalidity of attempting "regime change" in most cases?

And if one is given information and one believes it, then when one repeats it, one is clearly not "lying."

You might be wrong, but that's not the same as "lying."

Further, the sources of information are often subject to doubts. The intelligence was absolutley considered "good source" material subject to a couple of exceptions.

Hindsight is not a proper standard for assessing whether he acted wisely or dishonestly.

 

[Care4all]

sick of people trying to rewrite history through partisan eyes spare change

The Iraqi's did not do their part on keeping their own country secure....we already gave them, for free, everything that they needed to keep their country going safely...they never stepped up to the task....and there is no way in heaven or hell we should stay there and babysit people who had no desire to take care of themselves.... The Iraqi have no one to blame but themselves...we gave them countless surges, and countless dates on when we would leave, but time and time again, they did not fend for themselves and we had to send more troops of our own to help them, ALL under the Bush admin....

Leaving, and making them stand up for themselves was our only alternative...they needed to sink or swim....THEY CHOSE to sink....we did not make them sink, again,...they CHOSE to sink....

there is article after article after article all written during the Bush admin, that STATES the quagmire we were having with getting the Iraqi to fend for themselves.

We won the Revolutionary war BECAUSE we fought for ourselves, against the tyrants....with a little help from France.... it was OUR Blood Sweat and Tears...

The Sunni and Shiites need to work out their own problems, there is absolutely NOTHING we can do to change their destiny in the Middle East. Only they, can do that....

 

[M14 Shooter]

...and just like so many said here, and were berated by Obama followers for saying so - Iran's Ayahtolla states he will not support any deal that includes UN inspections of nuke sites....which means of course he will support no deal at all.

Shocked, shocked I say!!!

Iran s leader says no to military inspections - CNN.com

Iran s leader rejects foreign access to military sites scientists Fox News

"Iran's Supreme Leader has said the country will not allow any inspections of its military facilities" is a bit different than the lead in this thread.

There's a topic waiting for your response.
George Zimmerman back in the news: another shooting incident

 

[Coyote]

BOTH Clintons and a shitload of other liberal Democrats assured us all that Saddam had WMD -- both before 9/11/2001 and after.

Were they lying?

If not, then what is the justification for saying that W lied when he made the self same claim?

The intelligence they relied on was not considered a good source. Critics of it were ignored. I don't care if the Democrats agreed or not - they were a bunch of cowards and few had the guts to ask the hard questions. Why do you supposed Bush 1 stopped short of regime change?

Possibly because he recognized the invalidity of attempting "regime change" in most cases?

And if one is given information and one believes it, then when one repeats it, one is clearly not "lying."

You might be wrong, but that's not the same as "lying."

Further, the sources of information are often subject to doubts. The intelligence was absolutley considered "good source" material subject to a couple of exceptions.

Hindsight is not a proper standard for assessing whether he acted wisely or dishonestly.

I agree, it might not be lying but I would call it incompetence. A belief in something that then went in search of material to support that belief. There was evidence that they ignored intelligence or information that cast doubt on their conclusions: Report U.S. Ignored WMD Doubts - CBS News

When you are faced with a decision on whether or not to conduct a foreign war of choice - it should be held to the highest possible scrutiny and be the last possible resort imo.

I think Bush 1 was wise - regime change was not in the plans for good reasons. The only thing holding Iraq together was a dictator and Iraq offered an important counter-balance to Iran. The idea was to isolate and contain Iraq was effective.

I understand how judging by hindsight is unfair and we saw plenty of that over 9/11 when people were insisting we had the intelligence to predict this but we didn't really, not in any way that would have been actionable. But my feelings about the decision to invade Iraq were there from the very beginning. I could not believe our elected officials actually voted for it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

so we should have gone to war 9 months ago??? Is that what you are implying?

Talking nicely to them hasn't worked thus far. Most powerful military force on the planet sits on its ass, while Iran gets ready to wipe Israel off the map (figuratively speaking).

Liberals like you don't give a damn about Israel do you? Answer me honestly.

Boy, that was an answer to my question????? Not!!!

I support Israel over Iran, any day of the week....So stop your bull CRAP....

