WombRaider: A quip, but no real substance. Lay out for us all, just exactly what you would have done differently.
No, it's not a quip, but a statement that accurately describes those who think that this deal is a good idea. It isn't. It benefits Iran both in the short run and in the long run. That deal does not do away with the underlying philosophy that runs that country. They will cheat on that deal, and do what they intended to do anyway.
Their ruling elite see us as no different from being animals. Any agreement that they enter with non-Muslims is breakable as soon as it no longer benefits them. They don't care about mutually benefiting agreements.
This will come around to bite us in the azz, like the Carter administration's failure to support the Shaw of Iran against people that were clearly radical Islamists. These radicals wanted nothing more than the destruction United States and other non-Muslim countries.
WombRaider: So what would you have done differently?
First, keep the current sanctions in place.
Second, suspended further talks with Iran until they complied with the requirements needed for such talks.
If points one, and two, don't bear fruit, and if you truly did not want Iran to get a nuclear bomb, the next two points apply:
Third, conduct military rehearsals designed to drop MOABs on suspected Iranian nuclear facilities.
Fourth, come up with a strategy for punishing Iran, in a way that destabilizes their national military and weakens the Iranian government relative to the Iranian people.
WombRaider: Is twiddle hi thumbs one of the games you swishy walkers play down at the dumpster when it's slow?
A look at the history of our presidents and their actions will show you that it's the Democrat administrations that twiddled their thumbs when it came to geostrategic issues. Kennedy twiddled his thumbs, and fumbled the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Both, the United States Navy and the invaders rehearsed together for such invasion. When the actual invasion got underway, the invaders pulverized the Cuban Army, pushed them almost to the other side of Cuba.
All that was needed, were a few Navy fighter jets, flying in their Combat Air Patrol positions, to fly in and take out Cuban airpower, as well as Cuban armor. That was all that was needed.
Kennedy, at the last minute, refused to give the order for the Navy to do just that. This is exactly what led to the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The last comment, of their commander, was a question asking the US how "they could do that" to them.
The Soviet Union knew about plans to invade Cuba, and saw Kennedy's refusal to order the invasion as weakness. This gave Nikita Khrushchev the green light to deploy nuclear missiles to Cuba. He thought that we would be too weak to do anything about it.
This brought about the Cuban missile crisis. Which, when all was said and done, and the Soviets pulled their missiles out, left the United States at a greater disadvantage than before.
Kennedy, together with his successor, inefficiently conducted the opening years of the Vietnam War.
I could keep going on, but one can look at our own history to see that it's the Democrats, up to the current crop of Democrats, that twiddled their thumbs.
Speaking of "dumpsters." You liberals/progressives spew so much crap on this and other threads, that one has to wonder if you guys are letting these providers take a dump right in your mouths.
WombRaider: Maybe, just maybe, we could have let Iran take Sodamn out, saved us some lives in the process.
Ummm, they had their shot. Go back and review the Iraq Iran war. The Arab/Middle East militaries leave much to be desired. During the Iraq Iran war, both sides showed a military that was used to being a "force in Garrison." Neither side operated like a competent standing military.
Had the Iranians taken Sad-man out, the sectarian violence that happened in Iraq after the US invasion would have paled compared to what would've actually happened had the Iranians did what you proposed.
Their military would not have been able to hold ground there the way the US-led coalition was able to. This would've led to a failed state, like Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Again, it's Saudi Arabia that's the real counterbalance to Iran. They would not have tolerated the Iranians setting up a puppet government in neighboring Iraq. We would've had a more destabilized Middle East. This, in turn, would've led to greater geostrategic, and geopolitical, problems for the United States.
It would not have saved us more lives, as intervention from professional Western militaries would've been required to prevent the crisis that would've resulted.
WombRaider: You're using revisionist history and have no idea what really would have happened.
Wrong. Your side of the argument is using revisionist history. If you guys knew the facts as they happened in history, you guys would not be advancing your drivel on this thread or others.
The statement, on what would've happened, is very close to the truth and is consistent with what has actually happened with other countries. Had we not intervened with Iraq, had the Israelis not intervened, we would have two nuclear powers to deal with, with neither side being our friend.
Sadman was Sunni, the Iranians are predominantly Shiite. No, he would not have sit there and twiddled his thumbs while his natural adversary, their neighbor, develop nuclear weapons. He would've rushed to do the same thing.
WombRaider: Anything could have transpired.
Yes, they could've done things like, you know, truly and honestly became friends with Israel. They could've embraced Western-style democracies, and allowed women full rights.
Now, we could sit here and argue about what could've happened, look what transpired. However, we don't do this blindfolded. We do this based on their own histories, and what they have the propensity to do.
When the Israelis successfully developed nuclear weapons, it was only natural that countries in that area would also want to do the same thing. Again, the radical Islamists want to get rid of Israel. How could you successfully do that when the country that you want to get rid of is now armed with nuclear weapons?
Saddam tried to develop nuclear weapons, the Israelis took out his nuclear facility. He had every intention of reconstituting all of his WMD programs when the inspections were over. It was no secret that Saddam hosted radical terrorist conventions, and that he had made "death to America" speeches during these conventions.
The trend, of what would've happened, is consistent to the projections that lustylad made.
WombRaider: There's no guess what a fucking nut will do when cornered.
According to those within Saddam's inner circle, the man had every intention to having a fully functional WMD program. This included having a nuclear program. Given that Iran was Saddam's adversary, it would not take a genius to figure out what he would've done had the Iranians detonated a nuclear bomb.
The United States may be the "Great Satan." However, the radical elite in charge of Iran had many "minor Satans." Israel was one of them, the Sunni dominated Islamic countries were the others. Whatever military advantage that Iran strives for, it has as much to do with overpowering its adversaries in the region is a does with regards to poking our eye.
WombRaider: And I won't thank W for a goddamn thing, mission accomplished cocksucker.
That's because you're intoxicated with the liberal/progressive Kool-Aid.
First, that "Mission Accomplished" sign was a message from the ship, not from President Bush. In fact, if you pay attention to the speech that he actually made, while on the deck of the aircraft carrier, you would've noticed that he actually declared major combat operations over.
Nowhere, in his speech, that he declare that all combat operations were over. Nowhere, in that speech, does he declare minor combat operations over. In fact, he indicated that this war was still going on, and that it was still dangerous.
He even laid out the conditions needed for US forces to eventually pullout. That's precisely what we did.
George Bush's ordered invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq set up a checkerboard pattern, in the heart of the Middle East, of countries in various states of democracy. A look at the Middle East would see Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Jordan, in strategic locations throughout the Middle East.
Considering that the majority of people, who happened to be liberal/progressive, tend to be ignorant about global geography, it's not surprising that you people did not see that.
That checkerboard pattern of democracies is the real "meat and potatoes" of our strategy for dealing with radical Islam. It's what would create the conditions that would contribute to the Arab Spring happening.
So yes, you owe George Bush some thanks. You owe Obama a lot of scorn.
WombRaider: And how exactly do you get a more verifiable deal with a people you don't trust?
By refusing to move forward with the negotiations until the conditions, that we desire, are met. We did not have to come up with a deal that fell short of that.
One that does not give the Iranians plenty of time to drag their feet. One that gives an American-led inspection team full access anywhere in Iran unannounced. One that requires full, 100% cooperation with the inspection teams with no leeway given in case the Iranians are trying to hide something.
This is just a scratch in the surface, there are other requirements that would lead to a more verifiable deal with the Iranians. One that would give us a warm and fuzzy that progress is being made regardless of how little we trust them.
WombRaider: Facts?
I've yet to see your side of the argument advance facts relative to this argument.
WombRaider: Yes, because that's what conjecture passes for around here, I guess. None of this is factual. It's all conjecture, nothing more. That you think it's fact is fucking hilarious.
Don't dismiss facts, or a valid argument, as "conjecture." You, and those on your side of the argument, advance inductive fallacies, and emotions, as "fact," while dismissing actual facts, that harm your arguments, as something other than the facts.
WombRaider: How exactly did Lusty Tard hand anything to me?
Your side of the argument, including you, is getting its ass handed to them. You not wanting to see that is natural, as your pride paints a picture of your performance, as well as that of your allies, in rose terms. The reality is that you guys consistently lose your credibility the longer you people keep arguing a losing debate.
WombRaider: He said the sanctions didn't work in another thread, now he's in here saying they did, but only on the 'non-nuclear' part of the economy, whatever the fuck that is. Never seen that definition in an economic breakdown before, but I guess we're making shit up as we go.
No, they didn't work with regards to halting their nuclear production to date.
However, they were having an adverse impact on the rest of the Iranian economy. Money is required to fund the nuclear program. The government gains tax revenue from collecting taxes on people and businesses. Instead of much of that money returning to the general economy via tax rebates, a good percent of it was being spent on the nuclear program.
This is a problem that they wouldn't have to face if they didn't have sanctions on them. The sanctions cut off the money that otherwise would get pumped into their economy. With less money, they have to get money to continue their nuclear program. They had to do that by "robbing one to pay for another."
If that still confuses you, study the long term impacts of sanctions on North Korea and its economy. This goes beyond the Dork of NORK's walking around obese in the backdrop of a starving population.
WombRaider: They make promises and then they go on state television and tell their people how weak the deal is for us and how great it is for them. What would you expect them to say? Obama and the administration go on American TV and say it's strong for us. It's how geopolitics works. We got the best deal we were ever going to get.
