I kind of wonder if the DREAM act was passed so that libs could whine about people wanting to tear families apart.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I kind of wonder if the DREAM act was passed so that libs could whine about people wanting to tear families apart. [/quote]
Citizens are also torn from their families when their loved ones go to jail.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I kind of wonder if the DREAM act was passed so that libs could whine about people wanting to tear families apart. [/quote]
Citizens are also torn from their families when their loved ones go to jail.[/quote]
Logical conclusion = stops sending families to prison you heartless prick!
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The Dem’s just got 5 million new votes…and now they can call the GOP RAYYYCCESSSSSSSSSS[/quote]
They are not getting citizenship i.e. no vote or welfare. They will pay an income tax. [/quote]
No they won’t.
“…Not only will they not pay income taxes, many are likely to get a check from the IRS, thanks to the Orwellian-named Earned Income Tax Credit, which send a gift from taxpayers to low income families…”
I don’t follow the domestic stuff as much. This EITC is out of control.
From the California Greek Tragedy…
From the mid 80’s-2005, the state added 10 million people. 7 million added to Medicaid, 115,00 added to prisons, and only 150,000 tax filers.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
From the California Greek Tragedy…
From the mid 80’s-2005, the state added 10 million people. 7 million added to Medicaid, 115,00 added to prisons, and only 150,000 tax filers.
But we got a train to Merced!
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
“In contrast to either war or the “quick, decisive military strategy,” which George described as a military strategy that aimed to negate adversary capabilities to contest what is at stake, coercive diplomacy is a political-diplomatic strategy that aims to influence an adversary’s will or incentive structure. It is a strategy that combines threats of force, and, if necessary, the limited and selective use of force in discrete and controlled increments, in a bargaining strategy that includes positive inducements. The aim is to induce an adversary to comply with one’s demands, or to negotiate the most favorable compromise possible, while simultaneously managing the crisis to prevent unwanted military escalation.” (Jack S. Levy. Deterrence and Coercive Diplomacy: The Contributions of Alexander George)
[/quote]
I’m not sure why you are quoting an academic exposition of coercive diplomacy. I have articulated specifically why diplomacy has conspicuously, consistently and dramatically failed with the Islamic Republic of Iran and the immeasurable consequences of this failed diplomacy.
Uh huh. And given the failure of coercive diplomacy, many have long argued that the military option is the only resort left, “extremely unattractive” or otherwise.
And coercive diplomacy has failed; both in its praxis and outcomes.
An impossible “trick to pull off” - threats and inducements not being taken seriously by either side.
A fundamental miscalculation. There is not “distrust” from Iran towards the United States; there is enmity. An enmity taken to the level of the existential. Iran does not seek accommodation from the West. It seeks the annihilation of the West. Its objectives are not limited and rational; they are unlimited. You cannot come to terms with a regime that seeks to destroy you.
You are missing the fundamental objective of sanctions. The objective is not to harm the Iranian economy. The objective is to force Iran to end its military nuclear program. This objective has not been achieved; not by any objective standard.
And yet you take Iran’s breakout capacity as a fait accompli; essentially an admission that the fundamental objectives of diplomacy have failed.
Pat can speak for himself. I have articulated clearly why I oppose appeasement dressed up as diplomatic coercion. A decade of sticks and carrots have failed in their principle objective.
Ever since I started posting on PWI I have demonstrated Obama’s fundamental hostility to Israel again and again. The latest example: a number of Israelis, including three US citizens, were just hacked to pieces by axe wielding Palestinians in East Jerusalem. Obama, commenting on the attack, failed to even mention that the victims were Jews(and US citizens) and the perpetrators Palestinians. He then bemoaned “so many Palestinians dying”. Obama does not recognise the sovereignty of Israel over Jerusalem. He has taken a radical position completely at odds with previous administrations, calling for an Israeli withdrawal to pre-67 “borders”.
I’m aware that Obama has done everything within his power to obstruct arms sales to Israel.
I have and do and have articulated why. The objective of Iranian nuclear containment or roll back cannot be achieved via diplomacy. The acceptance of breakout as a fait accompli is essentially acceptance of the fact that the principle objective of the last decade of diplomacy has failed. It is an acceptance of failure masked by a de jure rejection of Iranian nuclear rights; a rejection in name only with no basis in reality.
