U.S.-Iran Deal....One More Time

[nat4900]

We all know (or should know) that every action (or non-action) has consequences. So, one more time on the opposing views regarding this deal:

Action 1: Increase sanctions
Consequence 1: At this point, sanctions have had limited impact on Iran's nuclear plans; Most likely, Russia and China (and perhaps even France) will pick up the slack, and Iran angered by such increases, will simply go on doing what that country has done for the last decade.

Action (non-action) 2: Do Nothing
Consequence 2: Iran will simply proceed with her plans regarding nukes, and the increased isolation will be seen by the average Iranian as further reasons to NOT join the west.

Action 3: Bomb the heck of Iran's nuclear sites....
Consequence 3: Bombing another country is NOT without risks; Israel's bombing of Syria and Iraq's sites increased the proxy war against Israel and fanned the hatred. Were the U.S. bomb Iran, hate toward us would further intensify, AND our allies would justifiably view us as, once again, the aggressors......any chances of diplomacy would be dead.....and such actions would simply postpone Iran's nuclear arsenal by (estimated) two to three years.

Action 4: Adherence to the Obama plan
Consequence 4: If Iran cheats (as claimed by virtually ALL right wingers,) at the very least, we could postpone the eventuality of Iran's nukes by an (estimated) two to three years..CONVERSELY, if Iran does not cheat, there would be a strong possibility that the more moderate factions within Iran would sway public opinion toward both joining the West and abandoning this lust for nukes.

Given this type of rationale, what would you ....objectively.....advise what our government's actions should be?

 

[jwoodie]

Action 1: Increase sanctions
Consequence 1: At this point, sanctions have had limited impact on Iran's nuclear plans; Most likely, Russia and China (and perhaps even France) will pick up the slack, and Iran angered by such increases, will simply go on doing what that country has done for the last decade.

False alternative and analysis. Sanctions are what got Iran to the bargaining table in the first place. Increasing sanctions will destabilize its government. While we are at it, we should increase sanctions against Russia (and China if they continue to piss on us). Why kowtow to these regimes, Neville?

 

[chikenwing]

) at the very least, we could postpone the eventuality of Iran's nukes by an (estimated) two to three years..CONVERSELY, if Iran does not cheat, there would be a strong possibility that the more moderate factions within Iran would sway public opinion toward both joining the West and abandoning this lust for nukes.

You have already rolled over in defeat,with that rational.
For what ever reactions to Israel taking out Iraq and Syria nuke programs,the 20/20 vision we get from looking back,it was the right thing to do

 

[nat4900]

Action 1: Increase sanctions
Consequence 1: At this point, sanctions have had limited impact on Iran's nuclear plans; Most likely, Russia and China (and perhaps even France) will pick up the slack, and Iran angered by such increases, will simply go on doing what that country has done for the last decade.

False alternative and analysis. Sanctions are what got Iran to the bargaining table in the first place. Increasing sanctions will destabilize its government. While we are at it, we should increase sanctions against Russia (and China if they continue to piss on us). Why kowtow to these regimes, Neville?

Well, a bit of a cheap shot at the end of your response......
That aside, we are, at least, in agreement that bombing Iran is NOT a viable option........If that is the case, keep in mind that most likely Russia and China would cheat on the sanctions (they alwats like to "fish in troubled waters") and China holds a good portion of our debt and is one of our leading exporter of what we consume...So, our displeasure toward these two other world powers would be superficial and cursory.

 

[nat4900]

) at the very least, we could postpone the eventuality of Iran's nukes by an (estimated) two to three years..CONVERSELY, if Iran does not cheat, there would be a strong possibility that the more moderate factions within Iran would sway public opinion toward both joining the West and abandoning this lust for nukes.

