Strange things happen... - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

JohnnyD · 10-29-2009, 01:20 PM

...when administrations change along with the impression of "bomb the sh!t out of Iran" to "let's try to figure this out alongside our allies."

Iran responds to nuclear proposal
Iran responds to nuclear proposal - CNN.com

As of late, there are a lot of things the Obama administration has done that I've strongly disagreed with. However, from the start, I have been a proponent of their approach to Iran.

It will be interesting to see what the details of the agreement iron out to be and if Iran follows through with their commitment. This is the strongest sign of cooperation from Iran that the international community has seen yet.

RIJIMMY · 10-29-2009, 02:46 PM

you should read some books on the history of Europe 1925-1940.
Believe it or not Hitler was seen as a brilliant diplomat. Chamberlin from England loved him. Hitler frequently made concessions to get what he wanted.
With nukes, you either have them or you dont. Every consession buys Iran more time.

buckman · 10-29-2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

...when administrations change along with the impression of "bomb the sh!t out of Iran" to "let's try to figure this out alongside our allies."

Iran responds to nuclear proposal
Iran responds to nuclear proposal - CNN.com

As of late, there are a lot of things the Obama administration has done that I've strongly disagreed with. However, from the start, I have been a proponent of their approach to Iran.

It will be interesting to see what the details of the agreement iron out to be and if Iran follows through with their commitment. This is the strongest sign of cooperation from Iran that the international community has seen yet.

We have heard this all before JD. It's called 'stall tactics" and any third grader can see it.

justplugit · 10-29-2009, 03:26 PM

Do you think Israel will believe anything Iran has to say about
their nuclear program?

JohnnyD · 10-29-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justplugit

Do you think Israel will believe anything Iran has to say about
their nuclear program?

Nope. But quite frankly, Israel is the bastard child of the US that needs to be cut off.

buckman · 10-29-2009, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Nope. But quite frankly, Israel is the bastard child of the US that needs to be cut off.

I tend to agree with you here JD

striperman36 · 10-29-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

you should read some books on the history of Europe 1925-1940.
Believe it or not Hitler was seen as a brilliant diplomat. Chamberlin from England loved him. Hitler frequently made concessions to get what he wanted.
With nukes, you either have them or you dont. Every consession buys Iran more time.

I am with Jim here. this is dangerous territory

justplugit · 10-29-2009, 09:23 PM

Whoops, looks like Iran changed their mind about sending uranium
out of the country which they had agreed to last week.

More stalling.

The only thing that will get their attention is strength.

Raven · 10-30-2009, 04:59 AM

more of the same

S
h
e
L
L

GAME

Joe · 10-30-2009, 09:06 AM

If you bomb Iran's nuclear capacity and you don't capitulate the theocracy, you open yourself up to state-sponsored nuclear terrorism. Make no mistake, the Iranians will retaliate if attacked so long as there is continuity with respect to command and control. In the real world, the military answer brings with it the baggage of occupation and nation building. Our military is stretched as it is now - even if we were so inclined as to attack, logistically, we're not in a position to conduct such operations.

Also, Iran is overwhelmingly Shia where Afghanistan and Iraq are Sunni - so how you treat each nation and the progress each makes will be held up for comparison. This could also spell trouble as we could be seen as being more for one arm of Islam than the other.

justplugit · 10-30-2009, 09:32 AM

I agree Joe, but we all learned a long time ago you can
only negotiate from strength or there is nothing to be gained.

This "making nice" stuff gets you nowhere with crazies like him.

He is sitting in the catbird seat.

RIROCKHOUND · 10-30-2009, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justplugit

I agree Joe, but we all learned a long time ago you can
only negotiate from strength or there is nothing to be gained.

This "making nice" stuff gets you nowhere with crazies like him.

He is sitting in the catbird seat.

So what is the other option?
War? Invade Iran? Bomb the sh-t out of them?

justplugit · 10-30-2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So what is the other option?
War? Invade Iran? Bomb the sh-t out of them?

Start with more sanctions and blockade.

Our Commander in Chief needs to step up and be just that.

We need a leader, his indecision on Afghanistan makes him look weak,
and now that he is looking at sending 1/2 the troops his General asked
for, it is making him look more like an appeaser again.
Either send what they need or get out.

Joe · 10-30-2009, 11:04 AM

The options are always the same: diplomacy, economic incentives or sanctions, or military action be it overt or covert. Usually, a combination of all three.

Diplomacy is not synonymous with weakness. Diplomacy often entails allowing the other party to take enough rope with which to hang themselves. (I.E.: The Cold War ending as a result of the Soviets inability to match us economically during an accelerated arms race.) Personally, I think that eventually Iran will come around and the theocracy will fall as a result of domestic insistence.