I don't support the US sending our fathers and sons and husbands to their possible deaths for another nation....our founding fathers felt the same way...and only if Iran becomes a threat to the USA, should US Citizens be sent to die.

I DO NOT, IN ANY WAY SUPPORT PREEMPTIVE WAR....the Bush Doctrine....it goes against everything our founders stood for.

If Iran becomes a real threat to Israel, and tries to attack Israel, then Israel should blow them up to smithereens.

I do like your black-white view of the world. IF Iran becomes a real threat to Israel? If? ..... Amazing.

Yes. "If".

We have the capability to save a million lives, and you don't think we should. Instead, we should sit on our ass and do nothing. Amazing.

What million lives need saving?

The Syrians in the wake of ISIS?
Iraqi civilians, after we mucked up their state?
The Congolese, in the wake of a decades long civil war?

We have the capability to establish an influence in a critical portion of the world, and you don't think we should. I guess your great-great grandfather probably felt the same about California and Texas. Amazing.

"Pre-emptive" war gave us today's Iraq. Is this the "influence" you wish to establish?

First --- do you have any doubt that millions will die if Iran secures the bomb? We - and only we - have the capability to stop that. If we don't, then we deserve their blood on our hands.

Second - the failure of our political leaders to do what is right and just should not be used as justification for not doing it again.

Third - The 'pre-emptive' war did NOT give us today's Iraq. The failure of the current administration to properly execute the end game of the war is what gave us today's Iraq.

First --- do you have any doubt that millions will die if Iran secures the bomb? We - and only we - have the capability to stop that. If we don't, then we deserve their blood on our hands.

You fallaciously assume that the Iranians will start a nuclear war with Israel which will result in them being nuked in turn by the Israelis. That disqualifies you from any further serious participation on that topic since you really don't have a clue how that works.

Second - the failure of our political leaders to do what is right and just should not be used as justification for not doing it again.

Non sequitur!

Third - The 'pre-emptive' war did NOT give us today's Iraq. The failure of the current administration to properly execute the end game of the war is what gave us today's Iraq.

Assumes facts not in evidence. The Bush administration signed an agreement for the complete withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq. Obama simply carried out what Bush had signed. Obama was not obliged to remediate yet another of Bush's failures.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Iraqis were not doing all that well under Saddam's regime, frankly. Rape rooms. Torture rooms. Random executions. Gassing his own people. Invading other lands (i.e., war) which causes lots of death to his own people, too.

True. But honestly - is what you see there today, or in the years of sectarian civil war - better than what they had under Saddam?

Not particularly --- and the blame for that has to lay at the feet of the current administration.

Hogwash!

 

[mudwhistle]

...and just like so many said here, and were berated by Obama followers for saying so - Iran's Ayahtolla states he will not support any deal that includes UN inspections of nuke sites....which means of course he will support no deal at all.

Shocked, shocked I say!!!

Iran s leader says no to military inspections - CNN.com

Iran s leader rejects foreign access to military sites scientists Fox News

They backed out on a framework to meet to work out an agreement......They didn't agree to anything yet.

 

[Coyote]

True. But honestly - is what you see there today, or in the years of sectarian civil war - better than what they had under Saddam?

Better. Way better.
According to a NYT study Saddam mass murdered as many as 1,000,000 of his own people. Obviously that number would still be growing.
We know that Saddam created over 2,000,000 refugees in his various raids.
A Stanford University study concluded that the number of deaths is closer to 1.2 million.
This does not include the est. 500,000 that died during his appalling war against Iran where he continually got his ass kicked but kept throwing people at the front line anyway.
The report concluded, that during his 24 year reign, the total = about 75 deaths per day by execution or his military raids.

You also have to include his constant attacks on all of his neighbors. His seemingly insane border charges on a regular basis etc.
So, as for the number of deaths...it is better now.
And considering we now know he had WMD's, and most likely would have had a nuke by now? This guy was not too far different than the insanity of the North Korea regime....onlu much, much much richer and more powerful.
Who knows what he would have done since his execution.

He didn't have WMD's - he had the remnants of old stock piles. He was largely contained. Now we have thousands of militias, an uncontained extremist group capturing land and killing people, and 3 nations in civil war. I'm not convinced it's better at all for Iraqi's.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The intelligence was absolutley considered "good source" material subject to a couple of exceptions.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Morrell's book exposes that fallacy.

