Slashdot Mirror
The Missile Impasse In the Iran Negotiations
Lasrick writes: Upon resuming talks to end the nuclear crisis with the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) in 2013, Iran made it clear that its missile program was behind a redline and would not be negotiated away. The missile program, Tehran argued, was an entirely separate issue from the nuclear program, part of the country's conventional capabilities and not aimed at deploying non-conventional weapons such as nuclear warheads. Last week, Tehran's missile program arose—seemingly suddenly—as an obstacle with the potential to derail the process altogether. Ariane Tabatabai explores the fascinating history of Iran's missile program, the largest in the Middle East, and asks whether negotiators for countries that hold such diametrically opposed views of the Iranian missile program can reach a compromise. We should know the answer to that within the next day or two.
Really, the engineering to make and guide a missile is not formidable these days. Iran is more than capable, though testing is probably hard for them being landlocked. A good machine shop and a knowledge of F=ma is all that is really needed. The rest is detail, easily accessible on Wikipedia.
The nuclear capability is a bit harder, but only a bit harder, than missile technology. Again, testing is probably the hard part. But Pakistan figured it out. Iran certainly has the capability.
Iran is (or soon will be) a state capable of nuclear weapons delivered by missiles. The genie is out of the bottle. Life sucks, deal.
Either Iran nukes Israel or Israel nukes Iran (or both) within the next 10 years. Place your bets.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
IMHO, one of the remaining hurdles to us getting past the Great Filter is the proliferation of technology and doomsday weaponry to all corners of the globe.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
without a solution.
To show how it's done.. and who's boss.
Seems apropos.
The Munich Agreement
October 5, 1938. House of Commons
...
I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week - I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies:
"Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting."
And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
Let the Jews do it and that'll be that. Peace on Earth!
American style - if everyone had a gun, everyone would be safe right? So if everyone has nukes, world peace!
Who brought up missiles this late in the negotiations? Someone with a vested interest in screwing up a settlement.
Three guesses who is running around behind the scenes queering the deal. And you will have two to spare.
Have gnu, will travel.
It's hard to believe that Obama and Kerry are dumb enough to actually trust the Iranians to stick to a "deal" but .... the facts speak for themselves.
So why DO they want a "deal" at all costs? Do they think it will win political capital? Is this to be another of Obama's great "accomplishments"?
It's hard to believe that Obama and Kerry are dumb enough to actually trust the Iranians to stick to a "deal" but .... the facts speak for themselves.
So why DO they want a "deal" at all costs? Do they think it will win political capital? Is this to be another of Obama's great "accomplishments"?
What's your alternative suggestion?
I stole this Sig
Iran's Quds force is skilled at guerra warfare. If Iran had a nuclear device, they could have humans deliver it. Iran is trying to develop its indigenous industries and scientific base. Iran wants to build 20+ nuclear reactors. Iran doesn't have much coal, but it wants to export its oil, and natural gas.
I'm more worried about Iran's ties to North Korea, than an Iranian rocket.
So far Obama has started 100% fewer unfunded land wars in Asia based on lies and personal grudges than his predecessor.
I'll give him a pass for now...
It's hard to believe that Obama and Kerry are dumb enough to actually trust the Iranians to stick to a "deal" but .... the facts speak for themselves.
Kindly share the "facts" of which you speak.
And it's not just Obama and Kerry at the western side of the table. It's the P5+ (the five permanant members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany.)
I'm not saying we should implicitly trust the Iranians. However, we can at least trust them to act in their own best interests. Those interests (e.g., lifting sanctions) can be leveraged into a deal that contains their nuclear program, but only if you negotiate such a deal.
So why DO they want a "deal" at all costs?
I don't recall anyone saying they want a deal "at all costs."
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
But he has lost 50% of those countries to ISIS
The real threat is small nuclear weapons smuggled into the country through ports, on private boats, or across porous poorly secured borders.
And found the fuckwit that thinks the entire world is the USA. Grow up you pansy little shit and realize there is more than just your hatred of the scary black man at stake. Racist little cunt.
What's your alternative suggestion?
Leave the sanctions in place, they are clearly working or Iran wouldn't be at the table talking.
Perhaps increase them, isolate Iran to the point that it becomes quite hard to do business anywhere in the world. Make their oil worthless by intercepting it on the high seas, forbid them to ship it anywhere.
Invading and attacking them may not be required, they might cry uncle when the pain becomes great enough.