You have already rolled over in defeat,with that rational.
For what ever reactions to Israel taking out Iraq and Syria nuke programs,the 20/20 vision we get from looking back,it was the right thing to do

Well, chicken (and its "rationale" not rational)......Israel's bombing of the sites has had substantial consequences for that country's increased terrorist acts.....Israel bitches about Hamas being funded by those countries that were bombed and, like it or not, the constant fear that exists in Israel is a direct consequence of her bombing campaigns.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Recall that during Gulf War I Continued, in the 2000s, a number of bombing missions were staged by U.S. Air Force B-2 stealth bombers. Some came from the island of Diego Garcia... but most of them took off from their home base in Missouri, and flew literally halfway around the world, refueling in the air again and again, dropping their precision bombs on Iraqi targets, and flying all the way back (with more aerial refueling) to Missouri.

And the first few times this was done, the Iraqis didn't even know they'd been bombed. The planes were impossible to detect on radar, and they flew very high, above 30,000 feet, and could not be heard or seen. It was an ordinary day in Baghdad, with people walking around and children playing in the parks, when suddenly a government building halfway down the block exploded and collapsed. Officials assumed at first it was an accident (natural gas explosion?), or possibly sabotage by someone who had planted one or more bombs inside the building. Only when the U.S. announced details of the mission, did Iraq realize what had happened.

Fast forward to 2017, after Obama is replaced as President. I wonder if there is maybe an isolated B-2 bomber at the base in Missouri, that is quietly wheeled into a hangar one evening, and the doors closed and locked for maybe a week so nobody could see what's inside? And maybe nobody notices when the hangar doors quietly opened, maybe at 3AM in the morning, the plane wheels out and takes off as the hangar doors close again? And anybody who asks, is told that of course that B-2 is still inside? And then several days later, maybe a plane lands quietly at 2AM, the hangar doors open and the plane is wheeled inside, the doors closing immediately? And there is no need to publish the periodic inventory of heavy ground-penetrating "bunker buster" bombs. A few are always expended in various training and practice flights at bombing ranges.

Might one of these mysterious explosions at an Iranian nuclear facility, take place sometime during the period when the plane was ostensibly still inside the hangar? And no aircraft were seen or heard in that part of Iran, nor were any picked up on radar?

And did any of the various refueling planes stationed around the world, happen to fly any "training" missions" during that time?

Of course, the U.S. would have nothing to do with the mysterious explosion inside Iran's nuclear facility. It's not our problem, and there is no evidence of any agents entering Iran and getting inside any nuclear facility to plant the bomb that must have gone off. It's more likely a disaffected Iranian scientist who didn't want the research tio go in the direction he knew it was going.

This is all theoretical, of course.

But wouldn't it be nice to see the U.S. government telling a lie that actually benefitted U.S. interests, for a change? Instead of simply benefitting a few high-level Democrats?

 

[nat4900]

Interesting scenario, Acorn.....and it surely assumes that the rest of the world is just dumb targets.....
You should consider that the devastating blow to our country on 9-11 was pretty much a direct result of the First Gulf War...amd that the rise of ISIS and other low-life terrorist groups are all direct results of our invasion of Iraq.....
To conclude that we can stealthly bomb our way into "world peace" is one definition of insanity prompted by our unilateral belief in our exceptionality.

 

[mudwhistle]

We all know (or should know) that every action (or non-action) has consequences. So, one more time on the opposing views regarding this deal:

Action 1: Increase sanctions
Consequence 1: At this point, sanctions have had limited impact on Iran's nuclear plans; Most likely, Russia and China (and perhaps even France) will pick up the slack, and Iran angered by such increases, will simply go on doing what that country has done for the last decade.

Action (non-action) 2: Do Nothing
Consequence 2: Iran will simply proceed with her plans regarding nukes, and the increased isolation will be seen by the average Iranian as further reasons to NOT join the west.

Action 3: Bomb the heck of Iran's nuclear sites....
Consequence 3: Bombing another country is NOT without risks; Israel's bombing of Syria and Iraq's sites increased the proxy war against Israel and fanned the hatred. Were the U.S. bomb Iran, hate toward us would further intensify, AND our allies would justifiably view us as, once again, the aggressors......any chances of diplomacy would be dead.....and such actions would simply postpone Iran's nuclear arsenal by (estimated) two to three years.

