Figure it out.
What details does the OP want to know? Also:
And it’ll be hard for them to do that without somebody noticing.
I’m not Okrahoma but…
a) I’m pretty sure that no one on the site is going to do anything about anything, even when we’re talking about current, rather than past affairs. When people were yelling that Bush should get out of Iraq, I don’t think anyone expected that one of the other posters on the board was actually George W Bush, and that they were going to be the one to convince him. And there have been plenty of threads like, “How could Hitler have won WWII?” Which are, similarly, a review of a past event and everyone seemed fine to participate in those threads, despite it being a basically bad thing should their ideas have had any ability to go back and influence the real events.
b) This is a site dedicated to fighting ignorance, not to glamorizing popular leaders. We should all be interested in Obama’s full legacy, warts and all, for the sake of knowledge and the ability to give an honest and nuanced report of his choices, so that we have a better base of information on which to act in the future, in how we vote, in how we guide others, etc.
As would be evident from the fact that their progress was shut down and key figures arrested.
That doesn’t mean that they won’t make a go for try two.
Though, it’s also possible that they’ll decide that they’d prefer to modernize, trade with the rest of the world, and just be happy saber rattling every once in a while. It’s possible that Obama made the right choice. It’s also possible that he was an overly optimistic boob, and that this choice will have been disastrous. Time will tell.
Yes, but weren’t people at the time saying that Iran was a year, or even six months, away from having a nuclear weapon? Considering that the agreement was two years ago it’s already better than if we had just done nothing.
Short of invading and putting the entire population to the sword, what measures would satisfy you that Iran will never make a go?
This is something that is current events since Trump campaigned on possibly withdrawing and is conducting a review. While none of us are decision makers a public discussion certainly affects the political process and informs those that have to make decisions about what the electorate’s position is. I enjoy reviewing history and discussing decision making at the time with information known then. When it’s both current events, susceptible to popular opinion, along with historical interest it’s IMO important to look at both aspects.
I’m also a Republican and still regularly see the notion that if it was a bad deal in 2015 we should back out in 2017. That’s as weak as the argument Obama made during his 2008 campaign. Arguing that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq in 2003 was not sufficient to say withdrawing in 2009 after we had, as he proposed, was the best option. Both arguments are incredibly weak. Both arguments seem to be unquestioned by those who made or are now making them.
I will admit, based on Okrahoma’s posting history and the fact that he seemed to think the link was current news, that I assumed. I assumed he was not just talking about it as a hypothetical or to review Obama’s legacy. I assumed he’s making a common but weak argument I’ve been seeing in support of withdrawing from the deal. It’s his thread and if he just wants to talk about what we should have done then without even considering about what we should do now , more power to him. For me fighting ignorance includes making sure we acknowledge that those are most definitely not the same thing.
You’re assuming quite a bit about my stance on the Iran deal. I have no strong feelings on it one way or the other. It really comes down to the specifics of the arrangement and how things play out. I have insufficient access to the people who would be able to tell me whether we have measures in place to ensure faithful execution of the measures, on the Iranian side. It’s possible that Obama was told that it didn’t matter if these guys went back, because we have adequate means of detecting misbehavior. And, it’s possible that he decided that it was worth doing whatever it took to end the status quo, even if it meant that he was probably bring played as a rube. And, potentially, he was just such a rube.
If the state department is now saying that this part of the deal was hidden from them, and the only way to get Iran to bite was to give them exactly what they would ask for if they were playing you, that makes me lean away from the wisdom of the deal. But, I’m not massively angered by it. It could have been a stupid move made out of silly naivete, and yet still pay off. If it does, then that’s awesome. I wouldn’t have done it, but that doesn’t mean I won’t be happy that it worked out.
No, I am somewhat facetiously suggesting that you are describing an unreasonable standard of concern. Short of the complete elimination of Iran, there is no way to guarantee what Iran will or will not do in the future. Even Iran itself doesn’t know that. Sure, they might start researching nuclear weapons again. Do you or anyone know of a way to absolutely prevent this?
All I can say is it sure is good to be finally winning again!
I’m tired of winning.
Conquest and occupation, if you want a factual answer. I don’t recommend it, but it is always an option. The supposed threat of such a thing was, after all, sufficient excuse to do just that with Iraq.
Heh, just picturing the Bush43 clusterfuck of Iraq attempted by the clown-car (nay, clown-bus) of the Trump administration in Iran… You’ll have to elect three Democrat presidents in a row to clean *that *one up.