Or not, North Korea is the other way it goes I suppose.
I'm not saying we should implicitly trust the Iranians. However, we can at least trust them to act in their own best interests. Those interests (e.g., lifting sanctions) can be leveraged into a deal that contains their nuclear program, but only if you negotiate such a deal.
The deal is worthless if Iran doesn't stick to it.
The deal is worthless if Iran doesn't stick to it.
Does that mean there's no point in trying to negotiate one?
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
It's hard to believe that Obama and Kerry are dumb enough to actually trust the Iranians to stick to a "deal" but .... the facts speak for themselves.
I never understood all the Iran bashing. Yes Iran is screwed up but so are a great number of Countries the US does business with regularly. What's the difference? Iran certainly isn't the worst.
For example If I had to pick between living in Saudi Arabia our dearest friend and Iran our worst enemy I would choose Iran in a heartbeat no contest not even close.
Saudi Arabia has more than its fair share of lazy inbred entitled fuckwits who export terror and religious fundamentalism (Wahhabi schools) while treating their women like total shit. 80% of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens yet all the western media is full of nothing but Anti-Iran propaganda and Saudi ass-kissing because various geopolitical calculations disfavoring Persians (Oil and Mecca)
So why DO they want a "deal" at all costs? Do they think it will win political capital? Is this to be another of Obama's great "accomplishments"?
I don't know about "all costs" I think they really want a deal because it is better than any realistic alternative... Also I'm pretty sure making such deals with Iran costs them more political capitol than the Obama administration has left.
What's your alternative suggestion?
Leave the sanctions in place, they are clearly working or Iran wouldn't be at the table talking.
But if they are at the table talking now why not make a deal? Maybe longer sanctions make a deal easier or maybe Rouhani is replaced by a hardliner and Obama by someone less palatable to the Muslim world. Instead of a deal both sides harden, Iran builds a bomb, and now you have a much more dangerous situation.
Perhaps increase them, isolate Iran to the point that it becomes quite hard to do business anywhere in the world. Make their oil worthless by intercepting it on the high seas, forbid them to ship it anywhere.
Invading and attacking them may not be required, they might cry uncle when the pain becomes great enough.
Or not, North Korea is the other way it goes I suppose.
Under what pretext? There's still the fact that you need international agreement to make stronger sanctions and that's very dubious. As for unilateral action that only works if the US starts making itself a pariah state which carries its own stack of consequences.
I stole this Sig
But if they are at the table talking now why not make a deal?
Sure, by all means, make a deal if you can.
But it takes two people (or nations) to make a deal, and it appears that Iran is not yet serious about this.
Under what pretext?
Nations like Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Your next question might be, what gives the US the right to say that... Simple... We're in charge, they aren't. You might not think that is "right", but it is the truth.
If they want to be in charge, they can have the largest GDP, the world's reserve currency, and the world's most powerful military. Until then, we're in charge and they aren't.
It isn't very diplomatic to say that, but when you cut the crust off the bread, that is what you'll find in the middle.
Does that mean there's no point in trying to negotiate one?
Yes, it does... until both sides actually believe the other side will stick to a deal, it is pointless to engage in one.
In this case, the onus is on Iran to show they are serious. As of now, they clearly aren't. What they SHOULD do is follow South Africa's lead... Give up all their nukes and related technology on their own. The world will drop the sanctions in rather short order if they do that.
Thus the problem. If Iran was serious about not building a bomb, then they'd just give it up. We don't attack nations that don't threaten our interests. When is the last time we bombed Australia? South Africa? Chili?
Don't piss in our cheerios, we won't bomb you. It really is that simple.
Sure, by all means, make a deal if you can.
But it takes two people (or nations) to make a deal, and it appears that Iran is not yet serious about this.
I disagree, for the most part it sounds like Iran is serious and they're willing to offer a pretty good deal. Widespread inspections and a massive downsizing of their Nuclear program when they haven't actually been shown to do anything that violates the NPT.
Nations like Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Your next question might be, what gives the US the right to say that... Simple... We're in charge, they aren't. You might not think that is "right", but it is the truth.
If they want to be in charge, they can have the largest GDP, the world's reserve currency, and the world's most powerful military. Until then, we're in charge and they aren't.
It isn't very diplomatic to say that, but when you cut the crust off the bread, that is what you'll find in the middle.