Former CIA official takes aim at politicians - CNNPolitics.com

The book covers Morell's 33 years in the CIA, including his briefings to President George W. Bush. After one pre-9/11 briefing, "UBL Threats Are Real," Bush told Morell, "OK, Michael. You've covered your ass."

 

[iamwhatiseem]

sick of people trying to rewrite history through partisan eyes spare change

The Iraqi's did not do their part on keeping their own country secure....we already gave them, for free, everything that they needed to keep their country going safely...they never stepped up to the task....and there is no way in heaven or hell we should stay there and babysit people who had no desire to take care of themselves.... The Iraqi have no one to blame but themselves...we gave them countless surges, and countless dates on when we would leave, but time and time again, they did not fend for themselves and we had to send more troops of our own to help them, ALL under the Bush admin....

Leaving, and making them stand up for themselves was our only alternative...they needed to sink or swim....THEY CHOSE to sink....we did not make them sink, again,...they CHOSE to sink....

there is article after article after article all written during the Bush admin, that STATES the quagmire we were having with getting the Iraqi to fend for themselves.

We won the Revolutionary war BECAUSE we fought for ourselves, against the tyrants....with a little help from France.... it was OUR Blood Sweat and Tears...

The Sunni and Shiites need to work out their own problems, there is absolutely NOTHING we can do to change their destiny in the Middle East. Only they, can do that....

That is also rather back seat opinion as well.
Iraqi's are not Americans. Nor anything like us.
They are a people for generations without freedom, and under decades of ruthless rule.
They do not trust gov't whatsoever, live in constant fear that if they pick a side it will be the wrong one and they will suffer dearly for it.
They are a people that must be lead. Period. They will not rise for themselves.
Bush Sr. knew this, which is why all he sought to do was chop Saddams legs off by annihilating his military.

 

[OKTexas]

...and just like so many said here, and were berated by Obama followers for saying so - Iran's Ayahtolla states he will not support any deal that includes UN inspections of nuke sites....which means of course he will support no deal at all.

Shocked, shocked I say!!!

Iran s leader says no to military inspections - CNN.com

Iran s leader rejects foreign access to military sites scientists Fox News

Why should they honor it, they bought all the time they could and got 150 billion to boot and all they had to do is play with the dear leader for a few months. Iran was the winner in this one, as most of us knew they would be.

 

[Spare_change]

Talking nicely to them hasn't worked thus far. Most powerful military force on the planet sits on its ass, while Iran gets ready to wipe Israel off the map (figuratively speaking).

Liberals like you don't give a damn about Israel do you? Answer me honestly.

Boy, that was an answer to my question????? Not!!!

I support Israel over Iran, any day of the week....So stop your bull CRAP....

I don't support the US sending our fathers and sons and husbands to their possible deaths for another nation....our founding fathers felt the same way...and only if Iran becomes a threat to the USA, should US Citizens be sent to die.

I DO NOT, IN ANY WAY SUPPORT PREEMPTIVE WAR....the Bush Doctrine....it goes against everything our founders stood for.

If Iran becomes a real threat to Israel, and tries to attack Israel, then Israel should blow them up to smithereens.

I do like your black-white view of the world. IF Iran becomes a real threat to Israel? If? ..... Amazing.

Yes. "If".

We have the capability to save a million lives, and you don't think we should. Instead, we should sit on our ass and do nothing. Amazing.

What million lives need saving?

The Syrians in the wake of ISIS?
Iraqi civilians, after we mucked up their state?
The Congolese, in the wake of a decades long civil war?

We have the capability to establish an influence in a critical portion of the world, and you don't think we should. I guess your great-great grandfather probably felt the same about California and Texas. Amazing.

"Pre-emptive" war gave us today's Iraq. Is this the "influence" you wish to establish?

First --- do you have any doubt that millions will die if Iran secures the bomb? We - and only we - have the capability to stop that. If we don't, then we deserve their blood on our hands.

It's highly speculative what will happen IF they do. If you are thinking they will turn around and start nuking countries - I doubt it. If you mean it will set off another arms race, further destabilize the region, increase their regional footprint - possibly to probably.

