Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 22:11:25 GMT -5
Ignore is your friend.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 8, 2013 22:25:16 GMT -5
This post is hidden Display Post
Wow just like magic stupid nonsense posts disappear
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 22:30:14 GMT -5
This post is hidden Display Post Wow just like magic stupid nonsense posts disappear Ahhhhhhhh.....it's nice, ain't it??? While I hope diplomacy will resolve Iranian crisis--- we have to be careful not to give too much away. Israel is right to be concerned.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 8, 2013 22:31:43 GMT -5
This post is hidden Display Post Wow just like magic stupid nonsense posts disappear Ahhhhhhhh.....it's nice, ain't it??? While I hope diplomacy will resolve Iranian crisis--- we have to be careful not to give too much away. Israel is right to be concerned. We should all be concerned and carefull
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 22:53:40 GMT -5
Ahhhhhhhh.....it's nice, ain't it??? While I hope diplomacy will resolve Iranian crisis--- we have to be careful not to give too much away. Israel is right to be concerned. We should all be concerned and carefull Absolutely. Iran is a real and very complex problem. Any ability to stop them from getting nukes without a fight is worthwhile...but we can't forget the North Korean experience. The one hope-- Iran is actually a far more open society. North Korea is downright horrific and unbelievably frightening.
|
|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Nov 9, 2013 0:13:10 GMT -5
This post is hidden Display Post Wow just like magic stupid nonsense posts disappear Ahhhhhhhh.....it's nice, ain't it??? While I hope diplomacy will resolve Iranian crisis--- we have to be careful not to give too much away. Israel is right to be concerned. I'm glad they're talking-while it's going to be a hard road with no guarantees of a diplomatic solution at least now there's a chance for one. We'll see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 9:57:07 GMT -5
Ahhhhhhhh.....it's nice, ain't it??? While I hope diplomacy will resolve Iranian crisis--- we have to be careful not to give too much away. Israel is right to be concerned. I'm glad they're talking-while it's going to be a hard road with no guarantees of a diplomatic solution at least now there's a chance for one. We'll see. It's a nasty, nasty situation. War with Iran would be a bad, bad thing. We'd kick their @ss, to be sure, but the long term implications would be ugly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 10:09:58 GMT -5
I'm glad they're talking-while it's going to be a hard road with no guarantees of a diplomatic solution at least now there's a chance for one. We'll see. It's a nasty, nasty situation. War with Iran would be a bad, bad thing. We'd kick their @ss, to be sure, but the long term implications would be ugly. I wouldn't be overly cocky about that, Iran's @ss will be a lot, lot tougher than Iraq or Afghanistan's @ss'. If it was that easy, Netanyahu would have preemptively struck them by now.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 9, 2013 10:13:00 GMT -5
It's a nasty, nasty situation. War with Iran would be a bad, bad thing. We'd kick their @ss, to be sure, but the long term implications would be ugly. I wouldn't be overly cocky about that, Iran's @ss will be a lot, lot tougher than Iraq or Afghanistan's @ss'. If it was that easy, Netanyahu would have preemptively struck them by now. Especially if chicken hawks run it. They started a war in Iraq then threw those soldiers under the bus.
