Sarah Sanders DESTROYS Hillary, Obama, and Kerry!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-14-2018, 07:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I prefer no nukes over a pissed of regime with nukes.

I think everyone would prefer no nukes.  The difference of opinion is whether the deal was going to provide that.  See, you can have an opinion on either side of this issue and not be wrong.  This is not a black and white issue. 

[Dill]

(05-14-2018, 07:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: fredtoast Wrote: So we should not have even tried to slow down their development of nuclear weapons?

How could that have been better?

By not unfreezing their assets and lifting sanctions thus giving them billions of dollars to fund terrorism and build up their military.  Not exactly a hard question to answer.

In 2013 the CIA assessed Iran's breakout time was six to eight weeks. That was while sanctions were in place and their assets still frozen.

And sanctions were breaking. France, Germany, China and Russia were losing billions holding to them, not to mention jobs. Russian and China threatened non cooperation in any further sanctions if the US did not get the deal done by 2015

After taking their enriched plutonium and destroying two thirds of their centrifuges, Iran's break out time went to one year plus in 2015, where it has remained since. Release of assets followed that. Further, the moderates who went out on limb to push for the deal were rewarded with public trust, enhancing their power and isolating the hardliners, not to mention gaining credibility before Khameini.  

Had Obama not gotten the deal, Iran would likely have reduced break out time to nil, or had the bomb, by 2016 with no meaningful sanctions regime on it and hardliners in full control of the nuclear program.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2018, 01:07 AM)Dill Wrote: In 2013 the CIA assessed Iran's breakout time was six to eight weeks. That was while sanctions were in place and their assets still frozen.

An obviously erroneous assessment given subsequent events.  If your information is accurate that is.

Quote:And sanctions were breaking. France, Germany, China and Russia were losing billions holding to them, not to mention jobs. Russian and China threatened non cooperation in any further sanctions if the US did not get the deal done by 2015

Cool, we should let authoritarian countries dictate our foreign policy.  I thought this was a major issue with the anti-Trump group.  I guess not so much when it suits their agenda.

Quote:After taking their enriched plutonium and destroying two thirds of their centrifuges, Iran's break out time went to one year plus in 2015, where it has remained since. Release of assets followed that. Further, the moderates who went out on limb to push for the deal were rewarded with public trust, enhancing their power and isolating the hardliners, not to mention gaining credibility before Khameini.

 
You say this assuming there are moderates of any consequence in Iran's government.  I have seen little evidence of this.

Quote:Had Obama not gotten the deal, Iran would likely have reduced break out time to nil, or had the bomb, by 2016 with no meaningful sanctions regime on it and hardliners in full control of the nuclear program.

With what consequences?  Iran has publicly stated they don't want nuclear weapons.  Should the world tolerate a lying theocratic regime, apparently eager to use nuclear weapons (remember the discussion about Al Quds day that you tucked tail and ran from?) with nuclear weapons?  As I said earlier, a nuclear N. Korea is far more palatable than a jihad driven theocratic extremist government.  Iran has a rather simple choice, forego nuclear weapons or risk ceasing to exist.  Their positions allow for very little middle ground.

[Belsnickel]

(05-14-2018, 06:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think the counter argument would be that, in the meantime, Iran gets full access to funds and financial markets thus setting itself up to weather a new round of sanctions once they ramp up their nuclear program again.  All the while using unfrozen assets to fund terrorists groups.  I get both sides of this argument, I don't think either is fully correct.  I will agree that it would have been better for the deal to have never been signed then to back out of it subsequent to it's being put into effect.  I would add that Trump did state he would do exactly this when running for office.  As much as some dislike him, he has kept his word on a large amount of campaign promises.

The ones that involve tearing down anything Obama did. Anything that was populist in message, anti-corruption, etc., he has ignored completely. The unfortunate thing about that is those campaign promises he isn't keeping are the ones he was elected on by his supporters. The campaign promises he is keeping are the ones that the more establishment parts of the GOP used to lubricate him and make him easier to take.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2018, 09:49 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The ones that involve tearing down anything Obama did. Anything that was populist in message, anti-corruption, etc., he has ignored completely. The unfortunate thing about that is those campaign promises he isn't keeping are the ones he was elected on by his supporters. The campaign promises he is keeping are the ones that the more establishment parts of the GOP used to lubricate him and make him easier to take.

Not entirely true, but I don't see how this refutes the point being made.  Trump has kept an inordinately large number of campaign promises.  Love, hate or indifferent to him I don't see how this can be disputed.

[fredtoast]

Seems like the logic I am hearing is.

If Iran does not cooperate we nuke them before they take any action against us at all.

And by "cooperate" we mean give up everything forever.

And we never cooperate with other countries like Russia or China. Instead we just run everything by ourselves.

That's shouldn't cost us much money should it?

[Belsnickel]

(05-15-2018, 12:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not entirely true, but I don't see how this refutes the point being made.  Trump has kept an inordinately large number of campaign promises.  Love, hate or indifferent to him I don't see how this can be disputed.

