by Jack
Obama’s deal with Iran to inspect the nuclear refinement hinges on Iran allowing access. Although the 24 day window seemed overly generous, much can be done in 24 days to cover up cheating, what it really has is many months according to the details of the treaty.
If you would like to read the specific lines that allow Iran to stall well beyond the 24 day period you will have to click this link.
Dr. Ben Carson just returned from Israel and he said everyone he talked to felt that Israel was sold out by the United States over this bad deal with Iran. I know this isn’t scientific polling, but I’ve heard this said others in Israel. Obama had harmed America’s only true ally in the Middle East. At home he tells us that its a good deal that 99% of our friends approve. How could this be true when many countries in the Middle East openly say they don’t like this deal?
I just learned today that Obama doesn’t need a 2/3rds vote of Congress for approval since the Iran deal is classified as an agreement and not a treaty. hat one word…agreement, holds us hostage to a deal that will ensure Iran gets nuclear weapons if they want them and they obviously do.
Iran continues its work on its expensive ICBM program which should be ready by the time a warhead is ready to put on it. “The 2014 Iran Military Power report confirms that Iran could have an ICBM capability by 2015,” said Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.”
North Korea remains an unknown factor in Iran’s nuclear development. The two countries have been working closely on nuclear weapons development for a number of years and there is nothing in Obama’s “agreement” to prevent them from continuing. “A new U.S. intelligence report warns North Korea could resume exporting nuclear technology and material. That could spell trouble for U.S. efforts to keep Iran from getting the bomb.”
BEIJING – North Korea would never enter Iran-style talks over ending its nuclear weapons program, its ambassador to China said Tuesday, declaring its arsenal “not a plaything” to be haggled over.
why would the president risk the safety of millions of people if this is a bad treaty?
Jack: “hat one word…agreement, holds us hostage to a deal that will ensure Iran gets nuclear weapons”
I keep hearing this argument, and I have to admit I don’t understand the logistics of it at all.
How exactly does this agreement bring Iran any closer to obtaining nuclear weapons than they were before? What does it do to help Iran obtain nuclear weapons?
I can see the argument that it doesn’t do enough to stop Iran from getting nukes. I don’t know if I agree with it, but I can at least see it as a rational position. But that’s quite different from the argument that the deal “will ensure Iran gets nuclear weapons,” or Huckabee’s odious statement about leading the Israelis to the “ovens.”
Can you explain this to me, Jack, or anyone else? What does this deal do to make Iran more likely to get nuclear weapons, rather than just as likely as they were before?
Chris: ” What does it do to help Iran obtain nuclear weapons?”
1. The inspections will be fruitless just as inspections under 17 UN resolutions were ineffective with Saddam in Iraq. The agreements (side agreements included) give Iran a playground on which to make the world and America look like fools. Is this the “flexibility” Obama was talking about when speaking to Dmitry Medvedev? See number 2 below.
2. Flexibility to open up opportunities for Russia to sell weapons and planes to Iran.
3. The lifting of sanctions gives Iran billions of dollars to increase military capability and sponsor terrorism. This also affords them the cash to invest in military nuclear capability and therefore a fast track to deadly weaponry (nuclear and biological) that can reach our shores.
“leading the Israelis to the ovens is an appropriate consideration since the Iranians have repeatedly stated it’s intention to wipe Israel off the map.
Gotta go.
Tina: “1. The inspections will be fruitless”
OK. How does that help Iran get closer to nukes? What’s the difference between “fruitless inspections” and “no inspections,” which is what we had before?
I mean, if Republicans were proposing a better deal with more fruitful inspections, then you’d have a point here. But Republicans aren’t proposing that; most of you are saying that there shouldn’t have been a deal at all. I don’t understand how no deal would have interfered with Iran’s ability to make nukes.
“just as inspections under 17 UN resolutions were ineffective with Saddam in Iraq.”
Part of the reason those inspections were ineffective was because Saddam didn’t actually have what the UN was looking for. Our country also did not give the UN inspectors the time they had requested before we invaded the country looking for something that wasn’t there. Hopefully we don’t do that again in Iran.
“2. Flexibility to open up opportunities for Russia to sell weapons and planes to Iran.”
If Russia wants to do that, Russia is going to do that, regardless of whatever deal we have in place with Iran. Putin pretty much does whatever he wants, international community be damned. I don’t see how the Iran deal makes this any more likely than it already was.
“3. The lifting of sanctions gives Iran billions of dollars to increase military capability and sponsor terrorism. This also affords them the cash to invest in military nuclear capability and therefore a fast track to deadly weaponry (nuclear and biological) that can reach our shores.”