To be honest that attitude is why people tend to not like Americans, and that has consequences. The emergence of Russia as a rogue nation came in large part from perceived hostility and domination from the US. The belief you could simply impose your will on Iraq has likely killed over 100,000 people and created threats such as ISIS.
When you announce that you're in charge because of "X" people don't just roll over and agree, they just change the rules so they can compete. You pursue that policy with Iran and they'll trade with Russia instead, maybe they'll buy a few bombs from them so they don't have to worry about an Israeli attack. They'll then increase support for groups hostile to Israel and cause a world wide recession by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. Russia is happy because oil has skyrocketed but you and all your allies in the Middle East and Europe are starved for oil.
Your power has some very significant limits. A deal with Iran that stops their nuclear program and starts creating an friendly power strikes me as a very good idea.
I stole this Sig
Completely isolating them would require the cooperation of China and Russia, both of who the USA has annoyed quite a bit and could decide at some point to open up trade with them.
Getting them to the table now while you still have leverage may not be a bad idea.
I disagree, for the most part it sounds like Iran is serious and they're willing to offer a pretty good deal.
You and I see the world very differently. :)
That's ok, there are many viewpoints in the world, we are each entitled to our own.
But in my opinion, if Iran were serious, they would understand their place in this deal, and it sounds like they don't.
A deal with Iran that stops their nuclear program and starts creating an friendly power strikes me as a very good idea.
Sure, if the deal would do that. You seem to assume that if we do a deal, then all is well in the world. What happens if they ignore it and go after a bomb anyway? You don't seem to consider that as a possibility, or you think the inspections will catch it. Iran is not a small nation, they are much larger and better positioned to cheat on the deal without getting caught than Iraq could have ever dreamed of.
So you might ask, what would I, as an American, have to see to start believing Iran? Some humble pie would be a nice start. An apology for the hostages in 1979 would be another. Announcing Israel's right to exist and promising to never attack them would be another.
You think they are offering a decent deal? You must be joking, they are miles and miles and miles from a decent deal.
Frankly it is a shame that the invasion of Iraq was so poorly handled by people who didn't know what they were doing. The first gulf war was run beautifully, the second, not so much. But that is a failure of leadership, not of our military.
Intercepting their ships would be an act of war. Iran has the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz and this would cripple the western world, you start attacking their assets and they may just push that button. Oh sure the US could use that as an excuse to launch an invasion of Iran but Russia would not sit idly by and allow that. At the very least they would begin supplying advanced weapons to Iran.
In addition Iran is currently what is holding ISIS in check. They are supporters of the Assad Government and are supplying weapons and skills which are hugely critical in preventing ISIS from dominating the area. You smash Iran and you will cause the entire region to disintegrate into a cluster fuck.
Also your belief that you could actually isolate Iran to that degree is sadly mistaken. Push that hard and China and Russia will be there to support Iran for their own benefit. China will buy the oil for peanuts supercharging their own economy while the west suffers oil price shocks the likes of which make the 70s shocks look like blips. Russia will do the same. They will purchase Iranian oil for peanuts and sell their own supplies onto the now hyper-inflated western market, you will see an even more resurgent Russia with a huge competitive advantage.
Sure, the government has drones and tanks and gunships etc.... but none of those will protect the individual government minions who show up on the doorsteps of people with the intent to screw with them. THAT is the deterrence. An armed citizenry is less-able to be pushed-around by the technocrats and paper-pushers of an out-of-control government. It's hard for the government to recruit a bunch of guys to wear brown shirts and round up the Jews if all the Jews and all their neighbors are well armed; such thugs love to be the ones pushing other people around when it's a risk-free endeavor, but the fun slips away when the people are well-armed and in a bad mood. It's not hard for government to push an armed population around because the government lacks the firepower, but rather because it becomes hard to recruit the pawns to be the ones who die at the front doors of some poor innocent citizens who have been targeted.
Are YOU suggesting the US government would and could use Warthogs and tanks against it's own citizens? You appear to be, and in doing so you appear to miss the irony that you are legitimizing the very arguments you seem to be attacking (doh!)
Oh, and the stupid Red Dawn flick was made by liberal morons in Hollywood.... try to remember that dopey Hollywood movies are not reality. History is full of examples of totalitarian governments killing their own disarmed people, but remarkably light on examples of governments slaughtering their own people when their own people had arms as good as the front line troops.
