Nuclear deal with Iran - good or bad?

[zippy2]

What is so terrible about getting Iran to stop pursuing a nuclear weapon?

That is not what he is doing and everyone knows it. He is a coward.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is not what he is doing and everyone knows it. He is a coward.

Is this the part where you invent conspiracy theories out of thin air? Is name calling all you have?

 

[RDKirk]

This president we now have has reduced our armed forces to the point we are at the same number as we had in 1940...BEFORE WWII. We however, are about to change that in 2016.

The only reason the US maintained a large force after WWII was, first, the occupations of Germany and Japan and then, second, the continued threats of war in Europe (the Cold War) and in Korea. After the Cold War concluded in the 90s, there was the appropriate massive drawdown of troops, pulling out most of the US units in Europe. I recall when General Powell displayed the Europe closures, he looked at the map, paused a moment and said, "That's my entire career."

None of the reasons for the massive troop levels of the Cold War still remain. The US does not have a viable reason for those numbers today--and the number of ground troops that faced the Soviet Union in the Cold War is certainly not necessary for any war the US might be contemplating in the Middle East. That's just silly.

What the US does need, very badly, is a much larger and stronger Navy. Today's US Navy is pitifully sized for the mission it has and can be easily envisioned even if there is no war.

 

[zippy2]

What the US does need, very badly, is a much larger and stronger Navy. Today's US Navy is pitifully sized for the mission it has and can be easily envisioned even if there is no war.

That is pretty much what i have been saying.

And could you try and stop referring to almost everything I say as 'that's just silly'.

It is becoming tiresome.

 

[RDKirk]

That is pretty much what i have been saying.

No, it isn't.

 

[zippy2]

We were talking about aircraft carriers were we not?

 

[zippy2]

Here are some folks I'd listen to about this horrible 'DEAL'

Congress Must Reject the Iran Deal

• Sen. Tom Cotton and Rep. Ron DeSantis

July 30, 2015


Tom Cotton is a Senator from Arkansas. Ron DeSantis is a Congressman from Florida. They both served in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

We are faced with a bad deal that will significantly degrade our national security
Over the last several months the Obama Administration has consistently maintained that no deal with Iran is better than a bad deal, but we now know this claim — as with many claims made throughout these negotiations — was merely political spin. The deal announced by the Obama Administration last week provides Iran with $150 billion in unfrozen assets with which to fund terrorism, puts our national security at risk, and does little to stop Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon. For these reasons and others we believe that Congress must reject this deal.

President Obama promised that a deal with Iran would “make our world safer”, but it’s difficult to believe that giving the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism more money contributes anything to our safety. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iranian-supplied roadside bombs accounted for as many as 1,500 American combat deaths. These deaths were orchestrated by the Quds Force from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and its leader, Qasem Soleimani. For those that served there this memory is still raw. When we remember those fallen comrades as well as those who lost their lives in Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks it is difficult to believe we would enter into a deal with a regime that supports such behavior.

read the rest at
http://time.com/3978510/congress-must-reject-the-iran-deal/

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dave RP said: ↑
And Israel may accept an internationally agreed deal as well, for a change!

They definitely won't accept this deal, but they don't get a say. Israel are against any negotiation with Iran.
.

I for one do not believe that Israel will risk retributions from other countries that are agreeing to the deal. Unless of course Iran decides to attack Israel, then I suppose all bets would be off..........

http://www.johntreed.com/IsraelbombIran.html

There seems to be a consensus that Israel will bomb Iran’s nuclear bomb program. Seems to me there is no chance that such an attack would succeed.

Plus there is the fact that such bombings generally have no permanent effects.
True, Israel bombed Iraq and Syria and the attacks seemed to have a permanent effect. But in World War II, a post-war study of our strategic bombing of Germany found that Germany was producing more war material at the end of the war than before the bombing campaign. Basically, they moved the factories to mountain caves, which Iran has already done. Even if Israel was totally successful with such an attack, Iran could rebuild. No doubt they would incorporate lessons learned into the rebuilding making it far harder for Israel to succeed a second time.

There are a number of practical problems like a path for Israeli planes to get into and out of Iran.

Presumably, Iran has arranged for distant early warning of such an attack so Israel would not be able to achieve surprise. Indeed, their prior two attacks on Iraq and Syria have probably destroyed their ability to surprise any enemies.