In this case, only one of them came close to reality. Unfortunately for Obama and his minions, the Iranian side came closer to reality. Obama has no credibility with critical thinking people.
When we say that the United States negotiated from the position of weakness, and that the deal was great for the Iranians, we're saying that based on the facts. We're not basing that on what the Iranians said.
Negotiating to get the best deal that we could ever get, just to get an agreement, when the best deal that we could get is a serious disadvantage to us while being an advantage to the Iranians, is piss poor policy.
We could continue to sanction them, forcing them to cripple their own economy with their continuing to pursue a nuclear program, instead. We could tell them to take their "best deal we could get" and shove it somewhere the sun doesn't shine.
In this case, the best deal that we could get is an embarrassment and puts us at a disadvantage.
WombRaider: This is barely readable.
I understood everything that she said. It was well communicated, and well-written. It's obvious that she handed you your hind end in that exchange. Your statement suggests that even you know that. I guarantee you that if she were to say something extensively, in support of your argument, you'd clearly understand what she said.
WombRaider: You are like all republicans. You don't defer to those who are experts in the field.
First, don't mistake our following the facts as our refusing to defer to experts in the field.
Harold Brown was part of an incompetent administration. That administration saw our influence decrease and influence of our adversaries expand. We lost ground under the Carter administration, and our military hollowed out.
The policies that he pursued did not work. History has proven that their policies do not work.
Harold Brown, together with the rest of the ministration was a part of, showed a serious lack of understanding of how the real world work. Expecting us to believe what he says is like expecting someone to believe another person who was consistently wrong, or who has consistently exercised poor judgment.
Second, those of us posting on this thread, who are veterans of either the Gulf War or the Iraq War, don't see you guys deferring to our expertise about the Iraq war, the Gulf War, or any related issues in a debate involving those wars.
Until your side of the argument does that, you have no legs accusing us of refusing to defer to those who are experts in their field.
WombRaider: You don't trust science and I've explained why before, but it has to do with religion and how you can't believe science and believe your religion at the same time, so instead of tossing out the one with the talking snake and the 7-day creation, you decide to toss out the one that came up with gravity and astrophysics
It's my trust in science, and my desire to follow the facts, that put me on the side against the man-made global warming theory. You liberals argue that there is a "consensus" among the scientists that "man-made global warming" is "real," quotation marks used strongly.
The cold hard reality is that the science does not support it. In fact, global warming ended before the end of the last century.
In fact, a scientist that contributed to one of the earlier UN climate reports, came out and actually stated that there was no consensus among the scientists. The scientists created papers, and turned it into a committee that wrote the final report. The report was based heavily on climate models, and not a natural scientific data.
Consequently, there predictions for temperature rise in the future becomes increasingly wrong with each passing year.
Both science and history indicate that we are in the beginning of a mini ice age, with the possibility of a mega Ice Age during this eminent solar grand minima. So far, papers written in 2009, correlating the influence of the gas giant planets on the sun, and solar sunspot activities, have proven accurate about which way solar activity, and the climate, has gone today.
Yes, we conservatives embrace science. What we refuse to embrace is the pseudoscience that supports you people's liberal causes.
Obama is clinging to plans to deal with a non-existing climate threat. I've tracked global weather since 2007. Ever since I started tracking weather, average global temperatures have been declining.
Someone showed a picture of industrial exhaust from a plant. If people bothered to study the breakdown of such omissions, they would find that carbon monoxide, as well as sulfate oxides and nitrate oxides form the dominant elements, along with other pollutants.
Yet, CO2, a naturally occurring element, is put to blame. Again, actual science would indicate that you would have to blame one of the actual dominant pollutants. Yet, a naturally occurring gas is blamed for "man-made" global warming when science contradicts that assumption.
If you don't see the propaganda and that, then you're the one that is against science. When you people pull the "science" card, it's only when you think it support your argument. However, when the science doesn't support it, you people dismiss that science.
WombRaider: You lot will never cease to amaze me. Even when something is proven, you don't believe it. You are so wrapped up in your own belief system that you must deny all incoming information. It's fascinating.
You do realize that this is an accurate description of you, and those on your side of the argument, do you? Like the others on your side of the argument, you tend to deflect your own traits onto us.
Let's face it, none of the things that you've, and your allies, have argued on this thread, constitutes "fact" or the "smoking gun evidence" supporting the arguments that you guys made. All you guys have done as is to advance inductive fallacy, emotion, and erroneous arguments.
You guys embrace an opinion as fact, then attack those who refuse to take that opinion as fact.
Those arguing on my side of the argument have advanced a reasoned, fact-based, logical argument against you guys. Yet, when confronted with the facts, you guys set up stress shields and dismiss those facts as opinions or something equivalent.
You are exactly as you describe us. Pot, meet kettle.
WombRaider: Are you ok with us selling military gear to Israel, so they can use it to attack the Palestinian people? It's all bullshit anyway.
Yes, I'm okay with selling military gear to Israel so that they can protect themselves from Hamas and the radical Palestinian elements that insists on attacking Israel. Anybody that thinks that Israel is engaging in unprovoked attacks on the Palestinians is gullible to propaganda.
Keep in mind that when these radicals talk about "occupied territories," they're not thinking about these territories in the same sense that we are. When they talk about "occupied territories," they're talking about ALL of Israel.
So, the next time you hear the radical elements of the Palestinian population, or Hamas, talk about freeing the occupied territories, they're saying it with their terms, and not ours. They're talking about eliminating the Israeli state, and replacing it with an Islamic ruled Palestine.
No, I'm not making it up, I'm basing that on their own statements and videos.
WombRaider: So the palestinians don't have the right to defend their homes?
Not if they're going to use those homes as a means to commit crimes/terrorism.
WombRaider: ISIS has repurposed thousands of our weapons and vehicles and are now using them.
Thanks to Obama's refusal to accommodate the US military obtaining the SOFA needed to keep enough troops there to do both, maintenance training and to shore up Iraq's ability to project its military throughout the country and to conduct sustained combat operations on the ground.
Had a Republican won the White House in 2008, we would have such an agreement allowing for the military to continue with the mission beyond December 31, 2011. ISIS would never have made it past the Syria/Iraq border into Iraq had the military been allowed to do that.
You can blame that on Obama, and the Democrat propensity to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.
WombRaider: ISIS has thousands of our weapons and vehicles and they are currently using them.
Because Obama failed to exercise the right policies to support the United States military's ability to remain beyond December 31, 2011, to maintain the gains made with regards to the Iraqi military, and to shore up their ability to project their power and conduct sustained combat operations on land.
This is history repeating itself in Iraq that happened in Vietnam, when the Democrats decided to defund South Vietnam. When the North overran the South, thanks to Democrat incompetency, the North Vietnamese were able to use American issued weapons and vehicles originally in possession of the South Vietnamese.
Yep, leave it to the Democrats to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory, and cause our enemies to use the weapons we gave our allies against those very allies. Obama, and those who voted for him, have "blood on their hands".
WombRaider: Goddammit, you really have to stop. I'm agreeing with you way more than I'm comfortable with
Yes, you get your praise, but he also gets dismantled like the rest of you.
WombRaider: You're ok creating jobs by selling arms to terrorists?
That question is based on an erroneous argument made. Asking that question is like asking someone if they're okay with the slaughter of unicorns by those wanting to harvest their horns. Both this, and your statement, have the same amount of "validity."
WombRaider: It's a yes or no question. I know you don't like those.
Until your side of the argument answers my yes/no questions, on other threads, truthfully, factually, without adding their BS, nobody on your side of the argument has a leg to stand on demanding that your questions be answered.
WombRaider: Obama is US, you fucking dumbass. When you blame him, you are blaming US.
Wrong, Obama is NOT us, not by a long shot. He does not represent me, nor anybody else in the country with a brain and the ability to utilize critical thinking.
When we blame him, we're blaming him, and the brain-dead idiots that voted for him, not the United States. He is the one that made the disastrous decisions that led to the conditions that we are dealing with in the Middle East today. He is the one that made the disastrous decisions that has led to the United States losing credibility since he first took office.
I'm sorry but having to read commentary, over 8 years of President Bush's presidency, of people wanting to blame him for everything under the sun, don't expect our side of the argument to do for your guy what your side of the argument refused to do for our guy.
If you want us to do otherwise, then you people need to lead by example. Until then, enjoy the karma.
WombRaider: And how is Obama at fault for a fucking gutless Iraqi Army?
Although the Iraqi government tried to get more out of a potential deal than what it knew they could get, they ultimately came around to agreeing to our requirements when it came to a SOFA agreement.
I combat deployed to Iraq when it was still called Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Iraqi army was competent, and had taken the lead in security throughout the majority of the country. However, their combat support, and combat service support, needed to be developed.
The United States military work toward getting a SOFA agreement so that thousands of US military personnel could remain behind to provide this training. We did this for Japan, Germany, South Korea, the Philippines, etc. Historically, it would have made sense for us to remain in Iraq and to continue to develop the Iraqi military.
As the negotiations progressed, and it became evident that the Iraqis were willing to go by our terms, Obama raised the bar. He did so until it was impossible to come up with such an agreement. Consequently, he had set the Iraqis up for failure before the US pulled out of Iraq in 2011.
While we were there, we gave our ambassador some teeth when dealing with Malaki, who wanted to do some of his stupid crap when we were there, but couldn't. Our ambassador kept him in check.
