-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
"No More Wars" Trump Requesting a Record Defense Budget: $1.5 TRILLION in FY2026
- Thread starter wing2000
- Start date
- Jan 29, 2010
- 21,250
- 5,163
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
1) Iran was within a year of a nuke last June when Trump set back their nuclear capability for a decade. If they ever were acting to get closer, the same type of military action could have been taken again. The June action was reasonable.
2) This action was unreasonable when started and has helped Iran a lot. We will make sure that we get a nuclear agreement, but no likely to be any better than the one that could have negotiated without military action.
3) I believe that missiles launched from submarines are a threat to the US, or certainly could be so in the next 5-20 years. One of the primary responsibilities of the federal government is to protect its people from such threats.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Under the Southern Cross I stand...
- Aug 19, 2018
- 25,517
- 17,722
- 73
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Well, they were under no restrictions in developing their nuclear capabilities because Trump tore up the deal. He said he'd renegotiate it but...he lied.
Now he's forced to renegotiate it. And he'll end up with a worse treaty then the one he started with.
The guy is a complete disaster.
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 21,250
- 5,163
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The treaty won't allow Iran to get close to ever building a nuclear weapon.
The treaty will give Iran the same kind of money that Obama gave him after destroying so much of the country and crippling the Iranian economy. Iran is a decade away from nuclear weapons. If they ever move closer, the US and Israel will bomb the facilities again.
I AGREE that going in this second time was a major error. I suppose we could have bombed infrastructure used to build missile, drones and what was left of infrastructure to develop anything nuclear and left quickly declaring victory and promising to come back if they move toward enrichment. Negotiations were likely possible without the latest war. However, I do believe that the June war was essential.
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 21,250
- 5,163
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Nonsense! Iran Knew the threatened consequences of them developing nuclear weapons, with or withour without a US treaty.
Well, they were under no restrictions in developing their nuclear capabilities because Trump tore up the deal.
There should be no need for a treaty to keep a country from building nuclear weapons.
The West has been very clear for decades. They would consider it an act of war for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and they wouldn't allow that to happen. As a matter of national security, many countries have pledged to not allow Iran to get such weapons.
And yes, Trump was an idiot for tearing up a treaty that was currently greatly in our favor. Trump could have done lots to sanction Iran for their support of proxies and for other things. There was little reason for a formal removal of international oversight.
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Under the Southern Cross I stand...
- Aug 19, 2018
- 25,517
- 17,722
- 73
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
What treaty? Nothing's been agreed yet. The latest reports are that discussions on any nuclear deal might be some way down the track. Possibly after a 60 day truce. It was the last treaty that prevented them developing nukes.
Again, current reports are putting the financial sanctions at billions of dollars. Where on earth are you getting your information? Then this:
Yet you just about contradict that with the very next sentence:
Because Trump tore up the original treaty! And you've literally said that 'the treaty' will prevent the reason for the need to go to war and that negotiations were possible without going to war.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Stopped_lurking
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2004
- 1,426
- 568
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
With both the US and Russia seemingly ok with land grabs, how else do you propose a smaller country should deter them? I believe the actions of both Russia and the US undermines the stability of the NPT.
If, as at least some thinkers assert, Iran were planning on using the near-nuclear status as a bargaining chip rather than pursuing an actual weapon. This war showed that strategy to be unsuccessful. So being near-nuclear will not be the goal in the future for any party trying to leverage their nuclear weapon strategy.
Iran's Nuclear Activities, Explained
thebreakthrough.org
The links are just examples.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Pommer
Future History Slab Carver
- Sep 13, 2008
- 25,159
- 15,311
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Minor quibble: the JCPOA wasn’t technically a “treaty”, but an agreement betwixt 6 nations.
Obama’s foreign policy game was weak, but this was a brilliant work-around, that would have given the U.S. and the four* other cosignee Nations sufficient legitimacy, should attacks on Iran had become “necessary”.
Obama had to do the POA this way, since, had it been a real “treaty” it would have never been ratified by the McConnell’s Senate.
*or whatever number there actually are, doing this from memory
Upvote
0
- Aug 18, 2012
- 26,990
- 22,612
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I've been posing that question here since 2016....(I have yet to get an explanation).
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 21,250
- 5,163
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
fair enough. I'll clarify, I believe that
1) The June attack on Iran's nuclear facilities set back their nuclear weapons program at least 5 years.
2) The current war has done some to reduce the threat of Iran getting nuclear weapons, except to the degree that the US killed scientists, destroyed research facilities and weakened command and control. The current war was a mistake.
This was the time for negotiations, more sanctions and the time to make clear that if Iran moved forward towards developing a nuclear weapon, then Iran's facilities would be attacked again.
3) Given that Trump made a terrible miscalculation, he seems to be doing the best that can be done, coming out with a treaty similar to the obama treaty, but with a longer no-enrichment period.
This war was a mistake, but it did degrade much or Iran's infrastructure and military command and control. It still wasn't worth it.
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 21,250
- 5,163
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
And you won't. The leftist and MAGA policy of isolationism does not need great increases in millitary spending.
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 21,250
- 5,163
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
That is the question for the world and for the great powers. One answer is to allow proliferation because, as you say, all countries have a right to defense themselves, with nuclear weapons if necessary. Perhaps Brazil and Nigeria should develop nuclear weapons? That is NOT my answer. I reject proliferation and don't think that any international organization is anywhere near strong enough for this role.
