|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 07 2015 02:09 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 01:54 Lord Tolkien wrote:http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/04/security_experts_signal_caution_on_iran_nuke_dealThe Iran nuclear agreement being hailed as a major breakthrough is inconclusive on key questions, fueling criticism of the deal and leaving even military and terrorism experts uneasy.
“Everyone shouldn’t put it out of their mind and clap their hands,” said Arnold Bogis, a former Harvard fellow and terrorism expert. “It comes down to the next couple of months. They have to work out the technical details.”
The “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” restricting Iran’s nuclear ambitions calls for a final pact by June 30. If the deal is reached, crippling sanctions will be lifted.
U.S. Sen. John McCain said yesterday too many issues remain on the table. “Congress must be actively involved in reviewing and ultimately approving a nuclear agreement with Iran,” he said.
Among the concerns are:
• Why won’t Iran be forced to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country?
• Why can Iran still conduct research and development of the latest centrifuge designs, even if on a “limited” basis?
• Why is the country’s military nuclear facility at Fordow not being closed?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the deal, if signed, will “threaten the survival of Israel.”
McCain also warned against Iran’s influence in the region.
“Ultimately, we must recognize that Iran is clearly on the offensive across the Middle East,” McCain said in a statement. “We cannot, and should not, divorce our nuclear diplomacy with Iran from the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses. I am concerned about the impact that today’s agreement may have on the growing tensions and conflicts in the Middle East — for as Dr. Henry Kissinger has observed, the administration’s approach to nuclear diplomacy with Iran has moved from preventing proliferation to managing it.”
The outline of a deal was reached by six world powers and Iran after marathon negotiations led by U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Lausanne, Switzerland.
The deal is being called historic, but others stressed last night it’s too soon to close the book.
“It’s not a real deal at this point,” said Cedric Leighton, a retired Air Force colonel and former National Security Agency member. “There’s a lot that could still change. At best it’s a start from a trust perspective.”
One of the deal’s high points, according to Jim Walsh, an international security professor at MIT, is Iran’s plan to redesign and rebuild a heavy-water research reactor in Arak, making it incapable of producing a nuclear bomb.
“I think it’s historic. I think a lot of us were surprised by the level of detail and by some of the provisions that are stronger than we expected,” Walsh said. “I think it’s a no-brainer. The Iranians agreed to a lot.” Response I would make to McCain: 1) I agree that US foreign policy in all other areas towards Iran should remain divorced from this nuclear deal. 2) We cannot stop Iran from proliferating if they truly desire it; management is better, and even in containing nuclear proliferation the deal is better, as even if it's fulfilled in part it will set back any weapons program for Iran by far more than a military intervention would. With the current instability in the region, and the comparative cost of a military response to their program, this deal is more or less the best option we have currently to neutralize Iran's potential to develop nuclear weapons. Also, are McCain's jimmies rustled about the chemical weapons deal that US-Russia-Syria made?
I'm still rustled about Obama's Syria policy, disregarding the fact that the chemical weapons deal was pretty much broken the instant it was signed, and the use of chemical and gas weapons (currently chlorine) has been reported again in multiple instances in Syria. All that political and diplomatic capital, all that time, for bupkis.
The complete indecision Obama took on the issue until well after Syria devolved into civil war (and then, only to deal with ISIS) is something I'm very unhappy with. I'm 100% behind McCain on this; Obama (and Congress, and Europe) screwed/are screwing the pooch on this one.
The Iran deal is the brightest spot of FP news I've heard come out of this administration since Osama, after a long series of fumbles and missed opportunities.
On April 07 2015 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:Yeah they are. Clearing up the ISIS mess you started thank you very much...
Iranian involvement in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon has nothing to do with ISIS (well, only tangentially in the latter two).
|
On April 06 2015 16:13 coverpunch wrote:You can be concerned about conservation and environmental issues while not necessarily doing it for the sake of preventing climate change. The GOP's faith in deregulation blinded them to real problems with existing regulations IMO. If they were really good, they'd play political judo on the issue, taking up some environmental causes while letting Democrats go too extreme and anti-business with it in their effort to position themselves further to the left. Author Jonathan Franzen wrote an interesting article in the New Yorker that there might be a paradoxical trade-off.
It's not really a "paradoxical tradeoff" unless you think climate change can be solved through the implementation of a massive, scientifically-backed technical solution. It's the hubris of man to think that he can control the climate through technology without irreparably altering the ecology of the planet.
|
On April 07 2015 05:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 02:09 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 07 2015 01:54 Lord Tolkien wrote:http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/04/security_experts_signal_caution_on_iran_nuke_dealThe Iran nuclear agreement being hailed as a major breakthrough is inconclusive on key questions, fueling criticism of the deal and leaving even military and terrorism experts uneasy.
“Everyone shouldn’t put it out of their mind and clap their hands,” said Arnold Bogis, a former Harvard fellow and terrorism expert. “It comes down to the next couple of months. They have to work out the technical details.”
The “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” restricting Iran’s nuclear ambitions calls for a final pact by June 30. If the deal is reached, crippling sanctions will be lifted.
U.S. Sen. John McCain said yesterday too many issues remain on the table. “Congress must be actively involved in reviewing and ultimately approving a nuclear agreement with Iran,” he said.
Among the concerns are:
• Why won’t Iran be forced to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country?
• Why can Iran still conduct research and development of the latest centrifuge designs, even if on a “limited” basis?