Al Malaki already knew the answer to the question, "Oh yeah, you and what Army?" He knew that the Iraqi military would side with us in a disagreement with him.
Without the US military there? Our ambassador couldn't stop him from doing the stupid crap he started to do after the US left.
No matter which way you look at this, you have Obama to blame for the situation that currently exists in Iraq.
WombRaider: You want more of our men dying in the sand over there for absolutely nothing?
I'm one of those men that you speak about. I'm an Iraq war veteran. I have news for you. You DON'T speak for us, nor do you speak for any of our fallen comrades. I will gladly go back to Iraq, as part of a combat deployment, to fight against ISIS.
No, this wasn't for "absolutely nothing," quotation marks used strongly. I explained the situation, earlier, on why we had to go into Iraq. It was on Obama to continue the correct policies needed to facilitate the spinoffs of what we did over there.
The Arab Spring was one of those spinoffs. When Obama interacted with the situation, he sided with the wrong people, like with the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Iranian regime, against those who truly wanted democracy. In other areas, he failed to act in time to capitalize the Arab spring in our favor.
George Bush did the right thing, Obama reversed the progress that we made over there. He is either incompetent and has absolutely no clue about what he's doing, or he is fully competent and is deliberately weakening the United States and its allies.
WombRaider: You want to continue the fucking war that your man Bush started.
What, exactly, is going on there right now? All Obama should've done was support the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and capitalize on the Arab spring, and most of these wars would've been over.
But, he didn't. His goals are not aligned with that of the United States, or its allies. Hence, his policies leading to the continuation of most of these wars.
WombRaider: We wouldn't even BE in that shithole if it weren't for Shrubya.
The realities of global asymmetrical warfare forced our hand with needing to invade Iraq.
WombRaider: Don't forget that shit,
What people should not forget is that we are still at war, that this war is asymmetrical in nature, and is not restricted to a geographic area. Unfortunately, it was the libtards/demotards that forgot this fact. The conservatives know this fact, and understand what's needed to deal with this asymmetrical threat.
WombRaider: Goddamn you're stupid.
That's the impression I get when reading your side of the arguments posts.
WombRaider: Why do you assume anyone trusts them?
In order to believe that the Iranians would do the things that your side of the argument say they will do with regards disagreement, one has to trust that the Iranians will do what they claim they will do. One has to trust that the Iranians will not cheat the agreement.
The argument that the Iranians would "lose" one material or another, or that they would not be able to create the bomb until later, requires trust that the Iranians would not cheat the agreement.
Your side of the argument would not argue that the Iranians would do one thing or another, consistent with the agreement, if you guys did not trust him.
WombRaider: You act as if we had a chance at getting a better deal and there's no evidence for that.
Walking away and not getting a deal, is better than the one that the Obama administration got. We could've also refused to deviate from our previous stance from the previous decade, and remain in an impasse. But, no. Obama had to get a deal, any deal, so that he could thaw relationships with the regime that will never be our true friend as long as the current elite is in charge.
WombRaider: In 1993 ... That was over 20 years ago.
Actually, 1993 was 22 years ago, with some parts being 21 years and some change, not 20.
WombRaider: What ISN'T a threat to our interests in the region?
This isn't an argument about how much, or how little, from that region is a threat or not a threat. The fact of the matter is that their ruling elite is no friend to the United States, and will continue to be adversaries/enemies no matter how good a deal we give them.
WombRaider: These are military men. All they know is war.
As such, they can see conditions that could lead to war, and argue for policies that prevent it. Keep in mind that war does not just include the front lines, but combat support, combat service support, as well as support from the front lines all away back to the rear detachments in the United States.
Please take a look at the logistic standpoint. All the knowledge of the nuclear physicists looking at the deal, and assuming that the Iranians are trustworthy enough to abide by the agreement, are "fish out of the water" when it comes to the actual logistics of preventing the Iranian from having the materials they need to create a nuclear weapon.
From the actual text of the agreement, both Europeans and Americans are required to lift nuclear related sanctions previously imposed on Iran. Now, how, pray tell, is that going to prevent the Iranian from getting nuclear weapons? It isn't.
We're essentially giving them the rounds they need to "shoot us" with. Couple this with their developing missile technology, you know, like how the North Koreans did in the face of a similar agreement made by the Clinton administration.
Doing what the libtards/demotards want us to do with regards to this agreement actually facilitates war. The retired admirals and generals can see a situation that increases the risk of war. When they make a recommendation to not support this agreement, they are doing so with the view of not increasing the risk of war.
WombRaider: They are in favor of the path that leads to war.
If they were in favor of the path that leads to war, they would be supporting the agreement and siding with the Democrats. Why? The agreement facilitates Iran getting into a nuclear weapon, it does not prohibit it from getting one. It does so by allowing Iran to have all sorts of money and resources with the assumption that the Iranians would live up to their side of the agreement.
WombRaider: The deal is going to pass. It's over. Repubs don't have the numbers. They need 67 and they're having trouble getting 60.
They should vote against it anyway, and send it to the White House to get vetoed. Then, they should attempt to override the veto. Even though it may not be successful, they will have gone on record, and forced the Democrats to go on record, with regards to who supported the deal and who didn't.
Like the deal that we had with North Korea, this deal will not prevent Iran from detonating a nuclear bomb in the near future. When that happens, the Republicans can use that event against the Democrats. Also, the American public would have yet another example of Democrat incompetency.
WombRaider: We have constant satellite monitoring of these sites and other areas. They take pictures and compare them to see what changes, if any, have been made.
No, satellite monitoring is not constant. It happens when the satellite passes over the area. Also, in order to have constant satellite monitoring of the sites, you need more than one satellite to focus on each of the sites. That is, to focus on each of the known sites. Not only that, the satellites need to remain in geo-stationary orbit.
When the satellites orbit around the earth, they are not able to observe these sites until they come back into view.
But, what if the satellites were geo-stationary? Even then, if any activity happens beyond the known sites, the satellites would more than likely not catch on to it. From normal view, you are not observe anything going on. You have to actually focus the satellites to be able to see a small area in more detail.
Meaning, if the Iranian's wanted to construct something else, the satellites more than likely not catch on to it.
WombRaider: They can see new construction, vehicles moving, any changes indicating an effort to build something new.
Our satellites do not have the capability to do what you think they could do. Let's say a satellite, designed to do what you argue, is overlooking an entire country, like Iran. It won't detect specific details happening on the surface. You would have to focus the satellite to look at a smaller area of the country in order to get more detail.
However, you need to know where to look. If you don't know where to look, you can't focus a satellite on the area that you need to focus on to verify whether new activities are taking place elsewhere are not.
A good example of what I'm talking about is Google Earth. If you look closely at the map, when you pull up Google Earth, you'd notice that the photo is not constant. The photo, of the area that you're looking at, is a collection of multiple photos taken during different times of the day, and different days of the week.
I've seen where one patch will be in broad daylight while the next patch over would be in the darkness of night. I've seen where one patch was cloudy, and the adjacent patch was clear. The reason to why this is the case is that you can't get a snapshot, of details on the ground, with a single view of an entire country from a satellite.
You have to focus that satellite to a specific area in order to zoom in. Again, you need to know where to look.
WombRaider: Hell, they did this in WW2 with airplanes and we could tell where installations were, you think we can't do better now with satellites and computers? Jesus Christ.
Those airplanes flew lower, and were able to catch more detail from their position. A satellite, on the other hand, is orbiting above the earth. They have a different vantage point, and they must be focused to specific area on the ground in order for it to do the same thing. Unfortunately, focusing it into one area takes attention away from the other areas.
WombRaider: How do you propose they could turn off our satellites, miles above the earth?
What he actually said:
"One way was they turned off the monitoring cameras." -- gnadfly
Stay with me now, pay attention, FOCUS! The monitoring cameras that he was talking about are those that are installed at the sites. He was not talking about satellites. In fact, you don't need to worry about the satellites above the earth, as they orbit around the earth. The Earth's horizon naturally "blocks the view" as the satellite slips beneath the horizon.
WombRaider: He doesn't care about facts or circumstances.
Wrong, the side that does not care about facts or circumstances is your side of the argument. I have yet to see you guys advance any real facts to defend your positions. I see that coming from the conservative side of the argument.
WombRaider: He has made up his mind that it's a bad deal because Obama is involved,
He sees it as a bad deal from a historical standpoint, like that agreement that the Clinton administration negotiated with North Korea to prevent them from detonating a nuclear bomb.
A reading of the actual agreement does not show an "airtight" deal that would prevent the Iranians from developing a nuclear bomb.
Also, your side of the argument opposed the Iraq war simply because it was a Bush initiative. You people have no leg to stand on accusing someone of disagreeing with something simply because Obama was involved with it.
Obama has consistently shown that his initiatives are the wrong thing for this country. He's maintaining that track record of incompetency. Or, he knows exactly what he's doing and he's persistently destroying the United States and its allies in favor of their adversaries.
WombRaider: nothing else needs to be said in his mind. He's a fucking mental midget.
This is the exact impression that I get when reading your posts, as well as that made by those in your side of the agreement. Again, he's disagreeing with the deal for logical reasons, not just because of Obama's involvement.
WombRaider: Don't waste your time.
Do as you preach.
WombRaider: He doesn't understand how Iran could hate ISIS just as much as we do.