You seem to have not read much of what our founders wrote. They were not trying to setup a bloody massacre, nor were they trying to guarantee the right of people to hunt for their dinners. They were trying to guarantee that when the government eventually went bad, as they all do, the people would be able to overthrow it as peaceably as possible because the people would BE the armed force. The US is not supposed to have a standing army. It's supposed to have a standing Navy and there's plenty of evidence that our founders would have supported a standing Air Force by extrapolation, but it's not supposed to have an army that could either be used by presidents to go off on international adventures, or to turn inward and oppress the population. The vast majority of "gun nuts" in the US are not the sort of idiot who drools over Red Dawn, they are people who both want to pass on as much freedom to their grandkids as they themselves inherited, and people who know that most of the time when the police show up at a homicide, it's to draw the chalk outlines.
on Earth have gotten rid of all their missiles and bombers and submarines! Wow! If you, an obvious military expert, had not told me so I'd have never noticed that all the missiles and bombers and submarines in the world have been retired and scrapped.
Thanks, Super military strategist guy!, you're my new hero!
Oh, but then why are Iran and North Korea working so hard to develop missiles that are not useful for anything other than nukes????
I disagree, for the most part it sounds like Iran is serious and they're willing to offer a pretty good deal. Widespread inspections and a massive downsizing of their Nuclear program when they haven't actually been shown to do anything that violates the NPT.
It's pretty much guaranteed that Iran has some secret nuclear research facility that we don't know about. They've had several (check out the one in Qom, for example).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I disagree, for the most part it sounds like Iran is serious and they're willing to offer a pretty good deal.
You and I see the world very differently. :)
That's ok, there are many viewpoints in the world, we are each entitled to our own.
But in my opinion, if Iran were serious, they would understand their place in this deal, and it sounds like they don't.
They're like any rational actor trying to get the best deal possible (and trying to get something that's fair).
On the topic of missiles they actually have a very understandable point. The US has talked about attacking Iran, Israel has repeatedly threatened to do so without warning, Iraq has done so with the active assistance of the US, and they're the lone Persian Shia power among a lot of Arab Sunni powers. Meanwhile Iran has never launched a war. It makes a lot of sense for the Iranians to want to maintain a strong conventional force, including long range missiles, that they can use to deter attackers. At the same time it doesn't make sense that they should give those up in a deal centred on Nuclear weapons, especially since the idea behind the Nuclear deal is restrictions get lifted in exchange for cancelling the program and allowing inspections.
What happens if they ignore it and go after a bomb anyway? You don't seem to consider that as a possibility, or you think the inspections will catch it. Iran is not a small nation, they are much larger and better positioned to cheat on the deal without getting caught than Iraq could have ever dreamed of.
It's possible, though risky, it's a lot easier for them to get a bomb without inspections.
So you might ask, what would I, as an American, have to see to start believing Iran? Some humble pie would be a nice start. An apology for the hostages in 1979 would be another.
Has the US apologized for overthrowing Iran's democratically elected government leading to the 1979 revolution? Or for entering Iranian waters and shooting down Iran Air Flight 655? The American commander even got a big medal for the campaign (not for shooting down the flight specifically but there was no real reprimand).
Announcing Israel's right to exist and promising to never attack them would be another.
Has Israel promised not to attack Iran? And insisting on recognition of Israel is a shaming tactic, a symbolic foreign policy capitulation, that's just a poison pill for an agreement.
Frankly it is a shame that the invasion of Iraq was so poorly handled by people who didn't know what they were doing. The first gulf war was run beautifully, the second, not so much. But that is a failure of leadership, not of our military.
The difference between the gulf wars wasn't leadership (which was poor), it was objectives.
The purpose of the first gulf war was to destroy the Iraqi army and drive Iraq out of Kuwait. They did that, and the only reason it started was a diplomatic screwup since Hussein thought he had US permission to invade.
The second gulf war was just as effective in destroying the Iraqi army, the problem was they didn't just leave after but instead tried to impose democracy on a nation which had no democratic tradition and a minority had been brutally repressing the majority for decades. Sure the torture and firing the Iraqi army were stupid screwups but there were a thousand ways that occupation could have gone sideways the way it did.
I stole this Sig
I disagree, for the most part it sounds like Iran is serious and they're willing to offer a pretty good deal. Widespread inspections and a massive downsizing of their Nuclear program when they haven't actually been shown to do anything that violates the NPT.
