President Trump moment of glory.

[Faithofchristian]

A name would be more useful than thinly veiled snark.

Why ? Are you that brain dead, that you can't figure it out.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I wouldn't see that as our only two choices. But violating the sanctity of the embassy is something that undermines faith in diplomacy altogether.

I don't really have a dog in the fight either way, I'm merely commenting that compromise is usually a necessary part of international agreements. If you want some other country to do something you want, you can either offer them something they want, or threaten them with something they don't want. Iran wanted their $400 mil back, and were even willing to forego most of the interest, and Obama felt that was a worthwhile compromise. Feel free to disagree with him all you like, but please do so with the knowledge the US would have had to offer something else of similar value to the Iranians to a hieve a similar outcome.

I don't like false dichotomies, but in this case "either give Iran their money back (or something of similar value), OR be prepared to deal with a nuclear armed Iran in the near future" seem the two likely options. If you can think of another option, I'm interested to hear it.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't really have a dog in the fight either way, I'm merely commenting that compromise is usually a necessary part of international agreements. If you want some other country to do something you want, you can either offer them something they want, or threaten them with something they don't want. Iran wanted their $400 mil back, and were even willing to forego most of the interest, and Obama felt that was a worthwhile compromise. Feel free to disagree with him all you like, but please do so with the knowledge the US would have had to offer something else of similar value to the Iranians to a hieve a similar outcome.

I don't like false dichotomies, but in this case "either give Iran their money back (or something of similar value), OR be prepared to deal with a nuclear armed Iran in the near future" seem the two likely options. If you can think of another option, I'm interested to hear it.

There are plenty of things we might have offered, such as pulling all of our troops out of the region and taking a more neutral approach to Middle Eastern geopolitics, which would be better for the US anyway. Many Americans don't like the idea that we sacrifice American blood for the sake of ungrateful "allies" who never appreciate what we do anyway.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Why ? Are you that brain dead, that you can't figure it out.

Why not just tell us? What do you think you gain by insults and vaguery?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Whole lotta analysts who disagree with you there, but please, other than uninformed pundit rhetoric, where'd you hear this?

It's purely subjective and I recognize this. But they were the only country with nukes who were actually threatening us, so I'd say it's safe to say they were our biggest threat.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

There are plenty of things we might have offered, such as pulling all of our troops out of the region and taking a more neutral approach to Middle Eastern geopolitics, which would be better for the US anyway. Many Americans don't like the idea that we sacrifice American blood for the sake of ungrateful "allies" who never appreciate what we do anyway.

I suspect offering a withdrawal like that would have been political suicide. Not saying it's a bad thing to offer, but you should only offer things you're willing to deliver. I mean, look how angry you are over a 40 year old incident involving a couple hundred (?) people. Now imagine offering to "cut and run" from the region after thousands of troop deaths in the last decade and just how well THAT would have gone done with people! Not to mention the "but what about Israel??!" crowd. Just hypotheticaling here, but AFAIK the $400 mil plus a little interest seems like the cheapest option in both political capital and money if you wanted a nuclear arms free Iran. And hey, maybe you don't. I personally doubt that Iranian nuclear arms would mean much in practical terms for anyone, but what do i know? Either way, isn't it nice we're discussing the actual issue rather than using misrepresentation to flame a politician unjustly, then argue about the facts of the issue?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It's purely subjective and I recognize this. But they were the only country with nukes who were actually threatening us, so I'd say it's safe to say they were our biggest threat.

Were they actually threatening you?

I mean in real world, practical terms supported by known doctrine and reliable intelligence? Or was it just hollow sabre rattling and demogougic alarmist punditry?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why not just tell us? What do you think you gain by insults and vaguery?

There is no insults, just plain evidence, all you have to do, is listen to each Media News, who's on track of real news and who are giving false news.
CNN,CBS,NBC, are in the giving false news, CNN is the worse of all Media News Networks.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Were they actually threatening you?

I mean in real world, practical terms supported by known doctrine and reliable intelligence? Or was it just hollow sabre rattling and demogougic alarmist punditry?

How can one tell the difference between real threats and bluffs? There's no way to know. Yet when a nation with nukes says that they will turn U.S. cities into "seas of fire," you have to take them seriously. And the fact is that no other nuclear power was making these types of threats.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

How can one tell the difference between real threats and bluffs? There's no way to know. Yet when a nation with nukes says that they will turn U.S. cities into "seas of fire," you have to take them seriously. And the fact is that no other nuclear power was making these types of threats.

