Iran Nuclear Deal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]loppar wrote:
Well, it seems that someone doesn’t mind boots on the ground.

Anyway, this makes this whole discussion irrelevant as there cannot be any military action against Iran after this.

http://defence-blog.com/army/photo-of-russian-troops-in-syria.html[/quote]

And honestly, I cannot say I am bothered by it. Save for it’s a really sad day when your better options are Assad and the Russians. If they are willing to kill off ISIS, they can go nuts in my book. It’s at least easier to deal with the state of Syria in am dictatorship, than a batshit crazy rolling posse of rogue jihadists. I don’t think Assad will murder as many people as ISIS will.

362

960×960 83.7 KB

[quote]pat wrote:

And honestly, I cannot say I am bothered by it. Save for it’s a really sad day when your better options are Assad and the Russians. If they are willing to kill off ISIS, they can go nuts in my book. It’s at least easier to deal with the state of Syria in am dictatorship, than a batshit crazy rolling posse of rogue jihadists. I don’t think Assad will murder as many people as ISIS will.[/quote]

Actually, the vast majority of civilian casualties were caused by Assad.

ISIS are relative newcomers to the Syrian war and haven’t had the time to kill as much people as Assad, but they will definitely try to catch up judging by their atrocities in Iraq and south Kurdistan…

Russia has no interest in fighting ISIS. They want to prevent Assad’s regime from losing and prolong the war. That means more refugees in the EU which will make them desperate enough to cut ANY deal with Russia regardless of the US and make significant concessions in Eastern Europe.

“Fighting ISIS/terrorism” is now the catch-all term used to justify military intervention in the ME.

Russia is backing Assad under the pretense of “fighting ISIS”

ISIS backers Saudi Arabia and UAE are fighting shia militias in Yemen under the pretense of “fighting terrorism”

And Turkey, a staunchly secular country fifteen years ago but now a main ISIS logistical backer is settling scores with Kurds following their unexpected electoral success in Turkey (once again under the pretense of fighting ISIS)

And clueless European bureaucrats and the State Department are completely at a loss what to do.

363

[quote]loppar wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

And honestly, I cannot say I am bothered by it. Save for it’s a really sad day when your better options are Assad and the Russians. If they are willing to kill off ISIS, they can go nuts in my book. It’s at least easier to deal with the state of Syria in am dictatorship, than a batshit crazy rolling posse of rogue jihadists. I don’t think Assad will murder as many people as ISIS will.[/quote]

Actually, the vast majority of civilian casualties were caused by Assad.

ISIS are relative newcomers to the Syrian war and haven’t had the time to kill as much people as Assad, but they will definitely try to catch up judging by their atrocities in Iraq and south Kurdistan…

Russia has no interest in fighting ISIS. They want to prevent Assad’s regime from losing and prolong the war. That means more refugees in the EU which will make them desperate enough to cut ANY deal with Russia regardless of the US and make significant concessions in Eastern Europe.

“Fighting ISIS/terrorism” is now the catch-all term used to justify military intervention in the ME.

Russia is backing Assad under the pretense of “fighting ISIS”

ISIS backers Saudi Arabia and UAE are fighting shia militias in Yemen under the pretense of “fighting terrorism”

And Turkey, a staunchly secular country fifteen years ago but now a main ISIS logistical backer is settling scores with Kurds following their unexpected electoral success in Turkey (once again under the pretense of fighting ISIS)

And clueless European bureaucrats and the State Department are completely at a loss what to do.
[/quote]

Oh I get that Assad is a butcher and I know his current body count vastly out numbers ISIS. It’s the future I am thinking about. I have no doubts that left unchecked, ISIS’s body count will continue to rise exponentially.
And no, the Russians are not there to fight ISIS specifically, but if they want Assad to have his country back, they will have to. ISIS and Assad cannot peacefully co-exist in Syria, so if Assad is to have his nation back, ISIS has to go.
I just think in the end, Syria as a nation state, even if under a brutal dictatorship is easier to deal with than a nomadic rogue element. A state of Syria is more vulnerable to international pressure than ISIS would ever be. At this point it’s the lesser of two profoundly evil, evils.

364

If Russia begins to attack ISIS, does anyone think they will cut their Syrian losses if need be and retreat back into Iraq?

365

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Who capitulated again?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/iran-nuclear-deal/world-leader-statements/[/quote]

We did. We gave them so much they would have stupid not to take the deal.