There NEED to be policemen of the world with regard to nuclear weapons. There are two policemen: the US and China. To the degree that the US doesn't want to reliably play this role, then a coalition led by the European powers need to step up as a third policeman.
They are indeed doing so. They will provide minesweepers for the Gulf of Hormuz. The US resources are decades old. They also have stepped up against the Iranian cyber efforts throghuut the world.
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Under the Southern Cross I stand...
- Aug 19, 2018
- 25,517
- 17,722
- 73
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Necessary because Trump tore up the agreement. If he'd kept Obama's deal then he could have built on it. I'd have supported him doing that. It was the smart thing to do. As opposed to going to war. But hey, it was Barack Hussein Obama's deal and he couldn't cope with that. The man's pettiness has cost very many lives and countless billions of dollars.
Pretty much exactly the agreement that was torn up. Now with his famed 'Art Of The Deal' expertise (from a man who has had more collapsed and bankrupt companies that I can remember - I honestly would have to look them all up to list them) he's going to get a worse deal than the one in the waste paper basket.
It was a mistake, it wasn't worth it. But was still essential?
You have an odd way of putting forward your opinion.
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 21,250
- 5,163
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I simply don't believe that Iran wouldn't have gotten a nuclear weapon if the Obama deal stayed in place. Iran could have waited to US out. Or it could start violations after a few years. IMO, the Obama policies would have continued under Clinton resulting in a much, much stronger Iran. Clinton certainly wouldn't have taken the actions necessary to prevent a bomb.
Under the Obama deal (even with no violations), Iran was using the additional funds provided by the deal to build up its missiles, its drones, support for its proxies, and the scientific and industrial infrastructure needed to eventually build a nuclear weapon within 10 years as allowed by the Obama deal.
A simple timeline of Iran’s nuclear program
Israel's June 13 attack on Iran marked an inflection point in the long-running saga of Iran's nuclear ambitions and the global efforts to curtail it.
thebulletin.org
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Under the Southern Cross I stand...
- Aug 19, 2018
- 25,517
- 17,722
- 73
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
If you have an existing deal (which is working) then you use that as a basis for future agreements. You renew it with added clauses, with new restrictions, with some give and take so that all parties are reasonably happy and the rest of us can still fly to Europe via the Middle East and we don't have to spend a small fortune filling the gas tank and nobody has to accidently blow up schoolkids.
Whaddya think?
Upvote
0
- May 12, 2011
- 10,568
- 11,353
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Why?
Waited what out? The JCPOA? Why do you suppose it would not have been extended or parlayed into a more comprehensive treaty? Part of the purpose of the JCPOA was to build up trust between Iran and the US/western powers, in order to provide the groundwork for future deals
Maybe. But the JCPOA had measures to deal with that should it happen.
Irrelevant, because Clinton lost and Trump's actions were taken well after that happened.
There is nothing in that article to support your assertion. What, specifically, did Iran do between 2015 (when the JCPOA was put into effect) and 2018 (when Trump cancelled it)?Under the Obama deal (even with no violations), Iran was using the additional funds provided by the deal to build up its missiles, its drones, support for its proxies, and the scientific and industrial infrastructure needed to eventually build a nuclear weapon within 10 years as allowed by the Obama deal.
A simple timeline of Iran’s nuclear program
Israel's June 13 attack on Iran marked an inflection point in the long-running saga of Iran's nuclear ambitions and the global efforts to curtail it.
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2010
- 21,250
- 5,163
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I think that if Iran could have secured a better deal for them, they might have signed it. After all, their #1 priority was to expand the revolution to many other countries. The deal specifically didn't apply to that effort or to missile development. And when it suited Iran, thai if they thought that really needed nuclear weapons, they would have developed thm.
Just BTW, Iran had already committed to non-proliferation in the international treaty that almost everyone signed. The US found it necessary to apply more and more sanctions and finally give Iran quite a lot.
===============
MY BOTTOM LINE
is that Obama chose to alienate Israel and give a great deal to Iran. As I recall, Biden alienated Israel AND Saudi Arabia.
Trump had a very different approach. He supported treaties between Israel and its Sunni neighbors. Trump actively supported the efforts of all against Iran and thei many proxy states, militia and terrorists.
And, just BTW, a 3-6 month war is NOT the same kind of forever war that the US has supported in Vietnam, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
We chose our side AGAINST the people of Iran long ago when we overthrew their democratically elected government.
Upvote
0
- May 12, 2011
- 10,568
- 11,353
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I'm not sure why we should consider that a bad thing. If we're talking about nuclear weapons, Israel has them, and is also not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. And Saudi Arabia is one of the largest sponsors of terrorism on the planet. We work with them because our interests align on many things, but we shouldn't bend over backwards to accommodate their demands.
One of the better things to come out of his first presidency, I agree, but I don't think it was predicated on scrapping the JCPOA.
The primary reason why that wasn't the case under Obama was that Iran and its proxies were opposed to, and actively fighting, the expansion of ISIS - so our interests were largely aligned at the time. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that. In that same period though, we also backed the Saudis in their war against the (Iran-backed) Houthis, so it wasn't an across-the-board detente.
Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam were supposed to be quick too. This one ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.
And we should never try to make amends for that? If the US had to remain enemies with every country they ever wronged in perpetuity, our list of friends would be very short indeed.
Technically speaking, the current regime did not. The NPT was signed in 1970; the Iranian Revolution occurred in 1979.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