JohnnyD · 10-30-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justplugit

Start with more sanctions and blockade.

Our Commander in Chief needs to step up and be just that.

We need a leader, his indecision on Afghanistan makes him look weak,
and now that he is looking at sending 1/2 the troops his General asked
for, it is making him look more like an appeaser again.
Either send what they need or get out.

When you put it that way, it sounds quite easy, but....

Sanctions will immediately lead to war, and require international support to enforce. A blockade would lead to war immediately after the first vessel headed for Iran was stopped or boarded.

Iran would not hesitate to retaliate to such measures.

The Bush Administration started petitioning for sanctions and Obama continued that sentiment after taking office.

If it were that easy, why wasn't this situation resolved in the 6 years following Bush's January 29, 2002 declaration that Iran was assisting terrorism and potentially was developing nukes? (For once, this isn't a knock on Bush) In the last 4 years of his presidency, Bush and Co. tried to get sanctions on Iran once there were obvious signs they were attempting to refine nuclear material.

buckman · 10-30-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So what is the other option?
War? Invade Iran? Bomb the sh-t out of them?

YES, but it won't be us doing it

JohnnyD · 10-30-2009, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman

YES, but it won't be us doing it

Good. You didn't want to pay for teachers to keep their jobs in the town you live in, I can't imagine you want to pay for fighting wars on 3 separate fronts.

justplugit · 10-30-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe

Personally, I think that eventually Iran will come around and the theocracy will fall as a result of domestic insistence.

That would be the ideal solution. However, when the people took the demonstrations
to the streets, Obama did nothing to give them encouragement or
moral support.

justplugit · 10-30-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

When you put it that way, it sounds quite easy, but....

Sanctions will immediately lead to war, and require international support to enforce. A blockade would lead to war immediately after the first vessel headed for Iran was stopped or boarded.

Iran would not hesitate to retaliate to such measures.

The Bush Administration started petitioning for sanctions and Obama continued that sentiment after taking office.

If it were that easy, why wasn't this situation resolved in the 6 years following Bush's January 29, 2002 declaration that Iran was assisting terrorism and potentially was developing nukes? (For once, this isn't a knock on Bush) In the last 4 years of his presidency, Bush and Co. tried to get sanctions on Iran once there were obvious signs they were attempting to refine nuclear material.

JD, I'm not saying it's easy, but to wait around until Israel takes it to them, which I'm surprised they haven't already, or Iran to get the bomb, is allowing others to make decisions for us.

While our actions may be precarious now, they are less dangerous then they will be.

JohnnyD · 10-30-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justplugit

That would be the ideal solution. However, when the people took the demonstrations
to the streets, Obama did nothing to give them encouragement or
moral support.

Formal endorsement of a civilian uprising won't win any battles. That would make it easy for Iran to further demonize the West to their people who are ignorant due to censoring of the internet.

Iranian government controls all media in that state. Just what they would need is the American President hailing civil unrest.

Obama did come out and condemn the actions of the Basij when arresting people during their peaceful protests.

justplugit · 10-30-2009, 03:25 PM

Your right, it won't win any battles, but how much more can they do to demonize us? It gets to a point where it doesn't matter any more.

BTW-always good throwing ideas around with you, JD.

buckman · 10-30-2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Good. You didn't want to pay for teachers to keep their jobs in the town you live in, I can't imagine you want to pay for fighting wars on 3 separate fronts.

I pay and pay and pay JD. My son's "History of Rock and Roll " teacher is still there. What the hell are you talking about?

Swimmer · 10-30-2009, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Nope. But quite frankly, Israel is the bastard child of the US that needs to be cut off.

If we jettison Israel we will never ever have any varacity anywhere in the world ever again.

Joe · 10-30-2009, 10:47 PM

Israel is our only true ally in the region - the only one who would be willing to back us unconditionally so long as our goals remain pro-Israel. But I think one day the cost of our friendship with Israel may prove very high. Once that day comes, I think you will see public support in the U.S. for Israel begin to degrade.

JohnnyD · 10-30-2009, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justplugit

Your right, it won't win any battles, but how much more can they do to demonize us? It gets to a point where it doesn't matter any more.

BTW-always good throwing ideas around with you, JD.

I can't say I know the best way to deal with this. There is no chance of the US ever being looked upon favorably by Iran. You are right, we have been completely demonized by the Iranian leadership. However, we can only invade or lay attacks against so many Islamic nations before it appears that we are carrying out a personal vendetta against all Muslims.

justplugit, these somewhat non-partisan topics are always enjoyable for me. Your posts are always insightful and add substance to the conversation.