With at least some otherwise inclined, for instance Gen. Curtis LeMay. He may even have tried to provoke a crisis, but the record is not clear enough for conviction. Suffice to say that my lifer Air Force old man (just to the left of Otto von Bismarck) despised him as a irresponsible warmonger. (Refused to vote for McCain for the same reason - he had his moments.)
Obviously, that I do not believe that the Generals are putting Israel first, but that the Rabbis are. The Generals are putting the U.S. first – but this, while understandable, is still an error. The highest goal is to put world peace first.
Generals are not trained in peacemaking.
There is usually more than one way to be wrong.
Absolutely! All’s well, and, 'sides that, you’re one of my fave SDMB posters, so keep up the good work! (Exclamation points!)
Too late for an ETA, but I don’t always SEE every post in a thread. I try to keep up using the “latest posts” button, but sometimes this puts me ahead of my own personal “high water mark.”
If someone asks a question, and is not answered, it is a rhetorical fallacy to leap to the conclusion that it was deliberately ignored. It might never have been seen at all.
There are lots of weapons systems not supported by generals. Just not their own branches’.
Terr, what do you think about the content of the generals’ letter? Why do you suppose they have no proposal other than to reject the deal, similar to the GOP’s Obamacare repeal and “replace” strategy?
Since you keep pounding on this, what do YOU think about the sentence you didn’t see when you claimed that the generals made only one tangential reference to Israel? To refresh your memory, their first and chief specific objection to the deal was that it was against Israel’s interests.
Eh, 200 more people that are wrong. Who gives a shit? :rolleyes:
Again, what, in their statements, made you think that? And if it wasn’t their statements, please explain what outside their statements made you think that?
Mayhaps you could spare us all the suspense and fast-forward to whatever “gotcha” you’re getting at?
The fact that they’re generals. Generals are just as likely to be as wrong as Rabbis, but they’re likely to be wrong in different ways.
I don’t even blame them for putting U.S. interests ahead of world peace. They’re U.S. Generals, and their loyalty is tied very closely to the U.S. It’s hard to get military officers to take a higher, broader view.
But remember that this is not an agreement solely between the U.S. and Iran. A number of other countries are also signatories. The Generals are not willing to look at it that broadly. And that’s their big blunder.
The letter in question is lacking the same thing the opponents in this thread are lacking … as I posted earlier (along with other people looking for the same answer):
"What are the other realistic alternatives that make Iran less likely to make progress toward a nuclear weapon? They have been lacking in this discussion so far. And not “what they should have done is…”, but “refuse this deal, and then ___”
So these military folks think it is a terrible deal. Their advice from this point is to refuse the deal, and then ___? Iran voluntarily disarm? We invade? We nuke the place? Netanyahu sleeps like a baby? Vote for Trump? We watch as the rest of the world drops sanctions anyway, America loses credibility for any future replacement deal, and Iran still gets the windfall cash while continuing the research they have been doing with no limits or inspections whatsoever?
No mention in their letter. Not something to take seriously.
Terr? D’Anconia? … so the deal dies … THEN WHAT?
Isn’t that also an argument for never giving up on the deal no matter how much cheating takes place? Because Iran doing a lot of cheating is better than Iran being totally unfettered?
Road to peace too easy, we need to borrow some trouble?
This deal has nothing to do with peace. Iran’s war against the West continues.
There is a strong faction within Iran that considers Israel and the West an enemy. They are the ones who have in the past committed the actions that you describe as a war against the West. It is safe to say that they will not go away overnight, so in that sense you are right. Their war continues.
But was it really these hawks who partiticpated in the 5+1 talks? Do you think they were happy that the talks happened at all? An do you believe that they consider the eventual outcome a victory that will strengthen their position within Iran? I don’t.
If this deal weakens the position of those who do not want peace, it has a lot to do with it.
Compared to just the population of current active duty general/flag officers that’s a minority that signed the letter. Compared to the likely population of retired officers of that rank it’s likely smaller. Most wouldn’t have had had duties where nuclear weapons development programs were part of key experience and officers are by their nature generalists. Since publicly commenting like this is the province of retired officers, they mostly won’t have relatively current classified information to assess in offering an opinion.
The majority of former general/flag officers are not opposed to the Iran deal isn’t as catchy of a subject line though.
No, and it makes no sense that you keep bringing it up.
The hardliners control things. There may be even harder liners(is that a word?) who were opposed, but make no mistake: Ayatollah Khamanei, Al Quds, and the Revolutionary Guards run Iran. There is no “faction” making war on the West. Iran, as a sovereign nation, is making war on the West. This deal has not changed that.
Explain how that argument cannot be used against those who say the sanctions should go back when Iran gets caught cheating. “Yeah, Iran may have not kept their commitment to do A, B, or C, but they are doing D and D is what keeps them from getting nukes! If we reimpose sanctions they’ll stop cooperating on D!”