It's pretty much guaranteed that Iran has some secret nuclear research facility that we don't know about. They've had several (check out the one in Qom, for example).
Alright, but what should that mean for a deal? Surely inspections would make finding such facilities easier and a deal would reduce the motivation to use them to build a bomb.
I stole this Sig
Surely inspections would make finding such facilities easier
No, how does that even make sense to you? There were inspections before that didn't find those facilities. It's not like inspectors are going to look at every square inch of Iran.
a deal would reduce the motivation to use them to build a bomb.
I don't know what deal you are thinking of, but it doesn't seem related to the one under discussion.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They're like any rational actor trying to get the best deal possible (and trying to get something that's fair).
Fair is in the eye of the beholder. :)
On the topic of missiles they actually have a very understandable point. The US has talked about attacking Iran
It is worth noting that in return for the removal of missiles from Cuba, the US promised to not attack or invade Cuba.
We kept that promise. If Iran were to commit to the total removal of offensive missiles and nuclear technology, a guarantee that the US would never attack them strikes me as fair. Of course part of that is they would have to stop supporting terrorists, which they don't want to stop doing.
Thus we come back to, "Iran can't be trusted".
It's possible, though risky, it's a lot easier for them to get a bomb without inspections.
Maybe, but I'd suggest it would be a lot harder to get a bomb if they were blockaded outright.
Has the US apologized for overthrowing Iran's democratically elected government leading to the 1979 revolution?
No, but we should...
Or for entering Iranian waters and shooting down Iran Air Flight 655?
Yes, we did, and we paid reparations to the families of those who died.
Has Israel promised not to attack Iran? And insisting on recognition of Israel is a shaming tactic, a symbolic foreign policy capitulation, that's just a poison pill for an agreement.
Israel has been attacked 4 times by other nations during its brief existence. It is small and the nations around it are big.
The insistence isn't a shame thing, Iran would do well to stop supporting the terrorists who attack Israel on a daily basis. In short, Iran needs to grow up and join the world of civilized nations if they wish to be treated as such. South Africa gave up apartheid and joined the world of civil nations, Iran can too.
firing the Iraqi army
Don't even get me started on how stupid that was. Same thing happened to some extent in Germany after WWII and it was a mess for awhile. Patton was famous for emplying ex-Nazis to run Bavaria, because he knew he needed them to run the day to day functions. He even allowed the Germany Army forces there to remain in uniform and under the command of their own officers, who reported to him. The majority of the Germany Army understood the situation and respected the new chain of command. They were put to work repairing the county to prepare it for the winter of 1945.
What did Patton get for that? He was fired. The stupid civilian leadership refuse to accept that you can't just fire the whole damm government when you take over a country, you need the workers to... keep working... Nazi ID cards or not, they had jobs to do to keep the lights on and the water running.
The other problem with the second gulf war is we didn't take NEARLY enough troops to secure the country. We took about 125,000 troops to secure a country the size of California, with about 25 million people living in it. If 125,000 troops invaded the state of California tomorrow, they would get lost just in LA alone, much less the whole state.
We took 500k troops into Kuwait in 1991, we probably needed a million or more the second time around, but of course our "planes and drones and tanks can do anything". Nonsense, you need boots on the ground. You don't need those troops to fight, we had plenty of that. What you need is a clear show of force that allows you to be everywhere you need to be so that anyone thinking you're weak doesn't even get the idea of trying anything stupid. It becomes obvious who is the new boss and you can secure the borders and maintain order.
As for the issue of the minority oppressing the majority, that is true and there was going to be backlash for that. One consideration would be to split Iraq u
Intercepting their ships would be an act of war.
So was doing it during the Cuban missile crisis to Russian transports, that doesn't mean people start shooting.
Iran has the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz
Yes they do, for a little while. How long would it take us to open it back up, at great cost to them? I have no doubt they have given that a lot of through, as I imagine we have as well.
Oh sure the US could use that as an excuse to launch an invasion of Iran but Russia would not sit idly by and allow that.
And they would do what? Go to war with the US over Iran? Maybe, but they have their own problems in Ukraine at the moment, their economy is a mess due to their own sanctions.
Besides, a deal is easily done there. Trade Iran for Ukraine. Putin wants a free hand in the Ukraine, we'd want one in Iran. There is a deal to be made there.
In addition Iran is currently what is holding ISIS in check.
Saudi Arabia needs to step up to the plate and use their money and military to deal with ISIS. Jordan wouldn't be far behind quite frankly.
