They should put severe sanctions on them, crater their economy until they give up their nuclear program or their own citizens overthrow them.
Obama Mistakes
- Thread starter GL97
- Start date
And when they continue to pursue their nuclear programs under the sanctions, then what? Or when they get nuclear weapons with those sanctions on them, then what?
Then we can just give up and give them everything they want like Obama. The Iran deal isn't worth the paper it's written on and the whole world knows it.
lol, Obama didn't give them everything they wanted.
But seriously, that is your solution? Put sanctions on Iran, hope they stop their nuclear program, but when they don't, just give up?
That sure would accomplish a lot.
Sarcasm is not your thing is it.
Sanctions are what brought the Iranians to the table in the first place but they wanted Obama to lift them and he caved because he was desperate to say he could do a deal. More concerned about his stupid legacy than protecting the world.
For the most part I would agree with this. However, you have yet to explain what we should do if we impose even stricter sanctions and Iran continues to pursue their nuclear program or obtains a nuclear weapon.
Nor have you....if the Obama's agreement in place doesn't work.
That's what is called an attempt to pivot the discussion to put your opponent on the defensive.
Last edited:
If I was POTUS and they continued towards developing a nuclear warhead I'd take out all their nuclear and missile sites that I could, I'd target their oil infrastructure to cripple them financially. I'd also sink their pathetic navy.
Has anybody listed Libya as an Obama mistake? His administration whipped up a frenzied cry of GENOCIDE! to justify arming the "moderate rebels" and bombing the crap out of the government forces. Strangely enough, it turns out that those government forces were battling Islamic terrorists that were trying to overthrow the government instead of "moderate rebels."
AAA rated stupidity right there.
AAA rated stupidity right there.
Was on my in the record list. The whole Arab Spring reaction was a cluster....not just Libya.
Roger, and yes, I agree. His support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was one of the strangest things I've ever seen from a president. And the left wonders where the Islamic terror sympathizer moniker comes from.
Wow, you love showing how you can analyze an argument strategy. But what else is to be expected from someone who feels the need to brag about his JD in his screen name?
If you take the time to go back and read one of my original posts on this topic (you know, "context" counselor), you will see that I posted the Iran deal was smart diplomacy and peace is always a better alternative to war. I never claimed or sought to establish a claim that the deal would absolutely keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in the long run.
Would you like a follow-up question or do you need a ten minute recess?
Lulz....got called out...accurately, I might add...and all you can do is throw a mini temper tantrum.
My NAME is JD, by the way.
You like to assume things are true just because you want them to be.
You have not produced a birth certificate .. I call bullshit on this
JD avatar - 1 JD Name - 0
I'm not the one that was discussing this with you, BUT......whomever you tried to pivot on indicated he thought sanctions would accomplish the same thing AND you essentially said "yeah, but what if it doesn't? Are you willing to going to go to a war if it doesn't?"
In other words, you assumed Obama's plan was going to lead to a peaceful nuclear free Iran and assumed sanctions would not.
You like to assume things you believe are absolute truth and proceed with the discussion on your terms as if you've established your belief as fact.
I'm not interested in doing that.
SO, what I will do is ask you the same thing you were trying to hammer the other guy with (after absolutely assuming sanctions wouldn't work).
Are you willing to go to a shooting war if Obama's peace plan does not stop Iran's nuclear program?
Last edited:
It appeared like he ran out of cogent responses and employed the age old liberal strategy of name calling.
No, that wasn't my assumption at all regarding the Iran deal. Again, I never posted that I thought the Iran deal was going to lead to a peaceful "nuclear free" Iran. If I had thought that, I would have included the words "nuclear free." What was that you were saying about making assumptions?
And did you ever stop to think (in your rush to assume and attempt at sounding smart) that perhaps I asked headhunter what his solution was because I was simply trying to determine what his position and/or goals regarding Iran actually was?
No.
I simply believe Obama's plan made war with Iran less likely, which is a positive. Note again, I am not saying that Obama's plan made a future nuclear Iran less likely.
Fine you didn't say "nuclear free". You only said peaceful. So you assume the plan would lead to a peaceful Iran and @Headhunter 's wouldn't in your attempt to pivot.
So next question.
Which is more important you, a peaceful Iran or a nuclear free Iran? If you can't have both.
A peaceful Iran.
I would prefer a nuclear free Iran, but I am a realist. Not an idealist.
Was Iran not peaceful before they got paid big bucks? How has their level of peacefulness actually changed since the deal?
So you're not willing to go to war to avoid an Iran with nuclear weapons?
Questions....not assumptions.
I don't believe our sanctions on Iran were an act of peace. Sanctions are an act of war. I believe we should develop a relationship with Iran where we can further and protect our national interests.
No, I do not believe we should go to war with Iran.
Didn't really answer the first question. Is Iran at more or less or the same level of peacefulness since Obama's?
As for going to war with Iran? Never? You advocate letting Iran become a nuclear weapon armed state if the cost of avoiding the same is war.