The Iranians don't like them for religious reasons. They are a Sunni group as opposed to Iran being predominantly Shiite. Now, had ISIS been Shiite, and Iraq and Syria had been mostly Sunni, there'd be an excellent chance that the Iranians would've been supporting ISIS instead.
That's a far different cry from why we hate ISIS. We do so based on humanitarian reasons, that is not the reason to why the Iranian don't like them.
WombRaider: And this spells out the republitard problem. Instead of blaming the core group that actually brought about the fucking war, they choose to try and equivocate by mentioning dems that voted for it. There would have been nothing to vote on if it weren't for your idiots in the first place. you can't be that stupid.
Wrong. You demotards/libtards fail to identify the real problem, or even to recognize a real solution to the actual threat that this country faces. Unfortunately, you people don't understand the real threat that this country faces, let alone how to address this threat.
We didn't bring the war about, we reacted to one that had been waged against us, and against Western Civilization, long before we reacted to this war by fighting back.
You Dummycraps/libtards get wrapped around the axel in condemning a necessary act simply because it was an initiative of a man that you people hate. When you guys do that, we smack you people around with the facts that even your golden people voted to authorize this war.
There would be nothing to vote on had there been no real threat to our long term existence in the face of the ongoing war to exterminate Western Civilization and to establish global radical Islamic law.
WombRaider: To build a new facility would require activity that satellites will pick up. What part of that don't you understand?
Again, you need to know where to look in order to effectively use these satellites to verify that illegal activity is taking place.
If you don't know where to look, you're not going to focus a satellite to that specific area. Again, a satellite monitoring an entire country isn't going to pick everything up. There won't be enough ground detail to detect extra crap going on.
Now, if you focus on a small selected area, then zoom in, you'd be able to find detail. You won't catch that detail when the satellite is "looking" at an entire country.
WombRaider: We can read a license plate on a car from 400 miles up. You don't think we can see them building an entirely new complex? Get real.
Yes, they can do that, at the expense of being able to see everything else in that country. If you're focused on looking at the entire country, you're going to get very little detail of what's happening on the surface. Look at those time lapse videos from the space station to envision what I'm talking about.
Now, you have to know where to focus the cameras to get that detailed look at what's happening on the ground. You won't get license plate details by looking at the entire country. If you don't know where the suspicious activity is happening, you're not going to focus the satellite on that specific area.
If we don't know where they're building a new complex, we're not going to know where to focus the satellite. One thing for sure, trying to look at it when the satellite is focused on the whole country won't reveal anything other than a mostly featureless terrain broken up by large urban centers.
Someone needs to get real, and it's not the opposition. You need to get real about our satellites' actual capabilities, and to quit thinking that they operate exactly how they operate in the movies.
WTF: Whether you are against it or not , the no vote will not survive a veto from Obama.
And that's key. The Republicans need to vote it down, forcing the worst president in modern history to veto it.
Why would this be a good strategy?
The reason is that the Iranians have absolutely no intention of living up to their end of the agreement. This agreement will backfire against us, and the rest of the world, and is something that could be easily pinned on the Incompetent in Chief.
The Republicans need to force that on him. Any Democrat that sides with Obama, who runs for a new term next year, should have this hung on them.
WTF: I will say this....you dumb fucks who supported the Iraq War sure didn't care about Iran's power enhancement that war provided!
Wrong, the Iraq war did not enhance Iran's power in the region. Keep in mind that the Sunni Iraqi was a minority in Iraq. The real counterbalance to Iran is Saudi Arabia, majority Sunni population.
If anything, the Iraq war opened up another semi-democratic country on the flank of Iran. On one side of Iran, you have Afghanistan becoming a democracy. On the other side of Iran, Iraqi democracy was developing. Developing democracies in both Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the unrest that happened in Iran, these were unrest demanding democracy.
These Iranian pro-democracy demonstrations got more and more "uncontrollable." Obama cut them off at the knees, just like what he did later during the Arab spring.
Iraq, under Saddam, was no friend of the United States. However, during the Iraq war, we had a US military presence adjacent to Iran. In fact, we had a US military presence on countries flanking Iran.
The only dumb fucks in this equation are those that opposed the Iraq war. You people are useful idiots arguing the exact same thing that the enemies of America argued. Yes, you useful idiots opposed the Iraq war, and our military action there. Guess what? So did the very people that are engaging in raping, pillaging, torture, murder, engaging in willful destruction of heritage sites, etc.
The very people that want to see the destruction of America agree with you. The difference?
You guys willingly voiced their propaganda on US soil, free from harm. That was something that our enemies in the Middle East did not have the convenience of. You useful idiots were part of our enemies' war plan. You people are cut from the same cloth as the people that politically lost the Vietnam War.
You people's opposition to the Iraq war encouraged our enemies to keep fighting the US military. It was your opposition that encouraged them, and kept them going when they otherwise would've given up earlier. They were hoping that you useful idiots would get your way. You know, like how your counterparts during the Vietnam War enabled our enemies there to keep fighting despite getting their azzes handed to them in the battlefield.
So, do keep voicing the same opinion that Al Qaeda, ISIS, and others like them voice. They didn't want the war either, they didn't want us there before, because our presence prevented them from accomplishing the goals of establishing Global Islamic law. You useful idiots' opposition to the war facilitates our enemies in accomplishing their ultimate global objectives.
WTF: Even the current PM of Israel...
Who happened to be OUTSPOKEN. This implies that a majority were in favor of the Iraq invasion. We're talking about Israel. I don't blame them. Sad man funded a lot of the terrorist activities that took place against Israel. I don't know if you been to Israel or not, but I've been there numerous times. Some parts of the country could easily be crossed by road, from East to West.
Meaning, an enemy deploying a conventional force against Israel could theoretically take control of an entire section effectively "splitting" Israel. Given that, and other realities, one can't blame the Israelis for taking the defense posture that they have, and for their being in a perpetual state of war.
Israel is extremely vulnerable, they take their defense seriously. Removing Saddam as a threat helped boost Israel's relative security. Had the Incompetent in Chief capitalized on events that took place in the Middle East, in the form the Arab spring, in a way that the Republicans would've done, the Middle East would be much more stable now.
Iran, and their current ruling elites, would be more vulnerable to democratic movements within Iran. Hence, why the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an act of brilliance, not of stupidity.
WTF: Another huge thing is Obama was against the Iraq War.
Which is one of the reasons to why I saw, before he became president, that he was going to be incompetent in strategic matters. What I foresaw ended up becoming reality. This speaks volumes for the fact that his previous track record became an accurate forecaster of how he would ultimately turn out as president.
One of two things as possible. Either he's incompetent, and has absolutely no clue about what he's doing when it comes to being a Commander-in-Chief, or, he's deliberately weakening our position, weakening our allies, and strengthening our enemies. His pre-presidential track record supports both.
His actions favored the radical Islamists. That speaks volumes. This ties in to the trends that he set in the past, trends that the Republicans pointed out. Trends that should've mattered during Pres. Obama's first run for president. We are paying the price now.
WTF: Think about that never...
You just gave him a reason to why he argued his position against the incompetent/worst president in modern history.
WTF: Think about how Vietnam went and how it has come along with trade and diplomacy.
Yes, do think about how Vietnam turned out. The United States military destroyed the North Vietnamese military when it came to engagements in the battlefield. They did not win the minor battles that they did one without applying an overwhelming huge number advantage over the US military forces that they attacked. Even then, they lost more via death and injury than the American side.
During the majority of the minor battles, and all of the major battles, the United States military crushed their Vietnamese counterparts.
Now, why is it that people talk about how we "lost" Vietnam? The answer simple. People like you, who opposed the Vietnam War, enabled the enemy to continue to fight against the US forces. This is exactly what our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan wanted to apply against US forces in those countries.
Our enemies understand that in order to defeat America, they had to erode the American electorate's will to fight.
There was even one point when the Vietnamese were ready to surrender, unconditionally, if only United States stopped the bombings. Unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress was hell-bent on defunding US efforts in Vietnam. This limited the Republican president from delivering on the threat he insinuated to the North Vietnamese if they double crossed us.
The United States pulled out the last of its combat forces from Vietnam in 1973. It was up to the South Vietnamese to continue the war against the North. All the United States had to do was to keep funding the South Vietnamese. What did the Democrat-controlled Congress do instead? They defunded the South Vietnamese, assuring victory for the North.
In their museum, dedicated to the "heroes" of the Vietnam War, the communist Vietnamese dedicate exhibits to the antiwar people in United States.
Your counterparts that voiced similar opinions that you're voicing now, against the Vietnam War, as well as the Democrats in Congress, won the Vietnam War for the Vietnamese, and they did so on American streets and in the halls of Congress.
Now, if the Republicans and the military got their way, we would have a different situation in Vietnam. We would've had an Asian tiger, an economic powerhouse, with South Vietnam. Instead, we have a regime that engages in human rights violations constantly.
Yes, they made economic progress; however, they'd be a major economic powerhouse, one of the Asian Tigers, had the Democrats not been on the wrong side.
WTF: Iran will be like that ...
Not with the radical Islamic regime that they have. There is a reason to why the greatest economies, the most stable countries in the world, happen to be countries with governments that allow the people to control what goes on in the economy.
You do not have that with the radical Islamic ruling elite with Iran. As long as that radical delete is in charge, and calling shots for the "elected" officials to carry out, you're not going to see with Iran what you saw with Germany and Japan.