See, now this is a valid point! To be fair, even the administration has admitted this is a concern. This seemed to be a pretty balanced article on that fear:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/08/obama-admin-fears-iran-deal-could-give-tehran-billions-for-terror.html
That said, I’m still not shaking in my boots. We’ve been getting warnings about Iran’s nuclear program since the mid-80s. They still don’t seem any closer to obtaining nukes than they were back then. We need to keep a watchful eye, but we also need to make sure we don’t fall prey to over-the-top fearmongering, as Huckabee and others have; that’s exactly what led us into the Iraq War. A sense of perspective is necessary.
Just in case I have not said it in awhile. I want Tina to know that I still read Posts Scripts from time to time and I still enjoy reading the comments. Especially Tina’s. Keep up the good work guys.
Oh yea, this whole Iran deal proves how ignorant the left is. They trust Iran with nuclear power, but not American citizens with a gun.
This deal goes to the very core of what America’s leftists are and have been for over 50 years. They are the enemy of freedom, because time and time again they side with world leaders who’s history shows they have denied their own citizens freedom.
Inspections after billions of dollars have been made available will be fruitless (useless might have been a better word) since their capability will have increased and since they have 24 days prior to inspection to hide what they are doing…useless…and insane in terms of deal making!
No deal means billions of dollars in wealth and trade ability with Russia and China doesn’t happen.
Iraq had 12 years, Chris according to the State Department:
That’s more than plenty of time to hide, destroy, or transport WMD materials. In fact there is evidence that yellow cake was transported to Syria. Not everyone agrees, some believe Bush did it, but the fact that yellow cake was found in Syria recently adds weight to the charge. Also there’s this.
You may not see how removing sanctions increases the opportunities for Iran to acquire missiles/missile technology from Russia or China but others don;t see it that way. Russia just lifted their own ban
The deal enables Iran, gives them a better advantage. I don’t see how making things easier for Iran makes this a “good deal.”
BBC:
See Iran’s key nuclear enrichment sites
In 2013 Huffington Post reported:
“Fearmongering” is a meaningless, fabricated word used to disparage those who do not agree with and will not support the left narrative. it is used to counter the opinion that the left prefers to appease dangerous enemies. History tells us that appeasement doesn’t work…and yet the left will not learn the lessons of history.
Fearmongering did NOT lead us into war in Iraq. That is another political opinion with nothing substantive to back it up and in denial of the fact that Iraq was in breach of it’s cease fire agreement, had used WMD on it’s own people, was a state sponsor of terrorism, and was suspected of having WMD by everyone! It also ignores evidence that indicates Saddam had WMD, transported WMD, and was guilty of human rights violations. it also denies the wide spread support of Democrats at the time. The reasons for invading Iraq were much more complex than the left’s simplification and spin after the fact.
I find it interesting that I remember Chris arguing that Obama would be stronger against Iran than McCain would be. That Republicans only give our money to the bad guys and Obama was going to stop giving our money away to dictators. Well, Iran is a dictatorship by Muslim Clerics and they have been involved in almost every war in the middle East since the Shaw was chased away.
However, Obama is giving Iran $150 billion, which is more money than their economy would generate in almost 29 years.
So Obama is giving Iran enough money to get those nukes built real friggin fast.
Between Nancy and Debbie I’m not sure who is the bigger DoDo bird.
Pelosi calls Obama’s Iran deal ‘a diplomatic masterpiece’:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pelosi-calls-obamas-iran-deal-a-diplomatic-masterpiece/article/2569250
Peggy Pelosi has been a dodo bird a little longer than Debbie and that’s the only difference.
Debbie was asked the difference between socialism and the democrat Party and she, for once, couldn’t find the words. We know that’s because there is no difference…duh!
Chuck: “They trust Iran with nuclear power, but not American citizens with a gun.”
Of course we don’t trust Iran with nuclear power. That’s why we backed a deal that (at least in theory) bars Iran from obtaining nuclear power.
It’s also a very ignorant generalization to claim that “the left” doesn’t trust American citizens with a gun. Most lefties support increased gun control, but also believe most American citizens should be able to own guns.
“I find it interesting that I remember Chris arguing that Obama would be stronger against Iran than McCain would be. That Republicans only give our money to the bad guys and Obama was going to stop giving our money away to dictators.”
I don’t remember ever making an argument like this, but it’s possible.
Tina: “In fact there is evidence that yellow cake was transported to Syria.”
And that justifies invading Iraq how exactly?
Plenty of yellowcake was found in Iraq itself–it was all old and none of it pointed to an attempt to restart the WMD program.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/uranium-in-iraq/
“Fearmongering did NOT lead us into war in Iraq.”