I was referring to realism in International Relations and the fact that a purely self-interested foreign policy would regard detente with Iran madness and regard diplomacy with Iran as a demonstrable failure; a failure entirely predictable given the absolutism and unlimited objectives of Iran and their track record of perfidy and deception.
Specifically, you are abandoning practical and material considerations in favour of ideology.
One cannot be a realist whilst holding a belief grounded in fantasy; a belief that Iran can be forced through sanctions and threats or incentives to abandon their nuclear ambitions. It is idealistic to believe such.
Sentiments of idealism likely masking a calculated decision to abandon Israel in order to seek detente with the Muslim world.
[quote]
I have written numerous times that a nuclear Iran is not in the interest of the United States. We disagree what incentives Iran to seek nuclear capability. In addition, we disagree about U.S. policy to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state; however, we both believe that Iran must not be allowed to become nuclear. If coercive diplomacy fails to dissuade Iran from seeking the bomb, I have no qualms with a prudently planned air campaign against its nuclear facilities and related delivery systems. A ground war is out of the question, however. [/quote]
It’s a question of recognising that coercive diplomacy has already failed; predictably so. To entertain fantasies of diplomatic curtailment of Iran is either idealism or a calculated realist position(a flawed one) masked as idealism.
Edited[/quote]
Actually, this well articulated post speaks for my position on the matter as well. Iran is a hostile state, who’s goals are to destroy ultimately their enemies by any means possible, while maintaining a facade of ‘reasonableness’ in the international community until they are able to achieve their ultimate goal. It would be less obvious if they haven’t actually stated as much.
I say let them build it and let Israel bomb it out of existence.[/quote]
The IDF lacks the capability to deal an irrevocable blow to the Iranian nuclear program. That is why it exaggerates the urgency of the need for U.S. forces to lead a concerted bombing campaign. The nuclear negotiations with Iran should continue. Though any reachable deal will inevitably be imperfect, it should be judged against the potential alternatives of war or multiple nuclear-armed states in the Middle East. Barring that, containment and a renewed commitment to the NPT is preferable to going to war with Iran, especially so if it becomes a nuclear weapons state.
Israel could do major damage to Iran’s nuclear program if it had the political and public will and resolve and was willing to endure the international pressure, harassment and intrigues against them. All of the scientists involved would be known along with the majority of key people involved in the military nuclear program. It’s under the administration and security of the Revolutionary Guard.
If they wanted to, Israel could drastically step up their assassinations of the key players and target university departments, research facilities and test sites, front companies and government departments, Revolutionary Guard facilities and personnel and private and public individuals working on the program - missile strikes and high casualty attacks on the Revolutionary Guard and political and ecclesiastical elite.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The IDF lacks the capability to deal an irrevocable blow to the Iranian nuclear program. That is why it exaggerates the urgency of the need for U.S. forces to lead a concerted bombing campaign. The nuclear negotiations with Iran should continue. Though any reachable deal will inevitably be imperfect, it should be judged against the potential alternatives of war or multiple nuclear-armed states in the Middle East. Barring that, containment and a renewed commitment to the NPT is preferable to going to war with Iran, especially so if it becomes a nuclear weapons state.[/quote]
Oh bullshit. Let’s see, the MOSAD has managed to kill two their top nuclear scientists in Tehran and introduce a computer bug that the Iranians cannot get rid of. That will slow them down only of course, but Israel will take care of the problem should it become one. They’ve done it before and they will do it again.
I don’t think you understand their policy which translated is stated as ‘Any Jew any where. Never again’ That’s their credo, I believe them.
Jewbacca could enlighten us on the details of course.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Israel could do major damage to Iran’s nuclear program if it had the political and public will and resolve and was willing to endure the international pressure, harassment and intrigues against them. All of the scientists involved would be known along with the majority of key people involved in the military nuclear program. It’s under the administration and security of the Revolutionary Guard.
If they wanted to, Israel could drastically step up their assassinations of the key players and target university departments, research facilities and test sites, front companies and government departments, Revolutionary Guard facilities and personnel and private and public individuals working on the program - missile strikes and high casualty attacks on the Revolutionary Guard and political and ecclesiastical elite.[/quote]
Just a sample of Israel’s resolve on the matter.