Now, you'd see that with Iraq and Afghanistan, as we set both countries up for the kind of success, had you guys not gotten your way.
WTF: they want stability in the region as much as we do if not more.
You're making the mistake of assuming that their thinking over there the way we think over here. The ruling elite in Iran does not want stability in the same sense that we want it. They are funding terrorism in the Middle East, attempting to destabilize governments not supportive, or aligned, with Iran.
There have been demonstrations, on the Arabian Peninsula, against the antics that the Iranians engaged in over there. As long as we have these radical Islamic elites in charge in Iran, Israel's existence is always under threat. They will not support stability in the region as long as Israel is there. They would not support stability in the region if it means not having puppet governments.
WTF: Common sense is not our RWW loons strong suit.
Don't mistake you people's emotional rants, that massage you people's egos, as "common sense." Your side of the argument on this thread, as well as on other threads, are deficient when it comes to facts, reason, logic, and common sense.
WTF: That is hyperbole and a lie to boot.
His actions speaks volumes. When Obama demonizes policeman doing their work, and doing so on a vehicle of racism, he fans the flames. A lot of his actions are indicative of him playing to his base. Hence, that was neither hyperbole nor a "lie."
WTF: Jackie the invasion of Iraq has empowered Iran.
No it hasn't. Our invasion of Iraq actually did the opposite. It did not empower Iran, it placed them with an added disadvantage. During the Iraq war, we had US forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We had US forces, on the ground, flanking Iran in addition to US forces in the Persian Gulf.
You're also forgetting that the real counterbalance to Iran is Saudi Arabia.
The "elected government" in Iraq does not call the shots. The real people that call the shots, who actually rule Iran, are the radical elites that run the country. There the radical Islamists the support terrorism throughout the region.
Having both Iraq and Afghanistan as fledgling democracies put pressure on the Iranian government. Iranian people, stuck between this, made moves toward more democracy. That was a natural reaction to having neighbors, on either side, progressing with their democratic development.
Again, your fearless leader cut the wind from their sails.
WTF: If you actually study Iran they are a very advanced society for the region. We were partnered with them as was Israel pre 1979.
They have been an advance society for thousands of years. Under the Shah, they were moving in the right direction, and were our real allies. That is where most of their economic and technological development took place.
Thanks to your boy Carter, we lost that ally to radical Islamists who currently control the country. The Shah had his faults, but they pale compared to those displayed by the radical Islamists in charge of Iran right now. Those radical Islamists also want nothing more than the destruction of Israel and the movement toward their manifest destiny, global radical Islamic law.
WTF: Don't fall for the evil monster.
The only people that are falling for the evil monster are the people on your side of the argument, including you. What's really noticeable is that you guys don't see that you support the evil monster.
WTF: We did the same with Japan, Vietnam, Russia and we now do business with all.
The Vietnamese and Russians may have a different philosophy from us when it comes to human rights, and self-governance. However, they're nothing like the Iranians. The Russians and Vietnamese are cultural cousins of ours. Neither side believes in glorifying death, for the sake of glorifying death, in order to spread an oppressive ideology on a global scale, and to live in paradise in the afterlife as a result.
The Iranians are ruled by radical Islamists. They don't just want Israel eliminated, they want all non-Islamic governments eliminated, and for global radical Islamic law to be established. When they call us the "Great Satan," they are not just insulting us.
They are being serious, and are accurately identifying us as the "head" of the "beast" that prevents the Islamic Nation from extending radical Islamic law throughout the world.
WTF: It is in both our and Iran's interest to partner up in the region...
No, not when they have the current radical Islamic elite running the country. As long as they have that arrangement, the Iranians will never be a friends. They will always be our enemies. They are entering this agreement only for their benefit, and they have every intention of cheating that agreement.
It gives them more resources than they need to support terrorism in that region and around the world. The Iranian's, under their ruling elite, are no different from ISIS when it comes to whether they would serve our interests or not.
WTF: they no more want the spread of radicalism than we do.
FALSE! The Iranian people want what they saw in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade. Unfortunately, the elected people don't have any real power in Iran. That lies with the radical Islamic elite that actually runs Iran.
WTF: Think about this....the exact same folks that brought you the invasion of Iraq are the ones opposed to this deal.
There's no comparison to the justification for going into Iraq, and the aftermath, and what you are yapping about with regards to Iran. Contrary to popular misconception, the military won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory. In addition to that, the Iraqis were making progress.
President Obama's lack of real strategy on the strategic level, and his piss poor judgment, reversed that.
Regardless of which way we go with regards to this agreement, the fact of the matter remains that Iran is ran by a radical Islamic ruling elite that hates us. They don't intend to follow the agreement in good faith.
The only way this would've been comparable to Iraq is if we had let Saddam, and his infrastructure, remain in place while we placed faith in the useless inspections.
The biggest losers out of the deal are the rest of the world, and the Iranian people.
The Iraq war strengthened our overall security, that trend would've remained had we elected a competent commander-in-chief. This deal, with Iran, actually weakens us in the long run.
WTF: Link to the Supreme Leader chanting death to America
http://nypost.com/2015/03/23/irans-s...nuclear-talks/
Iran's supreme leader rallied his country to endorse the ongoing nuclear negotiations with the US -- while at the same time shouting, "Death to America!" along with the unruly crowd.
Where have you been? This has been a constant comment from their supreme leader. He has even been gloating, as if his team had just won. When it comes to these negotiations, we can say that the Iranians won.
WTF: Now it can not be proven but if you think Reagan was the reason the hostages were freed....
Actually, that can be proven. The Iranians saw Carter for what he was, a weak leader. After they took over embassy, they continued to thumb their noses at us. This included holding the embassy staff for as long as they did.
Now, according to the testimony of one of these hostages, one of the Iranian captors thought that it was neat that an "actor" won the White House. They had turned to one of the hostages and asked, what would that Reagan do if Iran continued to hold onto the hostages? The response? The hostage said, "Boom, boom, boom!"
Then, we have Ronald Reagan's inaugural address that he gave in 1981.
"As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever." -- Ronald Reagan
Also from the same speech:
"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors." -- Ronald Reagan
And this, also from the same speech:
"We're told that on his body was found a diary. On the flyleaf under the heading, 'My Pledge,' he had written these words: 'America must win this war. Therefore I will work, I will save, I will sacrifice, I will endure, I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the issue of the whole struggle depended on me alone.'
"The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God's help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us." -- Ronald Reagan
Yep, the Iranians realized that America elected someone with balls of steel. The radicals in control of that country, to their credit, recognize a strong leader, and subsequently realized that the game had changed.
WTF: do you find it a tad suspect that he sold arms to them afterwards?
No, the two are not related.
First, the Communist sympathizers, the Democrats in Congress, disapproved funds from going to the Contras, fighting against a Soviet/Cuban puppet regime that was set up. During Jimmy Carter's years, our adversaries made advances in our own backyard as well as in other parts of the world.
That had to be reversed. The Democrats, always passing laws that aided our adversaries and put us at a disadvantage, decided to defund our efforts to push those advances back.
Second, the original deal called for the Israelis to sell those weapons to the Iranians. These are weapons that we had sold to the Israelis a long time before. In exchange, the US provided the Israelis with more updated weapons, and the Israelis funneled the money back in our direction. Then, that money went into funding the Contras.
It wasn't until later that they decided to work directly with the Iranians.
That had to be done. If only we could've circumvented the appeasing Democrats, controlling Congress, when they defunded South Vietnam after the US forces pulled out...
The Iran/Contra affair pales in comparison to Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and other Odumba strategic blunders.
WTF: I bet you are against opening up Cuba too.
Yes, I was opposed to that too. Both Republican and Democrat administrations imposed conditions on Cuba since Fidel Castro took over. Those conditions had to be met before fully establishing normalized relationships between the two countries.
Those conditions were not met, that did not stop Odumba from opening relationships anyway. Now, the Cuban government can continue with the very things we do not want them to do, this time rewarded the benefits of thawed relationship with the US.
Like with the deal with Iran, this one contributed to the loss of our credibility as a country. You people are demonstrably, and provably, clueless when it comes to foreign policy and national defense. You guys are also clueless when it comes to how the economy works.
WTF: If the SOB thinks Iraq was a good idea ....i would not trust him with my money, you're welcome to trust him with yours.
Love to break this out to you. I'm an Iraq war veteran. The majority of the Iraq war veterans will argue that Iraq was a good idea, for similar reasons that I've explained on this and other threads.
Now, what's the difference between those who combat deployed to Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and you? Well, one major difference is that they were there, you weren't. They were privy to the facts that you will never be privy to.
Iraq War Veterans have more credibility in an argument about the Iraq war then people like you, and those on your side of the argument on this thread, we never combat deployed there.
So, what you are saying is that you don't trust the subject matter experts simply because they disagree with you.
Me?
Anybody that argues that the Iraq war was a mistake is clueless about what's going on in the world on a geostrategic level. Any Republican candidate for president, that argues that they would not invade Iraq in 2003 knowing what they know now, would NOT get my vote.
Why?
Any Republican that argues your argument, as well as that advanced by those on your side the argument here, is not qualified to be commander-in-chief. In fact, any presidential candidate, regardless of what party they are from, that disagrees now with the Iraq war, for the justification for going in, will not get my vote.