That's why you have diplomatic and intelligence services, to determine the credibility of such threats. 2 of the world's nuclear powers have IC and SL BMs aimed at American targets this very second, and have had, without pause, for 60 years. Personally I'd call that more of a threat than the words of an acknowledged figurehead making grandiose claims about a capability still years in his country's future.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

There is no insults, just plain evidence, all you have to do, is listen to each Media News, who's on track of real news and who are giving false news.
CNN,CBS,NBC, are in the giving false news, CNN is the worse of all Media News Networks.

Asking someone if they're brain dead isn't insulting? I'll remember that.

On what do you base your determination of which news is "real"? Serious question. How do you tell an accurate news story from a false or misleading one?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That's why you have diplomatic and intelligence services, to determine the credibility of such threats. 2 of the world's nuclear powers have I and SLBMs aimed at American targets this very second, and have had, without pause, for 60 years. Personally I'd call that more of a threat than the words of an acknowledged figurehead making grandiose claims about a capability still years in his country's future.

Yet they haven't fired in 60 years. I'd worry more about the tantrums of a loony manchild with nukes than this.

 

[ecco]

The unemployment was at it's worse with Obama

Only until he reversed the downward slide he inherited from Bush. You seem to have forgotten that the second worst economic crash began during Bush's administration.

The good jobs market Trump is enjoying today is a continuation of what he inherited from Obama.

 

[Stevicus]

I suspect offering a withdrawal like that would have been political suicide. Not saying it's a bad thing to offer, but you should only offer things you're willing to deliver. I mean, look how angry you are over a 40 year old incident involving a couple hundred (?) people. Now imagine offering to "cut and run" from the region after thousands of troop deaths in the last decade and just how well THAT would have gone done with people! Not to mention the "but what about Israel??!" crowd. Just hypotheticaling here, but AFAIK the $400 mil plus a little interest seems like the cheapest option in both political capital and money if you wanted a nuclear arms free Iran. And hey, maybe you don't. I personally doubt that Iranian nuclear arms would mean much in practical terms for anyone, but what do i know? Either way, isn't it nice we're discussing the actual issue rather than using misrepresentation to flame a politician unjustly, then argue about the facts of the issue?

As for it being political suicide, it depends on where you sit. Some Americans would be okay with the idea, perhaps more than anyone really realizes. It might displease certain people at the top who have a geopolitical agenda and intentions which many suspect are dishonorable. Back in the 60s and early 70s, millions of people were motivated and marching in the streets because they had serious doubts and misgivings about the supposed goals and objectives of our government.

I'm also a bit skeptical regarding the assumptions being made here, such as the assumption that if Iran ever did get nukes, they would use them. I consider such an assumption to be on shaky ground, especially considering the fact that they had no missiles with enough range to reach the United States (unlike NK) and the fact that the retaliation from the US and other countries would totally devastate Iran.

As for my anger over the incident of 40 years ago, I will say that I was in high school when the Iranian hostage crisis took place. I can tell you that the anger over that was extreme to say the least. Just about everyone and his mother back then wanted to nuke Iran just for that. They violated our embassy, burned our flag, and said "death to America." People wanted to turn Iran into a parking lot. A lot of people were just plain livid. I was there and still remember it vividly.

(In contrast, the anger over 9/11 was more diffuse, mainly because people didn't know exactly which country we should blame for that. Afghanistan got picked as the scapegoat, but even then, not everyone saw it that way. Some just saw it as a Muslim immigrant problem and not a foreign policy issue, since 9/11 was done by immigrants and not by an actual foreign government. Many still see it that way and still want to unleash their wrath on immigrants, which is where the hullabaloo over Trump's "Muslim ban" comes from.)

As to your point about Israel, I think they've proven time and again that they're more than capable of defending themselves without the US actually having troops in the region.

The other side of the issue is that, if we really are that worried about Iran's potential aggression against its neighbors, then why yield to them in this way? It's tantamount to paying tribute. That certainly wouldn't stop them from being aggressive, if they really are that aggressive. Or...if they're not really that aggressive that we can trust them after paying them, then why bother worrying about them at all? All they said was that they just wanted the technology for nuclear power, a peaceful activity, not to build weapons. If we can't trust them, then we can't trust them no matter what. Or if we can trust them not to use nukes, then we can just let it go.

 

[ecco]

Because we shouldn't have had to pay them one red cent for taking over our embassy and holding our citizens hostage from 1979-81.

We didn't pay them one red cent for taking over our embassy and holding our citizens hostage from 1979-81.