If the Iranians build it, it will be attacked.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Israel could do major damage to Iran’s nuclear program if it had the political and public will and resolve and was willing to endure the international pressure, harassment and intrigues against them. All of the scientists involved would be known along with the majority of key people involved in the military nuclear program. It’s under the administration and security of the Revolutionary Guard.
If they wanted to, Israel could drastically step up their assassinations of the key players and target university departments, research facilities and test sites, front companies and government departments, Revolutionary Guard facilities and personnel and private and public individuals working on the program - missile strikes and high casualty attacks on the Revolutionary Guard and political and ecclesiastical elite.[/quote]
Just a sample of Israel’s resolve on the matter.
If the Iranians build it, it will be attacked.
[/quote]
Israel just went through a mini coup.
Bibi and the hardliners were under attack from more moderate parties, and managed to hold the line. We will see if it makes the switch from democracy to “Jewish state”, but it is looking likely. I predict they will then start killing Arabs and maybe make a move on the Persians.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
From the California Greek Tragedy…
From the mid 80’s-2005, the state added 10 million people. 7 million added to Medicaid, 115,00 added to prisons, and only 150,000 tax filers.
115,000 in prisons? Good grief! That’s racism right there. Laws that target “brown people” without a doubt.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
Israel just went through a mini coup.
Bibi and the hardliners were under attack from more moderate parties, and managed to hold the line.
[/quote]
That’s one way to put it I suppose. However, I wouldn’t call Yair Lapid “moderate.” In office he has consistently supported left-wing/socialist policy and most recently opposed a draft law defining Israel as a Jewish state. According to NRG Israeli news, Lapid has alienated his own party due to his left-wing policies.
"…a report Wednesday published by the NRG website, members of Yesh Atid’s Knesset faction are furious with Lapid. They believe that his move to the Left is destroying the party…
Today the leftist parties are polling 33 Knesset seat total, and it is hard to see how that number can rise.
This brings us to the reason these elections are so necessary. Lapid’s con job on the voters two years ago meant that the public didn’t receive the center-right government it wanted. Lapid taught the public that there are no center-left parties, only leftist parties that pretend to be centrist for electoral purposes." - Caroline Glick
[quote]
We will see if it makes the switch from democracy to “Jewish state”, but it is looking likely. I predict they will then start killing Arabs and maybe make a move on the Persians. [/quote]
Not sure if serious…?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Israel could do major damage to Iran’s nuclear program if it had the political and public will and resolve and was willing to endure the international pressure, harassment and intrigues against them. All of the scientists involved would be known along with the majority of key people involved in the military nuclear program. It’s under the administration and security of the Revolutionary Guard.
If they wanted to, Israel could drastically step up their assassinations of the key players and target university departments, research facilities and test sites, front companies and government departments, Revolutionary Guard facilities and personnel and private and public individuals working on the program - missile strikes and high casualty attacks on the Revolutionary Guard and political and ecclesiastical elite.[/quote]
War, as Clausewitz famously taught, is the continuation of politics by other means. Wars are fought to realign politics in a way that benefits the victor and is detrimental to the loser. But the Israelis have lost sight of this distinction. They value tactical victories at the expense of strategic losses.
Are you advocating that the IDF and Israeli intelligence community target universities, along with IRGC, political and religious leaders? That definitively would not inflame the enmity that exists between Iran and Israel, in addition to hugely exacerbating regional instability.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Israel could do major damage to Iran’s nuclear program if it had the political and public will and resolve and was willing to endure the international pressure, harassment and intrigues against them. All of the scientists involved would be known along with the majority of key people involved in the military nuclear program. It’s under the administration and security of the Revolutionary Guard.
If they wanted to, Israel could drastically step up their assassinations of the key players and target university departments, research facilities and test sites, front companies and government departments, Revolutionary Guard facilities and personnel and private and public individuals working on the program - missile strikes and high casualty attacks on the Revolutionary Guard and political and ecclesiastical elite.[/quote]
Just a sample of Israel’s resolve on the matter.
If the Iranians build it, it will be attacked.
