Is Biden's "Don't" foreign policy deterring terrorist groups and Iran?

[Dill]

(04-14-2024, 04:00 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Has the current Iranian Administration ever honored a pact to date? 

If you are referring to Gaza, then Biden releasing Billions to Iran for them to fund Hamas, then yes I agree we were partially responsible for what is going on there, and by doing so, he also gave them the funds to "Speed" up their Nuke program even more.

?? What sort of pact?  One of the outstanding features of the Iran Deal was that it allowed invasive monitoring of Iran's 
nuclear program. That's gone now. No one was basing any deal on "honor."

After keeping their word on the Iran Deal for years, even after Trump broke our word, they finally decided in 2020 to rebuild their
enrich program and to engage more centrifuges. Now we are on the verge of a war with Iran, a TREMENDOUS incentive for them now
to create a bomb. 

The Billions released to Iran were and still are held in Qatar, where they can only be used to buy humanitarian goods. 
The Iranians were not given a tub of 100 dollar bills they could then divvy up between Hamas and Hezbollah. Er wait, I believe 
even those funds were frozen in 2023 and still are. 

I'm hoping people get a bit more skeptical of the "Iran-as-puppetmaster" explanation of the current conflict. The primary driver is
still Palestinian dispossession. 

The article I posted for you fairly crows about how Trump effected an end run around the Palestinians, to isolate them so they'd have
to come to the peace table on Israeli terms, with no more powerful Arab friends. 

Couple that with busted Iran Deal, and that should rebut Luvnit's "ME was handled under Trump" thesis. We are living with the fallout
of Trump's chaotic policy and many decades of protecting Israel's occupation instead of using our influence to leverage them to the
peace table. 

How often in the history of US foreign relations has "strong" turned out to be just dumb? A cultivated perception and no more. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-14-2024, 04:33 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? What sort of pact?  One of the outstanding features of the Iran Deal was that it allowed invasive monitoring of Iran's 
nuclear program. That's gone now. No one was basing any deal on "honor."

After keeping their word on the Iran Deal for years, even after Trump broke our word, they finally decided in 2020 to rebuild their
enrich program and to engage more centrifuges. Now we are on the verge of a war with Iran, a TREMENDOUS incentive for them now
to create a bomb. 

The Billions released to Iran were and still are held in Qatar, where they can only be used to buy humanitarian goods. 
The Iranians were not given a tub of 100 dollar bills they could then divvy up between Hamas and Hezbollah. Er wait, I believe 
even those funds were frozen in 2023 and still are. 

I'm hoping people get a bit more skeptical of the "Iran-as-puppetmaster" explanation of the current conflict. The primary driver is
still Palestinian dispossession. 

The article I posted for you fairly crows about how Trump effected an end run around the Palestinians, to isolate them so they'd have
to come to the peace table on Israeli terms, with no more powerful Arab friends. 

Couple that with busted Iran Deal, and that should rebut Luvnit's "ME was handled under Trump" thesis. We are living with the fallout
of Trump's chaotic policy and many decades of protecting Israel's occupation instead of using our influence to leverage them to the
peace table. 

How often in the history of US foreign relations has "strong" turned out to be just dumb? A cultivated perception and no more. 

They were going to create a bomb whether there was a deal in place or not. I'm not sure why you dismiss their history of not being cooperative, yet history is important when it comes to Israel. 

I'm aware of how the money is being monitored and setup. but think about it, now the money they were using for that is freed to use for "other discretionary things". Don't pretend otherwise. If CC debts are eating up half of your money, and suddenly you don't have to worry about it for several years, that means half you money is open for you to use how ever you desire. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. 

Pretty sure most of the other "powerful" Arab countries have already signed peace deals with Israel. The P's have had many years to come to the table with "powerful" backing yet make demands they know Israel won't agree, but Israel did give concessions a few times yet P's still rejected. I don't think the P's are interested in the kind of Peace you want them to be interested in. So yes, it's a good thing to bring them to the table on their knees and realize that they aren't going to get all that they want. Maybe it's that outside interference that keeps causing problems with the deals.