The distance between Israel and Iran is greater than to Iraq and Syria.

The attacks on Iraq and Syria embarrassed the muslim world. Another such attack would increase the cumulative Islamic anger. If Israel can attack other countries, they can attack Israel. Israel was not very impressive militarily in the Lebanon situation in 2006. No one goes undefeated forever. Victories are extremely expensive financially.

I doubt Iran could do very much back at Israel. Israel is a long ways away. Iran seems to me working on missiles to attack israel. That would be about the only way.

 

[wing2000]

This president we now have has reduced our armed forces to the point we are at the same number as we had in 1940...BEFORE WWII. We however, are about to change that in 2016.

I invite you to back the statement up with data.

 

[zippy2]

I invite you to back the statement up with data.

You can invite all you want.

 

[wing2000]

You can invite all you want.

...because you don't have it.

To compare US military strength (relative to *any* other country) to the U.S. in 1940 is well, silly.

 

[zippy2]

...because you don't have it.

To compare US military strength (relative to *any* other country) to the U.S. in 1940 is well, silly.

You are such a charmer!!

 

[classicalhero]

By President Obama's own standards leading o the 2012 Presidential Election this is a bad deal.
http://observer.com/2015/08/dershowitz-obama-is-an-abject-failure-by-his-own-standards/

“All of this has been said by Obama himself,” Dershowitz explains. “When Obama first set out the red lines, he specified 24/7 inspections—we didn’t get that. He set out that Iran would never have nuclear weapons—we didn’t get that. He set out to end the nuclear facility at Fordow—we didn’t get that. He has crossed his own red lines at least three times.”

Asked if he believes that President Obama is a failed leader, Dershowitz, who supported the president in both elections, replied, “I think on the Iran deal he is a failed leader.”

Dershowitz continued, “I think this will be his legacy in terms of international relations and I think it will result in an increase in the nuclear arms race, an end to anti-nuclear proliferation, an increase in the likelihood of war, and a greater gulf between Israel and the United States. All of which he promised would not happen.”

“If you judge president Obama by his own standards, he is an abject failure when it comes to international relations. Forget about my standard or yours. By his own standard he is an abject failure when it comes to dealing with Iran.”

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[zippy2]

That was a fascinating read. Thank you. And Allen Dersrowitz is not exactly a wild eyed crazy conservative either.

 

[Farm Truck]

Excellent news.

Will it still be excellent news when the mushroom clouds rise above the uk, eh?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

By President Obama's own standards leading o the 2012 Presidential Election this is a bad deal.
http://observer.com/2015/08/dershowitz-obama-is-an-abject-failure-by-his-own-standards/


A picture is worth a thousand words.

Nice Meme..
What exactly does "elder of Ziyon" signify? Thanks



http://elderofziyon.com/

Elder of Ziyon

Controlling the world since 70 CE.

 

[Oafman]

Will it still be excellent news when the mushroom clouds rise above the uk, eh?

We have more chance of being nuked by the US than we do by Iran!

 

[zippy2]

We have more chance of being nuked by the US than we do by Iran!

Ya think?

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Because Iran is open to a deal now.

I see. What Iran wants when Iran wants it > stopping a genocide.

Then I would expect to see you start threads on the genocide occurring in Africa.

1.) I have. The one I started on the genocide in CAR got deleted.

2.) I wasn't aware that there were people who actually supported making deals with those helping to commit genocide (as they do with Iran). I wasn't aware that there was a lot of focus on those other countries due to other reasons while ignoring the elephant in the room (e.g. Assad). I wasn't aware that there were people on this forum who actually preferred other genocidal leaders over their victims.

3.) I mainly focus on a handful of countries and I'm drained enough as it is with them.

They criticize when it is in their own best interest, just like everyone else.

Right. Still can't be said that they have no leg to stand on to criticize Iran if they're willing to criticize Russia.

The US has to have an excuse for having such a large army. In order to support the military industrial complex, you have to have a constant threat of war.

Yet they haven't targeted Assad, the one committing a genocide.

 

[Oafman]

Ya think?

Iran has no means of getting a warhead anywhere near the UK. It has been pointed out often in this thread, but to repeat, you need both a warhead and a means of delivering it. Iran has neither.

Not to mention the small matter that Iran would have no desire to attack the UK, even if it could.

The suggestion that this might happen was mindless scaremongering.