[/quote]
You can’t compare the bombing of the Osirak reactor in 1981 and the Deir ez-Zor reactor in 2007 to a concerted air campaign against the Iranian nuclear program presently, which isn’t primarily constituted by a vulnerable and single above ground reactor as Iraq’s and Syria’s nuclear programs were.
“It” has already been built, and multiple times in fact.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The IDF lacks the capability to deal an irrevocable blow to the Iranian nuclear program. That is why it exaggerates the urgency of the need for U.S. forces to lead a concerted bombing campaign. The nuclear negotiations with Iran should continue. Though any reachable deal will inevitably be imperfect, it should be judged against the potential alternatives of war or multiple nuclear-armed states in the Middle East. Barring that, containment and a renewed commitment to the NPT is preferable to going to war with Iran, especially so if it becomes a nuclear weapons state.[/quote]
Oh bullshit. Let’s see, the MOSAD has managed to kill two their top nuclear scientists in Tehran and introduce a computer bug that the Iranians cannot get rid of. That will slow them down only of course, but Israel will take care of the problem should it become one. They’ve done it before and they will do it again.
I don’t think you understand their policy which translated is stated as ‘Any Jew any where. Never again’ That’s their credo, I believe them.
Jewbacca could enlighten us on the details of course.[/quote]
Do I need to define “irrevocable” for you? In regard to nuclear facilities and military capabilities, Iraq circa 1981 and Syria circa 2007 are not Iran circa 2014. The “Mossad” has had some success in assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, sure. Stutnex was likely an American invention, with some help from the Israelis, primarily in regard to its physical introduction to Iranian programmable logic controllers, and it wasn’t nearly as successful as you seem to believe.
Institute for Science and International Security
Did Stuxnet Take Out 1,000 Centrifuges at the Natanz Enrichment Plant?
“The attacks seem designed to force a change in the centrifuge’s rotor speed, first raising the speed and then lowering it, likely with the intention of inducing excessive vibrations or distortions that would destroy the centrifuge. If its goal was to quickly destroy all the centrifuges in the FEP [Fuel Enrichment Plant], Stuxnet failed. But if the goal was to destroy a more limited number of centrifuges and set back Iran’s progress in operating the FEP, while making detection difficult, it may have succeeded, at least temporarily.”
“Assuming Iran exercises caution, Stuxnet is unlikely to destroy more centrifuges at the Natanz plant. Iran likely cleaned the malware from its control systems. To prevent re-infection, Iran will have to exercise special caution since so many computers in Iran contain Stuxnet.”
Although Stuxnet appears to be designed to destroy centrifuges at the Natanz facility, destruction was by no means total. Moreover, Stuxnet did not lower the production of LEU during 2010. LEU quantities could have certainly been greater, and Stuxnet could be an important part of the reason why they did not increase significantly. Nonetheless, there remain important questions about why Stuxnet destroyed only 1,000 centrifuges. One observation is that it may be harder to destroy centrifuges by use of cyber attacks than often believed."
I understand that policy doesn’t guarantee outcome, especially if the aforementioned policy is about as general as one can get. Your belief in Israeli capability even less so.
Oh yes, I forget that being a national of a state makes one privy to its security policy. To reiterate my point, the IDF and Israeli intelligence services cannot deal an irrevocable blow to the Iranian nuclear program. Even American strategists who argue for an American led preventive air campaign acknowledge that such an action wouldn’t banish the specter of a nuclear Iran.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
War, as Clausewitz famously taught, is the continuation of politics by other means.
[/quote]
Ah yes, Clausewitz; always quoted, rarely read.
Absolutely.
Ah, Israel/US and Iran have been in a de facto state of war for 35 years. Iran is on the cusp of breakout and poses an existential threat to Israel. Diplomacy doesn’t work with Iran; never has, never will.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Israel could do major damage to Iran’s nuclear program if it had the political and public will and resolve and was willing to endure the international pressure, harassment and intrigues against them. All of the scientists involved would be known along with the majority of key people involved in the military nuclear program. It’s under the administration and security of the Revolutionary Guard.
If they wanted to, Israel could drastically step up their assassinations of the key players and target university departments, research facilities and test sites, front companies and government departments, Revolutionary Guard facilities and personnel and private and public individuals working on the program - missile strikes and high casualty attacks on the Revolutionary Guard and political and ecclesiastical elite.[/quote]
Just a sample of Israel’s resolve on the matter.