You smash Iran and you will cause the entire region to disintegrate into a cluster fuck.
I think you over state it. No one in the middle east likes Iran at the moment. If Israel decides to attack, Saudi Arabia would provide them with airspace passage and refueling bases. There has been quite a bit of talk that Israel already has an airfield built in northern Saudi Arabia for just this purpose.
You also assume that "smashing Iran" is a requirement. Cranking up the sanctions to the point where it hurts enough for them to cry uncle may well be enough.
Also your belief that you could actually isolate Iran to that degree is sadly mistaken. Push that hard and China and Russia will be there to support Iran for their own benefit. China will buy the oil for peanuts supercharging their own economy while the west suffers oil price shocks the likes of which make the 70s shocks look like blips. Russia will do the same. They will purchase Iranian oil for peanuts and sell their own supplies onto the now hyper-inflated western market, you will see an even more resurgent Russia with a huge competitive advantage.
Your information about the oil market is out of date. The US has quite a bit of capacity that isn't being pumped because the price has dropped so much as of late. In addition, this isn't the 70s, China is now highly dependent on the US market, there is only so far they would push us. Their stock market is in a free fall at the moment and their economy is cooling off quickly.
Iran is not nearly as important to China as good relations with the US are.
Russia could buy the oil, but they already have more than they can use, and their exports are under controls at the moment.
They're like any rational actor
This is where people get it wrong.
Iran's leadership is not rational.
They are "13th Imam" religious fanatics that wish to start Armageddon, as they believe that the 13th Imam will only return at that time, and that it is their duty to make sure that occurs as soon as possible.
MAD is meaningless to such fanatics. Treaties are simply a way to deceive and enfeeble their enemies while they keep doing what they are doing. Remember, these fanatics are the same ones, generations later, which Hitler allied with in WW2.
Not much has changed regarding their ultimate goals since the middle ages, and they certainly haven't changed in the scant few decades since WW2.
The only way such fanatics can be dealt with is to kill them and, as much as possible, wipe out any lingering, festering remnants of their culture & beliefs, and maintain a watchful eye to prevent such insanity from gaining traction again.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
No. The Iraqi regime lost half of it's territory because of the usual sectarian nonsense that plagues the entire region. They treated the factions not in power like dirt and they made no effort to resist an invading army when it came.
When you act like that you have to be a mini-Hitler in order to keep things under control. A quasi democracy made up of 3 states, 2 of which are treated like an underclass simply isn't going to be durable.
The Iraqis did this to themselves all on their own, a result of not having the same 800 years of cultural and political context that our own democracy has.
That's the problem with nation building. Ignorant gits think that 1776 just happened spontaneously in the absence of any broader historical or cultural context.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I never understood all the Iran bashing
I think it is due to the Cold War - Iran was cozy with the USSR (particularly their freely elected leader whom we quickly deposed, which led to the Ayatollahs taking over), while the Saudis were willing to play with the West...
The actual genetic situation is substantially more complicated than your summary. Mitochondrial DNA indicates that Ashkenazic Jews (Jews from Eastern Europe) have a large influx of European women ancestors. See summary http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37821/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/. However, chromosomal DNA shows a major Middle Eastern component to the point where almost any Ashkenazic Jew is easily genetically distinguishable from a generic European http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/12/09/ashkenazi-jews-are-middle-east/. Moreover, around half of all Israeli Jews are not Askenaz but are rather descended from Sephardim and Mizrachim and the like (e.g. from Morocco, Spain, Iraq, Egypt, etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel and have thus essentially zero European genetic ancestry.
The president is committed to GETTING a deal here regardless of how shitty it is.
Legacy and all that.
-Styopa
History has shown that progress happens through diplomacy or war. Ignoring resourceful countries full of academics doesn't end well for anyone. You are insisting on punishing the Iranian people for the alleged crimes of their leaders, which is fucking disgusting and makes you look an absolute cunt.
Iran has shown it is serious. That has already happened. You not knowing about it doesn't mean it didn't happen. You seem to be confusing your surface understanding of this issue with the entire body of knowledge amassed before and during the talks. You do this a lot. No wonder you get so confused sometimes.
You sure like to troll a lot, don't you? You have replied to a lot of my posts, mostly with nonsense answers like that one.
Carry on, it is a free country.
