Author Topic: Warm up your war makin' US pulls out of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action  (Read 7089 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51303
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
I don’t think trump’s plan is war.  And I pray it’s not.  Seriously, we would smoke Iran but it would be at such an enormous cost.  If you have any family or friends in service t&p if we send troops there.

Offline ChiComCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17542
    • View Profile
Weird how you’re now so concerned about war.
I'm pro right kinda war.  Anti fucknuts who bumble their way through statecraft and lurch this country into another haphazard long war.

So overthrowing sovereign nations and breaking up them up and/or just ceding the (former) country to radical Islamists is okay, as long as it’s done for the right reasons (and a Democrat is president)??

It’s good to see that getting out of a positively shitty deal and working towards a new one means we’re automatically going to war. 

But one school of thought is that all regime changes or attempted regime changes to date, targeted the wrong countries.
How are we working towards a new one? Particularly interested in this since Trump added John “Bomb Iran” Bolton to his roster.

Offline Woogy

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
explain to me exactly, with specific plan points what makes the JCPA a "shitty" deal, especial compared to the status quo or what Trump's plan is (war).

Also, obviously don't think plan is war, but anyway, WaPo, from 2015 even, before Trump's influence on the perception.  Also pre 400 billion walking around cash payment was known.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/16/10-reasons-the-iran-deal-is-ludicrous/?utm_term=.d3f17c7e1c4b

LA Times, same time period:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-boot-is-iran-more-like-north-korea-or-libya-20150721-story.html

Although Leon Panetta seemed to think the threat of war was the only way the deal could have any net positive outcome:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-panetta-iran-middle-east-strategy-20150904-story.html
Quote
Yet the Iran deal provides the United States with an opportunity to define a policy of strength, not ambivalence, in the Middle East. The administration need only make clear that the fundamental purpose of the nuclear deal is not just to constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions but to build a strong coalition that will confront both Iran and terrorism in the future.
The following steps are crucial for such a strategy:

Enforce the deal. A certain inertia follows the approval of any arms deal. That cannot happen in this case. The United States must work diligently with its allies, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency to fully implement the constraints in the agreement. Any violation, even a small one, must be swiftly and strongly addressed.

Maintain a strong military presence. Force projection by our naval, air and ground forces is vital for defending our interests.

Expand intelligence capability. If Iran violates the agreement, it will do so covertly. For that reason, the United States must restore its cooperative intelligence relationship with Israel and invest in intelligence operations with our other allies. Monitoring Iranian activity, targeting terrorist leaders and networks, and assessing potential threats and hidden activities will be crucial for both stability and security in the region.

Make it clear that force is an option. Although the use of force should never be the first response, the argument against military action has been made so often that it has created uncertainty about our will to do what we say. For that reason, Congress should pass a resolution authorizing the current and future presidents to use force to prevent Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is U.S. policy; there should be no doubt that force can be used if necessary to stop Tehran from building a bomb.

The last probably aimed squarely at the European partners of the agreement.


« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 08:37:06 AM by Woogy »

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
explain to me exactly, with specific plan points what makes the JCPA a "shitty" deal, especial compared to the status quo or what Trump's plan is (war).

Also, obviously don't think plan is war, but anyway, WaPo, from 2015 even, before Trump's influence on the perception.  Also pre 400 billion walking around cash payment was known.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/07/16/10-reasons-the-iran-deal-is-ludicrous/?utm_term=.d3f17c7e1c4b

All we did was lift sanctions and unfreeze their money. The idea that the deal is bad because we can't re-impose sanctions without them being able to restart their nuclear program is just poor logic. Without the deal, they wouldn't need to relaunch their nuclear program because they wouldn't have shut it down.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
the whole "we gave them 400 billion dollars!" is one of my favorite low-IQ 'pub talking points. It was their money to begin with.

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
It's very similar to "hillary gave the Russians all our uranium!"
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
We also can't refreeze their money, so backing out of the deal for not reason at all just left them with an additional $400 billion to kickstart things.

Offline Yard Dog

  • Baller on a Budget
  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2468
  • I am DC Cat
    • View Profile
the whole "we gave them 400 billion dollars!" is one of my favorite low-IQ 'pub talking points. It was their money to begin with.

Oh, so you understand that but still claim that tax cuts for the wealthy are giving them money? <- probably a false equivalence but I couldn't help myself.

I am not terribly concerned that Iran will immediately do anything rash because then it would only prove Trump's point that they cant be trusted etc. So for optics sake they will hold off a little bit. This is honestly the same strategy Kim Jong Un is using - get sanctioned for being crap human being, threaten the world with nukes, have sanctions lifted.

I am probably most concerned that we are ostracizing ourselves from a broader group of allies that will exclude us from future decisions. But, I have always kinda thought "I sure wish the US didn't feel the need to be the world police" and this new brand of isolationism seems to assist that.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
What did Iran do to get sanctioned, yard dog?

Offline Woogy

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
the whole "we gave them 400 billion dollars!" is one of my favorite low-IQ 'pub talking points. It was their money to begin with.