If the Iranians build it, it will be attacked.
[/quote]
You can’t compare the bombing of the Osirak reactor in 1981 and the Deir ez-Zor reactor in 2007 to a concerted air campaign against the Iranian nuclear program presently, which isn’t primarily constituted by a vulnerable and single above ground reactor as Iraq’s and Syria’s nuclear programs were.
“It” has already been built, and multiple times in fact.
[/quote]
Agree. I was also confused by pat’s comparison to the Osirak reactor bombing(totally incomparable) and the “if they build it” statement.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The IDF lacks the capability to deal an irrevocable blow to the Iranian nuclear program. That is why it exaggerates the urgency of the need for U.S. forces to lead a concerted bombing campaign. The nuclear negotiations with Iran should continue. Though any reachable deal will inevitably be imperfect, it should be judged against the potential alternatives of war or multiple nuclear-armed states in the Middle East. Barring that, containment and a renewed commitment to the NPT is preferable to going to war with Iran, especially so if it becomes a nuclear weapons state.[/quote]
Oh bullshit. Let’s see, the MOSAD has managed to kill two their top nuclear scientists in Tehran and introduce a computer bug that the Iranians cannot get rid of. That will slow them down only of course, but Israel will take care of the problem should it become one. They’ve done it before and they will do it again.
I don’t think you understand their policy which translated is stated as ‘Any Jew any where. Never again’ That’s their credo, I believe them.
Jewbacca could enlighten us on the details of course.[/quote]
Do I need to define “irrevocable” for you? In regard to nuclear facilities and military capabilities, Iraq circa 1981 and Syria circa 2007 are not Iran circa 2014. The “Mossad” has had some success in assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, sure. Stutnex was likely an American invention, with some help from the Israelis, primarily in regard to its physical introduction to Iranian programmable logic controllers, and it wasn’t nearly as successful as you seem to believe.
Institute for Science and International Security
Did Stuxnet Take Out 1,000 Centrifuges at the Natanz Enrichment Plant?
“The attacks seem designed to force a change in the centrifuge’s rotor speed, first raising the speed and then lowering it, likely with the intention of inducing excessive vibrations or distortions that would destroy the centrifuge. If its goal was to quickly destroy all the centrifuges in the FEP [Fuel Enrichment Plant], Stuxnet failed. But if the goal was to destroy a more limited number of centrifuges and set back Iran’s progress in operating the FEP, while making detection difficult, it may have succeeded, at least temporarily.”
“Assuming Iran exercises caution, Stuxnet is unlikely to destroy more centrifuges at the Natanz plant. Iran likely cleaned the malware from its control systems. To prevent re-infection, Iran will have to exercise special caution since so many computers in Iran contain Stuxnet.”
Although Stuxnet appears to be designed to destroy centrifuges at the Natanz facility, destruction was by no means total. Moreover, Stuxnet did not lower the production of LEU during 2010. LEU quantities could have certainly been greater, and Stuxnet could be an important part of the reason why they did not increase significantly. Nonetheless, there remain important questions about why Stuxnet destroyed only 1,000 centrifuges. One observation is that it may be harder to destroy centrifuges by use of cyber attacks than often believed."
I understand that policy doesn’t guarantee outcome, especially if the aforementioned policy is about as general as one can get. Your belief in Israeli capability even less so.
Oh yes, I forget that being a national of a state makes one privy to its security policy. To reiterate my point, the IDF and Israeli intelligence services cannot deal an irrevocable blow to the Iranian nuclear program. Even American strategists who argue for an American led preventive air campaign acknowledge that such an action wouldn’t banish the specter of a nuclear Iran.[/quote]
Israel can most definitely deal an irrevocable blow to the Iranian Nuclear program. Just because they have not, does not either mean that they cannot, nor that they will not.
Certainly, they will let the us all play out these little negotiation games, they have nothing to lose by waiting and everything to gain in the very, very unlikely event of success.
I am not professing a complicated concept here. History shows, Israel’s own words bare out their determination against Iran becoming a nuclear power. They may take covert action, they may take military action, they may take any number of actions, but they will not take ‘no action’. They will stop Iran from becoming nuclear weapon baring country.