• Why is the country’s military nuclear facility at Fordow not being closed?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the deal, if signed, will “threaten the survival of Israel.”
McCain also warned against Iran’s influence in the region.
“Ultimately, we must recognize that Iran is clearly on the offensive across the Middle East,” McCain said in a statement. “We cannot, and should not, divorce our nuclear diplomacy with Iran from the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses. I am concerned about the impact that today’s agreement may have on the growing tensions and conflicts in the Middle East — for as Dr. Henry Kissinger has observed, the administration’s approach to nuclear diplomacy with Iran has moved from preventing proliferation to managing it.”
The outline of a deal was reached by six world powers and Iran after marathon negotiations led by U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Lausanne, Switzerland.
The deal is being called historic, but others stressed last night it’s too soon to close the book.
“It’s not a real deal at this point,” said Cedric Leighton, a retired Air Force colonel and former National Security Agency member. “There’s a lot that could still change. At best it’s a start from a trust perspective.”
One of the deal’s high points, according to Jim Walsh, an international security professor at MIT, is Iran’s plan to redesign and rebuild a heavy-water research reactor in Arak, making it incapable of producing a nuclear bomb.
“I think it’s historic. I think a lot of us were surprised by the level of detail and by some of the provisions that are stronger than we expected,” Walsh said. “I think it’s a no-brainer. The Iranians agreed to a lot.” Response I would make to McCain: 1) I agree that US foreign policy in all other areas towards Iran should remain divorced from this nuclear deal. 2) We cannot stop Iran from proliferating if they truly desire it; management is better, and even in containing nuclear proliferation the deal is better, as even if it's fulfilled in part it will set back any weapons program for Iran by far more than a military intervention would. With the current instability in the region, and the comparative cost of a military response to their program, this deal is more or less the best option we have currently to neutralize Iran's potential to develop nuclear weapons. Also, are McCain's jimmies rustled about the chemical weapons deal that US-Russia-Syria made? I'm still rustled about Obama's Syria policy, disregarding the fact that the chemical weapons deal was pretty much broken the instant it was signed, and the use of chemical and gas weapons (currently chlorine) has been reported again in multiple instances in Syria. All that political and diplomatic capital, all that time, for bupkis. The complete indecision Obama took on the issue until well after Syria devolved into civil war (and then, only to deal with ISIS) is something I'm very unhappy with. I'm 100% behind McCain on this; Obama (and Congress, and Europe) screwed/are screwing the pooch on this one. The Iran deal is the brightest spot of FP news I've heard come out of this administration since Osama, after a long series of fumbles and missed opportunities. Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:Iran is on the offensive across the Middle East Yeah they are. Clearing up the ISIS mess you started thank you very much... Iranian involvement in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon has nothing to do with ISIS (well, only tangentially in the latter two).
I think Obama really has tried the best he could with the incredibly limited amount of political capital the US has abroad, and he has at home.
It's hard to ask anything else of Obama regarding Syria, the agreement did get a lot of the weapons out. Having further enforcement and inspection is just too complicated in a nation (if we can even call it that) that's in the middle of civil war. :/
|
On April 07 2015 06:16 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 05:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 07 2015 02:09 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 07 2015 01:54 Lord Tolkien wrote:http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/04/security_experts_signal_caution_on_iran_nuke_dealThe Iran nuclear agreement being hailed as a major breakthrough is inconclusive on key questions, fueling criticism of the deal and leaving even military and terrorism experts uneasy.
“Everyone shouldn’t put it out of their mind and clap their hands,” said Arnold Bogis, a former Harvard fellow and terrorism expert. “It comes down to the next couple of months. They have to work out the technical details.”
The “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” restricting Iran’s nuclear ambitions calls for a final pact by June 30. If the deal is reached, crippling sanctions will be lifted.
U.S. Sen. John McCain said yesterday too many issues remain on the table. “Congress must be actively involved in reviewing and ultimately approving a nuclear agreement with Iran,” he said.
Among the concerns are:
• Why won’t Iran be forced to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country?
• Why can Iran still conduct research and development of the latest centrifuge designs, even if on a “limited” basis?
• Why is the country’s military nuclear facility at Fordow not being closed?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the deal, if signed, will “threaten the survival of Israel.”
McCain also warned against Iran’s influence in the region.
“Ultimately, we must recognize that Iran is clearly on the offensive across the Middle East,” McCain said in a statement. “We cannot, and should not, divorce our nuclear diplomacy with Iran from the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses. I am concerned about the impact that today’s agreement may have on the growing tensions and conflicts in the Middle East — for as Dr. Henry Kissinger has observed, the administration’s approach to nuclear diplomacy with Iran has moved from preventing proliferation to managing it.”
The outline of a deal was reached by six world powers and Iran after marathon negotiations led by U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Lausanne, Switzerland.
The deal is being called historic, but others stressed last night it’s too soon to close the book.
“It’s not a real deal at this point,” said Cedric Leighton, a retired Air Force colonel and former National Security Agency member. “There’s a lot that could still change. At best it’s a start from a trust perspective.”
One of the deal’s high points, according to Jim Walsh, an international security professor at MIT, is Iran’s plan to redesign and rebuild a heavy-water research reactor in Arak, making it incapable of producing a nuclear bomb.
“I think it’s historic. I think a lot of us were surprised by the level of detail and by some of the provisions that are stronger than we expected,” Walsh said. “I think it’s a no-brainer. The Iranians agreed to a lot.” Response I would make to McCain: 1) I agree that US foreign policy in all other areas towards Iran should remain divorced from this nuclear deal. 2) We cannot stop Iran from proliferating if they truly desire it; management is better, and even in containing nuclear proliferation the deal is better, as even if it's fulfilled in part it will set back any weapons program for Iran by far more than a military intervention would. With the current instability in the region, and the comparative cost of a military response to their program, this deal is more or less the best option we have currently to neutralize Iran's potential to develop nuclear weapons. Also, are McCain's jimmies rustled about the chemical weapons deal that US-Russia-Syria made? I'm still rustled about Obama's Syria policy, disregarding the fact that the chemical weapons deal was pretty much broken the instant it was signed, and the use of chemical and gas weapons (currently chlorine) has been reported again in multiple instances in Syria. All that political and diplomatic capital, all that time, for bupkis. The complete indecision Obama took on the issue until well after Syria devolved into civil war (and then, only to deal with ISIS) is something I'm very unhappy with. I'm 100% behind McCain on this; Obama (and Congress, and Europe) screwed/are screwing the pooch on this one. The Iran deal is the brightest spot of FP news I've heard come out of this administration since Osama, after a long series of fumbles and missed opportunities. On April 07 2015 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:Iran is on the offensive across the Middle East Yeah they are. Clearing up the ISIS mess you started thank you very much... Iranian involvement in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon has nothing to do with ISIS (well, only tangentially in the latter two). I think Obama really has tried the best he could with the incredibly limited amount of political capital the US has abroad, and he has at home. It's hard to ask anything else of Obama regarding Syria, the agreement did get a lot of the weapons out. Having further enforcement and inspection is just too complicated in a nation (if we can even call it that) that's in the middle of civil war. :/
I said it before, I'll say it again: military intervention as soon as the protesters were fired upon. If we had, we could've helped shore up the liberal, pro-democratic rebel groups who were requesting our assistance and support (in any form, in arms or training at the very least).
Now, it's absolutely too late to put humpty dumpty back together again, after the string of crises that have popped up.
As for limited political capital; pfft. Shit like the AIIB is textbook as to why we're lacking in that department now.
To quote a wise master: "Do, or do not. There is no try." Obama's done alot of trying, but not a whole lot of doing.
|
On April 07 2015 06:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 06:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 07 2015 05:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 07 2015 02:09 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 07 2015 01:54 Lord Tolkien wrote:http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/04/security_experts_signal_caution_on_iran_nuke_dealThe Iran nuclear agreement being hailed as a major breakthrough is inconclusive on key questions, fueling criticism of the deal and leaving even military and terrorism experts uneasy.
“Everyone shouldn’t put it out of their mind and clap their hands,” said Arnold Bogis, a former Harvard fellow and terrorism expert. “It comes down to the next couple of months. They have to work out the technical details.”
The “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” restricting Iran’s nuclear ambitions calls for a final pact by June 30. If the deal is reached, crippling sanctions will be lifted.
U.S. Sen. John McCain said yesterday too many issues remain on the table. “Congress must be actively involved in reviewing and ultimately approving a nuclear agreement with Iran,” he said.
Among the concerns are:
• Why won’t Iran be forced to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country?
• Why can Iran still conduct research and development of the latest centrifuge designs, even if on a “limited” basis?
• Why is the country’s military nuclear facility at Fordow not being closed?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the deal, if signed, will “threaten the survival of Israel.”
McCain also warned against Iran’s influence in the region.
“Ultimately, we must recognize that Iran is clearly on the offensive across the Middle East,” McCain said in a statement. “We cannot, and should not, divorce our nuclear diplomacy with Iran from the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses. I am concerned about the impact that today’s agreement may have on the growing tensions and conflicts in the Middle East — for as Dr. Henry Kissinger has observed, the administration’s approach to nuclear diplomacy with Iran has moved from preventing proliferation to managing it.”
The outline of a deal was reached by six world powers and Iran after marathon negotiations led by U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Lausanne, Switzerland.
The deal is being called historic, but others stressed last night it’s too soon to close the book.
“It’s not a real deal at this point,” said Cedric Leighton, a retired Air Force colonel and former National Security Agency member. “There’s a lot that could still change. At best it’s a start from a trust perspective.”
One of the deal’s high points, according to Jim Walsh, an international security professor at MIT, is Iran’s plan to redesign and rebuild a heavy-water research reactor in Arak, making it incapable of producing a nuclear bomb.