Does that mean we should just go to war without attempting a negotiated settlement first? No.

Second - the failure of our political leaders to do what is right and just should not be used as justification for not doing it again.

What's "right"? What is "right"? A negotiated deal to limit them and buy time for something better? Or yet another war in a region that already has multiple conflicts destabilizing formerly stable regimes, stemming from one of our brilliant "pre-emptive" strategies?

Third - The 'pre-emptive' war did NOT give us today's Iraq. The failure of the current administration to properly execute the end game of the war is what gave us today's Iraq.

The current administration is not responsible for today's Iraq. That is directly on the shoulders of those who were so naive they had no clue what would really happen when they toppled Saddam. They broke it and the current administration is being tasked with fixing it.

Highly speculative? They have told you, repeatedly, what they intend to do!! They have been as clear and explicit as you could ever possibly hope for. But yet, you think that is 'speculative'?

This concept of an arms race, and MADD, in the Middle East is naive and irresponsible. MADD was a viable strategy between the USSR and USA because of the flight times. Once Moscow launched, we would have sufficient time to launch a counterstrike. Thus, launching an attack was not in Moscow's best interest.

The geography in the Middle East does not allow for an adequate response - if Iran were to launch, Israel would have less than 5 minutes, not nearly enough time to arm and launch a nuclear counterattack. Unquestionably, Israel would lose hundreds of thousands of people, with virtually little or no counter-damage to offset it. For either country, initiating a pre-emptive attack is militarily advantageous.

If Israel were successful in intercepting the Iranian missiles, we would have a nuclear event over Jordan. Wonder how that would go down?

Negotiated settlement in the Middle East first? Just exactly what do you think we've been trying to do for the past 36 years? From Carter to Reagan to Bush to Obama, we have been trying to come to a diplomatic resolution, and have been spectacularly unsuccessful. We have always had time - until now. We have reached the endgame in the Middle East. Either we fix it now, or WWIII is an inevitability. Simply - WE ARE OUT OF TIME!

Refusing to accept the reality that Obama screwed up the end of the Iraq war is morally and intellectually corrupt. You are ignoring history. How long did we keep troops in Germany, Italy, or Japan after WWII? What did those troops do? They provided stability while the peoples of those countries figured out what they were going to do post-war. It took our own country 7 years to create its Constitution, it took Germany 5 years, and Japan 4 years. Why in the world did we insist that Iraq have it created, and implemented in 3 years? Iraqi leaders wanted our soldiers in-country, but Obama misplayed his hand and pulled them out prematurely. What was a country on the path to democracy and stability became a target ripe for takeover. That is an ugly, and torturous path, full of potholes and misdirection - but we short-stopped the whole process in order to fill a campaign promise. Oh yeah, Obama is directly responsible for the conditions in Iraq today - he misinterpreted the political environment, failed to recognize the steps needed to close the deal, and misjudged the competition (they're just the JV, right?)

 

[Spare_change]

sick of people trying to rewrite history through partisan eyes spare change

The Iraqi's did not do their part on keeping their own country secure....we already gave them, for free, everything that they needed to keep their country going safely...they never stepped up to the task....and there is no way in heaven or hell we should stay there and babysit people who had no desire to take care of themselves.... The Iraqi have no one to blame but themselves...we gave them countless surges, and countless dates on when we would leave, but time and time again, they did not fend for themselves and we had to send more troops of our own to help them, ALL under the Bush admin....

Leaving, and making them stand up for themselves was our only alternative...they needed to sink or swim....THEY CHOSE to sink....we did not make them sink, again,...they CHOSE to sink....

there is article after article after article all written during the Bush admin, that STATES the quagmire we were having with getting the Iraqi to fend for themselves.

We won the Revolutionary war BECAUSE we fought for ourselves, against the tyrants....with a little help from France.... it was OUR Blood Sweat and Tears...

The Sunni and Shiites need to work out their own problems, there is absolutely NOTHING we can do to change their destiny in the Middle East. Only they, can do that....

Your naivete is only exceeded by your ignorance of history, and your willingness to desert your fellow mankind. Too sad.