Action 4: Adherence to the Obama plan
Consequence 4: If Iran cheats (as claimed by virtually ALL right wingers,) at the very least, we could postpone the eventuality of Iran's nukes by an (estimated) two to three years..CONVERSELY, if Iran does not cheat, there would be a strong possibility that the more moderate factions within Iran would sway public opinion toward both joining the West and abandoning this lust for nukes.

Given this type of rationale, what would you ....objectively.....advise what our government's actions should be?

Bomb the fuck out of them.

They already hate us. Blow the fuckers back to the stone-age and start murdering the SOBs every chance we get, just like they've been murdering us since they became a Theocracy in the 70s.

 

[nat4900]

We all know (or should know) that every action (or non-action) has consequences. So, one more time on the opposing views regarding this deal:

Action 1: Increase sanctions
Consequence 1: At this point, sanctions have had limited impact on Iran's nuclear plans; Most likely, Russia and China (and perhaps even France) will pick up the slack, and Iran angered by such increases, will simply go on doing what that country has done for the last decade.

Action (non-action) 2: Do Nothing
Consequence 2: Iran will simply proceed with her plans regarding nukes, and the increased isolation will be seen by the average Iranian as further reasons to NOT join the west.

Action 3: Bomb the heck of Iran's nuclear sites....
Consequence 3: Bombing another country is NOT without risks; Israel's bombing of Syria and Iraq's sites increased the proxy war against Israel and fanned the hatred. Were the U.S. bomb Iran, hate toward us would further intensify, AND our allies would justifiably view us as, once again, the aggressors......any chances of diplomacy would be dead.....and such actions would simply postpone Iran's nuclear arsenal by (estimated) two to three years.

Action 4: Adherence to the Obama plan
Consequence 4: If Iran cheats (as claimed by virtually ALL right wingers,) at the very least, we could postpone the eventuality of Iran's nukes by an (estimated) two to three years..CONVERSELY, if Iran does not cheat, there would be a strong possibility that the more moderate factions within Iran would sway public opinion toward both joining the West and abandoning this lust for nukes.

Given this type of rationale, what would you ....objectively.....advise what our government's actions should be?

Bomb the fuck out of them.

They already hate us. Blow the fuckers back to the stone-age and start murdering the SOBs every chance we get, just like they've been murdering us since they became a Theocracy in the 70s.

Great.......Tell us again how many Iranians were involved with 9-11?

 

[mudwhistle]

We all know (or should know) that every action (or non-action) has consequences. So, one more time on the opposing views regarding this deal:

Action 1: Increase sanctions
Consequence 1: At this point, sanctions have had limited impact on Iran's nuclear plans; Most likely, Russia and China (and perhaps even France) will pick up the slack, and Iran angered by such increases, will simply go on doing what that country has done for the last decade.

Action (non-action) 2: Do Nothing
Consequence 2: Iran will simply proceed with her plans regarding nukes, and the increased isolation will be seen by the average Iranian as further reasons to NOT join the west.

Action 3: Bomb the heck of Iran's nuclear sites....
Consequence 3: Bombing another country is NOT without risks; Israel's bombing of Syria and Iraq's sites increased the proxy war against Israel and fanned the hatred. Were the U.S. bomb Iran, hate toward us would further intensify, AND our allies would justifiably view us as, once again, the aggressors......any chances of diplomacy would be dead.....and such actions would simply postpone Iran's nuclear arsenal by (estimated) two to three years.

Action 4: Adherence to the Obama plan
Consequence 4: If Iran cheats (as claimed by virtually ALL right wingers,) at the very least, we could postpone the eventuality of Iran's nukes by an (estimated) two to three years..CONVERSELY, if Iran does not cheat, there would be a strong possibility that the more moderate factions within Iran would sway public opinion toward both joining the West and abandoning this lust for nukes.

Given this type of rationale, what would you ....objectively.....advise what our government's actions should be?

Bomb the fuck out of them.

They already hate us. Blow the fuckers back to the stone-age and start murdering the SOBs every chance we get, just like they've been murdering us since they became a Theocracy in the 70s.

Great.......Tell us again how many Iranians were involved with 9-11?