At the time of our founding, the founders expected (and many wrote and spoke about it) every adult male to have the front line combat rifles and pistols of the day, and there to be NO permanent "standing army". These discussions would be far more productive if the people on BOTH sides had actually READ the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and many more of the things our founders wrote instead of just imagining what they think is right based on the weak tea version of history their unionized high school teachers spoon-fed them in place of actual knowledge.
Something, is not a "Constitutional Right" just because you want it. Something is not "Unconstitutional" just because you wish it would go away. A modern and moronic fear of guns does not mean our founders provided the 2nd amendment so people could hunt for squirrels, and a modern embrace of Marxism does not mean the government can legitimately provide it.
The men of America are SUPPOSED to be BETTER armed than the government. The colonials had guns that were superior to the guns of the world's best full-time army of that era, the British army and were the actual front-line weapons of the US. The American rifles were superior not only in accuracy but also in maintainability in the field, in part because of their design, and in part because a number of our founders were inventors themselves who embraced new tech and who had selected a partially-automated manufacturing process that produced rifles with standardized interchangeable parts.
Guns are not the problem. Until the 1920s any American could own any gun INCLUDING FULLY-AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUNS WITH HUGE MAGAZINES. We did not have mass shootings. In the twenties, a mob hit in Chicago killed 6 gangsters and the feds passed a machine gun ban and started "gun control". Now, with a partially-disarmed public, a typical Chicago weekend is more bloody and violent than that original "massacre"
After Iraq and Ukraine, why would any nuclear power give up their nukes? Iran is threatened by a nearby regional power with nukes and advanced technology, after all.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
though if history shows us anything the, its that the US is far more likely to not stick to the deal
It is worth noting that in return for the removal of missiles from Cuba, the US promised to not attack or invade Cuba.
We kept that promise. If Iran were to commit to the total removal of offensive missiles and nuclear technology, a guarantee that the US would never attack them strikes me as fair. Of course part of that is they would have to stop supporting terrorists, which they don't want to stop doing.
Thus we come back to, "Iran can't be trusted".
Will Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and any future Isis state make the same promise?
Either way Iran is already agreeing to not pursue a bomb and they're doing it without a "no attack" promise from the US, so by your example they're actually doing more than Cuba did.
Israel has been attacked 4 times by other nations during its brief existence. It is small and the nations around it are big.
The insistence isn't a shame thing, Iran would do well to stop supporting the terrorists who attack Israel on a daily basis. In short, Iran needs to grow up and join the world of civilized nations if they wish to be treated as such. South Africa gave up apartheid and joined the world of civil nations, Iran can too.
Who started the '67 war is ambiguous, Israel fired the first shot and it's plausible the Arab states were only bluffing.
As for the terrorist attacks keep in mind that Israel is actively annexing Palestinian territory, if you want to talk about joining the world of civil nations to stabilize the region I think you need to start there.
We took 500k troops into Kuwait in 1991, we probably needed a million or more the second time around, but of course our "planes and drones and tanks can do anything". Nonsense, you need boots on the ground. You don't need those troops to fight, we had plenty of that. What you need is a clear show of force that allows you to be everywhere you need to be so that anyone thinking you're weak doesn't even get the idea of trying anything stupid. It becomes obvious who is the new boss and you can secure the borders and maintain order.
The US army doesn't even have 500k active troops. And remember you need more than just the people in the field, for a long term mission particularly you need people at home resting and training. Especially with Afghanistan going on at the same time there simply weren't enough troops to do what you suggest.
You could hire a bunch more but there's quite a cost associated and the US only has ~60 million military fit males to begin with, how many do you want to have on the Iraq mission?
As for the issue of the minority oppressing the majority, that is true and there was going to be backlash for that. One consideration would be to split Iraq up into 3 nations, Kurds in the north, and some split in the south for the other two. Iraq is not a natural nation, much of the troubles in the middle east are really Europe's fault for how they carved it up before and after WWI. They drew lines on a map without consideration of anyone actually living there.
The problem with that is the moment you give the Iraqi Kurds their own nation the Kurds in Turkey and Iran start wondering why they shouldn't get the same. Instead of a Sunni revolt in Iraq you might get a Kurdish revolt in Turkey and Iran.
I stole this Sig
Nonsense, Israel is no threat to Iran.
Besides the fact that Israel has no border with Iran, Israel is far too small to be a real threat to anyone.
Either way Iran is already agreeing to not pursue a bomb
I could agree to give you a million dollars. Doesn't mean it is going to happen.