WTF: Like i said , the folks that were convinced that Iraq was the problem after 9/11 when in fact most of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia would of course think this is a bad idea!
No, the majority of the conservatives saw Iraq, under Sadman, as PART of the overall asymmetrical warfare threat against the US. The invasion of Iraq was the logical next step in the War on Terror, for the reasons that I mentioned on this thread, as well as on other threads.
These same conservatives want to continue to apply the sanctions on Iran that were on that country prior to the deal. Removing those sanctions allows Iran more money to continue doing what it intends to do. The safeguards allowed for in the agreement are weak and insufficient when it comes to verifying that they are "dismantling" their nuclear program.
We conservatives oppose making the same mistakes Clinton made with regards to North Korea.
Removing these sanctions, and allowing Iran more leeway with lifting these sanctions effectively ends our ability to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuke. As with North Korea, we increase the risk that the very things that this deal is supposed to prevent ends up becoming a reality.
WTF: Oh and lustyladyboy never replied to Reagan selling Iran weapons right after the hostage crisis!
You mean, like how you've never answered any of my yes/no questions, that I've asked you on this message board, per the parameters that I set? Until you answer my yes/no questions per the parameters that I set, you don't have a leg to stand on gloating about others not addressing your statements.
WTF: You do realize that the sanctions Obama put into place..
On top of sanctions that his predecessors put in place. These previous sanctions were having a negative effect. Without these previous sanctions, Obama's sanctions by themselves wouldn't have created the conditions that existed in Iran as a result of the previous sanctions.
WTF: .remember the Obama administration put them in place were done so to get Iran to the table.
Not true. Obama reached out to the Iranians in order to start the process going to improve ties with them, without the conditions that were in place for such an agreement by his predecessors. He was willing to negotiate from a position of weakness in order to make that overall objective possible.
The Iranians went to the table as they saw this for what it was, a colossal deal for them at our expense.
Obama didn't "force" them to the negotiating table, he enticed them to the table.
WTF: So the sanctions worked...
The Iranians were "robing one program to pay for another" as a result of the sanctions. The sanctions didn't force them to the negotiating table to negotiate close to our terms than their terms. Obama enticed them to the negotiating table, then kept them there via negotiating from a position of weakness.
WTF: you just do not like the deal.
Anybody that has a clue about current events, surrounding the Middle East to include Iran, wouldn't like the deal.
WTF: And let me tell you a little something, the adults at the table have made it so that grandstanding Republicans will not be able to torpedo it.
Don't mistake the appeasing Democrats as the "adults at the table." They're the spoiled brats that are willing to destroy America to get what they want.
The Democrats have historically been against what truly makes America great. Starting in the 1930s, the Soviet Union ran a propaganda campaign in the US that involved infiltrating communist sympathizers in institutions of opinion influence.
Part of this campaign was to infiltrate both the Republican and Democratic parties. They failed miserably with trying to hijack the Republican Party. They succeeded, beyond their wildest dreams, with infiltrating, hijacking, and influencing the direction of the Democratic Party.
Appeasing and accommodating America's adversaries had been a natural trait of the Democratic party. Soviet infiltration efforts worked to amplify that to the point to where we actually had Democrat presidential candidates argue for unilateral nuclear disarmament.
The Soviet Union may be long gone, but their work with the Democratic Party still works wonders, with them siding in favor of our adversaries and against us.
These Democrats supporting Obama aren't doing so to America's advantage. They're doing so to our adversaries, in this case Iran's, advantage.
That deal needs to be torpedoed. It's to Iran's advantage at our expense. Unfortunately, we have too many useful idiots among the Democrats for this to be torpedoed. So, the Republicans need to vote to disapprove the deal, and force Obama into vetoing it. Then, they should attempt to override the veto. Whether they succeed or not doesn't matter.
When the Iranian's shit on the deal, and detonate their first nuclear device, the Republicans can hang that on the shoulder of those democrats in future elections. The voting record would exist that'd make it hard for these Dummycraps to blame Bush or the Republicans.
Oh yeah, the Republicans aren't grandstanding. They're advancing valid argument against that being advanced by the useful idiot Democrats.
WTF: lustyladyboy does not understand that those sanctions got Iran to the table...which was their purpose!
No, the sanctions by themselves did not force Iran to the table. It was Obama's efforts, to restore ties with Iran, as well as their immense knowledge of Obama's weakness, and the opportunity to negotiate from an advantage, that lured them back to the negotiating table.
For the Iranians, it was a "dream come true" to negotiate a deal that they wanted when Odumba's predecessors refused to negotiate to Iran's advantage.
Had it not been for the Odumba administration's efforts at appeasement, the Iranians would've continued to work on their nuclear program, regardless of the adverse impacts the sanctions were having inside Iran, regardless of what the sanctions were doing, and regardless of this agreement.
WTF: Folks with their mentality never wanted to do business with Japan and Germany after WWII...
Not true. Both were under coalition control during the immediate years following WWII. Both underwent reconstruction, and the changeover of leadership. Both immediately became "friendly" to the United States and its allies. Part of the recovery, for these countries, required economic involvement. Recovery in both locations were rough, and not what Americans today think.
WTF: they did not want to open trade with Vietnam,
It had everything to do with the prerequisites required before we open up trade with any country. That has everything to do with placing mechanisms in place requiring a country to move closer towards democracy.
WTF: now it is Cuba and Iran that are the boggie men we can't do business with.
And we shouldn't given the criteria for both countries to move towards democracy. There is no comparison to postwar Europe and Japan, and today's Cuba and Iran.
WTF: These folks want perpetual war,
Don't mistake our refusing to give up our advantage, relative to these countries, when it comes requiring them to meet certain conditions before we do the things that Odumba went about doing anyway, as our wanting perpetual war.
If anything, we lost credibility under Odumba, because of his moves to open up relationships with Iran and Cuba, as well as the piss poor judgment he has exercised on a strategic level.
Obama has set up the conditions, even facilitated them, for a major war to break out in the future.
WTF: they want to then cut taxes
It has been proven that allowing the people to keep more of their money has positive effects for the economy. The rich and super rich are the economic engine of the country. The more money they keep, the more they invest in the economy provided that they trust the economy has conditions that facilitate them making more money.
That's a proven fact. We also argue, at the same time, that the government cuts down its spending and defer a lot of its actions to the free market economy.
WTF: and bitch about the resulting deficit!
That results from non-justifiable spending beyond "cash inflows" into the U.S. Treasury. The deficit the resulted at the turn of the millennium was necessary. The continued spending, beyond our means, that occurred starting when the Democrats took control of Congress, was not necessary.
WTF: It is a continuous loop!
Yes, a continuous loop if you guys keep drinking the Kool-Aid force-fed to you by the propaganda machine. That, followed by us consistently fact checking your arguments.
WTF: What specifically do you not like about the deal? Side question , do you like the fact that we are opening trade with Cuba.
Until you answer the yes/no questions I've asked you elsewhere on this message board, per the parameters that I've set surrounding those questions, you don't have a leg to stand on demanding that other people answer your questions.
Also, instead of demanding that the other side presents specifics about what they do not like about the deal, how about providing specifics about what you like about the deal?
WTF: Short memories...
Yes, you guys have short memories. Otherwise, you people would've called out the BS of your propaganda masters. The bigger problem, with you guys, is that you guys are susceptible to propaganda.
WTF: you fuckers memory of history would have us believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11
Nobody, on the conservative side of the argument, insists that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. However, you will find that our argument is centered on the fact that Iraq, under Saddam, was an asymmetrical threat to the United States. Iraq, under Saddam, had to be invaded.
We make that argument based on the fact that we have better understanding of how to deal with the geostrategic threats against the United States. You people are provincial in your news outlook, are easily susceptible to propaganda, and thus easily miss important clues that would give you guys a credible standing in this debate.
WTF: and that the occupation was a success!
I combat deployed to Iraq, as an infantryman, during the last year that combat troops operated in Iraq. The agreement, hammered out by the Bush administration, and Iraqi government, required all combat troops to be out of Iraq by the summer 2010. My unit and I redeployed to the United States before that deadline.
We originally were going to do so weeks, even days, before the deadline. But, we came home earlier.
Why?
I was in the ground. I saw, with my own eyes, that we were well ahead of the strategic plans that the United States had for Iraq. We won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory. Our success with such, that the Iraqi people would honk at us in appreciation while we were doing our combat patrols.
The Iraqis hated the insurgency, or, rather, the Anti-Iraqi Force. The Iraqi economy was improving so fast that you could see evidence of new construction all over our AO. The Iraqis were on their way to rapidly progressing economically, politically, and militarily.
I know that for a fact, as I've seen it firsthand. We succeeded, in Iraq, starting from the invasion and all away up to the last US military units pulling out.
Now, it was up to Odumba to facilitate the military's being able to negotiate an extension beyond December 31, 2011. Our reliefs, that took over our role, were combat support, and combat service support. They had the important task of improving Iraq's ability to provide the services to their troops.
This is important if the Iraqis were to be able to deploy/project their forces anywhere in Iraq to conduct sustained combat operations on land.
In order to make that possible beyond the end of the Iraq war, we needed approximately 30,000 US troops to remain behind to continue working with the Iraqis. In order for that to happen, they needed a SOFA. Although the Iraqis initially advanced out-of-whack requirements, when it became evident that they were not going to get it, they were willing to give us what we wanted with regards to SOFA.
