Iran steps further from nuke deal, adding pressure on Europe

[columbus]

Then that's on Obama. As it was his administration that was in charge before Trump. Yet we see where you still want to put the blame.

Obama(and Clinton) managed to get something done, after all the decades of U.S. attacks on Iran.
The Republicans sabotaged it.
I think it was shortsighted partisanship, but.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Put the blame where it really lies with Iran

I am putting the lion's share of the blame on the Bush administrations.
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

Obama(and Clinton) managed to get something done, after all the decades of U.S. attacks on Iran.

But they didn't. Iran never honored the deal. They signed it in 2015, by 2016 Iran has broken it 3 times already.

I am putting the lion's share of the blame on the Bush administrations.

How about ya put it where it belongs. On Iran.

 

[columbus]

How about ya put it where it belongs. On Iran.

Did Iran, or it's allies, ever invade the USA? Did they topple our government, or try to prevent us taking our country back? Did they ever freeze $100 billion+ in assets?

It's a rhetorical question. Of course not, we are consistently the violent aggressors and have been for as long as matters.
The problem is not Iranian violence. It's USA violence.
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

Did Iran, or it's allies, ever invade the USA?

Terrorist organizations that Iran funded have.

Did they topple our government, or try to prevent us taking our country back?

They have tried and failed.

Did they ever freeze $100 billion+ in assets?

That's what they get for being douches.

It's a rhetorical question.

Only if you are admitting Iran is an aggressor.

Of course not, we are consistently the violent aggressors and have been for as long as matters.

You have a funny take on history. It's almost like you are completely ignoring Irans aggressions against Israel and it's many human rights violations. Including but not limited to executing you Tom for being LGBT, should you ever travel to Iran. Nice job defending those murdering homophobes though, Hitler would be proud.

Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran - Wikipedia

The problem is not Iranian violence. I

That is the entire problem. Between them attacking Israel, and funding terrorist groups that have attacked us and our allies, allowing them to obtain nuclear weapons is a bad idea.

It's USA violence.

Which we haven't caused enough of apparently. That can be fixed.

 

[Cooky]

It's only matter of time before we go to war with Iran. They're going for nukes at all costs, even if it means losing everything.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's only matter of time before we go to war with Iran.

Will it be worth the couple trillion dollars (assuming
is would be as spendy as the Iraq war will total)?

Or will it be cheap surgical strikes, after which the
people welcome us as heroes, as the Iraq war
was predicted to end?

 

[Cooky]

Will it be worth the couple trillion dollars (assuming
is would be as spendy as the Iraq war will total)?

Or will it be cheap surgical strikes, after which the
people welcome us as heroes, as the Iraq war
was predicted to end?

Poetic justice would be to nuke them, but it goes against the rules of war and a good conscience.

...Nobody hates them that much.

 

[Shad]

Obama(and Clinton) managed to get something done, after all the decades of U.S. attacks on Iran.
The Republicans sabotaged it.
I think it was shortsighted partisanship, but.
Tom

*Cough* Libya.

 

[Revoltingest]

Poetic justice would be to nuke them, but it goes against the rules of war and a good conscience.

...Nobody hates them that much.

Actually, poetic justice would be Iran's using chemical
& biological weapons to defeat Ameristan's attack.
After all, we used those against them by supplying Iraq.
But poetic justice is seldom ever just.
(It can turn yer groin to pudding.)

Btw, there really are no rules of war.
We say there are, but we change them ad hoc so often
that no one can ever pin down any durable ones.

 

[Shad]

Will it be worth the couple trillion dollars (assuming
is would be as spendy as the Iraq war will total)?

Or will it be cheap surgical strikes, after which the
people welcome us as heroes, as the Iraq war
was predicted to end?

Tactical strikes while ignoring what the Iranian population thinks.

 

[Revoltingest]

Tactical strikes while ignoring what the Iranian population thinks.

How well did tactical strikes work in Vietnam, Afghanistan, & Iraq?
The problem I see is that Ameristanians focus upon our fell tool, our military.
(You know that to a carpenter with a hammer, all problems look like nails.)
So they think militarily, ie, tactically.
But they don't think of long term politics, ie, strategically.
So our methods work on a particular day, but not over decades.

In Vietnam our fundamental problem was that we played chess,
but they played go. We thought that killing players brought success.
But in go, players are added without limit. Our tactics failed against
a determined & resupplied foe. Islam too will have a limitless supply
of Muslims who see what we do to them. They aren't going away.
Twould be better to make an uneasy peace with them.

 

[Shad]

How well did tactical strikes work in Vietnam, Afghanistan, & Iraq?

It worked great against the Americans. That is my point. Change in tactics back to those of WW2.

The problem I see is that Ameristanians focus upon our fell tool, our military.
(You know that to a carpenter with a hammer, all problems look like nails.)
So they think militarily, ie, tactically.

The West put kid gloves on.

But they don't think of long term politics, ie, strategically.

Actually they do but are misguided. Current policy ensures a nation has some nominal infrastructure and economy remaining after the war. That is why these wars fail as it is putting kid gloves on.

So our methods work on a particular day, but not over decades.

Again the problem is that the goal isn't to win the war but to win/gain to the economy and resources of nations.

In Vietnam our fundamental problem was that we played chess,
but they played go.

The leash was on the military. Specific infrastructure in NV was never targeted or never heavily attacked like the dike and dam systems. Major urban centers were not bombed.