So in your eyes, none of these other things matter as much as the P's dispossession? 

[HarleyDog]

(04-14-2024, 05:48 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: They were going to create a bomb whether there was a deal in place or not. I'm not sure why you dismiss their history of not being cooperative, yet history is important when it comes to Israel. 

I'm aware of how the money is being monitored and setup. but think about it, now the money they were using for that is freed to use for "other discretionary things". Don't pretend otherwise. If CC debts are eating up half of your money, and suddenly you don't have to worry about it for several years, that means half you money is open for you to use how ever you desire. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. 

Pretty sure most of the other "powerful" Arab countries have already signed peace deals with Israel. The P's have had many years to come to the table with "powerful" backing yet make demands they know Israel won't agree, but Israel did give concessions a few times yet P's still rejected. I don't think the P's are interested in the kind of Peace you want them to be interested in. So yes, it's a good thing to bring them to the table on their knees and realize that they aren't going to get all that they want. Maybe it's that outside interference that keeps causing problems with the deals.

So in your eyes, none of these other things matter as much as the P's dispossession? 

Excellent writing, on point. I'm curious about your opinion on other arab countries making peace deals with Israel. Israel is hated by Muslim countries. Are any of them working with Israel in anything? Or is it just ink to paper? Just curious. DJT had some good negotiations going in the middle east as far as I know, bringing Sudan, UAE and Bahrain together. I believe they are actually trading together as well. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-14-2024, 06:19 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Excellent writing, on point. I'm curious about your opinion on other arab countries making peace deals with Israel. Israel is hated by Muslim countries. Are any of them working with Israel in anything? Or is it just ink to paper? Just curious. DJT had some good negotiations going in the middle east as far as I know, bringing Sudan, UAE and Bahrain together. I believe they are actually trading together as well. 

You mentioned UAE, Sudan, and Bahrain. 
Also Suadi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Morocco.

All have peace deals and deal economically with each other. 

In my eyes, if  you can find a way do deal with others in an economical sense, it will speed up the peace process, basically the old adage "Money talk, BS Walks" thing. Money can soothe hurt feelings. 

[HarleyDog]

(04-14-2024, 06:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You mentioned UAE, Sudan, and Bahrain. 
Also Suadi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Morocco.

All have peace deals and deal economically with each other. 

In my eyes, if  you can find a way do deal with others in an economical sense, it will speed up the peace process, basically the old adage "Money talk, BS Walks" thing. Money can soothe hurt feelings. 

Yep, totally agree. Also, as you mend your trading for several years, it's not a good choice to attack the hand that feeds you. It's good for countries to rely on each other. That is non-terrorist countries I mean. However, when you get to the size of China and the US? Ugh. If the Chinese would cut us off from the ingredients we need to make medication, people would die. We have relied to much on China for too many things just because of cheap labor. 

As you said, working together helps the peace process. I long for a day, when countries can put their religious hate aside, and work together to create better lives for everyone. Unfortunately, Hate always wins, and hope gets destroyed whenever the bible and Kuran clash.

[Dill]

(04-14-2024, 05:48 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: They were going to create a bomb whether there was a deal in place or not. I'm not sure why you dismiss their history of not being cooperative, yet history is important when it comes to Israel. 

How do you "know" this, and how could they have developed a bomb, given the invasive monitoring? Until at least 2018, it was the consensus of our and British intel that they were not interested in getting a bomb.  What they wanted was a functioning economy, which Obama understood would strengthen the middle class opposing the theocratic hard liners.  What history of not being cooperative are you referring to? 

(04-14-2024, 05:48 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'm aware of how the money is being monitored and setup. but think about it, now the money they were using for that is freed to use for "other discretionary things". Don't pretend otherwise. If CC debts are eating up half of your money, and suddenly you don't have to worry about it for several years, that means half you money is open for you to use how ever you desire. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. 

Nor is genius required to figure out they cannot shift costs anywhere if the funds are still frozen, as I said. So Biden's release of 6 billion could not possibly have helped fund Hamas, as you thought.  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/12/world/middleeast/us-qatar-iran-prisoner-deal.html

(04-14-2024, 05:48 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Pretty sure most of the other "powerful" Arab countries have already signed peace deals with Israel. The P's have had many years to come to the table with "powerful" backing yet make demands they know Israel won't agree, but Israel did give concessions a few times yet P's still rejected. I don't think the P's are interested in the kind of Peace you want them to be interested in. So yes, it's a good thing to bring them to the table on their knees and realize that they aren't going to get all that they want. Maybe it's that outside interference that keeps causing problems with the deals.

So in your eyes, none of these other things matter as much as the P's dispossession? 

Egypt would count as a "powerful" Arab country, Morocco, Tunisia, Bahrain, Sudan, Jordan, Oman and the UAE not so much. Egypt and Jordan are separate from the Abraham Accords. In many ways we are footing the bill for these agreements. E.g. two billion a year to Egypt since 1980. Sudan was enticed to agree by a billion+ down payment and removal from our list of "terrorist" states.  Despite their governments, populations of those countries have never been down with peace at the expense of Palestinian rights. All these peace agreements are rather precarious now, because of the Gaza war. 

Thought we had gone over some of this history before. After Palestinians came to the table and granted Israel's right to exist, Netanyahu and a series of right wing governments reneged on the deal and continued settlements on the West Bank. They have constantly moved the goalposts as soon as Palestinians have agreed to terms. You don't seem to think military rule over millions of non-Israelis, while incrementally appropriating their land, is any kind of problem. Do you think Palestinians should not have equal human rights? 

If someone bulldozed your home because of what someone else's kid down the block did, would you need "outside interference" to motivate resistance? I don't understand why US citizens are so comfortable with violent seizure of others' property, enforced by military violence, much of it paid for by the US.

Palestinian dispossession matters because it is the primary cause of the current conflict, which may embroil us with a war with Iran. It also matters because we are enabling the theft and oppression.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-14-2024, 07:19 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Yep, totally agree. Also, as you mend your trading for several years, it's not a good choice to attack the hand that feeds you. It's good for countries to rely on each other. That is non-terrorist countries I mean. However, when you get to the size of China and the US? Ugh. If the Chinese would cut us off from the ingredients we need to make medication, people would die. We have relied to much on China for too many things just because of cheap labor. 

As you said, working together helps the peace process. I long for a day, when countries can put their religious hate aside, and work together to create better lives for everyone. Unfortunately, Hate always wins, and hope gets destroyed whenever the bible and Kuran clash.

Hate wins at the top level, i know a few Iranians and they despise the leaders. 
Iran used t be a booming cultural center, but when the Religious zealots took over, they went backwards 100 years and lost many of their freedoms. 

Not sure how that one will end but they will need to revolt to make change.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-14-2024, 06:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote:  Money can soothe hurt feelings. 

(04-14-2024, 07:19 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Yep, totally agree.

Probably why Biden is/was using money as an olive branch with Iran?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-14-2024, 07:21 PM)Dill Wrote: How do you "know" this, and how could they have developed a bomb, given the invasive monitoring? Until at least 2018, it was the consensus of our and British intel that they were not interested in getting a bomb.  What they wanted was a functioning economy, which Obama understood would strengthen the middle class opposing the theocratic hard liners.  What history of not being cooperative are you referring to? 

Because history shows us that they have been hell bent on becoming a nuclear power and tigers don't change their stripes.

So how do you know they have Nuke's already?

To my knowledge they only have the missiles that can carry a payload developed and not the actual Nuclear bombs yet. So this whole Trump shaved years/month/weeks/days off of their program sounds a bit out there considering Trump did his thing with Iran what 6-7 years ago?

(04-14-2024, 07:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Nor is genius required to figure out they cannot shift costs anywhere if the funds are still frozen, as I said. So Biden's release of 6 billion could not possibly have helped fund Hamas, as you thought.  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/12/world/middleeast/us-qatar-iran-prisoner-deal.html

And the previous 10B he released? Honestly seems that's the Democrat way, even Obama gave them cash. Did Trump do the same?? Oh wait no, that was part of that deal that Obama worked out. So Trump actually put a stop to the cash that was going Iran's way. Interesting tid bit i just read about. 

