The Iran Nuclear Deal Non-Binding To Iran

[metis]

What was excuse for Libya if it wasn't "nation building". Seems she wanted the current leader out, and was unable to see the consequences of replacing a leader that was at least keeping the radical jihadist under control. It seems that a the prevailing idea was that Bush was wrong for ousting Saddam but no problem with Hillary pushing for and replacing Kaddifi . Oh, maybe it's because there were no US ground troops involved and the Obama was in charge (from the rear). Both of the incidents were basically the same. Replace the current leader without looking at the possible consequences of those actions. No, Hillary is in bed with Wall Street, if Wall Street sees a possibility of making money Hillary will fall into lockstep with them and the consequences be dammed.

We were caught in a Catch-22 situation dealing with Libya, if you may remember. Obama was at first blamed for doing too little, then he got blamed for taking action that didn't lead to the results he or we had hoped for. With Iraq, Bush & Co. tried nation-building, but Obama & Co. actually didn't do that in Libya because we didn't occupy the country.

Secondly, I got news for ya: both Pubs and Dems are "in bed with Wall Street", and let me also add Madison Avenue, to varying degrees. We may have the best government that money can buy.

 

[metis]

Just so you know, to call out esmith in 3rd person fashion is a rule violation (#1).
Let's keep things less personal, & avoid moderator intervention.

I've told this to his "face" before, so there's no real secret I'm letting out here. Actually, I do give him credit in that I see him doing it less than he used to.

There, ya see, a nice compliment.

 

[Tumah]

If Iran were to use a nuke(s) on the U.S., new globes would have to be made whereas there would be a good-sized hole in them where Iran used to be.

My experience in Israel tells me that knowingly dropping a bomb where it will impact civilians in a defensive measure to protect your home country is a war crime. So the US would not be able to retaliate with a bomb.

 

[metis]

My experience in Israel tells me that knowingly dropping a bomb where it will impact civilians in a defensive measure to protect your home country is a war crime. So the US would not be able to retaliate with a bomb.

Do you remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki? the fire-bombing of Dresden? napalm and agent-orange in Vietnam? My point is that if pushed too far, the U.S. historically has often used high degrees of fire power, including two nukes. Were these right to use? IMO, no-- but I'm usually in the minority on such matters.

BTW, how are things going over there? I see where Trump appears to have cancelled his upcoming visit there.

 

[Tumah]

Do you remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki? the fire-bombing of Dresden? napalm and agent-orange in Vietnam? My point is that if pushed too far, the U.S. historically has often used high degrees of fire power, including two nukes. Were these right to use? IMO, no-- but I'm usually in the minority on such matters.

BTW, how are things going over there? I see where Trump appears to have cancelled his upcoming visit there.

I was just drawing a parallel to what the Israeli army sometimes has to do (and the criticism that it evokes) to what the US would theoretically do in a similar situation with Iran.

 

[metis]

I was just drawing a parallel to what the Israeli army sometimes has to do (and the criticism that it evokes) to what the US would theoretically do in a similar situation with Iran.

OK, I took it in the wrong way.

 

[Underhill]

It is in my opinion that if Iran went nuclear(bomb not reactors) it could lead to a nuclear arms raise within that part of the world. You might ask why they didn't when Israel went nuclear? I would hazard to guess they really didn't fear a first strike from Israel..

The arms race is what is happening now. Iran wants them to protect themselves from Israel and the rest of the west who tries to label them as one small step up from ISIS.

That's what blows my mind about the whole thing. Nukes are the one sure fire way a country can protect itself from invasion (at least it has been to this point). Of course Iran wants them. But the west pretends they have some nefarious reason behind it.

 

[metis]

I do believe that Iran is less worried about Israel than it is about the Saudis as those two are bitter enemies with their proxy wars. If Iran gets nukes, the Saudis and Egyptians are almost certain to follow up with their own.

 

[Underhill]

I do believe that Iran is less worried about Israel than it is about the Saudis as those two are bitter enemies with their proxy wars. If Iran gets nukes, the Saudis and Egyptians are almost certain to follow up with their own.

