226
227

Obama Logic (i.imgur.com)

PhilosoGuidoConstitutionalist が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]an_actual_lawyer 6ポイント7ポイント  (19子コメント)

Who said Obama didn't trust soldiers with weapons?

Who said Obama wanted the Iranians to have nuclear weapons? Do you disagree that the deal made this week increases the time the Iranians can produce a bomb from the current 3 months to 12 months? How is that not better?

[–]PhilosoGuidoConstitutionalist[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (18子コメント)

Who said Obama didn't trust soldiers with weapons?

It is illegal for Military members to have firearms on base. Obama is the Commander-in-Chief and has never changed or addressed this policy despite the shootings that have happened on his watch.

Do you disagree that the deal made this week increases the time the Iranians can produce a bomb from the current 3 months to 12 months?

Yes, I disagree. Tehran's goal is not to have a couple of lousy gravity dropped low yield bombs like North Korea has, only to have their program wiped out in an attack by Israel, Saudi Arabia, or another U.S. President with a spine. They want a plutonium source to make miniaturized nukes that fit on ICBMs and advanced ICBMs to deliver them to anywhere on earth in 30 minutes. This deal keeps their refinement infrastructure in place and protects them from attack under the guise of compliance while they perfect these technologies. Technologies which the deal does nothing to stop. When they do achieve these goals, they kick out the inspectors and can announce as a nuclear armed state and will not be vulnerable like they would now if they broke out in a few months. Obama and his shills are only looking at the next few months. Iran is playing the long game and they have won with this shit deal.

[–]MizGunner 5ポイント6ポイント  (17子コメント)

What is your alternative? And how is that alternative harmed by this nuclear deal?

And I would like to get rid of this notion of trust. No one in the world trusts Iran. That is why a 100+ page agreement was signed.

[–]PhilosoGuidoConstitutionalist[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (16子コメント)

Crippling sanctions - should have been enacted years ago, and maybe it would have been Iran calling for the deal, not a pathetic failed president begging for something to cement his legacy. We should have been expending all our diplomatic capital to cut Iran off completely and drive them to the table.

Regime Change - Instead of backing the Iranian Green Movement in 2009, Obama was deafeningly silent. He was more interested in showing the Mullahs that he had no intention of taking a hard line with them than in supporting an actual pro-Western democracy movement. There is a strong pro-western contingency in Iran that we should be doing everything in our power to support including arming them, the same way Iran armed anti-U.S. forces in Iraq with armor penetrating IED (which they have gotten away with).

Surgical strikes - Let Iran know we mean business. When they creep out into the Persian Gulf and try to kidnap sailors, we bomb their boats. When they shoot down our drones, we take out their surface-to-air missiles. Let them know that they are on thin ice. "But that will start a war," says the cowardly Leftist. I doubt it. How many times did we do strikes like this on Saddam? He just sat there and took it.

Finally when Iran is begging for a deal, then we set it up with actual unrestricted access and termination of all centrifuges. If you do it right, the people rise up and take out the Mullahs for you. Now obviously none of that can happen because we sold out for Obama's legacy.

[–]MizGunner 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

Sanctions-

I agree sanctions should have been brought to the table years ago. But the United States can't unilaterally impose sanctions. The recent sanctions were only imposed out of the promise to sit down and negotiate with Iran. The sanctions were unraveling if we didn't get this deal done.

I know some people have disputed the idea of sanction unraveling. I guess you would trust China to keep those sanctions on Iran without a deal? I think the best indication of the sanctions unraveling in the future are the terms of the deal. Obama & Kerry would have been able to get a better deal if we were able to hold sanctions indefinitely. No one wanted to include ICBMs in the deal ever, but 8 years shows we still had more bargaining power, but not enough to keep sanctions going indefinitely. You'll argue Obama wanted to do it all for his legacy, but if he has the power to make the deal better, that improves his legacy.

Regime Change-

I'd stay out of Iranian politics. History shows we shouldn't meddle and it seems Iran is changing on their own with Hassan Rouhani. He isn't Green, but has their support. If a hard-liner takes over in the next election or anytime soon this obviously changes. And your option 3 starts kicking in.

Surgical Strikes-

We can't simply walk into Iranian airspace, Iran isn't Iraq. United States & its allies had already crippled Iraq's air defense system with the cumulative effects of years of air strikes during Desert Shield, Desert Storm and No-Fly actions. The crippling sanctions that had prevented Iraq from rebuilding said air defense system. Iran would take much longer. However, you'd still need an on the ground BDA to know if you destroyed all the critical aspects of the targets. Or you could trust Iran when they are begging for a deal.