Well, it really is true. And I'm not saying it refutes your claim, just trying to specify what he is doing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2018, 01:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, it really is true. And I'm not saying it refutes your claim, just trying to specify what he is doing.

So, you're saying that literally the only things Trump has accomplished are anti-Obama, i.e. destroying Obama's "legacy".

[Belsnickel]

(05-15-2018, 02:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, you're saying that literally the only things Trump has accomplished are anti-Obama, i.e. destroying Obama's "legacy".

I said the populist, anti-corruption stuff has been ignored.

[Dill]

(05-15-2018, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:And sanctions were breaking. France, Germany, China and Russia were losing billions holding to them, not to mention jobs. Russian and China threatened non cooperation in any further sanctions if the US did not get the deal done by 2015.

Cool, we should let authoritarian countries dictate our foreign policy.  I thought this was a major issue with the anti-Trump group.  I guess not so much when it suits their agenda.

Not clear what you mean by "dictate" here. When presidents adjust foreign policy to changing circumstances, it is sometimes claimed that circumstances dictate policy. As they should. That is not the same as letting an "authoritarian country" dictate policy.  

In response to Fred's question, "So we should not have even tried to slow down their development of nuclear weapons?
How could that have been better?" You answered:

"By not unfreezing their assets and lifting sanctions thus giving them billions of dollars to fund terrorism and build up their military.  Not exactly a hard question to answer."

Your easy answer assumes that the sanctions regime could continue as it was in 2012. My response explains why it could not. I will elaborate further on on the relation between sanctions and diplomacy.

1.  If the US unilaterally decides not to sell passenger jets to Iran, Iran can easily buy them from France or GB. Same for virtually all goods. Thus, the US cannot impose sanctions effectively on Iran without the cooperation of other nations.

 2. All countries agreeing to Iran sanctions pay a domestic price, losing a piece of their GNP and jobs. Diplomacy is required to persuade them to accept short-term losses for a greater, long-term good.

3.  If the US wants to keep sanctions on Iran, but some US partners finally decide that 1) Iran sanctions are not accomplishing their goals and that 2) it is no longer in their national interest to continue them, then the US must recognize that reality--i.e., that it is not, and cannot be, wholly in control of the international system. The sanctions could not be meaningfully maintained without Russia and China.

So Obama could have decided 1) not to let authoritarian countries dictate our foreign policy and lamely persist with partial, ineffective sanctions which no longer accomplish their goal, leaving Iran to inch closer to a bomb, should it choose,

OR 2) he could have accomplished the Iran Deal, which kept the countries needed for effective sanctions in a cooperating coalition rather than going their own ways, not to mention busting Iran's nuclear program.

So "not unfreezing their assets and lifting sanctions" was neither an easy choice, nor a realistic alternative.

[Dill]

(05-15-2018, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: In 2013 the CIA assessed Iran's breakout time was six to eight weeks. That was while sanctions were in place and their assets still frozen.

An obviously erroneous assessment given subsequent events.  If your information is accurate that is.

What is "obviously erroneous"?   What "subsequent events"?

[Dill]

(05-15-2018, 02:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You say this assuming there are moderates of any consequence in Iran's government.  I have seen little evidence of this.

With what consequences?  Iran has publicly stated they don't want nuclear weapons.  Should the world tolerate a lying theocratic regime, apparently eager to use nuclear weapons (remember the discussion about Al Quds day that you tucked tail and ran from?) with nuclear weapons?  As I said earlier, a nuclear N. Korea is far more palatable than a jihad driven theocratic extremist government.  Iran has a rather simple choice, forego nuclear weapons or risk ceasing to exist.  Their positions allow for very little middle ground.

2013    Iran Moderate Wins Presidency by a Large Margin
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/world/middleeast/iran-election.html

TEHRAN — In a striking repudiation of the ultraconservatives who wield power in Iran, voters here overwhelmingly elected a mild-mannered cleric who advocates greater personal freedoms and a more conciliatory approach to the world.
.....................................................

It was the election of Hassan Rouhani which opened the way to negotiations with the US. 

And his success in signing the Iran deal won him re-election in 2017.  (A detailed account of the internal politics of Iran, the moderates fight to negotiate the deal against hardliners, can be found in Trita Parsi's Losing an Enemy, pp. 174-216.  https://www.amazon.com/Losing-Enemy-Obama-Triumph-Diplomacy/dp/0300218168.)

2017 Iran doubles down on moderate President Rouhani, who wins 2nd term by wide margin
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-iran-presidential-election-results-20170520-story.html

Iran's moderate President Hassan Rouhani trounced a hard-line challenger to secure re-election Saturday, saying his country seeks peace and friendship as it pursues a "path of coexistence and interaction with the world."

Friday's election was widely seen as a referendum on the 68-year-old cleric's push for greater freedom at home and outreach to the wider world, which culminated in the completion of a landmark 2015 nuclear deal that hard-liners initially opposed....

Although considered a moderate by Iranian standards, Rouhani was the favorite pick for those seeking more liberal reforms in the conservative Islamic Republic.