Just pointing that out as it has - as you all jumped on it as well - shaded perceptions.  These are all pointing out the downsides just on the merits of the deal itself.  Personally, I would have released those frozen funds on a balloon schedule.

Offline Yard Dog

  • Baller on a Budget
  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2468
  • I am DC Cat
    • View Profile
What did Iran do to get sanctioned, yard dog?

Most recently because of their clandestine nuclear program, but that isn't all of it - I am also thinking about sponsorship of terrorism and human rights abuses.

Quote
U.S. sanctions on Iran, however, long predate these nuclear nonproliferation concerns. The United States first levied economic and political sanctions against Iran during the 1979–81 hostage crisis, shortly after Iran’s Islamic Revolution. On November 14, 1979, President Jimmy Carter froze all Iranian assets "which are or become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." The United States imposed additional sanctions when, in January 1984, the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah, an Iranian client, was implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine base in Beirut. That year, the United States designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. The designation, which remains in place, triggers a host of sanctions, including restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance, a ban on arms transfers, and export controls for dual-use items. Sanctions related to sponsorship of terrorism and human rights abuses were not affected by the nuclear deal.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/international-sanctions-iran?cid=ppc-Google-iran_sanctions_backgrounder&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8oHGveP42gIVQySBCh0DzgsoEAAYASAAEgLS2PD_BwE

So, not exactly like Kim, but in essence it could be seen as a similar situation. I am definitely not educated enough on Iran's history and will honestly admit that I am limited by the articles I have read, reports I have watched / listened to , and a general "American education system ignorance" about that region.

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9524
    • View Profile
Weird how you’re now so concerned about war.
I'm pro right kinda war.  Anti fucknuts who bumble their way through statecraft and lurch this country into another haphazard long war.

So overthrowing sovereign nations and breaking up them up and/or just ceding the (former) country to radical Islamists is okay, as long as it’s done for the right reasons (and a Democrat is president)??

It’s good to see that getting out of a positively shitty deal and working towards a new one means we’re automatically going to war. 

But one school of thought is that all regime changes or attempted regime changes to date, targeted the wrong countries.

https://twitter.com/KellyO/status/994246698754068481

Very reassuring

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
the whole "we gave them 400 billion dollars!" is one of my favorite low-IQ 'pub talking points. It was their money to begin with.

Oh, so you understand that but still claim that tax cuts for the wealthy are giving them money? <- probably a false equivalence but I couldn't help myself.

I am not terribly concerned that Iran will immediately do anything rash because then it would only prove Trump's point that they cant be trusted etc. So for optics sake they will hold off a little bit. This is honestly the same strategy Kim Jong Un is using - get sanctioned for being crap human being, threaten the world with nukes, have sanctions lifted.

I am probably most concerned that we are ostracizing ourselves from a broader group of allies that will exclude us from future decisions. But, I have always kinda thought "I sure wish the US didn't feel the need to be the world police" and this new brand of isolationism seems to assist that.

That absolutely is a false equivalence because that 400B isn't American money, being that it was at no point owned by the American government or any of it's citizens. Your bit about taxes, OTOH, is part of a conversation among the citizenry of this country about the best way to finance the cost of our collective governance. I absolutely understand that lowering taxes on the wealthy allows them to keep more of their money, I just don't think that trickle-down economics is a productive strategy for the collective whole.


Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Awesome news
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Putin will come in and save the day at the last minute.  Then we will see what Trump’s Russia loving was really all about.
I am more worried about us blowing up from the insides.  The plains against California.

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile
Putin will come in and save the day at the last minute.  Then we will see what Trump’s Russia loving was really all about.
I am more worried about us blowing up from the insides.  The plains against California.

california would absolutely crush flyover country in that war

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Libtards! OMG, you'll regurgitate any nonsensical talking point.

goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Reminds me of when the libtards said Trump was starting a war with NK.
 :lol:
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Honest question: do libtards ever get tired of being wrong, or do they genuinely refuse to believe they are wrong?
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline ChiComCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17542
    • View Profile
Seems a lot safer in the Middle East today.

Offline LickNeckey

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5990
  • #fakeposts
    • View Profile
Seems a lot safer in the Middle East today.

don't worry the KUSH is on the case



if he can figure out as a liberal New Yorker to earn the support and defense of countless conservatives the conflicts of the Middle East will be a piece of cake

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Pretty remarkable to argue things are great in the ME while simultaneously throwing a tantrum about the hundreds of thousands of refugees "racist don" is denying entry to the u.s.


Libtards: we don't let our nonsensical talking points get in the way of being wrong about everything

goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline LickNeckey

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5990
  • #fakeposts
    • View Profile
Pretty remarkable to argue things are great in the ME while simultaneously throwing a tantrum about the hundreds of thousands of refugees "racist don" is denying entry to the u.s.


Libtards: we don't let our nonsensical talking points get in the way of being wrong about everything

"a lot safer" in the middle east is a relative statement

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Relative to the "I'm butthurt it took Don a matter of months to clean up the ethnic clensing murdering conflagaration b.o. created and left behind, but won't admit it"
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd