Orange Duce

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-phot ... d=63076816
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pentago ... d=62968486

Well from you own citation, you'll see the proposed plan to send 120K Troops to the ME if Iran takes Trump's bait and either hits a US target, or shows signs of restarting the nuke plan that many here swears is happening there already.

End a treaty that according to our own Generals was working, pick a fight, send troops.

Isolationism?

It's not a proposed plan. It's a contingency plan. We have them for all sorts of scenarios, all over the globe.
We won't attack Iran if they restart nuc development, we'll keep squeezing them with sanctions.
The 120k number is what would be required if Iran starts an all out war. ...not likely. It's a signal to Iran.

The treaty wasn't working. Iran was destabilizing the entire region. IRGC proxies were shooting missiles into Israel & Saudi Arabia.
The sanctions are squeezing Iran. They're trying to scare us into backing off.

Sanctions don't work

[a fan]

A two year old could see that we're not going to back off on the sanctions now. We can't. We burnt the treaty. It's a "contingency plan" with a provoked outcome.

The treaty was never supposed to do anything that didn't have to do with nukes.

If we didn't want Iran to throw their weight around in the region, we should have F-ing thought of that before we took Saddam out, like a bunch of idiots. Again, a two year old could have seen that coming. If we took Iran out, Saddam would be doing the same thing.

Wanna take a guess as to who will start terrorizing the region if we take out Iran's leaders? Think that will fix the problems, or make things worse? I know where my vote goes on this.

Anyone who thought the treaty was bad think about that? Nope. It's always one move at time. And then act shocked when the cure is worse than the disease. "What? You mean provoking fights and more war didn't fix the problem? Noooo. That's un-possible. Because everything has been so super-swell since we decided to pick fights and send troops into this region".

Yep. Frustrated. Very frustrated. And this weekend, of all weekends, we hear the Trump admin. pulled the rug out on pending VA cases.

Sick of this. This isn't a game. And no, I'm not directing this at you, old salt.

[old salt]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-phot ... d=63076816
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pentago ... d=62968486

Well from you own citation, you'll see the proposed plan to send 120K Troops to the ME if Iran takes Trump's bait and either hits a US target, or shows signs of restarting the nuke plan that many here swears is happening there already.

End a treaty that according to our own Generals was working, pick a fight, send troops.

Isolationism?

It's not a proposed plan. It's a contingency plan. We have them for all sorts of scenarios, all over the globe.
We won't attack Iran if they restart nuc development, we'll keep squeezing them with sanctions.
The 120k number is what would be required if Iran starts an all out war. ...not likely. It's a signal to Iran.

The treaty wasn't working. Iran was destabilizing the entire region. IRGC proxies were shooting missiles into Israel & Saudi Arabia.
The sanctions are squeezing Iran. They're trying to scare us into backing off.

Sanctions don't work

They're not working against Russia. They are having an impact on N Korea, Venezuela & Iran

[old salt]

A two year old could see that we're not going to back off on the sanctions now. We can't. We burnt the treaty. It's a "contingency plan" with a provoked outcome. Kerry lead the nation to believe it included ballistic missiles until the final negotiatons. That's a big part of why it could not pass the Senate as a treaty.

The treaty was never supposed to do anything that didn't have to do with nukes.
That's why its just an Exec Agreement & not a binding treaty.

If we didn't want Iran to throw their weight around in the region, we should have F-ing thought of that before we took Saddam out, like a bunch of idiots. Again, a two year old could have seen that coming. If we took Iran out, Saddam would be doing the same thing.
Yeah. Well that was 16 years ago. As I point out everytime you bring it up, you could say the same thing about Desert Shield/Storm in '91. We don't get a do over. I have the same frustration with NATO expansion to Russia's border.

Wanna take a guess as to who will start terrorizing the region if we take out Iran's leaders? Think that will fix the problems, or make things worse? I know where my vote goes on this. No way to know. Regime change can't be assured. The goal is to get Iran to stop disrupting & threatening the rest of the region. Containment & deterrance, like with Russia & N Korea.

Anyone who thought the treaty was bad think about that? Nope. It's always one move at time. And then act shocked when the cure is worse than the disease. "What? You mean provoking fights and more war didn't fix the problem? Noooo. That's un-possible. Because everything has been so super-swell since we decided to pick fights and send troops into this region". The people who should be shocked are the fools who thought this non-treaty would survive the next (R) Presidency.

Yep. Frustrated. Very frustrated. And this weekend, of all weekends, we hear the Trump admin. pulled the rug out on pending VA cases.
I've yet to find anyone reporting or confirming that, other than this Wash Examiner Op-Ed :
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... plications
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1238245/pg1

Sick of this. This isn't a game. And no, I'm not directing this at you, old salt.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-phot ... d=63076816
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pentago ... d=62968486

Well from you own citation, you'll see the proposed plan to send 120K Troops to the ME if Iran takes Trump's bait and either hits a US target, or shows signs of restarting the nuke plan that many here swears is happening there already.

End a treaty that according to our own Generals was working, pick a fight, send troops.

Isolationism?

It's not a proposed plan. It's a contingency plan. We have them for all sorts of scenarios, all over the globe.
We won't attack Iran if they restart nuc development, we'll keep squeezing them with sanctions.
The 120k number is what would be required if Iran starts an all out war. ...not likely. It's a signal to Iran.

The treaty wasn't working. Iran was destabilizing the entire region. IRGC proxies were shooting missiles into Israel & Saudi Arabia.
The sanctions are squeezing Iran. They're trying to scare us into backing off.

Sanctions don't work

They're not working against Russia. They are having an impact on N Korea, Venezuela & Iran

The sanctions weren't working....that's why the government put their guy in office.....sure sailor...sure.

[a fan]

Kerry lead the nation to believe it included ballistic missiles until the final negotiatons. That's a big part of why it could not pass the Senate as a treaty.

You and I both know the Senate wouldn't pass the salt to Obama if he asked. No chance of passing any treaty. That's on the Senate.

How many times have you told me to never let the perfect be the enemy of the good? That's precisely what you're doing here.

And before the deal, under sanctions, Iran was causing trouble, were they not? For how many decades? So plainly the sanctions did nothing. The very thing you're complaining about when it comes to Russia.

I don't understand your positions on these three entirely related problems....N Korea, Iran, and Russia.

For Russia, you think the sanctions are pointless. But if you had to guess: would Putin stop messing with us if we dropped them? Yes, right? So we're stuck. And you keep pointing to the fact that our allies aren't on board for proof that the sanctions are stupid.

For Iran, the sanctions clearly, 100% worked. They don't have nukes. And here, our allies are 100% on board for the nuke deal....something you clearly think is important just above when it comes to Russia. But not here. Wait, what? You're making no sense to me.

The Iran treaty was never supposed to do anything that didn't have to do with nukes. They've been messing with terrorism ever since the Revolution. It's plain as day that nothing will stop that, other than modernization. Sanctions have done nothing for 40 years. Nothing. And yet you think they make sense and "any day now" the religious nutjobs will be overthrown....and somehow they won't simply be replaced by "different" religious nutjobs.

I don't get it.

And N Korea? Obviously the sanctions aren't working. Kim still has nukes. Period. You can split hairs about meetings and tests and the like, but in the end, they still have them.

I've yet to find anyone reporting or confirming that, other than this Wash Examiner Op-Ed :
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... plications
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1238245/pg1

Well, I hope they're wrong. Wouldn't that be nice?

But it's been two years, and the apps aren't being reported as processed, right? So what does that tell us? Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

I don't get it. Who the firetruck cares if there's fraud when it comes to these men and women? I don't. So what's with having any redtape outside of ID? The first answer upon confirming identity should be: "what do you need? Great. Here you go." And make the penalties for non-vets trying to perpetrate fraud should be 10 years mandatory prison. Problem solved.

[old salt]

Kerry lead the nation to believe it included ballistic missiles until the final negotiatons. That's a big part of why it could not pass the Senate as a treaty.

You and I both know the Senate wouldn't pass the salt to Obama if he asked. No chance of passing any treaty. That's on the Senate.
BS excuse. Kerry mislead his former Senate colleagues. Ballistic missiles were the key.

How many times have you told me to never let the perfect be the enemy of the good? That's precisely what you're doing here.
What we were getting, was not worth what we were giving up.

And before the deal, under sanctions, Iran was causing trouble, were they not? For how many decades? So plainly the sanctions did nothing. The very thing you're complaining about when it comes to Russia.
The sanctions limited them financially in what they could do.
Look how they've expanded their ops throughout the region since they recovered their funds & had sanctions eased.

I don't understand your positions on these three entirely related problems....N Korea, Iran, and Russia.
Clearly you don't. 4 different situations.

For Russia, you think the sanctions are pointless. But if you had to guess: would Putin stop messing with us if we dropped them? Yes, right? So we're stuck. And you keep pointing to the fact that our allies aren't on board for proof that the sanctions are stupid.
Sanctions aren't hurting Putin enough to change what he's doing. Do you think sanctions are going to get him to give back Crimea & get out of the Donbass ? We're able to negotiate with China despite our differences over Taiwan, the S China Sea islands & open sea lanes.

For Iran, the sanctions clearly, 100% worked. They don't have nukes. They just haven't demonstrated them yet. They haven't dismantled their capability or removed all their fissile material. They're continuing development on warheads & the missiles to deliver them. And here, our allies are 100% on board for the nuke deal....something you clearly think is important just above when it comes to Russia. But not here. Wait, what? You're making no sense to me. Our EUroburgher allies primarily want to do unfetterd business with both Iran & Russia, while the US provides (& pays for) missile defense for them & provides the NATO nuclear deterrent.
It's simplistic to continue to compare the Russian & Iranian situations.

The Iran treaty was never supposed to do anything that didn't have to do with nukes. Kerry told us lt would, to build support for opening negotiations. They've been messing with terrorism ever since the Revolution. It's plain as day that nothing will stop that, other than modernization. Sanctions have done nothing for 40 years. It has greatly limited their ability to arm themselves. They're still trying to fly 40 yr old F-14's & F-4's, without spare parts. They're a pariah. Even Russia won't sell them good stuff, because they're a potential Islamic terrorist threat. Nothing. And yet you think they make sense and "any day now" the religious nutjobs will be overthrown....and somehow they won't simply be replaced by "different" religious nutjobs. Stop telling me what I think. I've repeated I don't expect regime change. Just containment & limiting their ability to arm the IRGC & proxies.

I don't get it. Cleary. You continue mis-stating my position.

And N Korea? Obviously the sanctions aren't working. Kim still has nukes. Period. You can split hairs about meetings and tests and the like, but in the end, they still have them.That's right. They still haven't demonstrated the ability to deliver them via IRBM/ICBM. As I've said -- I don't expect to de-nuc them. This is re-branding to dampen US domestic hysteria, maintain the staus quo & dialogue, giving S Korea room to negotiate.

I've yet to find anyone reporting or confirming that, other than this Wash Examiner Op-Ed :
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... plications
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1238245/pg1

Well, I hope they're wrong. Wouldn't that be nice?

But it's been two years, and the apps aren't being reported as processed, right? So what does that tell us? Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

I don't get it. Who the firetruck cares if there's fraud when it comes to these men and women? I don't. So what's with having any redtape outside of ID? The first answer upon confirming identity should be: "what do you need? Great. Here you go." And make the penalties for non-vets trying to perpetrate fraud should be 10 years mandatory prison. Problem solved.
Some things are just too big, too inflexible, too far behind & too terminally F'd up to fix, without a new paradigm.

[a fan]

The sanctions limited them financially in what they could do.
Look how they've expanded their ops throughout the region since they recovered their funds & had sanctions eased.

First of all, the party line was that Iran was causing trouble this whole time-----before the Iran deal, and after.

Second of all, how could you even tell? You've got crazies blowing stuff up everywhere all over the ME. Stopping Iran won't stop that. And that assumes you can stop them.

Third of all, you keep leaving out the nukes. We were told the nukes were months out. That's why Obama and the Europeans signed on.

Which would you choose? A nuke Iran? Or yet another group diddling around, pointlessly blowing up cars and hotels in the ME?

Easy choice. You refuse to so much as address this choice, and instead prefer to quibble about missiles. The perfect is the enemy of the good.


So now under Captain Underpants, we have nothing. Zero. Zippo. Iran is still blowing up people in the ME, etc. And all the have to do is wake up in a foul mood....and voila, they start up their nuke program.

Under no circumstances is this moving the ball forward. You're trying to sell me that we're better off now. Unconvincing. Wholly unconvincing.


We're trading a deal they were following for... a obvious path to war. Where WE are doing the fighting. Not Israel. Not our allies. Us. Out there all alone because Trump CHOSE to shred the deal.

Stupid. And you know it.

[a fan]

Cleary. You continue mis-stating my position.

I'll try harder. It's no easy task.

[old salt]

Relax. We're not going to war with Iran. They don't want it. We don't want it.

[a fan]

You don't think Bolton wants it? I do. That man has been trying to make up for other deficiencies for decades now.

And if Kush can figure out how to make some coin from the Saudis somehow by hitting Iran?

I appreciate the optimism, though.

[OCanada]

Our military doesn’t want it but Bolton et al do and POTUS needs something. I am placing my faith in the military on this one but...

[OCanada]

BTW a number of people saw the impact of the Iraq invasion but were ignored. Iraq was never going to pay for the war just like Mexico was never going to pay for the wall. It’s a GOP thing. Someone other than you will pay for it. There were no WMDs, the Iraqi forced had been severely compromised already, and who could have dreamed our Occupation could make such horrendous decisions giving birth to ISIS. O and all the billions that can’t be accounted for.

Bottom line on Iran is no one other than Trump was having constipation. Let’s not lose track the USA crated the Iran problem in the first place.

[CU88]

@RepPeteKing

Wrong for @POTUS Trump to criticize @JoeBiden in Japan and to agree with Kim Jong-un. Politics stops at water’s edge. Never right to side with murderous dictator vs. fellow American.

[old salt]

You don't think Bolton wants it? I do. That man has been trying to make up for other deficiencies for decades now.

I appreciate the optimism, though.

Robert Costa, WP WH reporter, on MSNBC this a.m. (I paraphrase) :

" Trump is battling the internationalism that Biden represents, that has been the traditional foreign policy practiced by both parties since the end of WW-II. He's also battling that perspective within his own admin. This trip underscored how the hawkish Bolton does not always have the standing to rein in this President or to put him on a different path. Trump continues to revert to the nationalistic, isolationist, combative instincts which are driving American foreign policy, even though there are some hawks like Bolton around him. "

[a fan]

Trump continues to revert to the nationalistic, isolationist, combative instincts which are driving American foreign policy, even though there are some hawks like Bolton around him. "[/i]

Under no dancing or bs'ing can you make pulling out of the Iran deal the move of an "isolationist".

Iran is nowhere near the US. We have allies signed on to the deal that are a few hundred miles away from Iran.

Pulling out of the Iran deal and putting sanctions back on was a 100% interventionist move. It's something either of the Bush's would have done...the "traditional foreign policy practiced by both parties since the end of WWII.