“I think it’s historic. I think a lot of us were surprised by the level of detail and by some of the provisions that are stronger than we expected,” Walsh said. “I think it’s a no-brainer. The Iranians agreed to a lot.” Response I would make to McCain: 1) I agree that US foreign policy in all other areas towards Iran should remain divorced from this nuclear deal. 2) We cannot stop Iran from proliferating if they truly desire it; management is better, and even in containing nuclear proliferation the deal is better, as even if it's fulfilled in part it will set back any weapons program for Iran by far more than a military intervention would. With the current instability in the region, and the comparative cost of a military response to their program, this deal is more or less the best option we have currently to neutralize Iran's potential to develop nuclear weapons. Also, are McCain's jimmies rustled about the chemical weapons deal that US-Russia-Syria made? I'm still rustled about Obama's Syria policy, disregarding the fact that the chemical weapons deal was pretty much broken the instant it was signed, and the use of chemical and gas weapons (currently chlorine) has been reported again in multiple instances in Syria. All that political and diplomatic capital, all that time, for bupkis. The complete indecision Obama took on the issue until well after Syria devolved into civil war (and then, only to deal with ISIS) is something I'm very unhappy with. I'm 100% behind McCain on this; Obama (and Congress, and Europe) screwed/are screwing the pooch on this one. The Iran deal is the brightest spot of FP news I've heard come out of this administration since Osama, after a long series of fumbles and missed opportunities. On April 07 2015 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:Iran is on the offensive across the Middle East Yeah they are. Clearing up the ISIS mess you started thank you very much... Iranian involvement in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon has nothing to do with ISIS (well, only tangentially in the latter two). I think Obama really has tried the best he could with the incredibly limited amount of political capital the US has abroad, and he has at home. It's hard to ask anything else of Obama regarding Syria, the agreement did get a lot of the weapons out. Having further enforcement and inspection is just too complicated in a nation (if we can even call it that) that's in the middle of civil war. :/ I said it before, I'll say it again: military intervention as soon as the protesters were fired upon. If we had, we could've helped shore up the liberal, pro-democratic rebel groups who were requesting our assistance and support (in any form, in arms or training at the very least). Now, it's absolutely too late to put humpty dumpty back together again, after the string of crises that have popped up. As for limited political capital; pfft. Shit like the AIIB is textbook as to why we're lacking in that department now.
And there was 0 will to stay behind and your rebels would have gotten rolled when ISIS came along because with the government bombed into the stone age there is no organised resistance left to stop them.
Seriously your advising the same thing that blew up Iraq but with even less US boots on the ground between intervention and utter shitstorm.
|
On April 07 2015 06:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 06:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 07 2015 05:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 07 2015 02:09 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 07 2015 01:54 Lord Tolkien wrote:http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/04/security_experts_signal_caution_on_iran_nuke_dealThe Iran nuclear agreement being hailed as a major breakthrough is inconclusive on key questions, fueling criticism of the deal and leaving even military and terrorism experts uneasy.
“Everyone shouldn’t put it out of their mind and clap their hands,” said Arnold Bogis, a former Harvard fellow and terrorism expert. “It comes down to the next couple of months. They have to work out the technical details.”
The “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” restricting Iran’s nuclear ambitions calls for a final pact by June 30. If the deal is reached, crippling sanctions will be lifted.
U.S. Sen. John McCain said yesterday too many issues remain on the table. “Congress must be actively involved in reviewing and ultimately approving a nuclear agreement with Iran,” he said.
Among the concerns are:
• Why won’t Iran be forced to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country?
• Why can Iran still conduct research and development of the latest centrifuge designs, even if on a “limited” basis?
• Why is the country’s military nuclear facility at Fordow not being closed?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the deal, if signed, will “threaten the survival of Israel.”
McCain also warned against Iran’s influence in the region.
“Ultimately, we must recognize that Iran is clearly on the offensive across the Middle East,” McCain said in a statement. “We cannot, and should not, divorce our nuclear diplomacy with Iran from the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses. I am concerned about the impact that today’s agreement may have on the growing tensions and conflicts in the Middle East — for as Dr. Henry Kissinger has observed, the administration’s approach to nuclear diplomacy with Iran has moved from preventing proliferation to managing it.”
The outline of a deal was reached by six world powers and Iran after marathon negotiations led by U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Lausanne, Switzerland.
The deal is being called historic, but others stressed last night it’s too soon to close the book.
“It’s not a real deal at this point,” said Cedric Leighton, a retired Air Force colonel and former National Security Agency member. “There’s a lot that could still change. At best it’s a start from a trust perspective.”
One of the deal’s high points, according to Jim Walsh, an international security professor at MIT, is Iran’s plan to redesign and rebuild a heavy-water research reactor in Arak, making it incapable of producing a nuclear bomb.
“I think it’s historic. I think a lot of us were surprised by the level of detail and by some of the provisions that are stronger than we expected,” Walsh said. “I think it’s a no-brainer. The Iranians agreed to a lot.” Response I would make to McCain: 1) I agree that US foreign policy in all other areas towards Iran should remain divorced from this nuclear deal. 2) We cannot stop Iran from proliferating if they truly desire it; management is better, and even in containing nuclear proliferation the deal is better, as even if it's fulfilled in part it will set back any weapons program for Iran by far more than a military intervention would. With the current instability in the region, and the comparative cost of a military response to their program, this deal is more or less the best option we have currently to neutralize Iran's potential to develop nuclear weapons. Also, are McCain's jimmies rustled about the chemical weapons deal that US-Russia-Syria made? I'm still rustled about Obama's Syria policy, disregarding the fact that the chemical weapons deal was pretty much broken the instant it was signed, and the use of chemical and gas weapons (currently chlorine) has been reported again in multiple instances in Syria. All that political and diplomatic capital, all that time, for bupkis. The complete indecision Obama took on the issue until well after Syria devolved into civil war (and then, only to deal with ISIS) is something I'm very unhappy with. I'm 100% behind McCain on this; Obama (and Congress, and Europe) screwed/are screwing the pooch on this one. The Iran deal is the brightest spot of FP news I've heard come out of this administration since Osama, after a long series of fumbles and missed opportunities. On April 07 2015 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:Iran is on the offensive across the Middle East Yeah they are. Clearing up the ISIS mess you started thank you very much... Iranian involvement in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon has nothing to do with ISIS (well, only tangentially in the latter two). I think Obama really has tried the best he could with the incredibly limited amount of political capital the US has abroad, and he has at home. It's hard to ask anything else of Obama regarding Syria, the agreement did get a lot of the weapons out. Having further enforcement and inspection is just too complicated in a nation (if we can even call it that) that's in the middle of civil war. :/ I said it before, I'll say it again: military intervention as soon as the protesters were fired upon. If we had, we could've helped shore up the liberal, pro-democratic rebel groups who were requesting our assistance and support (in any form, in arms or training at the very least). Now, it's absolutely too late to put humpty dumpty back together again, after the string of crises that have popped up. As for limited political capital; pfft. Shit like the AIIB is textbook as to why we're lacking in that department now. To quote a wise master: "Do, or do not. There is no try." Obama's done alot of trying, but not a whole lot of doing.