We thought that killing players brought success.
But in go, players are added without limit. Our tactics failed against
a determined & resupplied foe. Islam too will have a limitless supply
of Muslims who see what we do to them. They aren't going away.
Twould be better to make an uneasy peace with them.

That is why you bomb a nation into the ground. The government will be unable to control the population once infrastructure is removed. They will riot, they will starve, they will turn on each other for scraps. The government will escalate turning a part of the population against it just to maintain some sort of control in important areas. Total War.

 

[Revoltingest]

It worked great against the Americans. That is my point. Change in tactics back to those of WW2.

We need to kill far more of them or use atomic bombs?

Actually they do but are misguided. Current policy ensures a nation has some nominal infrastructure and economy remaining after the war. That is why these wars fail as it is putting kid gloves on.

That seems a description of not thinking strategically,
ie, not looking at the larger picture over the longer term.

Again the problem is that the goal isn't to win the war but to win/gain to the economy and resources of nations.

Hmmm....we wage the wars, & China reaps the resources.
This model doesn't make sense.

The leash was on the military. Specific infrastructure in NV was never targeted or never heavily attacked like the dike and dam systems. Major urban centers were not bombed.

That is to think tactically.
Strategically, one must consider where that might lead, eg,
China's stepping up their support, resulting in the war becoming
larger, but not necessarily winnable.

That is why you bomb a nation into the ground. The government will be unable to control the population once infrastructure is removed. They will riot, they will starve, they will turn on each other for scraps. The government will escalate turning a part of the population against it just to maintain some sort of control in important areas. Total War.

Dr Strangelove, is that you?
I've heard of this total death & destruction approach to foreign policy before,
but only from a few fervent fundies I know. Apparently it's a biblical approach.

Back in the 50s, we actually made plans for total annihilation of the USSR.
I've seen maps of targets, designed to wipe out all military & urban industrial
assets. No doubt, the Soviets were aware of our plans. And so the cold war
escalated to the level where on multiple occasions we nearly went to all out
nuclear war with them.
Why bring this up?
If we adopted your approach, the results would be seen by other powers, some
of them nuclear....some of them now even more inspired to become nuclear in
order to employ the MAD strategy of inoculation against our preemptive attacks.
Would this make the world a better place?
Nah.

Adopting your proffered view, Russia & China just might decide
(rightly so perhaps) that Ameristan must be stopped from killing
millions, & be totally destroyed because it's become so dangerous.
Hoist by our own petard, eh?

 

[Shad]

We need to kill far more of them or use atomic bombs?

You misunderstood my point. The opposition would attack targets that would divert forces and resource away from military action. Repairs require security and consume resources. For example if the Red River dam and dike system was destroyed NV would have to allocate resources for security, repairs, manpower, etc. Government would also need to handle issues from the civilian population such as food supply shortages (Red River being a farming area) causing rioting. Transportation of civilian good no longer produced in the target area would need to be protected as well.

It is about what you target not merely any target.

That seems a description of not thinking strategically,
ie, looking at the larger picture over the long term.

Work in both Japan and Germany. Heck the allies design bombs specifically to destroy dams and dike in Germany

Hmmm....we wage the wars, & China reaps the resources.

I am not proposing a long war. Air strike key infrastructure such as the power grid, major highways and water systems. The ensuing chaos

This model doesn't make sense.

Look up 4th generation warfare. It makes complete sense. The US military has acknowledge this type of warfare for decades. It is what modern nations fear. Destruction of the very infrastructure which makes a nation a modern one. Most nations rely upon modern conveniences without which cause a nation to collapse.

That is to think tactically.

It is actually part of strategic warfare as the result damage due to the loss of the system is far more important.

Strategically, one must consider where that might lead, eg,
China's stepping up their support, resulting in the war becoming
larger, but not necessarily winnable.

Cut off trade with China. China's economy relies upon Western consumerism.

Dr Strangelove, is that you?

No. More like Sherman.

I've heard of this total death & destruction approach to foreign policy before,
but only from a few fervent fundies I know. Apparently it's a biblical approach.

It was the strategy which won the Allies WW2 and the Union the Civil War. We bombed cities into the ground as cities are production centers. Sherman used fire.

We didn't bomb Dresden then send humanitarian aid in the middle of the war to Germany.

Total war - Wikipedia

 

[sooda]

Obama(and Clinton) managed to get something done, after all the decades of U.S. attacks on Iran.
The Republicans sabotaged it.
I think it was shortsighted partisanship, but.
Tom

I agree.. The Obama deal bought time.. in time all those old Iranian hardliners will die off.

 

[Shad]

I agree.. The Obama deal bought time.. in time all those old Iranian hardliners will die off.

Isn't that what people thought when Khomeini died? After all he picked his successor. While undoing the laws thus requirements to get his pick in office.

 

[sooda]

Isn't that what people thought when Khomeini died? After all he picked his successor.

Point taken, but there are a lot of young Iranians who can't stand those old guys.

 

[Shad]

Point taken, but there are a lot of young Iranians who can't stand those old guys.

The Council is a major issue as it ties the hands of political parties thus the voters choice. Ironically Khomeini first pick wanted to reform not strictly aligned with Khomeini's Islamic views. Khomeini thought anti-shah protest were equal to Islamic support. When he was told this was an error by his first choice Khomeini removed him then changed the laws to get one of his lackeys selected.

 

[sooda]

The Council is a major issue as it ties the hands of political parties thus the voters choice.

Yeah.. sort of like elections in Syria.