It helps if you know what actually happened: "Despite the goals Obama met, most of the timetable for leaving Iraq was in place before he took office. The prevailing document, the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement, was negotiated between the Bush administration and the Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki. That’s what set the deadline of Dec. 31, 2011, for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq. "He essentially implemented the plan that he inherited," said Chris Preble of the libertarian Cato Institute. James Carafano, of the conservative Heritage Foundation, compared Obama taking credit to saying "because of Truman we were victorious in World War II, without mentioning Roosevelt." Even when the deadline was set, news reports say, it was considered somewhat soft -- more a political symbol establishing Iraq’s sovereignty than a concrete date. The Obama administration held to that line and planned to keep several thousand troops in Iraq beyond 2011 as a "residual force." Administration officials negotiated with Iraqis all year to amend the withdrawal plan. The breakdown: immunity for American troops in Iraqi courts. The Iraqi parliament refused to approve it, and American officials wouldn’t leave U.S. forces in place without it." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... q-pullout/ The Right loves to say Obama pulled the troops out and that let ISIS gain power, but the agreement to pull the troops out in 2011 was signed by Bush. Of course, Obama and the Left also like to take credit for ending the war, but again, Obama was simply following the time table agreed upon by Bush. Seriously, this isn't ancient history. It was only a few years ago. ISIS gained power primarily because the post war occupation of Iraq was badly bungled. Hell, the whole war was badly bungled, but that's another issue. There were other factors, but the short version is the Maliki government, which was Shi'a, shut the Sunni's (30% of the population) out of power. The Maliki government was also corrupt as hell. The Sunni's became resentful. Many eventually joined ISIS. You see the same thing in Yemen. Yemen is 50-55% Sunni and 42%-47% Shia. There, the Sunnis were in power and the Shia had no representation in government. Now the Shia are rebelling. Now I know there's a lot of hawks on the right who think it would be simple to bomb Iran and force them to submit to our demands, but they said the same things about Iraq. Remember "They'll greet us as liberators!" and "It will only take a few months!" and "It will only cost 50 billion or so!" and "We won't need many troops!" How'd that work out? Oh right, it didn't and now we have ISIS to deal with. Here's a tip. Iran is over 3 times larger than Iraq and has more than twice as many people. And unlike Iraq, it's 90% Shi'a. Iran is unified. All of them are going to want revenge if we start a war with them. And that's exactly what we'd be doing. We wouldn't be "defending" ourselves or the world. We'd be starting a war. You may not like them having a nuclear program, but they're a sovereign country and they have every right to have one. Israel has one, and Israel has nuclear weapons. I don't see anyone telling Israel they can't have them, do you? Iran doesn't have to agree to a treaty. They're agreeing to a treaty because we and other nations have put economic pressure on them. They can say no and build a bomb. They have that right. And contrary to what Tom Cotton thinks, if we start a war with them to stop them, we're going to have a huge mess on our hands that will make the ISIS problem look trivial. You can take that to the bank. Finally, I think some people need to remember that the U.S. doesn't run the world and we don't get to dictate to everyone how things will be. Other countries have sovereign rights just like we have.
Good points. I guess the pulling out was like the reverse of Bin Laden- Bush did all the hard work, and Obama gave the order. But the part about Israel is what gets me with that. It's okay for Israel to have nukes because they aren't threatening to FLATTEN AN ENTIRE COUNTRY. Iran can have a nuclear program, but they should not be allowed to have a nuke.
Politicians say stuff all the time. We have politicians right now saying we should bomb Iran, don't we? We've had them for years. As I recall, John McCain even sang a song about bombing Iran when he was running for president. Isn't that threatening another country? And, let's not forget, the U.S. did use the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected President of Iran in 1953 and installed a dictator in power who would give our oil companies better deals. So it's not Iran has reason to love us or think we're not serious about attacking them. As for it being ok for Israel to have nukes, the Israelis aren't exactly innocents, and correct me if I'm wrong, but they're currently threatening to attack Iran right now, just like they attacked Syria in 2007 and Iraq in 1981. Isn't that threatening another country? The point is, the nuclear deal is the best option we have right now to peacefully solve the problem. Let's give it a try. Bombing them will not prevent them getting a bomb. It will only slow them down. Our own experts say so. And it's not like we can't bomb them later anyway if they violate the agreement, so what's the rush to bomb them now before trying the treaty?