This, would've been one where the US got what it wanted. Odumba refused, and the progress made in Iraq ended up deteriorating. This led to ISIS rolling back the Iraqi army. Something that would not have happened had Odumba supported the US military, and had the US military been able to do what it wanted to do after December 2011.
If you disagree with what I just said, remember, I was there. You weren't. I'm arguing from first-hand experience against you arguing via regurgitated biased information.
WTF: I guess Vietnam was a success.
When it came to the battlefield, the United States military won with a smashing success. The United States military won every major battle in Vietnam, including the Tet Offensive. Simply read the results of the majority of the battles that took place between the Vietnamese and Americans. Even in many instances, when the Americans were outnumbered, the Americans won and caused the Vietnamese to suffer greater casualties.
The Vietnamese military, and militia, knew that they would not be able to take on United States military. We proved that over and over again.
Consequently, they relied on wearing down the will of the American people. Guess who encouraged them on? That's right, your counterparts that advanced your similar arguments against the Vietnam War. In fact, Communist Vietnam dedicated a good section of their victory Museum to the antiwar people in United States.
They knew that all they had to do was hang on, and take the beating long enough, until those who opposed the Vietnam War successfully pressured the US government to pull the troops out.
Thanks to a Republican president, we forced the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table. This facilitated our ability to pull last US military units out of Vietnam in March 29, 1973. Guess when the fall of Saigon happened? That's right, in April 30, 1975.
You could thank the Democrat-controlled Congress for that. All they had to do was to keep funding the South. South Vietnam, with US military advisor support, would have successfully held off the North Vietnamese.
It's historically provable that you could trust Democrats to turn victory into defeat.
Heck, if we listened to the Democrats in the North, during the Civil War, we would not have the United States the way it exists today, but two countries instead.
WTF: If you were Japanese you'd think WWII was going great but the liberal Japs surrendered to fucking early!
No comparison to Iraq or Vietnam. Where was the antiwar movement in the United States during World War II? One thing for sure, if they existed, they did not exist in large enough numbers to encourage our enemies to keep fighting.
WTF: There is nothing more ridiculous in this country than chicken hawks screaming for war
I've combat deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom twice. I'm less than two years away from being able to say that I have "a quarter of century" of military service under my belt.
Most of the awards and decorations I have earned, and are displayed on the left side of my ASU, above my left pocket, were earned as a result of military expeditionary deployments as well as combat deployments. Spare me your "chicken hawk" comments.
When I argue in favor of boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria, as well as having military action in reserve for an errant Iran, I'm doing so because I understand human nature from that area and what needs to be done to get them to listen.
The ruling elites in Iran, as well as the terrorists that are running amok in the Middle East, have no respect for us. They see us no different than they see an animal. What we say, or do, has no real meaning to them, unless we display strength in a way that even they start taking twice about what they do.
Right now, they see weakness coming from us. They only understand strength. This is why Qaddafi came clean with his WMD, and started working with us when it came to stomping out terrorists. He saw what happened to Saddam, and knew that that could be him in the future.
Even the Iranians temporarily halted their nuclear/WMD program in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion.
I guarantee you that if we were to deploy in mass against ISIS, and they were to taste their first full-scale battle against us, that their days would be numbered. It would not be long before we had them running, but not before we dropped thousands of their fighters as dead bodies.
I know this for fact, because I get a good laugh at what they consider as "combat tactics," as seen in their videos.
If they were to see their own mortality, while experiencing direct combat against US ground forces, they would run and their efforts will collapse.
I'm arguing this from reality and from understanding the mentality of that area. This is something you've demonstrated little understanding for. Especially with your assumption about what Iran wants.
WTF: and yet crying about the deficit and high taxes!
The deficits that Obama caused where deficits gained as a result of idiotic spending and idiotic economic policies. How, pray tell, could you spike/jump to near trillion dollar deficits each year? Yes, a lot of wasteful spending that makes the last two years of Bush's excessive spending look fiscally conservative in comparison.
As for taxes, it has historically been proven that allowing the people to keep more of their money benefits the economy in the long run. Likewise, the opposite where more money is taken from the people has an adverse impact on the economy.
This economy would've done better, during the last six years, had smart economic policies been implemented. Given the Democrat leadership, that's just a pipe dream.
WTF: So you think the only reason Iran has not wiped all their enemies off the face of the planet is because they do not have enough money?
That's not what she is saying. Nowhere in there is she arguing that Iran intends to wipe out all of their enemies. What she's alluding to is the fact that the Iranians are behind a lot of the radical terrorism that is going on in Middle East.
The sanctions have squeezed their ability to fund more of those activities as they would like. But lifting the sanctions, and with Iran getting money back, they now have the flexibility to spend more money on terrorism initiatives throughout the Middle East.
This is a fact communicated, symbolically, in this video that came up after the agreement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp3v5Gmu1MU
WTF: That is a ridiculous answer. First off , it is their money. Second your example has no bearing...to the actual facts.
No, it's not a ridiculous answer, but an analogy that accurately captures what's going on at a strategic level. It's no secret that the radicals in charge of Iran want to eliminate Israel. They also want nothing more than the destruction the United States.
This is encapsulated by the constant ranting, of their supreme leader, of death to America.
We froze their assets for a reason. We owed them nothing unless they met the conditions that they needed to meet the conditions imposed on them by successions of administrations from either party. But, Odumba set the conditions up that requires the west to hand Iran the resources it needs to ramp up its game.
There's a reason to why the Israelis, and their leaders, are up in arms about this agreement. They have every right to be, just look at the video. The video is not a joke.
WTF: If i owe a million to a billionaire...my million will not be the factor of him attacking and killing me.
Your counter analogy does not capture the complete picture that we are facing with Iran. Your analogy assumes that the remainder of the money that the billionaire has isn't obligated. In order for it to match the analogy that Cherie advance to you, and to the real world, add into the analogy the fact that the billionaire has that money tied up, frozen, with his inability to get additional money.
In this case, he cannot raise the resources he needs to take you out. However, that million that you owe him ends up being a solution.
WTF: Do you attack people AFTER they pay you back?
You need to answer her question per the parameters that she is implying. This is not about paying people back in general. This is about paying back, money you owe, to people who do not have the money to spend to take you out. But, the money that you paid back, ends up being the extra capital that they need to take you out.
WTF: Try and use some common sense...
She did use common sense, and logic. Her analogy came very close to capturing the reality that we are dealing with. You're angry at her for daring to force you to see the facts, as we see it, using a logic-based analogy.
WTF: not talking points.
Like the rest of us, she is advancing an argument that she came up to on her own, without anybody telling her what to think.
You guys, on the other hand, are regurgitating liberal/progressive talking points force-fed to you guys by your propaganda masters.
WTF: Likewise, three dozen retired American generals and admirals released a joint letter declaring the deal "the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons."
Compared to a couple hundred admirals and generals who oppose the deal. Closely sponded by generating a joint letter accurately pointing out why the deal is not effective and bodes ill for our long-term security. They did so in response to your three dozen admirals and generals:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...-deal-n2044995
But wait, there's more! Concerned Veterans for America forwarded a video featuring a veteran that was attacked/injured by an Iranian provided bomb in Iraq. It's like I said, the majority of the veterans, and military community, voice an argument very consistent with what I've been voicing on this and other threads.
WTF: The great majority of arms experts support the deal, some enthusiastically, some grudgingly. They recognize shortcomings, but, on balance, as 29 of America's leading nuclear scientists and arms experts wrote in an open letter last week, it has "much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework."
Weapons proliferation experts have found additional weakness in the Iran deal. For instance, the weakness of the argument about "re-imposing" of sanctions if Iran cheated on the deal. Unfortunately, this re-imposition of the sanctions is not automatic, and comes at the end of what would be a "due process" that favors Iran. Unfortunately, before the sanctions can be implemented, the parties have to work it out first.
And, get this. When these talks begin, a 30 day counter begins before sanctions are re-imposed. There is another process that starts with a 15 day counter, followed by another 15 day counter for the second process, followed by another 15 day counter for third process.
In short, what the others have said about this re-imposition. It would not have the teeth that previous sanctions had.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ex...rticle/2568715
WTF: Where is Cherie? I thought she was going to break down why this is such a bad deal and give us a better option!
I did that for her. The better option was to not come up with the deal at all. The next best option was to drop MOABs on their nuclear facilities before they could develop a weapon, or to support Israel's move to bomb Iran's facilities.
Also, she specifically stated that you had to act like a grown-up in response to her for her to continue replying to you. You failed to do that, and just as she stated, she stopped replying to you.
I, on the other hand, actually get more encouraged to respond to you guys when you resort to playground tactics.
WTF: I'm a misogynist because Cherie is ignorant in the world of Politics?
Wrong, as usual. I read her replies to you, and found that she is well informed about what she was talking about. In fact, she has a better grasp about what's going on in the world, as well as world politics, then your side of the argument does.
I found that you hold a completely misguided view about what's going on in the world, to include geostrategic and geopolitical issues. Not only did you demonstrate your ignorance in your replies to her, you resorted to playground tactics knowing full well that would stop her from hammering you.
Of course, we both know that your antics don't work with me.
WTF: DSK, if you post dumbass comparisons like this you get slammed by me, no matter your race or sex.
No, your modus operandi is to stomp your feet, and resort to playground tactics of name-calling, as well as pulling strawmen arguments and advancing inductive fallacies, when someone confronts you with the facts, and logical analogies.