(04-14-2024, 07:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Egypt would count as a "powerful" Arab country, Morocco, Tunisia, Bahrain, Sudan, Jordan, Oman and the UAE not so much. Egypt and Jordan are separate from the Abraham Accords. In many ways we are footing the bill for these agreements. E.g. two billion a year to Egypt since 1980. Sudan was enticed to agree by a billion+ down payment and removal from our list of "terrorist" states.  Despite their governments, populations of those countries have never been down with peace at the expense of Palestinian rights. All these peace agreements are rather precarious now, because of the Gaza war. 

Hmm Jordan and Egypt were two of the first countries to attack Israel, and coincidentally the first two to agree to Israel's sovereign rights and trade with them.
Poke all you want, Morrocco and UAE are both in the top 10 most power Arab countries. 

If Egypt and Jordan decide to get involved, they could lose their funding and likely any economic deals they are already involved in with Israel. Money talks. 

(04-14-2024, 07:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Thought we had gone over some of this history before. After Palestinians came to the table and granted Israel's right to exist, Netanyahu and a series of right wing governments reneged on the deal and continued settlements on the West Bank. They have constantly moved the goalposts as soon as Palestinians have agreed to terms. You don't seem to think military rule over millions of non-Israelis, while incrementally appropriating their land, is any kind of problem. Do you think Palestinians should not have equal human rights? 

The Palestinians tried to trade with Israel, You recognize the PLO we will recognize your right to exist, that's about the only time i have ever seen it on the table. 

Ofc they should have human rights, but in my eyes they forfeited that when Hamas killed babies and innocents. Or do you support Hamas's actions? I don't. Regardless of the history there, HAMAS's CURRENT Actions is what has caused this conflict to re-ignite. As far as I know, before Hamas's attack, the P's were getting Water, Electric, Food, Medicine and so on from *gasps Israel as well as others. 

When a dog bites your hand while you are trying to give it food, do you reward it or discipline it? 

(04-14-2024, 07:21 PM)Dill Wrote: If someone bulldozed your home because of what someone else's kid down the block did, would you need "outside interference" to motivate resistance? I don't understand why US citizens are so comfortable with violent seizure of others' property, enforced by military violence, much of it paid for by the US.

That's apples to oranges, US is already a sovereign state. Palestine is not. 

(04-14-2024, 07:21 PM)Dill Wrote: Palestinian dispossession matters because it is the primary cause of the current conflict, which may embroil us with a war with Iran. It also matters because we are enabling the theft and oppression.

No religion is. These guys could all have been living in peace many moons ago. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-14-2024, 08:45 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Probably why Biden is/was using money as an olive branch with Iran?

Great, let's just give money to Nations that we know fund terrorism. Nothing more exciting that that!

Edit: for extra excitement, ones that also want Nuke capabilities!!!

[HarleyDog]

(04-14-2024, 09:12 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Great, let's just give money to Nations that we know fund terrorism. Nothing more exciting that that!

Edit: for extra excitement, ones that also want Nuke capabilities!!!

I've never understood giving money to countries that harbor or support terrorists. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. 

[Luvnit2]

Biden lifted the Trump sanctions on Iran allowing them to make billions off of their oil. Why would you help a terrorist state? Iran is the #1 world sponsored state for terrorism. They fund Hamas.

Biden has a lot of blood on his hands. As for "Don't", anyone saying he stopped terrorists by this one word foreign policy is a moron.

How many Americans need to die under Biden's foreign policy? How many will be injured and suffer lifelong major injuries?

Iran is laughing at Biden and his policies.

[Luvnit2]

Biden told Israel to not answer Iran's attack.

Let see if Israel listens to the Biden "Don't" foreign policy.

[Luvnit2]

Iran boasts of a new equation in the middle east after they bombarded Israel Saturday.

This is Iran ready to take action in the middle east. One more example, Biden's Don't policy is as bad as his immigration and economic policies.

[Dill]

(04-14-2024, 09:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Because history shows us that they have been hell bent on becoming a nuclear power and tigers don't change their stripes.
So how do you know they have Nuke's already?
To my knowledge they only have the missiles that can carry a payload developed and not the actual Nuclear bombs yet. So this whole Trump shaved years/month/weeks/days off of their program sounds a bit out there considering Trump did his thing with Iran what 6-7 years ago?

Let me just focus on this for a moment.

1. What "history" can you be referring to? What evidence do you have that US intel services and the IAEA do not?  Iran has been "hell bent" on using nuclear energy for its economy, not on making a bomb--though that likely changed once Trump trashed the Iran deal.  OtherMike, you are sounding a bit like Bush and Cheney "knowning" that Saddam had WMDs. Or it looks that way until I see your sources.

2. I didn't say Iran has nukes already. I asked how they could have developed such under invasive monitoring, which Trump removed.

3. I gave you sources, including a government link, show how the JCPOA EXTENDED break out time and how Trump's pull out SHORTENED break out time. 
To repeat the point--

      1) 2016 Obama's Iran deal extended break out time from roughly 2 months to over a year, 10 years for plutonium.
   
      2) 2018 Trump broke the deal while BOT was still over a year. Iran tried to stay in it with the remaining signatories for 2 more years, then said "hell with this."

      3) 2024 Because Trump broke the deal, breakout time is now ZERO, not a year, as the US stands as close as its ever been to war with Iran.

Plus: Iran had 25 advanced centrefuges in operation when Obama left office, and 41 in 2018, just before Trump trashed the JCPOA. By the time Trump left office, the number was over 500. Now it is over 9,000. 
https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analysis_of_November_2023_IAEA_Iran_Verification_Report_Final.pdf  The amount of enriched uranium has jumped from a few kilos to over 6 tons.

4. The #1 worry for the US (and Israel) has been Iran with Nuclear weapons, making them untouchable, like NK, but unlike NK, astride one of the world's oil lifelines. All the rest--support of Houthis and Hezbollah and Hamas is peanuts in comparison to how that would re-arrange ME geopolitics, generating a race to the bomb in SA and Turkey. And sanctions were having little effect. Hence the decision to engage the deal, and include all the biggest players in the world, From China and Russia to the EU, in what was one of the biggest diplomatic achievements in world history. Plus it weakened Islamist control of the Iran from within, boosting a secular-minded and numerous middle class.

Then Trump blew up the JCPOA, exploding liberal heads to MAGA cheers. Thus leaving Iran with all the billions it got with the deal, without the deal's restrictions.
And embarrassing the US, destroying its credibility as world leader. Take that GLOBALISTS!!  The world didn't change right after that so libs were stupid alarmists.

5. Another little-discussed element of responsible Iran containment, in place from 2000-2016 and 2021-24, has been controlling Iran's threat environment, reducing the threat and with it, the incentive to go nuclear. That's been damaged by our authoritarian domestic politics, the worry that we cannot look "weak" and so must push sanctions to be tough on Iran, with an eye to getting votes rather actually securing the national interest.

[Dill]

(04-15-2024, 04:58 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Iran boasts of a new equation in the middle east after they bombarded Israel Saturday.

This is Iran ready to take action in the middle east. One more example, Biden's Don't policy is as bad as his immigration and economic policies.

I think Iran was responding to an attack on one of its embassies,

which killed seven people. That made it "ready to take action."

But you are sure they were responding to Biden policy?

Looks like Iran has showed it is ready to stand down, after signalling its surprise attack to both the US and Israel.

The US shot down most of the drones and missiles. But Biden says he won't support Israeli retaliation.

How will Iran respond to another Israeli attack?  

Could be we are on the verge of the wider ME war that weak liberals are so afraid of.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-15-2024, 06:01 PM)Dill Wrote: Let me just focus on this for a moment.

1. What "history" can you be referring to? What evidence do you have that US intel services and the IAEA do not?  Iran has been "hell bent" on using nuclear energy for its economy, not on making a bomb--though that likely changed once Trump trashed the Iran deal.  OtherMike, you are sounding a bit like Bush and Cheney "knowning" that Saddam had WMDs. Or it looks that way until I see your sources.

