Nuclear deal with Iran

[The_Stainless_Steel_Rat]

@adaher

I hope you guys realize that without Western involvement a genocide against whichever side loses in that region is a very real possibility.

@elucidator

And that threat would otherwise be less…how? Do we control any of the principal antagonists here? We say “Don’t do that!” and they won’t? And perhaps you might give us a bit more as to what the word “involved” means? In the case of ham and eggs, the chicken is “involved” but the pig is “committed”.

@adaher

What some posters here have said about Iran fighting ISIS. If Iran puts enough Shiite fighters in the Sunni areas of Iraq to defeat ISIS, things are going to get very bad for the Sunnis in the wake of that victory. Whereas if we drove them out that would not be the case.

Italics mine.

Wait, wait, wait, are you suggesting that the US Government, and presumably what allies we could cajole into joining us, put large numbers of troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria to attack ISIS? Because if that is what you are suggesting, it strikes me as the dumbest American military move since Cold Harbor.

Please tell me that is not what you are suggesting. Please tell me I heard wrong.
Secondly, as for massacres, I don’t doubt that they would happen on a localized basis; but Sunnis and Shi’as have lived in the same general neighborhood for centuries and I doubt that will change even with what is going on there now.

And our stopping it is more likely to have both sides turning on us, IMHO.

As for the Kurds, they have their own goals and objectives, and they are not necessarily the same as ours.

[adaher]

That depends. Will it take large numbers of troops to defeat ISIS? If so, why are Iranians preferable to Americans?

[The_Stainless_Steel_Rat]

@ralph124c

Pat Buchanan wrote a very good analysis of the deal. basically, the USA would suffer extreme isolation, should Congress reject it. For that reason alone, it is better to approve the treaty. Iran would get no major advantage by resuming bomb grade enrichment. I do think that engaging Iran might be the way to get them to actively fight ISIS (and spare us the need to get involved).

ralph124c, could you get me a cite for that; I tend to abhor Buchanan opinion’s, but I always considered him an isolationist/America-First type; reading an opinion of his that supports an internationalist approach intrigues me.

[The_Stainless_Steel_Rat]

@adaher

That depends.

Don’t go mealy-mouth on us; does defeating ISIS mean a major committment of US/Allied troops? Or not?

Will it take large numbers of troops to defeat ISIS? If so, why are Iranians preferable to Americans?

Ummm, they live there?

[elucidator]

We don’t have to pay burial expenses, disability payments for wounds, stuff like that. Because its their kids who are in The Shit, not ours.

Did I really need to point that out to you? Seriously?

[adaher]

Iranians live near. They don’t live there. When I say, “It depends”, I’m asking if you think a major troop commitment is necessary to defeat ISIS. If so, then why not ours? We need ISIS to be defeated. Is this a new US policy, having others do our fighting for us?

Now Iraqis, there I’d agree. This is Iraq’s fight first, and they should do the fighting. It’s their country. It’s not Iran’s though. They don’t belong there anymore than we do. But if we’re going to introduce foreign troops to fight ISIS, shouldn’t it be effective ones who won’t conduct massacres of civilians?

[John_Mace]

@adaher

Iranians live near. They don’t live there. When I say, “It depends”, I’m asking if you think a major troop commitment is necessary to defeat ISIS. If so, then why not ours? We need ISIS to be defeated.

No, “we” don’t. They do. ISIS has nothing to do with us unless we choose to make it our fight, which it needn’t be.

[adaher]

Some dead marines in Chattanooga would disagree. ISIS is actively recruiting people for attacks on US targets.

[John_Mace]

@adaher

Some dead marines in Chattanooga would disagree. ISIS is actively recruiting people for attacks on US targets.

That’s part of the danger of living in the modern world. Some shit is going to happen. But I don’t need to get 5,000 US troops killed over there in order to prevent 4 being killed here.

[adaher]

ISIS has started using chemical agents. It’s going to be a lot more than four. I didn’t mean to imply for a second that all they are going to do is the occasional shooting here. They have bigger plans.

[John_Mace]

@adaher

Some dead marines in Chattanooga would disagree. ISIS is actively recruiting people for attacks on US targets.

@John_Mace

That’s part of the danger of living in the modern world. Some shit is going to happen. But I don’t need to get 5,000 US troops killed over there in order to prevent 4 being killed here.

Missed the edit window. And you do realize, don’t you, that WE FUCKING HAVE MADE IT OUR FIGHT. We are bombing the shit out of them. No wonder they are encouraging folks to attack us.