Not to mention their interference in the 1980 presidential election (New Reports Say 1980 Reagan Campaign Tried to Delay Hostage Release).

You should be blaming Reagan, not Iran.

The $400 million for fighter jets was an agreement with a regime which the Iranian revolutionaries overthrew. Once the Shah was gone, then the agreement should have been considered null and void. Iran loses the money.

The deal was with the Nation of Iran. The revolutionaries overthrew the Shah. The revolutionaries did not eliminate the Nation of Iran and establish a new nation. We change our leadership every 4-8 years, it's still the same Country.

If a Government incurred a debt to the USA under the Obama administration does that mean they got off the hook when Trump got elected?

In any case, did you read and understand the part about the impending International Court Ruling?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

As for it being political suicide, it depends on where you sit. Some Americans would be okay with the idea, perhaps more than anyone really realizes. It might displease certain people at the top who have a geopolitical agenda and intentions which many suspect are dishonorable. Back in the 60s and early 70s, millions of people were motivated and marching in the streets because they had serious doubts and misgivings about the supposed goals and objectives of our government.

I'm also a bit skeptical regarding the assumptions being made here, such as the assumption that if Iran ever did get nukes, they would use them. I consider such an assumption to be on shaky ground, especially considering the fact that they had no missiles with enough range to reach the United States (unlike NK) and the fact that the retaliation from the US and other countries would totally devastate Iran.

As for my anger over the incident of 40 years ago, I will say that I was in high school when the Iranian hostage crisis took place. I can tell you that the anger over that was extreme to say the least. Just about everyone and his mother back then wanted to nuke Iran just for that. They violated our embassy, burned our flag, and said "death to America." People wanted to turn Iran into a parking lot. A lot of people were just plain livid. I was there and still remember it vividly.

(In contrast, the anger over 9/11 was more diffuse, mainly because people didn't know exactly which country we should blame for that. Afghanistan got picked as the scapegoat, but even then, not everyone saw it that way. Some just saw it as a Muslim immigrant problem and not a foreign policy issue, since 9/11 was done by immigrants and not by an actual foreign government. Many still see it that way and still want to unleash their wrath on immigrants, which is where the hullabaloo over Trump's "Muslim ban" comes from.)

As to your point about Israel, I think they've proven time and again that they're more than capable of defending themselves without the US actually having troops in the region.

The other side of the issue is that, if we really are that worried about Iran's potential aggression against its neighbors, then why yield to them in this way? It's tantamount to paying tribute. That certainly wouldn't stop them from being aggressive, if they really are that aggressive. Or...if they're not really that aggressive that we can trust them after paying them, then why bother worrying about them at all? All they said was that they just wanted the technology for nuclear power, a peaceful activity, not to build weapons. If we can't trust them, then we can't trust them no matter what. Or if we can trust them not to use nukes, then we can just let it go.

I'm not the person you should be asking these questions. I simply expressed the feeling that the most realistic options were either a nuclear armed Iran, or giving them their $400 million or equivalent. I'm really not making any claims beyond that. You're more than welcome to choose the one you feel is preferable, and I agree that there are points in favour of either option.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

President Trump has kept every promise that he made, which none of the other presidents did.

Not quite:
Here Are the Promises President Trump Kept and Broke in His First Year

 

[Faithofchristian]

Asking someone if they're brain dead isn't insulting? I'll remember that.

On what do you base your determination of which news is "real"? Serious question. How do you tell an accurate news story from a false or misleading one?

Well if you can not tell the difference between what is real and what is not real.
really feel sorry for you.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Only until he reversed the downward slide he inherited from Bush. You seem to have forgotten that the second worst economic crash began during Bush's administration.

The good jobs market Trump is enjoying today is a continuation of what he inherited from Obama.

Yeah, sure it was, try convincing the black communitys on that. Good luck

 

[ecco]

They also were more the party of peace (notwithstanding the divisions between hawks and doves in the 60s and 70s) - peace with Vietnam, peace with Russia, peace in Korea, and elsewhere around the world. Why they're the ones leading the war cry these days is truly mystifying to me.

• Republican R. Reagan, with nothing better to do, went to war in Grenada.
• Republican G. Bush Sr. invaded Iraq (perhaps justifiably).
• Republican G. Bush Jr. invaded Afghanistan (justifiably).
• Republican G. Bush Jr. invaded Iraq (totally unjustifiable).
• Republican D. Trump threatened NK:
• "The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."

• Democrat W. Clinton invaded no Country.
• Democrat B. Obama invaded no Country.

Your comment about Democrats "leading the war cry these days" is truly mystifying to me.