|
|
|
Post by dsummoner on Nov 9, 2013 10:18:12 GMT -5
The Iranians are playing Lurch in the same way that a Tennessean toothless mountain man stemming from an unbranched family tree would play a fiddle. Rouhani is proud of the work that he did to fool the easily played dullards of the west. Hopey, dopey and changey along with everybody loves everybody are great for suckering dullard meereeklan voters and commune seekers, but have little place when it comes to foreign policy. Unfortunately with Lurch, a wet turnip with a tinge of mold could do better at negotiating and not being taken for an easy mark. Lurch also has the tendency to become completely unhinged and go completely off of the rails with the development of his own foreign policy, rather than remembering his role as Obama's underling. With this being said, there are other issues that must be considered in regards to actual American foreign policy interests (what they are and not what they should or could be). Iran, just as with Pakistan, has shown that if one develops one's nuclear program sufficiently enough, then one places oneself in the driver's seat when it comes to dealing with American imperialism. Iran is setting the terms here and not the US. As King Leonidas mockingly told the Spartan Senate in 300, 'What can you do?' Only this time, it is the Persians telling the imperialistic Americans, the same. Part and parcel of extant US regional foreign policy has been vested in the protection of the interests of certain regional allies, inclusive of Israel and a bloc of Sunni Islamic countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.). The current arse up negotiating posture by the US threatens these extant alliances. The Israelis can and will act on their own if they are threatened. Egypt is quickly drifting away from the US sphere of influence towards Russia. The Saudis are already upset over the Obabungling and Obabuffoonery with Syria (better that Obama had shut his pie hole instead of mouthing off about red lines) and there is already talk about Pakistan providing the Saudis nuclear weapons technology (so much for anti-proliferation). The most important aspect to remember is that the US is in the region because it needs to assure that oil pricing remains in the USD. This is a fundamental underpinning of US foreign policy because the USD as the global reserve currency is the lynchpin of the ability of the US to sell its debt to foreigners. The Saudis have long supported the status quo in regards to pricing oil in the USD and have fought off attempts in OPEC to alter the status quo (in exchange for US support and advancement of the Saudi regime's interests). If the Saudi support for this status quo goes...
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 9, 2013 10:19:24 GMT -5
It's a nasty, nasty situation. War with Iran would be a bad, bad thing. We'd kick their @ss, to be sure, but the long term implications would be ugly. I wouldn't be overly cocky about that, Iran's @ss will be a lot, lot tougher than Iraq or Afghanistan's @ss'. If it was that easy, Netanyahu would have preemptively struck them by now. Netanyahu hasn't struck because of the leash the US has on him. The word on the street is that Iran is within several months of nuclear weapons. Pakistan is in negotiations with the Saudis to ship them ready made nukes. I don't think mutual assured destruction is a viable deterrent when muslims are involved. And while we may have kicked Saddam's ass, it cost nearly five thousand American men and women to do so, not to mention a less stable Iraq than when we invaded it. It'd be nice if we could reintroduce some stability to the region. However, I don't trust Iran's motivations nor do I have faith in Obama's ability not to screw it up.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 9, 2013 10:20:40 GMT -5
It seems like a whole bunch of countries are getting smarter than us. And boy do they love our money. And it seem so easy for them to get it. And support services.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 9, 2013 10:25:50 GMT -5
I wouldn't be overly cocky about that, Iran's @ss will be a lot, lot tougher than Iraq or Afghanistan's @ss'. If it was that easy, Netanyahu would have preemptively struck them by now. Netanyahu hasn't struck because of the leash the US has on him. The word on the street is that Iran is within several months of nuclear weapons. Pakistan is in negotiations with the Saudis to ship them ready made nukes. I don't think mutual assured destruction is a viable deterrent when muslims are involved. And while we may have kicked Saddam's ass, it cost nearly five thousand American men and women to do so, not to mention a less stable Iraq than when we invaded it. It'd be nice if we could reintroduce some stability to the region. However, I don't trust Iran's motivations nor do I have faith in Obama's ability not to screw it up. Boy is this the death knoll of ex neo cons? Hilarious
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 9, 2013 10:28:06 GMT -5
Netanyahu hasn't struck because of the leash the US has on him. The word on the street is that Iran is within several months of nuclear weapons. Pakistan is in negotiations with the Saudis to ship them ready made nukes. I don't think mutual assured destruction is a viable deterrent when muslims are involved. And while we may have kicked Saddam's ass, it cost nearly five thousand American men and women to do so, not to mention a less stable Iraq than when we invaded it. It'd be nice if we could reintroduce some stability to the region. However, I don't trust Iran's motivations nor do I have faith in Obama's ability not to screw it up. Boy is this the death knoll of ex neo cons? Hilarious Since I was never a "neo con," I'd certainly hope so.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 9, 2013 10:39:19 GMT -5
It's a nasty, nasty situation. War with Iran would be a bad, bad thing. We'd kick their @ss, to be sure, but the long term implications would be ugly. I wouldn't be overly cocky about that, Iran's @ss will be a lot, lot tougher than Iraq or Afghanistan's @ss'. If it was that easy, Netanyahu would have preemptively struck them by now A cruise missle, dropped from high altitude smart bomb war would be ok in the short term for "winning" The long term implications would be far rougher and harder. And a boots on the ground war would end up like Afganistan, a high casualty long term mess.