If we can peacefully solve the problem, we should. If we can't, we need to give them a display of power so big that they surrender. And the Israelis have every reason to bomb Iran. Iran is threatening to make them a wasteland similar to New Jersey. New Jersey. And if we have to threaten Iran into not developing a nuclear weapon, so be it. If they were a peaceful, friendly country that wasn't trying to destroy Israel, the I would be fine with them having nukes. They can't handle a nuclear bomb right now, because they will almost immediately nuke Israel. It's a fact.
He would tell you want he wants What he really really wants He wanna He wanna He wanna Zig Zag and a fine cigar
As much as the US likes to think we are the huge supreme ruler of the earth we are far from it. Why should we tell Iran they can't have a nuke but its ok that we have thousands of nuclear missles along with China and Russia. Trust runs both ways. If you were told that you couldn't own a gun but that the other person could just because they are bigger wouldn't that motivate you to buy a gun and destroy the other person much more than to sit back and be controlled. Besides the US is in debt. Not as bad as most people claim. In fact for every dollar we owe someone another country owes us 70 cents. That doesn't even include money that the US loans to banks/buissnesses when they save them from going under, or people who haven't paid taxes, ext. But still I much rather lower spending instead of raising it with another large war like the one you are suggesting.
I disagree that the Middle East campaign has been bungled. It's still pretty active over there. If we listen to what Wesley Clarke had to say about the wars, it makes sense. Even if the given timeline is way off. All this time has been working up to this point. Dealing with Iran. I believe success or failure will be determined at a later time. Sometimes we have a habit of not thinking a little further along then we do. Also we allow a lot of political propaganda cloud the strategic objectives. Adding to this a little bit. This is no secret. Arms sales under Obama has been fairly large. With the main buyers being ME counties. Saudi Arabia being the main buyer. This is consistent with the overall agenda IMO.
When you think about. I makes me feel lied to by Obama supporters. It's been a very hypocritical social agenda Obama and democrats have out forward. They aren't the peace fun loving liberals. They are cutthroat tacticians. Very deceiving.
So yeah...All you party supporters. Obama supporters. You all can blow me. I never supported Bush. I never supported Obama. The presidency doesn't change. Only the names of the people. Warmongering, profiteering, lying cheats, kick back taking swine mostly. I never liked any of them. Lawyers and Politicians. You never trust them. That's how the saying goes...
If he did that, blood might actually flow to his head, and he would start thinking. Where would we get our fix of completely whacked-out craziness from then?
irans got like 20000 nuclear refineries all pumpin away in an unregulated manner to make a bomb cause our threatening has done so well (wink) by the way i heard iran thinks you cant handle concepts tougher than than a fourth graders worldview (giggle)
What's the current deal AJ? And how would helping them achieve a nuke, prevent them from obtaining one? .. Moron
If the deal involves regulators and inspections (as the administration has insisted on from the start), then the deal would be far more likely to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon than no deal, especially if Iran feels it is getting something out of the agreement not to weaponize nuclear power (such as an end to economic sanction). As it stands, there are no regulations, no inspections, and no disincentive to make a nuclear weapon. In fact, it practically has no other option but to try to make a weapon now. If there is no deal, it is more likely that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons far faster than if we were allowed to monitor them. Sanctions ate economic, they do not prevent Iran's nuclear ambitions.