This is what it looks like:
US: We think you are building scissors for the purpose of stabbing people.
Iran: No we’re not. We have a pair of scissors to cut paper, we would never stab somebody with them.
US: Put away those scissorsor we’ll take away your scissors.
Iran: We will not, we need scissors to cut paper, we have no intention of stabbing somebody.
US: You are definitely going to stab somebody, so here’s what we’ll do. We will give you a billion dollars and all the child-proof scissors you want to cut the paper if you turn in your sharp scissors and stop making news ones.
Iran: hmmmm, Okay. We really want our sharp scissors, but we will give them up just to make you happy and you let us have paper to cut.[/quote]

Did you even bother reading the article? Who ended up farther from their pre-negotiations position?

A simplistic and erroneous portrayal based upon a simplistic and erroneous understanding of the issues at hand. [/quote]

Yes I did, I just misplaced my rose colored glasses and read it plain.[/quote]

An idealist who believes he is a realist. It seems to be a trend on your side of the argument. It’s plainly evidenced that the administration accomplished much of what it set out to do while the clerical regime capitulated on multiple nuclear issues.

366

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Who capitulated again?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/iran-nuclear-deal/world-leader-statements/[/quote]

We did. We gave them so much they would have stupid not to take the deal.

This is what it looks like:
US: We think you are building scissors for the purpose of stabbing people.
Iran: No we’re not. We have a pair of scissors to cut paper, we would never stab somebody with them.
US: Put away those scissorsor we’ll take away your scissors.
Iran: We will not, we need scissors to cut paper, we have no intention of stabbing somebody.
US: You are definitely going to stab somebody, so here’s what we’ll do. We will give you a billion dollars and all the child-proof scissors you want to cut the paper if you turn in your sharp scissors and stop making news ones.
Iran: hmmmm, Okay. We really want our sharp scissors, but we will give them up just to make you happy and you let us have paper to cut.[/quote]

Did you even bother reading the article? Who ended up farther from their pre-negotiations position?

A simplistic and erroneous portrayal based upon a simplistic and erroneous understanding of the issues at hand. [/quote]

Yes I did, I just misplaced my rose colored glasses and read it plain.[/quote]

An idealist who believes he is a realist. It seems to be a trend on your side of the argument. It’s plainly evidenced that the administration accomplished much of what it set out to do while the clerical regime capitulated on multiple nuclear issues. [/quote]

Each “capitulation” was bought for a price ten times their worth.

367

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If Russia begins to attack ISIS, does anyone think they will cut their Syrian losses if need be and retreat back into Iraq?[/quote]

Tough to tell. Syria is their home, their main base of operations. I will say this though, if Syria and Russia do join forces to get ISIS out of Syria it’s going to be a bloody affair. It will make the coalition bombs look like a vacation. The Russians are way more brutal when going about their military goals. They won’t assess the value of targets, they will just blow the shit out of them and finish off the survivors.

368

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Tough to tell. Syria is their home, their main base of operations. I will say this though, if Syria and Russia do join forces to get ISIS out of Syria it’s going to be a bloody affair. It will make the coalition bombs look like a vacation. The Russians are way more brutal when going about their military goals. They won’t assess the value of targets, they will just blow the shit out of them and finish off the survivors. [/quote]

Why should Russia fight ISIS, except in a very limited scope to keep the Assad regime in power?

ISIS is causing the West to panic, and this panic both in political and media circles is a weakness that can be exploited by Putin, especially now with the refugee crisis in Europe.

Look how Erdogan managed to extract concessions from the US to launch a bombing campaign against anti-ISIS Kurds in exchange for access to some airbases, a token airstrike and some grandstanding about “fighting terrorism”… So ISIS is extremely useful for him.

Don’t tell me Putin, a guy who killed over 250 000 Chechens in the Second Chechen War and thousands of Ukrainians cares about human cost of war.

So he’ll press the West for major concessions in Europe and ME in exchange for nominal support against ISIS - he is already preparing this for his GA speech at the UN.

So it’s like negotiating with a serial arsonist who just started a new fire about putting out one of the old fires.

Russia has already cut a deal with islamists in Chechnya where Kadyrov is running a de facto independent criminal/islamist fiefdom and does whatever he wants:

Here’s a nice overview how Putin ran circles around Kerry both on the Ukraine and Syria issue and created the Russia-Iran ME alliance. No one in the West can do anything about it except being “deeply concerned” in order to “avoid escalation” mantra we’ve been hearing from all Western capitals:

A couple of years ago the West was all in arms about “butcher Assad” and how negotiations with him are out of the question. With the Russia-Iran axis, Assad could today afford to rebuke an UK proposal to run a transitional government. Talk about a complete defeat of Western policy.