2. I didn't say Iran has nukes already. I asked how they could have developed such under invasive monitoring, which Trump removed.

3. I gave you sources, including a government link, show how the JCPOA EXTENDED break out time and how Trump's pull out SHORTENED break out time. 
To repeat the point--

      1) 2016 Obama's Iran deal extended break out time from roughly 2 months to over a year, 10 years for plutonium.
   
      2) 2018 Trump broke the deal while BOT was still over a year. Iran tried to stay in it with the remaining signatories for 2 more years, then said "hell with this."

      3) 2024 Because Trump broke the deal, breakout time is now ZERO, not a year, as the US stands as close as its ever been to war with Iran.

Plus: Iran had 25 advanced centrefuges in operation when Obama left office, and 41 in 2018, just before Trump trashed the JCPOA. By the time Trump left office, the number was over 500. Now it is over 9,000. 
https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analysis_of_November_2023_IAEA_Iran_Verification_Report_Final.pdf  The amount of enriched uranium has jumped from a few kilos to over 6 tons.

4. The #1 worry for the US (and Israel) has been Iran with Nuclear weapons, making them untouchable, like NK, but unlike NK, astride one of the world's oil lifelines. All the rest--support of Houthis and Hezbollah and Hamas is peanuts in comparison to how that would re-arrange ME geopolitics, generating a race to the bomb in SA and Turkey. And sanctions were having little effect. Hence the decision to engage the deal, and include all the biggest players in the world, From China and Russia to the EU, in what was one of the biggest diplomatic achievements in world history. Plus it weakened Islamist control of the Iran from within, boosting a secular-minded and numerous middle class.

Then Trump blew up the JCPOA, exploding liberal heads to MAGA cheers. Thus leaving Iran with all the billions it got with the deal, without the deal's restrictions.
And embarrassing the US, destroying its credibility as world leader. Take that GLOBALISTS!!  The world didn't change right after that so libs were stupid alarmists.

5. Another little-discussed element of responsible Iran containment, in place from 2000-2016 and 2021-24, has been controlling Iran's threat environment, reducing the threat and with it, the incentive to go nuclear. That's been damaged by our authoritarian domestic politics, the worry that we cannot look "weak" and so must push sanctions to be tough on Iran, with an eye to getting votes rather actually securing the national interest.

What world do you live in?  If you don't understand why they would not want to have been pursing Nukes for over the last 20 years.

Same reason India, Pakastan and NK wanted Nukes. POWER. Like those countries listed they are a small secular country and Nukes puts them in a position of power. So rather than fear being bombed they can now retaliate with Nukes if someone were to Nuke them. It causes a Mexican stand off.

Alot of that is what you know, not what you didn't know. we have no idea what the true numbers were only what we suspected. 

Their centrifuges were not connected to any outside network, they are stand alone operations, we sabotaged a few, but that required insiders to get the job done. How many did we not discover? No idea, but i'm sure they weren't 100% forth coming just cause they agreed to Obama's deal.

[Dill]

(04-15-2024, 10:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What world do you live in?  If you don't understand why they would not want to have been pursing Nukes for over the last 20 years.
Same reason India, Pakastan and NK wanted Nukes. POWER. Like those countries listed they are a small secular country and Nukes puts them in a position of power. So rather than fear being bombed they can now retaliate with Nukes if someone were to Nuke them. It causes a Mexican stand off.
Alot of that is what you know, not what you didn't know. we have no idea what the true numbers were only what we suspected. 

Their centrifuges were not connected to any outside network, they are stand alone operations, we sabotaged a few, but that required insiders to get the job done. How many did we not discover? No idea, but i'm sure they weren't 100% forth coming just cause they agreed to Obama's deal.

I live in a world which prioritizes evidence over speculation. I'm going by US intel and IAEA reports. You are going by a gut assumption which is controverted by existing evidence, offering an "Everybody knows" argument, of the type which convinced Americans Saddam had WMDs. That's not a good basis for evaluating policy. 