And once that happened, the nukes would be a stabilizing influence on the region.

 

[columbus]

I do believe that Iran is less worried about Israel than it is about the Saudis as those two are bitter enemies with their proxy wars. If Iran gets nukes, the Saudis and Egyptians are almost certain to follow up with their own.

We'll see if the USA is as willing to threaten and sanction them as we have Iran. We actually have a lot of influence over KSA and Egypt and could more feasibly prevent raising the nuclear threat in the middle East.
Tom

 

[metis]

And once that happened, the nukes would be a stabilizing influence on the region.

Not with the kind of leadership they have there, especially since Shi'a theology has an end-times scenario whereas, after catastrophe, they will emerge as being victorious to show the world that they were right all along. This along with a reminder that it is the ruling imams in Iran that have the political power there. I have not read or heard a single expert on the region that believes for one minute that nukes would stabilize the region.

 

[metis]

We'll see if the USA is as willing to threaten and sanction them as we have Iran. We actually have a lot of influence over KSA and Egypt and could more feasibly prevent raising the nuclear threat in the middle East.
Tom

We are really not in much of a strategic position to threaten the Saudis like Bush found out back in 1999-2000 when they snubbed him.

 

[columbus]

We are really not in much of a strategic position to threaten the Saudis like Bush found out back in 1999-2000 when they snubbed him.

Which Bush? I'm not sure what you mean. Did they snub Bush the presidential candidate?
Tom

 

[metis]

Which Bush? I'm not sure what you mean. Did they snub Bush the presidential candidate?
Tom

"W". He went there to see if they would pump more to lower oil prices, but got flatly turned down.

Because of Russia's increasing influence in the region, there's the fear that if we put too many sanctions on some of our allies there, that they'll drift over to increase relations with Russia, who would more than love selling military equipment to them. This happened before with both the Egyptians and Indians several decades ago.

 

[columbus]

"W". He went there to see if they would pump more to lower oil prices, but got flatly turned down.

Really?
A Republican presidential candidate from the Bush family tried to manipulate global oil markets for political gain?

Say it ain't so....

Tom

 

[columbus]

Because of Russia's increasing influence in the region, there's the fear that if we put too many sanctions on some of our allies there, that they'll drift over to increase relations with Russia

Cynic that I am, I think the USA should dump the Saudis and their Wahabhism and kiss and make up with Iran. Iran has almost as much oil. Iran is a far more sensible as a culture.

Perhaps Clinton could pull that off. She has a good grasp on hypocritical political opportunism. Partnership with the Iranian regime, rather than the Saudi regime, would definitely be in the USA best interests in the long haul.

Tom

 

[Underhill]

Not with the kind of leadership they have there, especially since Shi'a theology has an end-times scenario whereas, after catastrophe, they will emerge as being victorious to show the world that they were right all along. This along with a reminder that it is the ruling imams in Iran that have the political power there. I have not read or heard a single expert on the region that believes for one minute that nukes would stabilize the region.

I don't know. GWB believed in the christian end times scenario as have a lot of presidents before him.

Maybe the experts know something I don't know. But I look at North Korea, where everyone thought their getting nukes would reek havoc... now, not so much.

 

[esmith]

Cynic that I am, I think the USA should dump the Saudis and their Wahabhism and kiss and make up with Iran. Iran has almost as much oil. Iran is a far more sensible as a culture.

Perhaps Clinton could pull that off. She has a good grasp on hypocritical political opportunism. Partnership with the Iranian regime, rather than the Saudi regime, would definitely be in the USA best interests in the long haul.

Tom

The only problem with your hypothesis is that Saudi Arabia is more strategically located than Iran From: http://www.ic.gov.sa/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29&Itemid=130

Strategically located at the crossroads of three continents - Asia, Africa and Europe - the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is one of the world's most important commercial, trading and religious hubs.

Saudi Arabia is the largest market in Middle East-North Africa. An economic powerhouse itself, KSA also stands at the heart of a fast-growing region of over 400 million consumers.

On a wider level, KSA serves as a stable economic and political platform, and efficient launch-pad, to the more than 2 billion consumers who live within three hours by air.