I don't think you can put that entirely on Obama, when congress was against it, and the American people were against it, and our allies in Europe were against it.
Also, just because yoda made a quote doesn't make it true.
|
To be fair, the Senate that Yoda had to deal with wasn't anywhere as bad.
Heh.
|
Boots on the ground is the exact reason the Middle East is the shit show it is today. You can't solve a problem by continuing to do the thing that caused it in the first place.
And don't think it'd be different this time. People predicted at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom that as soon as the new Iraqi government was left to mostly fend for itself it would get its shit pushed in. They had 10+ years of warning and it still happened.
|
On April 07 2015 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 06:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 07 2015 06:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 07 2015 05:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 07 2015 02:09 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 07 2015 01:54 Lord Tolkien wrote:http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/04/security_experts_signal_caution_on_iran_nuke_dealThe Iran nuclear agreement being hailed as a major breakthrough is inconclusive on key questions, fueling criticism of the deal and leaving even military and terrorism experts uneasy.
“Everyone shouldn’t put it out of their mind and clap their hands,” said Arnold Bogis, a former Harvard fellow and terrorism expert. “It comes down to the next couple of months. They have to work out the technical details.”
The “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” restricting Iran’s nuclear ambitions calls for a final pact by June 30. If the deal is reached, crippling sanctions will be lifted.
U.S. Sen. John McCain said yesterday too many issues remain on the table. “Congress must be actively involved in reviewing and ultimately approving a nuclear agreement with Iran,” he said.
Among the concerns are:
• Why won’t Iran be forced to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country?
• Why can Iran still conduct research and development of the latest centrifuge designs, even if on a “limited” basis?
• Why is the country’s military nuclear facility at Fordow not being closed?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the deal, if signed, will “threaten the survival of Israel.”
McCain also warned against Iran’s influence in the region.
“Ultimately, we must recognize that Iran is clearly on the offensive across the Middle East,” McCain said in a statement. “We cannot, and should not, divorce our nuclear diplomacy with Iran from the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses. I am concerned about the impact that today’s agreement may have on the growing tensions and conflicts in the Middle East — for as Dr. Henry Kissinger has observed, the administration’s approach to nuclear diplomacy with Iran has moved from preventing proliferation to managing it.”
The outline of a deal was reached by six world powers and Iran after marathon negotiations led by U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Lausanne, Switzerland.
The deal is being called historic, but others stressed last night it’s too soon to close the book.
“It’s not a real deal at this point,” said Cedric Leighton, a retired Air Force colonel and former National Security Agency member. “There’s a lot that could still change. At best it’s a start from a trust perspective.”
One of the deal’s high points, according to Jim Walsh, an international security professor at MIT, is Iran’s plan to redesign and rebuild a heavy-water research reactor in Arak, making it incapable of producing a nuclear bomb.
“I think it’s historic. I think a lot of us were surprised by the level of detail and by some of the provisions that are stronger than we expected,” Walsh said. “I think it’s a no-brainer. The Iranians agreed to a lot.” Response I would make to McCain: 1) I agree that US foreign policy in all other areas towards Iran should remain divorced from this nuclear deal. 2) We cannot stop Iran from proliferating if they truly desire it; management is better, and even in containing nuclear proliferation the deal is better, as even if it's fulfilled in part it will set back any weapons program for Iran by far more than a military intervention would. With the current instability in the region, and the comparative cost of a military response to their program, this deal is more or less the best option we have currently to neutralize Iran's potential to develop nuclear weapons. Also, are McCain's jimmies rustled about the chemical weapons deal that US-Russia-Syria made? I'm still rustled about Obama's Syria policy, disregarding the fact that the chemical weapons deal was pretty much broken the instant it was signed, and the use of chemical and gas weapons (currently chlorine) has been reported again in multiple instances in Syria. All that political and diplomatic capital, all that time, for bupkis. The complete indecision Obama took on the issue until well after Syria devolved into civil war (and then, only to deal with ISIS) is something I'm very unhappy with. I'm 100% behind McCain on this; Obama (and Congress, and Europe) screwed/are screwing the pooch on this one. The Iran deal is the brightest spot of FP news I've heard come out of this administration since Osama, after a long series of fumbles and missed opportunities. On April 07 2015 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:Iran is on the offensive across the Middle East Yeah they are. Clearing up the ISIS mess you started thank you very much... Iranian involvement in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon has nothing to do with ISIS (well, only tangentially in the latter two). I think Obama really has tried the best he could with the incredibly limited amount of political capital the US has abroad, and he has at home. It's hard to ask anything else of Obama regarding Syria, the agreement did get a lot of the weapons out. Having further enforcement and inspection is just too complicated in a nation (if we can even call it that) that's in the middle of civil war. :/ I said it before, I'll say it again: military intervention as soon as the protesters were fired upon. If we had, we could've helped shore up the liberal, pro-democratic rebel groups who were requesting our assistance and support (in any form, in arms or training at the very least). Now, it's absolutely too late to put humpty dumpty back together again, after the string of crises that have popped up. As for limited political capital; pfft. Shit like the AIIB is textbook as to why we're lacking in that department now. And there was 0 will to stay behind and your rebels would have gotten rolled when ISIS came along because with the government bombed into the stone age there is no organised resistance left to stop them. Seriously your advising the same thing that blew up Iraq but with even less US boots on the ground between intervention and utter shitstorm.