I don't know.

Sons of bitches made most of those IEDs used against us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and provided the Skinnies in Mogadishu the weapons and training to shoot down our choppers, not to mention taking our diplomats hostage in 79'. No telling what else they're doing in Yemen.

 

[Siete]

muddieboi, the good kill em all Christian.


lmao

 

[nat4900]

We all know (or should know) that every action (or non-action) has consequences. So, one more time on the opposing views regarding this deal:

Action 1: Increase sanctions
Consequence 1: At this point, sanctions have had limited impact on Iran's nuclear plans; Most likely, Russia and China (and perhaps even France) will pick up the slack, and Iran angered by such increases, will simply go on doing what that country has done for the last decade.

Action (non-action) 2: Do Nothing
Consequence 2: Iran will simply proceed with her plans regarding nukes, and the increased isolation will be seen by the average Iranian as further reasons to NOT join the west.

Action 3: Bomb the heck of Iran's nuclear sites....
Consequence 3: Bombing another country is NOT without risks; Israel's bombing of Syria and Iraq's sites increased the proxy war against Israel and fanned the hatred. Were the U.S. bomb Iran, hate toward us would further intensify, AND our allies would justifiably view us as, once again, the aggressors......any chances of diplomacy would be dead.....and such actions would simply postpone Iran's nuclear arsenal by (estimated) two to three years.

Action 4: Adherence to the Obama plan
Consequence 4: If Iran cheats (as claimed by virtually ALL right wingers,) at the very least, we could postpone the eventuality of Iran's nukes by an (estimated) two to three years..CONVERSELY, if Iran does not cheat, there would be a strong possibility that the more moderate factions within Iran would sway public opinion toward both joining the West and abandoning this lust for nukes.

Given this type of rationale, what would you ....objectively.....advise what our government's actions should be?

Bomb the fuck out of them.

They already hate us. Blow the fuckers back to the stone-age and start murdering the SOBs every chance we get, just like they've been murdering us since they became a Theocracy in the 70s.

Great.......Tell us again how many Iranians were involved with 9-11?

I don't know.

Sons of bitches made most of those IEDs used against us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and provided the Skinnies in Mogadishu the weapons and training to shoot down our choppers, not to mention taking our diplomats hostage in 79'. No telling what else they're doing in Yemen.

Truly a stupid, war-mongering response without basis in fact.....

First, it was US who did a great service for Iran in taking out Saddam in Iraq and then installing a Shi'a regime there....Iran should have sent Cheney and Bish a HUGE thank you note.....

Further, Iran (after 9-11) actually helped us in Afghanistan since most of the bad guys there were Sunni foreigners.

 

[mudwhistle]

muddieboi, the good kill em all Christian.


lmao

I'm a firm believer of 3 warning shots in the chest......

 

[Roadrunner]

Recall that during Gulf War I Continued, in the 2000s, a number of bombing missions were staged by U.S. Air Force B-2 stealth bombers. Some came from the island of Diego Garcia... but most of them took off from their home base in Missouri, and flew literally halfway around the world, refueling in the air again and again, dropping their precision bombs on Iraqi targets, and flying all the way back (with more aerial refueling) to Missouri.

And the first few times this was done, the Iraqis didn't even know they'd been bombed. The planes were impossible to detect on radar, and they flew very high, above 30,000 feet, and could not be heard or seen. It was an ordinary day in Baghdad, with people walking around and children playing in the parks, when suddenly a government building halfway down the block exploded and collapsed. Officials assumed at first it was an accident (natural gas explosion?), or possibly sabotage by someone who had planted one or more bombs inside the building. Only when the U.S. announced details of the mission, did Iraq realize what had happened.

Fast forward to 2017, after Obama is replaced as President. I wonder if there is maybe an isolated B-2 bomber at the base in Missouri, that is quietly wheeled into a hangar one evening, and the doors closed and locked for maybe a week so nobody could see what's inside? And maybe nobody notices when the hangar doors quietly opened, maybe at 3AM in the morning, the plane wheels out and takes off as the hangar doors close again? And anybody who asks, is told that of course that B-2 is still inside? And then several days later, maybe a plane lands quietly at 2AM, the hangar doors open and the plane is wheeled inside, the doors closing immediately? And there is no need to publish the periodic inventory of heavy ground-penetrating "bunker buster" bombs. A few are always expended in various training and practice flights at bombing ranges.