[adaher]

Now you’re talking. But once committed, shouldn’t we be doing our best to win? Do you think stopping the bombing now would stop ISIS from wanting to attack us? Do you think switching from bombing to funding their enemies would make them less likely to attack us?

We’re in the fight because there was a risk of that from the beginning. YOu know I’m not an Obama fan, but he didn’t order bombing raids because they don’t like gay people. He did it because he correctly perceived the nature of the threat.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@adaher

It’s far more real if the Iranians send thousands of angry Shiites into Sunni Arab Iraq to fight.

Iraq is already mostly Shi’a.

[John_Mace]

No, I don’t think it’s a good idea to double down on stupid.

[The_Stainless_Steel_Rat]

Look, adaher, I’d like to introduce you to a word; Logistics. That’s LO-GIS-TICS.

OK, we’re going to send 25,000-50,000 troops to defeat ISIS; where do we base them out of, how do we supply (and re-supply) them, how do we do maintenance and repair, where are the ports and airfields and secure roads (if you think you can support a major combat effort solely by air, see The Word above).

Iraq? Yeah, they’ll be overjoyed to see us. All the IED’s will being coming out of the basements…

Kurdish areas? Sure, they’d be happy to see us…but there are no ports there and we’ve have to truck vast amounts of goods through…Iraq.

Syria? Yeah, depend on old Bashir to open his ports and roads to us.

Israel? I’m sure they’d be overjoyed to have the US even deeper in their debt; if they weren’t worried more about their neighbor’s reactions and ISIS turning their eyes toward Israel (I haven’t heard of any attacks by ISIS there).

We managed in Gulf War I because Saudi allowed us to stage out of their military stations and Saddam Insane gave us the time. We managed in Gulf War II because Kuwait gave us the space and ports needed to reduce a much smaller military threat.

Going into a place without natural supply lines and a long distance from port sounds like Afghanistan all over…and even there, the only way we supported that was via Pakistani ports and convoys.

I leave you with an old quote, probably first used by the Greek Hoplites; Amateurs discuss Strategy; Professionals discuss Logistics.

Here endeth the Lesson.

[CarnalK]

@adaher

ISIS has started using chemical agents. It’s going to be a lot more than four. I didn’t mean to imply for a second that all they are going to do is the occasional shooting here. They have bigger plans.

Oh. So with a straight face you’re saying we have to go invade ISIS territory because they are developing WMDs. Have you no sense of irony at long last, sir?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@elucidator

Well, that certainly simplifies things, so it has that going for it.

It was my attempt at parody. Its hard to tell sometimes on the internet.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@adaher

The President is offering ISrael more military aid, which is a tacit recognition that they’ll need it. But yeah, I don’t think favoring the Iran deal means you aren’t an ally of Israel. As I said, Obama’s playing the long game here, but in the meantime Israel is going to be doing a lot more fighting, and we’ll support them in their fighting, especially since we made it necessary.

Or he’s just giving them stuff s they’ll shut up and go away.

[Donald_Rump]

@The_Stainless_Steel_Rat

ralph124c, could you get me a cite for that; I tend to abhor Buchanan opinion’s, but I always considered him an isolationist/America-First type; reading an opinion of his that supports an internationalist approach intrigues me.

Pretty sure he was referring to this article, which I also thought was well argued.

Rejecting the Iran Deal Would Be GOP Suicide

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Alessan

And if the leaders of Iran had backed off from their pledge to destroy Israel, just a bit, then I’d be happy with that. But personally, all I can see here is a country that’s about to get a lot richer, a lot more popular and a lot more powerful, while still spitting on the ground whenever it speaks my country’s name. I’m sure the Iranian people are perfectly decent folk, but their leaders are still theocrats, and they still won’t even recognize my country’s existence, and have given no indications that they ever will in the future. And in the meantime, some of that money is going to end up buying missiles that will be pointed at my house.

I get it. The deal with Iran serves America’s interests, and America’s interests should be America’s top priority. But can’t you see our side of it? It’s not just idiots like Bibi Netanyahu who oppose the deal - its most Israelis. And based on our own interests (which are *our *top priority), we’re pretty justified, don’t you think?

Our neighborhood has just gotten a lot less friendly.
(And for the record - I trust most Republicans about as far as I can throw them. Bibi’s a fool if he thinks he can block the deal in Congress. Not that he should be meddling in internal American politics anyway, the* fucking moron*).

I think Bibi has pretty much done everything he could to ensure that he has no seat at the table and that future prime ministers get seated further down the table than they used to be.