That's why you are not providing me with authoritative sources. I have read assessments of Iran such as you are providing, but in sources like the Washington Times and the Jewish Virtual Library, which deviate considerably from what the evidence allows. 

Hmm. India is not "small"' it is the world's largest democracy. And Pakistan is not a secular democracy; it is an Islamic state. NK decided that getting the bomb was more important than sanctions. If Iran wanted the bomb as badly as these countries, it would not have agreed to the Iran Deal. It would have it now. You don't seem to be aware of how having a bomb, or pursuing one, could also work against Iran's interests, from its perspective. 

Anyway, the goal of my post was to re-explain, more clearly, why unnecessarily breaking the Iran Deal has created a more dangerous world. I explained that the US and many other nations were worried about Iran getting a bomb. Hence the deal--a different path forward for Iran. Now the incentive for a bomb is stronger than ever.

Trump's actions may have created that extra incentive needed to set Iran actually working on a bomb. (That includes attempting to create peace between Israel and Arab countries.)

(04-15-2024, 10:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Their centrifuges were not connected to any outside network, they are stand alone operations, we sabotaged a few, but that required insiders to get the job done. How many did we not discover? No idea, but i'm sure they weren't 100% forth coming just cause they agreed to Obama's deal.

And I'm sorry, OtherMike, but I have to say you are not very informed about how we knew about their centrifuge numbers and uranium stockpiles.
What do you suppose I was referring to when I mentioned "invasive inspections" above? 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-16-2024, 01:00 AM)Dill Wrote: I live in a world which prioritizes evidence over speculation. I'm going by US intel and IAEA reports. You are going by a gut assumption which is controverted by existing evidence, offering an "Everybody knows" argument, of the type which convinced Americans Saddam had WMDs. That's not a good basis for evaluating policy. 

I prioritize both, if you think Iran or the US Gov is open and being completely forth coming, you will be mistaken. We aren't going to Jeopardize our agents just so we can sit around and have a cuppa of Tea about it. 

Different argument, but I'll bite. Can't fault the public for that, we were mis-informed. Now we could argue whether our Agents were mis-informed or if we were intentionally mis-informed til we are blue in the face. This also happened shortly after 9-11 and we wanted blood for blood. 

(04-16-2024, 01:00 AM)Dill Wrote: That's why you are not providing me with authoritative sources. I have read assessments of Iran such as you are providing, but in sources like the Washington Times and the Jewish Virtual Library, which deviate considerably from what the evidence allows. 

And? are you saying you don't trust the media? I don't trust either side. Have to read between the lines and form your own opinions whether it's right or wrong. 

(04-16-2024, 01:00 AM)Dill Wrote: Hmm. India is not "small"' it is the world's largest democracy. And Pakistan is not a secular democracy; it is an Islamic state. NK decided that getting the bomb was more important than sanctions. If Iran wanted the bomb as badly as these countries, it would not have agreed to the Iran Deal. It would have it now. You don't seem to be aware of how having a bomb, or pursuing one, could also work against Iran's interests, from its perspective. 

India and Pakistan didn't need Nukes, but they developed them anyways, Why? 


Now you keep insisting that Iran wants Nuclear power for Energy reasons, ok so if that's true, why are you so worried about them having a bomb? 

I don't like any extremist groups having Nukes myself, and i consider Iran's Islamic leaders as extremists. 

(04-16-2024, 01:00 AM)Dill Wrote: Trump's actions may have created that extra incentive needed to set Iran actually working on a bomb. (That includes attempting to create peace between Israel and Arab countries.)

Then why were they funding Hamas knowing that Israel actually does have Nukes. Makes no sense. unless of course they intend to have Nukes themselves.. But  you said they don't want that, so ..... what if what if what if?

(04-16-2024, 01:00 AM)Dill Wrote: And I'm sorry, OtherMike, but I have to say you are not very informed about how we knew about their centrifuge numbers and uranium stockpiles.
What do you suppose I was referring to when I mentioned "invasive inspections" above? 