Even then, they'd probably still have enough fissile material left to dig out the rubble for a nice dirty bomb, which they'd have much fewer qualms about using after we took a big swipe at their one strategic option. If this isn't soon after bombing the shit out of them, this will be a reoccurring problem. Or an Iranian ISIS forms and we have to start worrying about them.

Diplomacy Benefits

But even after all three of these options are being considered, we still have the option to reimposed sanctions if Iran starts screwing with inspections, or starting doing surgical strikes. So all of you options are still on the table. If Iran breaks the deal, all the downsides to options you said go away, because making sure Iran doesn't get a bomb is the main priority. Iran isn't going to get a huge jump on making a nuclear bomb right under our noses.

I don't trust Iran, but Iran wants to sell oil. And we have cameras everywhere, inspectors everywhere, if Iran wants to keep making money, they'll follow the agreement. If they screw around, yeah they could start working for a bomb, but their economy goes to shit and we bomb their entire country.

I would rather try diplomacy, it will save lives, and if it fails, we haven't eliminated any of your options and didn't alienate any world powers by going against the original reasons for the sanctions.

[–]PhilosoGuidoConstitutionalist[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

the United States can't unilaterally impose sanctions

That's why I said expend our diplomatic political capital to cut them off fully.

but if he has the power to make the deal better, that improves his legacy.

Obama is frustrated by his lack of accomplishments, he has to take whatever he can get now before his time runs out. He never took sanctions seriously, and now he can't wait for serious ones to take effect.

it seems Iran is changing on their own with Hassan Rouhani.

Then you are falling for the sales pitch. The mullahs put him there, just like they did Ahmadinejad. The soft line is a front to buy them time, and it's working like a charm on the kumbaya crowd. The new boss, same as the old, put in charge by the boss' boss, and only a fool thinks anything is different.

We can't simply walk into Iranian airspace, Iran isn't Iraq.

You are talking to an Air Force bomber pilot. Without getting into anything classified, we can hit them with B-2 stealth bombers any day and with a variety of cruise missiles. Too many other incorrect statements in this section to even address. Stay in your lane.

we still have the option to reimposed sanctions if Iran starts screwing with inspections

Except now Russia will roadblock the phony "snap back"

we have cameras everywhere, inspectors everywhere

Except for the places we don't know about.

To paraphrase Darth Vader, I find your faith in apocalyptic terrorist regimes disturbing. Even after you say you don't trust them, you want to jump in bed with them in a deal that gives away the farm. You lefties are something else. The same arguments were advanced with Clinton and N Korea using the same rhetoric and yet here we are again, with a regime even crazier, and a lousier deal.

[–]MizGunner 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Obama is frustrated by his lack of accomplishments, he has to take whatever he can get now before his time runs out. He never took sanctions seriously, and now he can't wait for serious ones to take effect.

We aren't going to agree on this but the global community disagrees with you. These sanctions were severe, but only because the global community saw them as a tool to diplomacy. Sanctions based on punitive measures aren't viewed favorably, especially when made for diplomacy.

Then you are falling for the sales pitch. The mullahs put him there, just like they did Ahmadinejad. The soft line is a front to buy them time, and it's working like a charm on the kumbaya crowd.

Oh I know what is going on in the background. That is why we have this deal. Moderates/Green Party will have to keep them in check. If they can't then strikes become necessary.

Without getting into anything classified, we can hit them with B-2 stealth bombers any day and with a variety of cruise missiles.

Good to know. This line right here is what ties the whole deal together and improves my point. This shows why this deal isn't based on trust. If we can take out Iran that easily then they better stay in their own lane.

Except now Russia will roadblock the phony "snap back"'

expend our diplomatic political capital to cut them off fully.

I thought sanctions were easy to impose? You are going to have to reconcile these two things. This points to my original argument sanctions weren't easy to start and weren't going to last forever. But if Russia screws around, then, again, air strikes.

Except for the places we don't know about.

True. But we can't bomb these places either. At least now we have cameras in enough places to have a better idea where those places are going to be.