1) So should the rebels currently have already been rolled over by ISIS then? Or have they formed a loose alliance to fight ISIS and the government. Hm.
2) Syria has already been bombed to the stone age: the entire state has basically disintegrated already after years of civil war. A swift intervention, either support for the rebels or with actual boots on the ground is more likely to preserve infrastructure and stabilize Syria. Well, more of it, anyways.
3) Beyond this, there are clear differences between Iraq and Syria. Namely, the presence of organized resistance already existent against the Assad regime, and pre-existing organization against Assad. A far BETTER comparison would be to Libya. The problems in Libya, however owe more to a lack of political and reconstruction support from the EU and US. This is, however, an example of poor post-intervention support, not a failure of military intervention. We're now relying on Egypt (and Russia, ironically enough) to that work for us.
4) ISIS succeeded in basing itself in Syria in part because of the continuous conflict ongoing in Syria.
Also, just because yoda made a quote doesn't make it true.
Lies. Star Wars is love, Star Wars is life.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
did the us even have deployable troops at that particular point in time? would also require some constitutional handwringing
x0
|
On April 07 2015 06:39 oneofthem wrote:
did the us even have deployable troops at that particular point in time? would also require some constitutional handwringing
x0
Does not necessitate boots on the ground. Yeezus. We have options ranging from air power (which proved to be sufficient in bringing the first Libyan civil war to a close) to military support for the rebels (weapons, arms, and training).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
dont think that would be sufficient considering the tough job of controlling the rural and desert regions, the stuff that isis has claimed near the sunni iraq border
|
On April 07 2015 06:51 oneofthem wrote:
dont think that would be sufficient considering the tough job of controlling the rural and desert regions, the stuff that isis has claimed near the sunni iraq border
As I said before, yes: but not having a civil war creating millions of IDPs and refugees, hundreds of thousands killed, and untold amounts of property damage, would probably help somewhat in curbing ISIL. As is, ISIL had free reign to establish itself.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well, i was for bombing assad etc but given political constraints, some of which self imposed, i could understand that sudden change of heart.
|
Republican senator Rand Paul will formally launch his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on Tuesday, hoping an unorthodox and somewhat diluted libertarian campaign will lure a new generation of GOP voters without repelling the party’s conservative base.
Paul will launch his campaign for the White House in Louisville, the largest city in his home state of Kentucky, in front of thousands of activists and reporters in an opulent, 23,000-sq-ft ballroom.
The senator is attempting the kind of dance rarely attempted in American politics: reassuring Republican primary voters of his conservative credentials while appealing to some on the left who are drawn to his stances on criminal justice, privacy and foreign policy.
Paul wants to be the candidate that wins Christian evangelicals one day and college students who want to liberalise drug laws the next. Many party insiders believe that may be an impossibly complex path to the White House.
But no one is yet ruling out the former ophthalmologist, who has done more than any other senior figure in his party to build legislative alliances with Democrats and has even attempted to court some of their voters, from African Americans to the denizens of Silicon Valley.
Paul topped the presidential straw poll of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for the third time this year, and polling puts him among the early frontrunners in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Source
|
On April 07 2015 06:39 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:On April 07 2015 06:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 07 2015 06:16 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 07 2015 05:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 07 2015 02:09 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 07 2015 01:54 Lord Tolkien wrote:http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/04/security_experts_signal_caution_on_iran_nuke_dealThe Iran nuclear agreement being hailed as a major breakthrough is inconclusive on key questions, fueling criticism of the deal and leaving even military and terrorism experts uneasy.
“Everyone shouldn’t put it out of their mind and clap their hands,” said Arnold Bogis, a former Harvard fellow and terrorism expert. “It comes down to the next couple of months. They have to work out the technical details.”
The “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” restricting Iran’s nuclear ambitions calls for a final pact by June 30. If the deal is reached, crippling sanctions will be lifted.
U.S. Sen. John McCain said yesterday too many issues remain on the table. “Congress must be actively involved in reviewing and ultimately approving a nuclear agreement with Iran,” he said.
Among the concerns are:
• Why won’t Iran be forced to ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country?
• Why can Iran still conduct research and development of the latest centrifuge designs, even if on a “limited” basis?
• Why is the country’s military nuclear facility at Fordow not being closed?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the deal, if signed, will “threaten the survival of Israel.”
McCain also warned against Iran’s influence in the region.
“Ultimately, we must recognize that Iran is clearly on the offensive across the Middle East,” McCain said in a statement. “We cannot, and should not, divorce our nuclear diplomacy with Iran from the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses. I am concerned about the impact that today’s agreement may have on the growing tensions and conflicts in the Middle East — for as Dr. Henry Kissinger has observed, the administration’s approach to nuclear diplomacy with Iran has moved from preventing proliferation to managing it.”