Yes, our relationship with Iran is in a better place than it was before the Iran deal. I believe we also (or did before Trump took office) had more leverage with Iran than we did before the Iran deal. Does this mean our relationship is perfect? No. Does this mean Iran is now our best friend? Hardly. Does this mean Iran isn't going to continue to pursue what is in their self-interest? No.
Well, perhaps it is too much to say we should "never" go to war with Iran. We shouldn't go to war with Iran over them acquiring nuclear weapons though. And war with Iran should be our absolute last option. Indeed, war should always be the absolute last option.
Again, I am a realist. I accept the proposition that states are going to act in a manner that corresponds with their best interests. If Iran feels threatened and intimidated, their desire to obtain nuclear weapons is only going to grow. However, if Iran feels like they have a place at the table and that the West is willing to work with them without always beating the drums of war, I believe the West can have an influence on Iran. Does this mean Iran will never obtain nuclear weapons? No. However, proceeding on war footing with Iran isn't going to stop their nuclear weapons program and will most likely only hasten it.
I disagree that sanctions are "war footing", I disagree that sanctions were doomed to failure in stopping it or are likely to hasten it. I also don't think Obama's plan has been shown to stop it and possibly may hasten it.
Frankly, I think the present Iranian regime is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons and diplomatic measures of any type are likely to be unsuccessful in changing that.
As for not being willing to go to war to avoid a nuclear armed Iran, I think that is dead wrong thinking.
Just my opinion though.
Sanctions are absolutely establishing a war footing. If a nation placed sanctions on us, do you think we would see them as our friends?
And the sanctions hadn't stopped Iran from pursuing their nuclear program. And again, it is about self interest. If Iran feels threatened, their actions are going to reflect that.
And you may be right. But again, I'd rather try to have influence upon them than close all the doors and just yell at them.
Ok. Will you be the first one to sign up and go fight in a war with Iran to stop them from getting nuclear weapons?
Nope. Not "war footing". You saying "absolutely" doesn't make it so either. If someone placed sanctions on us we wouldn't see them as friends, but there is an incredibly large range of relations between "war footing" and "friends".
So the only war someone can advocate as sound public policy is one they are willing go fight in personally? Not really sound logic.
To answer your question more directly, I'm 52 years old, out of shape, and a bit of a drinker. They don't want me. I absolutely would be willing to contribute to the effort by volunteering in family support groups, and providing volunteer legal services through the military's health, moral, and welfare units....like I've done for the past 15 years since my wife was mobilized and did a tour.
lol, and you don't think we would see it as an act of war?
But even if you don't want to accept that, if another country placed sanctions on us, would we view them favorably? If they were trying to get us not to do something, you think those sanctions on us would make us agree with them?
Self-interest.
Sure it is sound logic. If one believes going to war to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons must be done, why would one not be willing to fight in that war if able? If is a moral imperative that Iran must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons and one sees it as a direct threat to one's country, why would one not be willing to fight in that war if able?
Do you have sons or daughters? Would you want them going over to Iran to fight? Is it worth their lives to make sure Iran doesn't obtain nuclear weapons?
1. I already answered that. No, of course we would not view someone placing sanctions on us favorably. That's an asinine question and a ridiculous mischaracterization of anything I said. "Viewing someone unfavorably" isn't the same thing as "war footing". It's ridiculous to equate the two. There is a whole range between those.
2. Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. Not going to try to explain logic to the illogical.
3. I do have daughters. If they had volunteered for the military (or draft had been reinstated which is never going to happen), I would want them to follow the commands of their commanders and if that meant endangering their lives to make the world and the country a safer place then I would be very proud of them for doing so. The exact same way I felt about my wife being mobilized.
High 5's to me for being a single father of a 6,7, and 8 year old for a year while she was gone....and for having such a badass wife.
Look, just because you disagree or because a point challenges your argument doesn't make it asinine. What were you saying before about throwing a mini temper tantrum?
Also, you didn't answer whether we would view it as an act of war. You dodged that answer. And the reason you did is because you know we would. Especially with someone like Trump sitting in the White House.
Placing sanctions on Iran accomplishes nothing. Closing the door to dialogue with Iran accomplishes nothing. It places us on war footing which is foolishness.
That is all you could come back with? I sure hope you do better cross-examinations in the courtroom.
It would be a waste of our most precious treasure to enter into a war with Iran. We don't need Americans boys and girls dying in Iran. It isn't worth it, especially when we could easily pursue a course of action with Iran that would most likely avoid war.
Arguing that "not viewing favorably" is the functional equivalent of "war footing"....which is what you are doing.....IS....asinine. Whether you like it or not.
We would not view it as an act of war....and I didn't dodge that. I answered that. Not my fault you're not smart enough to realize it. Note: yes I edit "law" to "war" after the Lemur proclaimed intellectual superiority for my mistype. Duly noted, I did type the wrong three letter word. Congratulations lemur.
Last edited:
