We shut down WHAT?

[frigidweirdo]

Why should Iran listen to the only country on the planet to have used nukes on civilians?

No worries. You can look forward to a nuclear arms race and everyone can have one! Happy now?

Trump actually said he wants one, with RUSSIA.

Does this make you happy?

Not particularly.

 

[Claudette]

Fascinating, this open contempt for facts held by all the Obama-haters.

It goes along with their contempt for democracy, freedom, and the USA.

So, ODSers, what's the next talking point coming out of your alternate reality dimension?

I doubt anyone hates that douchebag. He isn't worth the trouble to hate. He's just incompetent.

We all love the freedoms we have in this country and you seem to live in that alternate realty dimension.

 

[Divine Wind]

Why should Iran listen to the only country on the planet to have used nukes on civilians?

No worries. You can look forward to a nuclear arms race and everyone can have one! Happy now?

Trump actually said he wants one, with RUSSIA.

Does this make you happy?

Not particularly.

Good, because it's a lose-lose proposition to have a nuclear warhead exchange with a hostile nation.

 

[Divine Wind]

- I said nothing derogatory in the post you responded to. You must have astoundingly thin skin.

- It should have been crystal clear that I back the deal that was made. Plus, I tried to be generous enough to suggest a solution that is at the other end of the spectrum in order to cause there to be interest in identifying an alternative to the direction we took.

- Most definitions of "appeasement" are positive. So, I'm not sure why you are attempting to use it in a negative context.

- As I pointed out, ALL directions on this simply kick the can down the road as long as Iran thinks they need nuclear deterrence.

- I pointed out that even the most extreme of military solutions are not permanent, and have the down side of proving to Iran that they need nuclear deterrence.

We have nine or ten years to renew or change the P5+1 deal with Iran that we are part of. I'm all in favor of working on this issue.

Starting here and now.

- It's not unusual for young people armed with a bit of knowledge but lacking maturity and wisdom to think they know everything. Add to this, they often pass the blame to others instead of accepting it may be their own skills as a communicator.

- Extreme military solutions are permanent since the dead cannot fight. As I've stated previously, it's the cost and possible consequences which often make this solution unpalatable. For you to continually deny this truism is pure denial on your part.

- If by "ALL directions" you include the previous solution of international sanctions, I disagree. Sanctions are not appeasement. Giving Iran something substantial now in exchange for a promise later is appeasement. Is there any doubt that Iran is a major player in supporting international terrorism and weapons supplier to Hamas? A good book on Iran is Robert Baer's "The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower" is an excellent resource on understanding Iran.

- Agreed the treaty gives us about ten years to renew or change it, but it's still "kicking the can down the road" exactly because it moves the finding of a permanent solution down the road "nine or ten years". You're denial that there are permanent solutions is equally wrong since, as we saw with the end of wars from the American Revolution to Vietnam, we've made peace with former enemies.

You'll be better off if you try to just understand the situation with Iran, as it is more simple.

And, no, there is no permanent solution. You're just plain wrong about that.

Let me guess. You're going to propose conquering Iran. But, not even that does the job, as it simply proves that there is no defense without nuclear deterrence. And, as long as there are people living under that kind of threat, they WILL be working toward being secure within their borders.

And, remember that we already tried overthrowing their government. Was THAT permanent?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why should Iran listen to the only country on the planet to have used nukes on civilians?

No worries. You can look forward to a nuclear arms race and everyone can have one! Happy now?

Trump actually said he wants one, with RUSSIA.

Does this make you happy?

Not particularly.

Good, because it's a lose-lose proposition to have a nuclear warhead exchange with a hostile nation.

Try telling that to a guy who'll be president soon, he wants to reduce spending on aircraft and increase it on nukes. Well, so says the troll that controls his twitter account anyway.

 

[Divine Wind]

Try telling that to a guy who'll be president soon, he wants to reduce spending on aircraft and increase it on nukes. Well, so says the troll that controls his twitter account anyway.