|
|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Nov 9, 2013 11:31:31 GMT -5
Boy is this the death knoll of ex neo cons? Hilarious Since I was never a "neo con," I'd certainly hope so. Death knell for the ex neo cons....that still leaves the neo neo-cons....or are they neo libs?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 9, 2013 11:32:54 GMT -5
This is legacy stuff if the US can finesse this right. Yup, just like with N Korea, the legacy will be a nuclear armed Iran. How charming.
|
|
|
Post by drjohnnyfever on Nov 9, 2013 11:34:03 GMT -5
"If you like your high speed centrifuges-you can keep your high speed centrifuges. Period."
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 9, 2013 11:49:21 GMT -5
Netanyahu is far from an idiot. But he is a hardliner, and in a world built on compromise his kind is a dinosaur. If a chill went down any Tea Party members' back right then, well...
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Nov 9, 2013 11:53:35 GMT -5
I wouldn't be overly cocky about that, Iran's @ss will be a lot, lot tougher than Iraq or Afghanistan's @ss'. If it was that easy, Netanyahu would have preemptively struck them by now. It'd be nice if we could reintroduce some stability to the region. However, I don't trust Iran's motivations nor do I have faith in Obama's ability not to screw it up. What's driving these negotiations is the truth that we are broke and no longer have the resources to maintain our presence there. Our military needs to catch a breath and rebuild the basics. Everything else is noise and diversion. Irans nuclear program is located in 2 dozen sites, all deep and well fortified. No one believes it's possible to take it out from the air. Saddam's lesson to us was that the Israeli tactic of preemptive strikes doesn't work for us any better than it has stabilized Israel's neighbors.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 9, 2013 12:39:08 GMT -5
Ignore is your friend. It's amazing how well it works, isn't it? I've only got the one on my ignore list, and the board is ten times more readable.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 9, 2013 12:46:43 GMT -5
I wouldn't be overly cocky about that, Iran's @ss will be a lot, lot tougher than Iraq or Afghanistan's @ss'. If it was that easy, Netanyahu would have preemptively struck them by now. Especially if chicken hawks run it. They started a war in Iraq then threw those soldiers under the bus. Really? Like they did with Viet Nam? It's the same chickenhawks that bailed on Iraq, just as soon as Bush was out of office. So, it's been your heros in the Democrat party that are throwing soldiers under the bus.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 9, 2013 12:49:56 GMT -5
Netanyahu is far from an idiot. But he is a hardliner, and in a world built on compromise his kind is a dinosaur. If a chill went down any Tea Party members' back right then, well... A hard line is the only one possible with a country that has made the total destruction of your country it's main "foreign policy" plank.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Nov 9, 2013 14:29:55 GMT -5
Ignore is your friend. It's amazing how well it works, isn't it? I've only got the one on my ignore list, and the board is ten times more readable. This is the first time ever Ive used ignore, and it is 10 times more readable to not have to wade thru smarmy nonsense comments that are only to inflame just below the level that gets you banned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 14:33:59 GMT -5
It's a nasty, nasty situation. War with Iran would be a bad, bad thing. We'd kick their @ss, to be sure, but the long term implications would be ugly. I wouldn't be overly cocky about that, Iran's @ss will be a lot, lot tougher than Iraq or Afghanistan's @ss'. If it was that easy, Netanyahu would have preemptively struck them by now. We're not Israel, though. We'd stomp them. Would it be as easy as Iraq? No- but we could bomb the crap out of their cities and military reduce them to Stone Age. And they couldn't strike back at us the way they could strike at Israel. But it would be horrifically expensive in terms of money- and lives. As well as inflame Muslim world, esp the Shiites, even more than already inflamed. But to allow Iran to get nukes?? If Pakis give Saudis nukes......ME nuclear arms race...bad, bad, bad idea....
|
|