An isolationist like myself would look at Iran's potential for nukes and say....this is not our problem. Or at least, this is Europes and the Middle East's problems long before it is a problem for the United States.

[old salt]

Trump continues to revert to the nationalistic, isolationist, combative instincts which are driving American foreign policy, even though there are some hawks like Bolton around him. "[/i]

Under no dancing or bs'ing can you make pulling out of the Iran deal the move of an "isolationist".

Iran is nowhere near the US. We have allies signed on to the deal that are a few hundred miles away from Iran.

Pulling out of the Iran deal and putting sanctions back on was a 100% interventionist move. It's something either of the Bush's would have done...the "traditional foreign policy practiced by both parties since the end of WWII.

An isolationist like myself would look at Iran's potential for nukes and say....this is not our problem. Or at least, this is Europes and the Middle East's problems long before it is a problem for the United States.

You contort & torture the terms of the discussion. An isolationist wouldn't ignore Iran's nuc capability. Only a fool would.
Isolationism is the alternative to internationalism, as illustrated in the statement of the WP WH reporter.
The JCPOA, was negotiated between the Iran & the P5+1 (US - Russia - Fr - Ger -UK ) then approved by the UN Security Council.
It was a multi-party internationalist agreement.
Isolationism eschews multi-lateral organizations & agreements, dealing unilaterally or bilaterally.
We're dealing unilaterally with Iran, driving toward a bilateral accommodation, or at least a coerced change in their behavior.

[a fan]

You contort & torture the terms of the discussion.

Pot, meet kettle. You're giving me the most ridiculous definition of isolationism I've ever heard.

Odd. The OEDictionary seems to agree with my definition of isolationism. OED: A policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

So yep, an isolationist would stay away from multi-lateral organizations, as you put it. But that also means no playing cop to the world. And that's what Trump is doing with Iran. Iran is, what, 5,000 miles from the US? How are they going to hit us? They're not. They're going to fit countries in their region, if any. In other words: not our problem. Isolationist "a fan" says: not our primary problem. Let the region deal with it.

You move the goalposts depending on how you want to play your game of pretending like Trump is being a consistent foreign policy genius...rather than the erratic idiot he truly is. So when Trump adds American hardware to NATO forces "that doesn't count" in your isolationism math. But when he pulls out of the Iran deal, you tell me that's isolationism because there's more than one country signed on, and we want to deal with them bilaterally. What?

But I'll bite. When US citizens in 30's didn't want anything to do with the war in Europe because it was none of our business: what was that sentiment called? Every textbook I've read call that Isolationism.

What's old salts word for that? Then we'll use that word, and I don't have to worry about you moving goalposts, or in this case, leaving the goalposts and instead, burning the stadium down.

[old salt]

The WP WH reporter said "isolationist instincts". I usually say "isolationist tendencies". That's close enough for me.
Your childish all or nothing debating technique is tedious, counter productive & a waste of time.
Send a letter to the WP editor & tell them to change their style guide to satisfy your nuance meter.

Iran will be a threat to the US when they have a workable ICBM with a nuc warhead.

[a fan]

The WP WH reporter said "isolationist instincts". I usually say "isolationist tendencies". That's close enough for me.
Your childish all or nothing debating technique is tedious, counter productive & a waste of time.

I was schooled to discuss issues this way. By Jesuits. They take words seriously. If words are nebulous...as you council... words mean nothing, and discussion is pointless.

You understand this, because you had to fly a plane. Words matter. Use nebulous words, and your plane doesn't return to base.

Obama had isolationist tendencies. Bush had isolationist tendencies. Clinton had isolationist tendencies. Bush had isolationist tendencies. Reagan had isolationist tendencies. Carter had isolationist tendencies. Ford had isolationist tendencies. Nixon had isolationist tendencies. Kennedy had isolationist tendencies.

You're saying nothing, but pretending that you are. So's the WaPo writer....he should have spent more time with the Jesuits, and less with the Catholics...