You slammed nobody. The only slamming I see, between you and the opposition, is you getting slammed down hard.
WTF: Great story but not relevant...unless you think Iran can sink the United States Of America.
That story is very relevant to the argument regarding Iran. You, and others on your side of the argument, assume that the Iranians are going to play nice, do what the agreement requires, and contribute to the greater good.
The cold hard reality is different. The ruling elite in Iran has made no mistake about their desires for the destruction of the United States and Israel. They sponsor and fund terrorism in the Middle East. Iran's ruling elite are radical Islamists, who believe in the manifest destiny of converting the entire world to their version of radical Islam.
You people are looking at this as if they think in Western terms. They don't. They don't think in your terms. They see this as a war, and this agreement as a tool to help them along in that war. This agreement will eventually bite the West in the azz. Hence, gfejunkie's analogy is fully applicable to the situation.
WTF: Yes I do and unlike you , I even understand what was written.
No, you have problems understanding what is said/written when the information does not support your argument.
WTF quoting opinion: It would be a catastrophe for American influence in the world if Congress killed the Iranian nuclear deal.
Wrong, going through with the deal is what would be catastrophic to American influence in the world. The deal represents us going back from our previous hard stance. This basically takes the wind out of any further "threats" that the US makes to errant groups.
WTF: We no longer need their stinking oil.
If this were about oil, we would have invaded Venezuela. The vast majority of the oil that the United States uses comes from sources originating in North America. This makes sense, considering that it's far more economically efficient to pipe oil in rather than to ship it in from overseas.
WTF: So Iran was actually seeking nuclear material in 2003 and we invaded Iraq!
Correction, the Iranians temporarily STOPED their nuclear program right after we invaded Iraq. Heck, Libya decided to play quits in the WMD department around the same time. It's like I said, these countries, under radical Islamic regimes, only understand force. They tend to laugh at any efforts of diplomacy.
Our invasion of Iraq turned the Middle East into a checkerboard pattern of countries in different economic developments/dates. That was to be more effective than the invasions themselves.
Anybody that understood the geostrategic/asymmetric environment that we found ourselves in wood know that the invasion of Iraq was a logical next step in the war and terror.
WTF: Let me get this straight Saudi Arabia was where most of the terrorist were from,
Quit seeing this as if they think like westerners, and try to see it from their perspective. Their radical elements don't recognize "national boundaries." In their minds, the entire region, dominated by Islam, is the "Islamic Nation."
Hence, those terrorists coming from Saudi Arabia is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that we had a whole bunch of radical Islamists getting together to carry out a terrorist attack... against the "House of War" as a process to bring it into the "House of Islam.
WTF: Iraq who had no WMD's,
Wrong. Sarin, Mustard, and Blister agents, all chemical agents, hence, WMD, were used post invasion against the US, coalition, and Iraqi forces. They were used throughout the Iraq War.
The mere fact that Sarin, Mustard, and Blister agents existed, and were used against our forces, is proof that WMDs were in Iraq, and that Iraq HAD weapons of mass destruction, as we've argued.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...l-weapons.html
WTF: was a counterweight to Iran
You mean, the same Iran that kicked it's azz during their war until Operation Praying Mantis took their advantage away and they had to pursue peace?
Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, was the real counterweight to Iran.
WTF: who was actually seeking WMD's
Until the US invaded Iraq, then the Iranians temporarily stopped doing so for fear that they could be next.
WTF: and Bush decided to go to war with Iraq?
Going into Iraq was the logical next step in the War on Terror, or, rather, America's reaction to the ongoing terrorist war to exterminate Western Civilization and to establish radical Islamic Law throughout the world.
WTF: This deal was inevitable due to the influence Iran gained due to the invasion of Iraq.
Wrong. Odumba had every intention to thaw relations with the Iranian government. This deal is just an incentive toward that end. Iran did not gain influence as a result of our invasion of Iraq. Just ask the ruling elite how they felt when the Iranian population rose up and did pro-democracy demonstrations. Not much of an "influence gain" when these pro-democracy demonstrations get bolder and bolder each time they happened.
WTF: Anybody who has read the tea leafs knew Iraq's PM cut a deal with Iran to run us out of Iraq with that agreement Bush signed.
Anybody with critical thinking abilities, especially those who have boots on the ground experience in Iraq, know for fact otherwise. Iraq's PM wanted to play his stupid games, and initially wanted to make it hard for US forces to stay.
But, as the deadline approached, even he saw that premature withdrawal of US forces was not a good idea. It all boiled down to him understanding that he remained in power, comfortably in power, because US forces supporting Iraqi forces maintained stability in Iraq.
Even he came around to the idea of giving us an agreement on our terms. It was Odumba that lifted the bar to impossible levels, ensuring that we did not get the agreement we needed to continue the work that we started during the Iraq War.
WTF: We now need to actually work with Iran to try and stabilize the region.
Wrong, not when they are in the current state they are in. The main reason to why they oppose ISIS is that the Iranians are predominantly Shiite. ISIS is predominantly Sunni. This is more of an interreligious conflict than it is the Iranians trying to establish stability.
The Iranians do not care for stability unless the political environment favors them.
WTF: Of course those that profit from war are not happy about any stability in the region...especially Israel, they see it as the USA not having to depend on them.
Wrong. The Israelis were willing to bend over backwards to get peace. They are more than willing to utilize diplomacy to get that. However, when the opposition refuses to accept Israel's right to exist, it's kind hard for them to stand down and not do what they've been doing.
Also, more money is made from stability than from consistently fueling conflict. A lot more money is made in a country where there's peace, stability, and economic development, then one where you are just simply providing arms to continue a conflict.
WTF: Ronald Reagan would have approved this deal!
Then you don't know who he was. He would NOT have approved that deal. He was no friend of the Iranians, with the current set up that they had in terms of the government. In fact, he would've been more involved with destabilizing Iran then he would be signing an agreement with them.
In fact, what he did in Central America would've been very similar to what he would've done with regards to the Arab Spring, and Iran.
WTF: North Korea has nukes!
Obtained shortly after the Clinton administration negotiated a similar deal with North Korea that the Obama administration did with the Iranians.
WTF: Really , Iran is in North America, threatening us?
If you're seeing this war in conventional terms, then you don't understand the argument surrounding Iran.
Their supreme leader has made "death to America" commentaries. He does not need to have a Navy to deploy to our shores to be a threat to our country. This deal makes them a greater asymmetrical threat to the United States than what they pose now. It would put them near the level that Iraq under Saddam was.
They're getting a nuclear weapon, which this deal would facilitate, would be a bad deal for our allies in the region.
Unlike the Chinese, the Russians, or even the DORK of NORK, the Iranians have a manifest destiny that involves the whole world. Again, their radical elements see themselves as part of a Muslim nation, at war with the Christian nation, which includes the United States and European countries.
The West stands in Iran's ruling elite's way of achieving regional hegemony in the short run, and its manifest destiny in the long run. Any alliances and cooperation it's engaging with as far as Russia and China are concerned, are only at the convenience of Iran.
You need to see this from an asymmetrical warfare standpoint, and not from the standpoint that you are arguing here. That's precisely the mentality that the West needs to display if the asymmetrical threat against it is to prevail.
WTF: By threatening us do you mean that we do not have total control of their government like we did pre 1980? ....when they were our ally.
No, by threatening, we mean the true intent of the radical elite, led by their supreme leader. Iran gaining the nuclear weapon would tip the balance of power in the Middle East when it comes to Arab/Muslim politics.
WTF: Right now stability in the region should be our goal. We have a common goal in that regard.
Iran's idea of stability is different from ours. Their concept of stability includes the complete elimination of the Israeli state. Their idea of stability includes a nation of Palestine, in the exact same area the rest of us see Israel.
They have released a video indicating their attention, more money for them to support terrorism against Israel, as well as against Iran's adversaries in the region. As long as they're going to support terrorism against Israel and others, you won't have stability in the region.
That's clearly different from what we have in mind as far stability in the region. Both the West, and Iran, have two different opinions as to what constitutes stability in the region.
WTF: The Iraq fuck up will take a long time to fix.
Iraq did not become a fuck up until Odumba dropped the ball at the end. Yes, if a real president takes over afterwards, that Odumba mess up will take a long time to fix. I know for fact that when I was there, Iraq was well on a path of rapid economic development.
WTF: This nation building Democracy in that region did not work, was never going to work and was Fool's Gold for you folks that still seem to think it was a good idea.
Wrong again. Democracy in the United States took a long time to take hold and be stable. George Washington understood that if we were to get involved with European affairs, our democracy and nation would not last. There was even periods when conflicts threatened our fledgling democracy.
Only a fool would think that any new democracy will, "overnight," become just like what we have right now. That's unrealistic, and not supported by history.
Again, I combat deployed to Iraq when the operation name was still Operation Iraqi Freedom. Yes, democracy was going strong when I was there. The normal people, John and Jane civilian there, were fanatics about this democracy. They had even gotten to the point toward where the Iraqi government was policing itself.
Along with this strong support, among the Iraqi populace, for democracy, they were involved with rapid economic development.
These are my observations based on when I combat deployed there. Had the military been able to continue that mission, with strengthening the Iraqi military as well as the Iraqi infrastructure, the Iraqis would be further along their progress today than they were when I was there.
Unfortunately, Odumba had other plans.