Yeah, and the guy leaving office wanted to close GITMO and get us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. You're smart enough to know that campaign promises and reality are often two very different things. We'll see what happens once he takes office.

 

[WillReadmore]

- I said nothing derogatory in the post you responded to. You must have astoundingly thin skin.

- It should have been crystal clear that I back the deal that was made. Plus, I tried to be generous enough to suggest a solution that is at the other end of the spectrum in order to cause there to be interest in identifying an alternative to the direction we took.

- Most definitions of "appeasement" are positive. So, I'm not sure why you are attempting to use it in a negative context.

- As I pointed out, ALL directions on this simply kick the can down the road as long as Iran thinks they need nuclear deterrence.

- I pointed out that even the most extreme of military solutions are not permanent, and have the down side of proving to Iran that they need nuclear deterrence.

We have nine or ten years to renew or change the P5+1 deal with Iran that we are part of. I'm all in favor of working on this issue.

Starting here and now.

- It's not unusual for young people armed with a bit of knowledge but lacking maturity and wisdom to think they know everything. Add to this, they often pass the blame to others instead of accepting it may be their own skills as a communicator.

- Extreme military solutions are permanent since the dead cannot fight. As I've stated previously, it's the cost and possible consequences which often make this solution unpalatable. For you to continually deny this truism is pure denial on your part.

- If by "ALL directions" you include the previous solution of international sanctions, I disagree. Sanctions are not appeasement. Giving Iran something substantial now in exchange for a promise later is appeasement. Is there any doubt that Iran is a major player in supporting international terrorism and weapons supplier to Hamas? A good book on Iran is Robert Baer's "The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower" is an excellent resource on understanding Iran.

- Agreed the treaty gives us about ten years to renew or change it, but it's still "kicking the can down the road" exactly because it moves the finding of a permanent solution down the road "nine or ten years". You're denial that there are permanent solutions is equally wrong since, as we saw with the end of wars from the American Revolution to Vietnam, we've made peace with former enemies.

You'll be better off if you try to just understand the situation with Iran, as it is more simple.

And, no, there is no permanent solution. You're just plain wrong about that.

Let me guess. You're going to propose conquering Iran. But, not even that does the job, as it simply proves that there is no defense without nuclear deterrence. And, as long as there are people living under that kind of threat, they WILL be working toward being secure within their borders.

And, remember that we already tried overthrowing their government. Was THAT permanent?

Yes. So, grow up!! We are not going to commit genocide against Iran. Beyond that, genocide is NOT a solution, as it PROVES to all nations that nuclear deterrence is an absolute requirement. Beyond that, genocide is perhaps the most serious of crimes a nation can possibly commit.

The catch with sanctions in the P5+1 negotiation is that other key nations were not willing to join. And, sanctions by one or two nations does NOT provide a strong motivation. And, surely you are aware that the existing sanctions were due to expire.

"Kick the can down the road" is wrong simply for the reason that there is no option that is both permanent and available.

Your comment on Vietnam is particularly inconsistent with your own argument, as our "solution" in Vietnam was to evacuate. And, suggesting that informs a wise direction with Iran is counter to your own argument. In fact, it is the most extreme version of kicking the can down the road. It would ASSURE Iran would develop nuclear deterrence.


I will add that there is very reasonable analysis that Iran having nuclear capability is a rational direction. We've seen nuclear capability actually make war less likely. One prime example is Pakistan - a relatively crazy nation that had significant and continuing war with India, with the acquisition of nuclear deterrence leading to a far less dependence on war as a solution to their differences.

To me, having the full power of the US military conquering nations on both sides of Iran in a region where the threat of Russia is also substantial could hardly lead to a nation uninterested in nuclear deterrence. Our threats against Iran have come from the top of our government and have been highly serious. Plus, the overthrow of the Iranian government by the US and the imposition of government upon them by us is well remembered recent history to Iranians. The US participation in the Iraqi war against Iran during the Reagan administration, including the use of WMDs is also crystal clear proof of the constant and lethal threat from the US.