The outline of a deal was reached by six world powers and Iran after marathon negotiations led by U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Lausanne, Switzerland.
The deal is being called historic, but others stressed last night it’s too soon to close the book.
“It’s not a real deal at this point,” said Cedric Leighton, a retired Air Force colonel and former National Security Agency member. “There’s a lot that could still change. At best it’s a start from a trust perspective.”
One of the deal’s high points, according to Jim Walsh, an international security professor at MIT, is Iran’s plan to redesign and rebuild a heavy-water research reactor in Arak, making it incapable of producing a nuclear bomb.
“I think it’s historic. I think a lot of us were surprised by the level of detail and by some of the provisions that are stronger than we expected,” Walsh said. “I think it’s a no-brainer. The Iranians agreed to a lot.” Response I would make to McCain: 1) I agree that US foreign policy in all other areas towards Iran should remain divorced from this nuclear deal. 2) We cannot stop Iran from proliferating if they truly desire it; management is better, and even in containing nuclear proliferation the deal is better, as even if it's fulfilled in part it will set back any weapons program for Iran by far more than a military intervention would. With the current instability in the region, and the comparative cost of a military response to their program, this deal is more or less the best option we have currently to neutralize Iran's potential to develop nuclear weapons. Also, are McCain's jimmies rustled about the chemical weapons deal that US-Russia-Syria made? I'm still rustled about Obama's Syria policy, disregarding the fact that the chemical weapons deal was pretty much broken the instant it was signed, and the use of chemical and gas weapons (currently chlorine) has been reported again in multiple instances in Syria. All that political and diplomatic capital, all that time, for bupkis. The complete indecision Obama took on the issue until well after Syria devolved into civil war (and then, only to deal with ISIS) is something I'm very unhappy with. I'm 100% behind McCain on this; Obama (and Congress, and Europe) screwed/are screwing the pooch on this one. The Iran deal is the brightest spot of FP news I've heard come out of this administration since Osama, after a long series of fumbles and missed opportunities. On April 07 2015 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:Iran is on the offensive across the Middle East Yeah they are. Clearing up the ISIS mess you started thank you very much... Iranian involvement in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon has nothing to do with ISIS (well, only tangentially in the latter two). I think Obama really has tried the best he could with the incredibly limited amount of political capital the US has abroad, and he has at home. It's hard to ask anything else of Obama regarding Syria, the agreement did get a lot of the weapons out. Having further enforcement and inspection is just too complicated in a nation (if we can even call it that) that's in the middle of civil war. :/ I said it before, I'll say it again: military intervention as soon as the protesters were fired upon. If we had, we could've helped shore up the liberal, pro-democratic rebel groups who were requesting our assistance and support (in any form, in arms or training at the very least). Now, it's absolutely too late to put humpty dumpty back together again, after the string of crises that have popped up. As for limited political capital; pfft. Shit like the AIIB is textbook as to why we're lacking in that department now. And there was 0 will to stay behind and your rebels would have gotten rolled when ISIS came along because with the government bombed into the stone age there is no organised resistance left to stop them. Seriously your advising the same thing that blew up Iraq but with even less US boots on the ground between intervention and utter shitstorm. 1) So should the rebels currently have already been rolled over by ISIS then? Or have they formed a loose alliance to fight ISIS and the government. Hm. 2) Syria has already been bombed to the stone age: the entire state has basically disintegrated already after years of civil war. A swift intervention, either support for the rebels or with actual boots on the ground is more likely to preserve infrastructure and stabilize Syria. Well, more of it, anyways. 3) Beyond this, there are clear differences between Iraq and Syria. Namely, the presence of organized resistance already existent against the Assad regime, and pre-existing organization against Assad. A far BETTER comparison would be to Libya. The problems in Libya, however owe more to a lack of political and reconstruction support from the EU and US. This is, however, an example of poor post-intervention support, not a failure of military intervention. We're now relying on Egypt (and Russia, ironically enough) to that work for us. 4) ISIS succeeded in basing itself in Syria in part because of the continuous conflict ongoing in Syria. Lies. Star Wars is love, Star Wars is life.
A major reason ISIS has been as successful as it has is because it stole billions of dollars worth of US equipment in Iraq. None of that equipment would've been there had there never been boots on the ground.
|
City officials in Ferguson, Mo., on Thursday evening released the full, unredacted content of racially charged and religiously insensitive e-mails sent by the city’s former court clerk as well as two former supervisors in the police department.
The e-mails, released to The Washington Post in response to a public-records request, were sent and received by Mary Ann Twitty, who was Ferguson’s court clerk, as well as former Ferguson police captain Rick Henke and former police sergeant William Mudd. All three were removed from their jobs after the Department of Justice discovered the e-mails, which prompted an internal investigation by city officials. The unredacted versions show for the first time which employee sent which e-mails.
“The evidence of racial bias comes not only from statistics, but also from remarks made by police, city and court officials,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder said in March upon the report’s release. “A thorough examination of the records – including a large volume of work e-mails – shows a number of public servants expressing racist comments or gender discrimination; demonstrating grotesque views and images of African Americans in which they were seen as the ‘other,’ called ‘transient’ by public officials, and characterized as lacking personal responsibility.”