Nope haven't really been keeping up with it. as i said the are gonna do what they do no matter what anyone else says.
if they wanted peace, they should have gotten to the table first to represent the P's and discussed it with Israel. 

[Dill]

(04-16-2024, 02:58 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Dill Wrote:I live in a world which prioritizes evidence over speculation. I'm going by US intel and IAEA reports. 

I prioritize both, if you think Iran or the US Gov is open and being completely forth coming, you will be mistaken. We aren't going to Jeopardize our agents just so we can sit around and have a cuppa of Tea about it. 

 You are going by a gut assumption which is controverted by existing evidence, offering an "Everybody knows" argument, of the type which convinced Americans Saddam had WMDs. That's not a good basis for evaluating policy. 

Different argument, but I'll bite. Can't fault the public for that, we were mis-informed. Now we could argue whether our Agents were mis-informed or if we were intentionally mis-informed til we are blue in the face. This also happened shortly after 9-11 and we wanted blood for blood. 

Dill Wrote:That's why you are not providing me with authoritative sources. I have read assessments of Iran such as you are providing, but in sources like the Washington Times and the Jewish Virtual Library, which deviate considerably from what the evidence allows.

And? are you saying you don't trust the media? I don't trust either side. Have to read between the lines and form your own opinions whether it's right or wrong. 

Yo OtherMike, thanks for the responses here. They get me to thinking more about these subjects. So I’d like to offer my take with respect to the above. (I’ll address you remakes about Palestinians in a different post.)
 
So regarding Iraq--Not a different argument, rather a history we should be remembering and learning from as we stand once again on the verge of war in the Middle East with potential to entangle China and Russia.
 
The public cannot be faulted for choosing an unnecessary war back then because choice was out of their hands. Bush was already elected and cooked intel to extract permission from Congress to go to war IF NECESSARY. That gave him the leeway to act, as chief exec, despite massive protests.
 
Nevertheless, much of the public CAN be faulted for supporting the war, because there were plenty of MSM and "far left" voices offering more accurate assessments of Saddam’s WMDs and disputing any connection between him and Al Qaeda. That’s why there were massive protests—because people noticed the discrepancy between intel and the administration claims, and were wary of the Islamophobia which sold those claims.  “Traitors” as Hannity called those critical of the war, speaking for many on the right. (So far as I know, he still believes Saddam had WMDs.)
 
Those wanting "blood for blood" were the most easily mislead, for sure, precisely because they were so sure whom they could NOT trust—the “far left” and “Muslims.” The ramped up Islamophobia post 9/11 made it easy for Bush and Cheney to conflate Saddam and his arch enemy Al Qaeda (“Arabs think the enemy of my enemy is my friend!”) and divert a legitimate war in Afghanistan into a pet neo-con project in Iraq.
 
They and their media supporters at Fox behaved as if Saddam’s WMD guilt were too obvious to argue, a “slam dunk,” and people who doubted that simply because the evidence wasn’t there were naïve leftist fools who fell for a dictator’s lies. Bush showed “strong” leadership by not being fooled.
  
So what really “jeopardized our agents” back then was that, in a conflict between people who followed data, facts and intel vs people who "just know" these ME types cannot be trusted, many people went with the latter.
 
The lesson I take from this is not that “trusting” the media is an option. But neither is distrusting all media and all government. That isn't really practical, and is a step into conspiracy theory. Citizens in a democracy should be vetting sources, understanding how info is collected from sources, comparing contrasting them.  That means more learning (and remembering) FP history and less "already knowing” in advance what Muslims and Muslim countries are like. It means being suspicious of ethnic stereotypes rather than making them the core of policy.
 
And that’s why I keep asking you for sources, specific sources. You claim a great deal of specific knowledge about Iran, which conflicts with US intel and the IAEA. Unless you are reporting directly from Iran yourself, your views have to come from some source (s) which you are “trusting” over the IAEA and our intel agencies. What lines are you “reading between,” as you say? I’m just curious because I think many people share your take on Iran and come to similar evaluations of Trump vs Biden policy.