He appeared to embrace a more reform-minded role during the campaign as he openly criticized hard-liners and Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard, a paramilitary force involved in the war in Syria and the fight against the Islamic State group in neighboring Iraq.

That gave hope to his supporters, who during recent campaign rallies called for the release of two reformist leaders of the 2009 Green Movement who remain under house arrest. The two figures, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi, both endorsed Rouhani, as did Mohammad Khatami, another reformist who served as Iran's president from 1997 to 2005.

Cliff Kupchan, chairman of the Eurasia Group, said the landslide win gives Rouhani a mandate he lacked in his first term.

"Though he'll remain a centrist, Rouhani will be more aggressive in pursuing reforms," he predicted, though he cautioned the path would not be easy.

"Rouhani will continue to face an uphill climb on political reform; the hard liners will dig in around education and other issues," he wrote. "But working with a centrist parliament, he will begin to ease the political darkness that followed the 2009 election."
..................................................................
That is what I meant by moderates "gaining credibility" before Khameini and turning back hardliners. Unlike North Korea, Iran has a large middle class with interests in the outside world. Millions, like Rouhani himself, have traveled and lived in the West. They want to normalize relations with the rest of the world. And so they are a threat to revolutionary government. Strengthening them was also a foreign policy goal.  In addition, there are some 5 million Iranians living abroad who "lobby" from abroad as well.

The Iran deal thus empowered Rouhani and his backers against the hardliners. He may still survive if he can preserve a deal with the other signatories.

If he cannot, then many, including Khameini, will likely view this reformist experiment as a failure and return to the hardline, as has the US. The neo con goal of war with Iran, Israeli's enemy, is now a realistic possibility.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2018, 08:09 PM)Dill Wrote: What is "obviously erroneous"?   What "subsequent events"?

This statement is so obvious I'm literally not going to explain it.

(05-15-2018, 08:10 PM)Dill Wrote:
2013    Iran Moderate Wins Presidency by a Large Margin
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/world/middleeast/iran-election.html

TEHRAN — In a striking repudiation of the ultraconservatives who wield power in Iran, voters here overwhelmingly elected a mild-mannered cleric who advocates greater personal freedoms and a more conciliatory approach to the world.
.....................................................

It was the election of Hassan Rouhani which opened the way to negotiations with the US. 

It all makes sense to me now.  Your thinking that Rouhani is a moderate goes a long way towards explaining your militant defense of islamic encouraged atrocities.

[Dill]

(05-16-2018, 12:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This statement is so obvious I'm literally not going to explain it.

It all makes sense to me now.  Your thinking that Rouhani is a moderate goes a long way towards explaining your militant defense of islamic encouraged atrocities.

Firing blanks again. And talking to yourself. You cannot respond to my points.

And of course, you cannot offer an example of my "militant defense of islamic encouraged atrocities."
Something to remember the next time you accuse others of "lying" and distorting your words and "turning tail."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-16-2018, 01:51 AM)Dill Wrote: Firing blanks again. And talking to yourself. You cannot respond to my points.

I did respond.  You think there are moderates of consequence in Iran's government, I believe otherwise.  

Quote:And of course, you cannot offer an example of my "militant defense of islamic encouraged atrocities."

Please.  If someone points out the obvious, like muslim majority countries generally treat women like garbage, you lose your mind.

Quote:Something to remember the next time you accuse others of "lying" and distorting your words and "turning tail."

Haha, I notice you didn't attempt to defend your buddy in the thread in which he consistently lied and distorted the posts of others.  Which would indicate that you knew you couldn't.  I'll start treating your opinions on anything seriously when you start being intellectually consistent.  Don't bother responding with a denial, it would just be a waste of your time.

[GMDino]

(05-16-2018, 10:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You think there are moderates of consequence in Iran's government, I believe otherwise.  

Are the moderates the ones that do not want nuclear weapons?

(05-14-2018, 03:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We can debate the usefulness of the previous deal, but I don't think it could be said that it would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.  If they complied with every facet of the deal many of the conditions had a sunset clause.  At best the deal was delaying Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.  Odd, as they've publicly stated that they don't want them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/iran-we-do-not-want-nuclear-weapons/2012/04/12/gIQAjMNnDT_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.576b1071b01a

Why the need for a deal with Iran about developing something they state they don't even want?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-16-2018, 10:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: Are the moderates the ones that do not want nuclear weapons?

Only if lying makes one a moderate.

[GMDino]

(05-16-2018, 11:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Only if lying makes one a moderate.

So your citation of them "not wanting nuclear weapons" as part of your reasoning in supporting Trump ending the US participation in the Iran deal was you saying Iran lies.

Whew!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-16-2018, 11:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: So your citation of them "not wanting nuclear weapons" as part of your reasoning in supporting Trump ending the US participation in the Iran deal was you saying Iran lies.

Whew!

It hurts me to see you struggling like this. 

[GMDino]

(05-16-2018, 11:37 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It hurts me to see you struggling like this. 

I guess I just expected more clarity from the likes of you.

My bad.