On the day that the DOJ released their report, Ferguson Mayor James Knowles (R) condemned the e-mails and insisted that they were not reflective of the culture within the Ferguson Police Department.
“Let me be clear, this type of behavior will not be tolerated in the Ferguson Police Department or in any department in the city of Ferguson,” Knowles said. “These actions taken by these individuals are in no way representative of the employees of the city of Ferguson.”
St. Louis Alderman Antonio French said the full content of the e-mails further prove that change is needed in Ferguson.
“What it shows is that a culture existed and was allowed to fester in Ferguson municipal government and Ferguson Police Department. What we have seen so far is a few voluntary resignations but not a full acceptance of responsibility for that culture that has been allowed to exist in that municipal government,” French told The Post on Thursday. “Even after the DOJ report . . . there is still a lot of work to be done and it still remains to be seen whether the people who remain in power will be the ones to make the change.”
Source
Looks like many of them were just typical right-wing chain emails like I imagined. Of course the Ferguson mayor is clearly full of shit saying this type of behavior wasn't known and tolerated at FPD though.
|
On April 07 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +City officials in Ferguson, Mo., on Thursday evening released the full, unredacted content of racially charged and religiously insensitive e-mails sent by the city’s former court clerk as well as two former supervisors in the police department.
The e-mails, released to The Washington Post in response to a public-records request, were sent and received by Mary Ann Twitty, who was Ferguson’s court clerk, as well as former Ferguson police captain Rick Henke and former police sergeant William Mudd. All three were removed from their jobs after the Department of Justice discovered the e-mails, which prompted an internal investigation by city officials. The unredacted versions show for the first time which employee sent which e-mails.
“The evidence of racial bias comes not only from statistics, but also from remarks made by police, city and court officials,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder said in March upon the report’s release. “A thorough examination of the records – including a large volume of work e-mails – shows a number of public servants expressing racist comments or gender discrimination; demonstrating grotesque views and images of African Americans in which they were seen as the ‘other,’ called ‘transient’ by public officials, and characterized as lacking personal responsibility.”
On the day that the DOJ released their report, Ferguson Mayor James Knowles (R) condemned the e-mails and insisted that they were not reflective of the culture within the Ferguson Police Department.
“Let me be clear, this type of behavior will not be tolerated in the Ferguson Police Department or in any department in the city of Ferguson,” Knowles said. “These actions taken by these individuals are in no way representative of the employees of the city of Ferguson.”
St. Louis Alderman Antonio French said the full content of the e-mails further prove that change is needed in Ferguson.
“What it shows is that a culture existed and was allowed to fester in Ferguson municipal government and Ferguson Police Department. What we have seen so far is a few voluntary resignations but not a full acceptance of responsibility for that culture that has been allowed to exist in that municipal government,” French told The Post on Thursday. “Even after the DOJ report . . . there is still a lot of work to be done and it still remains to be seen whether the people who remain in power will be the ones to make the change.” SourceLooks like many of them were just typical right-wing chain emails like I imagined. Of course the Ferguson mayor is clearly full of shit saying this type of behavior wasn't known and tolerated at FPD though.
I have to ask - what about these makes them "typical right-wing chain emails"? Just your imagination?
|
On April 07 2015 08:47 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2015 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:City officials in Ferguson, Mo., on Thursday evening released the full, unredacted content of racially charged and religiously insensitive e-mails sent by the city’s former court clerk as well as two former supervisors in the police department.
The e-mails, released to The Washington Post in response to a public-records request, were sent and received by Mary Ann Twitty, who was Ferguson’s court clerk, as well as former Ferguson police captain Rick Henke and former police sergeant William Mudd. All three were removed from their jobs after the Department of Justice discovered the e-mails, which prompted an internal investigation by city officials. The unredacted versions show for the first time which employee sent which e-mails.
“The evidence of racial bias comes not only from statistics, but also from remarks made by police, city and court officials,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder said in March upon the report’s release. “A thorough examination of the records – including a large volume of work e-mails – shows a number of public servants expressing racist comments or gender discrimination; demonstrating grotesque views and images of African Americans in which they were seen as the ‘other,’ called ‘transient’ by public officials, and characterized as lacking personal responsibility.”
On the day that the DOJ released their report, Ferguson Mayor James Knowles (R) condemned the e-mails and insisted that they were not reflective of the culture within the Ferguson Police Department.
“Let me be clear, this type of behavior will not be tolerated in the Ferguson Police Department or in any department in the city of Ferguson,” Knowles said. “These actions taken by these individuals are in no way representative of the employees of the city of Ferguson.”
St. Louis Alderman Antonio French said the full content of the e-mails further prove that change is needed in Ferguson.
“What it shows is that a culture existed and was allowed to fester in Ferguson municipal government and Ferguson Police Department. What we have seen so far is a few voluntary resignations but not a full acceptance of responsibility for that culture that has been allowed to exist in that municipal government,” French told The Post on Thursday. “Even after the DOJ report . . . there is still a lot of work to be done and it still remains to be seen whether the people who remain in power will be the ones to make the change.” SourceLooks like many of them were just typical right-wing chain emails like I imagined. Of course the Ferguson mayor is clearly full of shit saying this type of behavior wasn't known and tolerated at FPD though. I have to ask - what about these makes them "typical right-wing chain emails"? Just your imagination?
Which part are you struggling with?
|
They don't look like typical ones to me; I'd say atypical right-wing chain emails would be more accurate. Or perhaps typical crazy right-wing chain emails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