We were (rightfully) seriously upset concerning the bombing of the twin towers. But, that is NOTHING compared to the threats and actions we have dished to Iran as official acts of our government.

Iran requested consultation from the Bush administration concerning an understanding of regional security going forward - an incredibly mild response to the wars on all sides of their nation. Bush told Iran to pound sand.

 

[WillReadmore]

Try telling that to a guy who'll be president soon, he wants to reduce spending on aircraft and increase it on nukes. Well, so says the troll that controls his twitter account anyway.

Yeah, and the guy leaving office wanted to close GITMO and get us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. You're smart enough to know that campaign promises and reality are often two very different things. We'll see what happens once he takes office.

I don't see this as a valid example of campaign promise problems.

Obama has been TOTALLY consistent on Gitmo and has pursued it throughout his two administrations.

The fact that Republicans worked hard to prevent that is the only reason Gitmo is still open.

The real problem we face today is that we're not seeing politicians having that kind of faithfulness to what they projected during their campaigns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Try telling that to a guy who'll be president soon, he wants to reduce spending on aircraft and increase it on nukes. Well, so says the troll that controls his twitter account anyway.

Yeah, and the guy leaving office wanted to close GITMO and get us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. You're smart enough to know that campaign promises and reality are often two very different things. We'll see what happens once he takes office.

Of course, campaign "promises" are nothing more than convincing people who are easy to forget.

However it's not necessarily what Trump is promising, it's how he's acting that is the biggest worry.

People said "Oh, once he gets the Republican nomination, he'll become more presidential", well, he's a week away from being President and he's still acting like a teenage boy on heat.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Well, the liberals have had enough time, diverting the thread and changing the subject.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Back to the subject:
I just turned on the TV briefly to the Obama farewell speech, just in time to hear him say, "We shut down the Iranian nuclear effort".

That was all I needed to hear. I turned the TV off again.

Are the Iranians aware their nuclear project is shut down? Doesn't seem that way. They are still working hammer and tongs on it.

Are even the Americans aware that the Iranian nuclear effort is "shut down"? Unlikely, since Obama just approved giving them more than a hundred tons of uranium, enough to make 10 or more nuclear bombs.

Obama will leave office in ten days. Can't we please, please have a moratorium on his lies, just for that brief period?

 

[Weatherman2020]

I just turned on the TV briefly to the Obama farewell speech, just in time to hear him say, "We shut down the Iranian nuclear effort".

That was all I needed to hear. I turned the TV off again.

Are the Iranians aware their nuclear project is shut down? Doesn't seem that way. They are still working hammer and tongs on it.

Are even the Americans aware that the Iranian nuclear effort is "shut down"? Unlikely, since Obama just approved giving them more than a hundred tons of uranium, enough to make 10 or more nuclear bombs.

Obama will leave office in ten days. Can't we please, please have a moratorium on his lies, just for that brief period?

No scandals in 8 years either.

Yeah, the left live in a fantasy bubbleworld.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Here's the deal, the system is rigged so that the criminal conspiracy known as the main stream media will never challenge an outrageous statement from a democrat. The same criminal conspiracy will spend Soros's money to nit pick a Trump statements for inaccuracies.

The MSM is NOT criminal conspiracy. The conman criminal is Donald J. Trump, 7 time bankrupt, convicted racist, admitted fraudster who paid a $25 million settlement, admitted sexual predator, serial adulterer, and a liar.

Trump's statements don't need to be "nit picked" for inaccuracies, they're not even within spitting distance of honest. He saw thousands of Muslims celebrating the fall of the World Trade Centre. No he didn't because IT NEVER HAPPENED. He never settles laws suits - yeah he does - a lot. He's a successful business man - 7 bankruptcies say otherwise.

Just curious if you know that he had 7 bankruptcies out of how many business projects?

Have that figure handy and the testicular fortitude to post it?