There is a difference between a peaceful nuclear program and one needed for making a bomb. Under the current deal, accepted by the P5+1, Iran cannot make a bomb. They will also lose some of their stock pile. Here is an article I found for further detail: "International negotiators assembled in Switzerland have announced the broad terms of the Iranian nuclear deal. Here they are, based on what we know, translated into plain English. An important note: the deal is not yet finalized, and it is not particularly detailed. Thursday's announcement is only for the basic framework. Negotiators will continue to meet over the coming months to develop a complete, detailed agreement based on these terms. The deadline is June 30, but negotiations could collapse before then. However, this is a major step toward reaching a full agreement and thus potentially ending the world's yearslong standoff with Iran over its nuclear program. What follows is each of the items mentioned in the deal, along with a simple translation into plain English and a brief description of why it matters: Centrifuges Term: Iran will be allowed about 6,000 centrifuges: 5,000 at its Natanz facility and 1,000 at Fordow. It can only use first-generation IR-1 centrifuges, and has to give up other models. Plain English: Centrifuges are pieces of equipment you use to enrich uranium, a natural ore, into nuclear fuel. If you enrich uranium long enough in centrifuges, it can be used to make a nuclear bomb. Iran currently has about 20,000 centrifuges, so it will have to give most of them up. It will also be allowed to use only its very old, first-generation centrifuges. Why it matters: This means Iran will have a much smaller nuclear program, in terms of its ability to create nuclear fuel or, potentially, nuclear material for a bomb. It will also be restricted to its oldest, slowest, least capable centrifuges. The US had earlier hinted it might allow 6,500 centrifuges, so this is a favorable outcome for the US. Uranium enrichment Term: Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium to only to 3.67 percent. Plain English: Iran will be allowed to turn raw uranium into the kind of fuel that can be used for a nuclear power plant. But nothing more. Why it matters: Iran can have nuclear fuel, and it can make nuclear fuel, but it has to stop way, way short of making or having anything that could be used for a nuclear bomb (about 90 percent enriched). Stockpile Term: Iran will be required to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium from 10,000 kilograms to 300 kilograms. Plain English: Iran has to give up a stunning 97 percent of its nuclear stockpile. Why it matters: This is very favorable for the US, but it punts on a really important question: how will Iran get rid of this stockpile? The US and Iran had disagreed sharply over how to do it. It looks like they still haven't found an answer. Sanctions relief Term: The US and European Union will suspend sanctions after IAEA inspectors confirm that Iran has completed its requirements under the deal. United Nations Security Council sanctions will be lifted once Iran completes all actions addressing nuclear concerns. US sanctions related to non-nuclear matters, such as Iran's state-sponsored terrorism, will remain in place. Sanctions will snap back on Iranian violation. Plain English: The US, Europe, and UN Security Council will remove their sanctions after Iran fulfills its end of the deal. But it is still very unclear how exactly that gets determined, when that happens, or whether it means the sanctions are lifted all at once, or over time. If Iran breaks its end, the sanctions will all come back (in theory). Why it matters: Sanctions relief was a huge fight: Iran wanted all the sanctions off right away, the US and others wanted to remove them gradually. Some are reading this as Iran getting its demand, but it's just not clear at this point. It is true that once European or United Nations sanctions come off, it will be difficult to re-impose them — even if Iran does cheat. Nuclear facilities Term: Iran will be allowed to use its nuclear facility at Natanz for enrichment. It can also use its facility at Fordow for research as a nuclear physics lab, but no fissile material will be allowed there. Plain English: Iran will be allowed to keep using its once-secret "hardened facilities" — big structures with heavy blast walls to protect from attack — at sites known as Natanz and Fordow. Iran can keep using the one at Natanz to make nuclear fuel. It can keep using the facility at Fordow for what sounds like fairly limited nuclear research. Why it matters: Iran really wanted to keep access to these facilities, partly as a matter of national pride. International inspectors will have access, so they won't really function as covert nuclear facilities anymore. And the stuff Iran gets to do with them is pretty limited. Plutonium plant at Arak Term: Iran will be required to rebuild its plutonium plant at Arak such that it will only make energy-grade plutonium, and will ship out its spent plutonium. It is barred from heavy-water reactor use. Plain English: Iran had built a facility at Arak for making and storing potentially weapons-grade plutonium. Now, it will repurpose the facility to only make nuclear fuel. Why it matters: You can make a nuclear bomb with one of two fuels: uranium or plutonium. The other parts of the deal limit and restrict what Iran can do with uranium. This part of the deal removes weapons-grade plutonium from the equation and only allows fuel-grade plutonium for powering a power plant. Inspections Term: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors will have access to Iran's nuclear sites, the uranium mines and mills, centrifuge plants, and supply chains. It will monitor dual-use technologies. It can access "suspicious sites." Plain English: Inspectors will be regularly checking out all of the known places that Iran would use for any kind of nuclear work, and even many things related to nuclear work. It can also investigate anything suspicious that pops up. Why it matters: Inspectors, by gaining access to not just the core nuclear sites but also secondary things like uranium mills and centrifuge plants, will be in a really good position to make sure Iran isn't cheating on a deal or trying to build another secret facility somewhere. If Iran does try to cheat, the world will be much more likely to know." Source: http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8336219/ira ... in-english