369

“Iran just found A LOT of uranium”

370

If the Iran deal is so bad why do the secret services and intelligence agencies of the majority of the western world seem pretty happy with it?

371

I always thought that allowing a terrorist state to develop nuclear weapons, and giving them an additional 150 billion dollars to make sure they are well funded was a bad idea…I guess I’m just old fashion.

372

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I always thought that allowing a terrorist state to develop nuclear weapons, and giving them an additional 150 billion dollars to make sure they are well funded was a bad idea…I guess I’m just old fashion.[/quote]

When you simplify a position to a point of absurdity, it becomes easy to knock its straw body down.

373

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

When you simplify a position to a point of absurdity, it becomes easy to knock its straw body down. [/quote]

Go for it.

374

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

When you simplify a position to a point of absurdity, it becomes easy to knock its straw body down. [/quote]

Go for it.[/quote]

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.

Again, it is not enough to lambast the deal. Critics must offer a viable alternative. Foreign policy is rarely constituted by choosing the ideal. What is the alternative? No one has answered this question satisfactorily.

375

The alternative is that they carry on going make silly tv shows with Iranians as the bad guys

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

When you simplify a position to a point of absurdity, it becomes easy to knock its straw body down. [/quote]

Go for it.[/quote]

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.

Again, it is not enough to lambast the deal. Critics must offer a viable alternative. Foreign policy is rarely constituted by choosing the ideal. What is the alternative? No one has answered this question satisfactorily. [/quote]

376

Has anyone in this thread broached the subject that some western analysts are saying Iran getting Nuclear weapons would be a safeguard from Sunni threats to both Iran and the west, Pakistan has them, Saudi Arabia has backed giving them more, you have Sunni regimes surrounding Iran.

I think over the next 20 years, we will see an expansion of our ties with Iran as we are seeing now with joint efforts against IS and Al Nusra. The Iran deal and internal politics is pushing the moderates of the regime to prominence.

377

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.[/quote]

True, some have read the propaganda and are buying the fact that a terrorist country that has never kept their word is now going to play nice–uh huh.

More sanctions and if they attempt to develop nuclear weapons unleash Israel on them. Simple and very effective.

378

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.[/quote]

True, some have read the propaganda and are buying the fact that a terrorist country that has never kept their word is now going to play nice–uh huh.

More sanctions and if they attempt to develop nuclear weapons unleash Israel on them. Simple and very effective.

[/quote]

So simple and effective that none of the people within the intelligence services thinks it is a valid approach. But what do those people know, the professionals, the average Joe has a better grasp on incredibly complicated geo-political matters.

379

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.[/quote]

True, some have read the propaganda and are buying the fact that a terrorist country that has never kept their word is now going to play nice–uh huh.

More sanctions and if they attempt to develop nuclear weapons unleash Israel on them. Simple and very effective.

[/quote]

So simple and effective that none of the people within the intelligence services thinks it is a valid approach. But what do those people know, the professionals, the average Joe has a better grasp on incredibly complicated geo-political matters.[/quote]

First of all I agree there are some very complicated geo-political matters. But, the Iran Nuclear deal is NOT one of them. It’s basically a no brainer

You should read what about 200 high level retired military folks think of the bad deal that Kerry and Obama are so proud of:

What do they know right?

380

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.[/quote]

True, some have read the propaganda and are buying the fact that a terrorist country that has never kept their word is now going to play nice–uh huh.

More sanctions and if they attempt to develop nuclear weapons unleash Israel on them. Simple and very effective.

[/quote]

So simple and effective that none of the people within the intelligence services thinks it is a valid approach. But what do those people know, the professionals, the average Joe has a better grasp on incredibly complicated geo-political matters.[/quote]

First of all I agree there are some very complicated geo-political matters. But, the Iran Nuclear deal is NOT one of them. It’s basically a no brainer

You should read what about 200 high level retired military folks think of the bad deal that Kerry and Obama are so proud of:

What do they know right?
[/quote]

I would imagine retired military personnel have very little insight compared to current and active members of the intelligence services.

My brother was in the military and served his country in multiple deployments. He however wouldn’t be the person I want handling policy, I want my nations secret service and intelligence community to do that, alongside the politicians who are briefed by these people and have all the information me you and retired military personnel do not have access to.