Who started the '67 war is ambiguous, Israel fired the first shot and it's plausible the Arab states were only bluffing.
Nonsense, it is quite clear. Given the size of Israel and the lack of ability to defend in depth, they had to take the troops on their borders as a serious threat.
It was a defensive war for them, they clearly didn't set out to take over other nations.
The US army doesn't even have 500k active troops.
Reserves, national guard, etc. You also have the ready reserve and can spool up forces given a year's notice. We went in unprepared and you see the results of that.
The problem with that is the moment you give the Iraqi Kurds their own nation the Kurds in Turkey and Iran start wondering why they shouldn't get the same. Instead of a Sunni revolt in Iraq you might get a Kurdish revolt in Turkey and Iran.
And why shouldn't they?
This is a perfect example of the stupidity of even our own government. We revolted against England, the founding fathers were traitors and terrorists of their day. Had they lost, history would have written about them that way. They won, so it didn't.
Yet today, the US Government doesn't recognize that part of the US could vote to leave the union. We even had a civil war over it. So what the US Government is saying is that just because we did it to England doesn't mean we can do it to them.
Nonsense, pure and utter nonsense. If people want to leave as a group and vote, that is their right. Look at Scotland, if they want to leave Great Britain, that is their right, and amazingly, it appears that England would respect the choice.
It was a defensive war for them, they clearly didn't set out to take over other nations.
Yet they shot first and took over parts of other nations.
I don't think there's a clear A started it or B started it answer to '67.
And why shouldn't they?
[...]
Nonsense, pure and utter nonsense. If people want to leave as a group and vote, that is their right. Look at Scotland, if they want to leave Great Britain, that is their right, and amazingly, it appears that England would respect the choice.
Great Britain is a lot different than the Middle East. If the Turkish Kurds tried to leave Turkey would try to force them to stay, both sides would become more extreme and tensions across the region would increase. The Sunni insurgency devolving into ISIS is an example of that. There's a reason that one of the basic principals in the UN is borders don't change by force, African nations agree and work hard to keep those terrible colonial government lines in place. Land is valuable and when changing borders is a possibility people are willing to do a lot of fighting to win some.
I stole this Sig
Yet they shot first and took over parts of other nations.
If your view of that war is so shallow as to being about "who shot first", then you really have no business discussing the subject.
It is far more complex than that.
I don't think there's a clear A started it or B started it answer to '67.
Don't be obtuse, Israel didn't move their forces to the border first, they didn't make threats first, they didn't make demands.
The other nations shouldn't have moved their forces in such a threatening manor, then Israel wouldn't have been forced to defend herself.
When you walk up to someone swinging a bat in a threatening manor, don't be shocked when the other person punches you first, they can't afford to wait to be hit by the bat, they won't get a chance to fight back.
If the Turkish Kurds tried to leave Turkey would try to force them to stay
Then that is a flaw of Turkey. It would be disrespecting the Kurds human rights of self-determination.
Yet they shot first and took over parts of other nations.
If your view of that war is so shallow as to being about "who shot first", then you really have no business discussing the subject.
It is far more complex than that.
I don't think there's a clear A started it or B started it answer to '67.
Don't be obtuse, Israel didn't move their forces to the border first, they didn't make threats first, they didn't make demands.
The other nations shouldn't have moved their forces in such a threatening manor, then Israel wouldn't have been forced to defend herself.
When you walk up to someone swinging a bat in a threatening manor, don't be shocked when the other person punches you first, they can't afford to wait to be hit by the bat, they won't get a chance to fight back.
I'm not saying it was as simple as who shot first, I'm saying that it's more complex than a pure war of aggression by the Arab states.
And even if it were a war of aggression that doesn't justify Israeli land grabs.
You've also ignored the elephant in the room of ongoing Israeli settlements. It's like arguing whether Joe or Phil was responsible for starting the fight while ignoring that fact that Joe was robbing Phil's house.
If the Turkish Kurds tried to leave Turkey would try to force them to stay
Then that is a flaw of Turkey. It would be disrespecting the Kurds human rights of self-determination.
So it's a flaw of Turkey then. Either way the Kurds will end up paying for it if they try revolt against Turkey and end up in a bloody war surrounded by extremists. Bush thought that the Iraqis deserved democracy and self-determination, over a hundred thousand people died for that idealism and many of the remainder have less freedom than before.
I stole this Sig