I think Iran has enough incentives to keep them away from breaking this deal. Yeah they have ideologically driven crazies but we aren't going to keep them under control, deal or no deal. At least now the Green Party and Moderates have a incentive to try to keep their own under control. And if they can't, based on your military intelligence Iran is fucked. Iran can't bomb us overnight. We should have stopped them sooner, but we still have time if they start screwing around.

And if they bomb us they have to do it with 6K first-generation centrifuges rather than do it with 20k they had before the deal. That makes this deal better than status quo even if you have the assumption it gets broken in the near future. As they are much further from the bomb.

How fast do you think we could start bombing Iran?

[–]PhilosoGuidoConstitutionalist[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sanctions based on punitive measures aren't viewed favorably, especially when made for diplomacy.

Nobody is talking about for punitive reasons. (You libs and your straw men). The goal is to drive them to compliance and make them beg for relief. Not to half-ass sanctions then beg them for something to show for your legacy.

If we can take out Iran that easily then they better stay in their own lane.

Except now we can't because we are in a deal with them and they can use that to weasel, play shell games and stall. As, I explained, even if they follow it to a T, they get ICBMs, heavy water reactor technology and thousands of centrifuges. All the pieces to quickly put together a weapon program that will be a direct threat to us.

I thought sanctions were easy to impose?

Again with the straw men. If you want to argue with the made up objections in your own head, why are you bothering me. I said we need to expend diplomatic capital. Serious diplomatic capital. Call in all favors, beg, bribe, or intimidate to get the world on board. If we are trying to avert a Trillion dollar war, then act like it. Not the half measures of an appeaser like Obama. But this deal makes it even more difficult to get the half-assed Obama sanctions turned back on.

At least now the Green Party and Moderates have a incentive to try to keep their own under control.

The mullahs run everything. It's totalitarian. All choice is an illusion. They put all the names on the ballots.

And if they bomb us they have to do it with 6K first-generation centrifuges

And Pakistan only needed half that to built their bomb.

That makes this deal better than status quo even if you have the assumption it gets broken in the near future. As they are much further from the bomb.

Nope, they are not. They are just the same position, but will have a decade of international top cover to work on ICBMs and Plutonium.

[–]MizGunner 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are right about the punitive comment, if we make sanctions more intense they weren't punitive. However, our world view differs on the politics of the mullahs and Iranian government.

I believe the mullahs would be powerful in a time of struggle for Iran. They are an evil that we must keep a watchful eye over in any situation. But these mullah types multiply when you cripple their economy. By working with Iran on this deal we have empowered the Green Party and Moderates without using military force.

I think this is a big sticking point. I want to use military force only after trying to showing Iran the benefits of a western society, trade and economic power of the west. I want to use a carrot and stick. Your plan may have a little carrot, but it certainly isn't enough to show Iran the power of capitalism and democracy. And if Iran screws up this opportunity, then and only then do I feel comfortable completely leveling their country.

I think you want to use more stick with mullah, but I just imagine Hercules fighting the Hydra when you say that.

Nope, they are not. They are just the same position, but will have a decade of international top cover to work on ICBMs and Plutonium.

This is where I don't understand your beliefs systems. We slowed them down.

You have to admit that destroying 14K centrifuges, leaving Iran with 6K centrifuges is better than 20k. Even if that is still enough to make a bomb, more centrifuges just allow mullahs to put together a bomb quicker. It is better than the status quo. Iran was going to get their hands on their frozen assets eventually. And we can't prevent the Asian countries from trading with them.

This all boils down to the fact that you don't trust Obama. I think he used the extent of his diplomatic capital, he could have waited another year if he thought it was necessary, but he thought this was the best deal he was going to get in his eight years. All Presidents like to wrap up major agreements with multiple countries before the massive turnover of himself and his administration. Just part of our political process.

Maybe a Republican could have used our diplomatic capital better, but that is all speculation on your part. At this point you have to recognize that the US really only has one bite at the apple and this is the deal we are going to get. Other countries aren't going to reimpose sanctions if Congress messes this up now.

If we don't pass this agreement, that means war. If Iran violates this deal, that means war with mostly global approval.

I'm glad we could have this discussion, you made solid arguments, we just view the world differently.

[–]toms_face 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

What don't you actually like about this deal though? I think it's good that Iran loses its capability to create nuclear weapons without the world knowing, while ending the sanctions and allowing them to use more nuclear power.

[–]the-knife 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The fact that there are real people that think like this is fucking terrifying. You're a psycho warmonger.