Might one of these mysterious explosions at an Iranian nuclear facility, take place sometime during the period when the plane was ostensibly still inside the hangar? And no aircraft were seen or heard in that part of Iran, nor were any picked up on radar?

And did any of the various refueling planes stationed around the world, happen to fly any "training" missions" during that time?

Of course, the U.S. would have nothing to do with the mysterious explosion inside Iran's nuclear facility. It's not our problem, and there is no evidence of any agents entering Iran and getting inside any nuclear facility to plant the bomb that must have gone off. It's more likely a disaffected Iranian scientist who didn't want the research tio go in the direction he knew it was going.

This is all theoretical, of course.

But wouldn't it be nice to see the U.S. government telling a lie that actually benefitted U.S. interests, for a change? Instead of simply benefitting a few high-level Democrats?

Obama says we don't have a bunker buster capable of taking out the hardened underground sites he is allowing them to keep.

Would Obama lie?

 

[mudwhistle]

We all know (or should know) that every action (or non-action) has consequences. So, one more time on the opposing views regarding this deal:

Action 1: Increase sanctions
Consequence 1: At this point, sanctions have had limited impact on Iran's nuclear plans; Most likely, Russia and China (and perhaps even France) will pick up the slack, and Iran angered by such increases, will simply go on doing what that country has done for the last decade.

Action (non-action) 2: Do Nothing
Consequence 2: Iran will simply proceed with her plans regarding nukes, and the increased isolation will be seen by the average Iranian as further reasons to NOT join the west.

Action 3: Bomb the heck of Iran's nuclear sites....
Consequence 3: Bombing another country is NOT without risks; Israel's bombing of Syria and Iraq's sites increased the proxy war against Israel and fanned the hatred. Were the U.S. bomb Iran, hate toward us would further intensify, AND our allies would justifiably view us as, once again, the aggressors......any chances of diplomacy would be dead.....and such actions would simply postpone Iran's nuclear arsenal by (estimated) two to three years.

Action 4: Adherence to the Obama plan
Consequence 4: If Iran cheats (as claimed by virtually ALL right wingers,) at the very least, we could postpone the eventuality of Iran's nukes by an (estimated) two to three years..CONVERSELY, if Iran does not cheat, there would be a strong possibility that the more moderate factions within Iran would sway public opinion toward both joining the West and abandoning this lust for nukes.

Given this type of rationale, what would you ....objectively.....advise what our government's actions should be?

Bomb the fuck out of them.

They already hate us. Blow the fuckers back to the stone-age and start murdering the SOBs every chance we get, just like they've been murdering us since they became a Theocracy in the 70s.

Great.......Tell us again how many Iranians were involved with 9-11?

I don't know.

Sons of bitches made most of those IEDs used against us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and provided the Skinnies in Mogadishu the weapons and training to shoot down our choppers, not to mention taking our diplomats hostage in 79'. No telling what else they're doing in Yemen.

Truly a stupid, war-mongering response without basis in fact.....

First, it was US who did a great service for Iran in taking out Saddam in Iraq and then installing a Shi'a regime there....Iran should have sent Cheney and Bish a HUGE thank you note.....

Further, Iran (after 9-11) actually helped us in Afghanistan since most of the bad guys there were Sunni foreigners.

I saw the intel reports when I was in Mogadishu Somalia 93', and the crates the insurgents left behind in Iraq that held their explosives were clearly marked that they came from Tehran....so you can just toss off wanker.

 

[blackhawk]

The problem that is being made here and has been made many times over by both people on both the right and the left is you keep trying to apply western logic and rational to those in the middle east it does not work especially with the more radical in the region which I believe Iran would qualify as. Nothing will be accomplished in the middle east until we stop thinking they will believe and react as we do.

 

[mudwhistle]

Recall that during Gulf War I Continued, in the 2000s, a number of bombing missions were staged by U.S. Air Force B-2 stealth bombers. Some came from the island of Diego Garcia... but most of them took off from their home base in Missouri, and flew literally halfway around the world, refueling in the air again and again, dropping their precision bombs on Iraqi targets, and flying all the way back (with more aerial refueling) to Missouri.

And the first few times this was done, the Iraqis didn't even know they'd been bombed. The planes were impossible to detect on radar, and they flew very high, above 30,000 feet, and could not be heard or seen. It was an ordinary day in Baghdad, with people walking around and children playing in the parks, when suddenly a government building halfway down the block exploded and collapsed. Officials assumed at first it was an accident (natural gas explosion?), or possibly sabotage by someone who had planted one or more bombs inside the building. Only when the U.S. announced details of the mission, did Iraq realize what had happened.

Fast forward to 2017, after Obama is replaced as President. I wonder if there is maybe an isolated B-2 bomber at the base in Missouri, that is quietly wheeled into a hangar one evening, and the doors closed and locked for maybe a week so nobody could see what's inside? And maybe nobody notices when the hangar doors quietly opened, maybe at 3AM in the morning, the plane wheels out and takes off as the hangar doors close again? And anybody who asks, is told that of course that B-2 is still inside? And then several days later, maybe a plane lands quietly at 2AM, the hangar doors open and the plane is wheeled inside, the doors closing immediately? And there is no need to publish the periodic inventory of heavy ground-penetrating "bunker buster" bombs. A few are always expended in various training and practice flights at bombing ranges.

Might one of these mysterious explosions at an Iranian nuclear facility, take place sometime during the period when the plane was ostensibly still inside the hangar? And no aircraft were seen or heard in that part of Iran, nor were any picked up on radar?

And did any of the various refueling planes stationed around the world, happen to fly any "training" missions" during that time?

Of course, the U.S. would have nothing to do with the mysterious explosion inside Iran's nuclear facility. It's not our problem, and there is no evidence of any agents entering Iran and getting inside any nuclear facility to plant the bomb that must have gone off. It's more likely a disaffected Iranian scientist who didn't want the research tio go in the direction he knew it was going.

This is all theoretical, of course.

But wouldn't it be nice to see the U.S. government telling a lie that actually benefitted U.S. interests, for a change? Instead of simply benefitting a few high-level Democrats?

Obama says we don't have a bunker buster capable of taking out the hardened underground sites he is allowing them to keep.

Would Obama lie?

If the Pope Catholic?????

 

[nat4900]

I saw the intel reports when I was in Mogadishu Somalia 93', and the crates the insurgents left behind in Iraq that held their explosives were clearly marked that they came from Tehran....so you can just toss off wanker.

Speaking of wankers, First you claim that Iran was sending arms to Iraq and Afghanistan....NOW, realizing what a stupid statement that is, you switch to Somalia.....

 

[nat4900]

Well, right wingers, pound your chests surround yourselves with US flags etc. and keep on assuming that all Muslims are below the human level (why can't they be as tolerant and enlightened as Texans, for example)...

Let's see....
Iranians BAD; Iraqis BAD, Saudis BAD, Syrians, BAD, Afghanis, BAD; Yemenis BAD, Egyptians, BAD, Libyans, BAD, Somalis WORSE...

US GOOD....Israeli BETTER...

...and then we wonder why so many people throughout the world either hate us or think we're fools.

 

[TooTall]

Interesting scenario, Acorn.....and it surely assumes that the rest of the world is just dumb targets.....
You should consider that the devastating blow to our country on 9-11 was pretty much a direct result of the First Gulf War...amd that the rise of ISIS and other low-life terrorist groups are all direct results of our invasion of Iraq.....
To conclude that we can stealthly bomb our way into "world peace" is one definition of insanity prompted by our unilateral belief in our exceptionality.

Gulf War 1 had absolutely nothing to do with what happened on 9-11. OBL supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan planned and carried out 9-11. Gulf War 1 was conducted against Iraq.