Of course it did. Had the president and the CIA bothered to do even a cursory background check into their primary source for the WMD claims, they would have found that he could not be trusted. The UN, and some journalists and politicians warned against acting too soon in Iraq. We didn’t listen.
Let’s not make that mistake again.
Re #4 Chris “I mean, if Republicans were proposing a better deal with more fruitful inspections, then you’d have a point here. But Republicans aren’t proposing that…”
What? WHAT??? What the hell is wrong with this choplogical Chris person Tina?
It is the bailiwick of presidents to negotiate treaties and not anyone else. It wasn’t long ago 47 Republican Senators signed an open letter to Iran announcing the treaty was never going to be ratified. They were excoriated by the left and ridiculously accused of treason!
Does anyone seriously believe that Obama would listen to the advice or any proposals from Republicans? Why should ANY Republican make any proposals whatsoever? Talk about lost cause waste of time. This is gormless left-wing mental masturbation at its most perverse.
My hope is that the next president is a Republican, the treaty is immediately rejected, and we start over with a regime that has been ridiculing Obama.
Re #7 Chuck : Chuck gets it. Add to that the money that will flood into Iran with sanctions lifted.
Now to what I visited this blog post in the first place. Related —
Iran publishes book on how to outwit US and destroy Israel
http://nypost.com/2015/08/01/iran-publishes-book-on-how-to-outwit-us-and-destroy-israel/
Pie, GREAT find. Anyone who believes what Kerry and Obama say is an idiot. Their track record of lying should be the starting point for everything coming out of their mouths.
Also, this deal with Iran is NOT a treaty, it’s an “agreement,” because Kerry/Obama didn’t want to comply with our Constitution of obtaining the Senate’s approval.
That’s why you hear Republican candidates talking about doing away with the agreement day one they are in office if elected. It can be reversed the same as all of Obama’s EOs. A treaty reversal would need to be run through the Senate.
Here’s Kerry before the Senate.
Kerry: Iran Deal Not a Treaty ‘Because You Can’t Pass a Treaty Anymore’:
“For 228 years the Constitution provided a way out of that mess by allowing treaties to be with the advice and consent of 67 U.S. Senators,” he said. “Why is this [Iran deal] not considered a treaty?”
“Well Congressman, I spent quite a few years ago trying to get a lot of treaties through the United States Senate,” Kerry replied. “And frankly, it’s become physically impossible. That’s why.”
“Because you can’t pass a treaty anymore,” he continued. “And it’s become impossible to, you know, schedule, it’s become impossible to pass. And I sat there leading the charge on the Disabilities Treaty which fell to, basically, ideology and politics. So I think that’s the reason why.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/kerry-iran-deal-not-treaty-because-you-cant-pass-treaty-anymore
Pie: “Why should ANY Republican make any proposals whatsoever?”
If Republicans are going to bash this deal to the public at every opportunity, then it seems perfectly reasonable to expect them to explain what, exactly, they would have done differently were they in charge. They keep saying they wouldn’t have made this deal, without offering any alternatives that I’m aware of.
How about you, Pie? What would your ideal Iran deal look like? Or would there be no deal at all–would you keep the old sanctions in place, with no inspections? Would you take harsher measures?
You obviously don’t have to answer, but I’m genuinely curious.
Chris: “Had the president and the CIA bothered to do even a cursory background check into their primary source for the WMD claims, they would have found that he could not be trusted.”
Great argument except for one thing…it demonstrates your ignorance about intelligence and how decisions are made. The intelligence community does not rely only on one questionable source. The president does not make such an important decision based on the word of one questionable source.
Once again this is liberal spin…and like a good soldier for the left you bought right into it.
“The UN, and some journalists and politicians warned against acting too soon in Iraq.”
The UN? You’ve got to be kidding! This is a body that had put in place seventeen resolutions, none of which had done any good. Inspectors were repeatedly blocked from getting at the truth. Several journalists? There are any number of leftist journalists that are anti-war under any circumstance or politically motivated to smear republicans. Your assertion doesn’t impress.
“Let’s not make that mistake again.”
Big mistakes, both military and diplomatic,have been made over the last six years that make the invasion of Iraq look mild by comparison! the policies over the last six years, and now this appeasement deal, has made the situation in the ME much more dangerous and done much more damage.
Pie: “What the hell is wrong with this choplogical Chris person Tina?”
He fell down an ideological rabbit hole?
“Does anyone seriously believe that Obama would listen to the advice or any proposals from Republicans?”
He’s proven time and again he doesn’t even respect some Democrats in Congress! Dumping all over Republicans is automatic, just part of the Alinsky plan.
Unfortunately, the American people are stuck with a guy who’s gone to the dark side. Judge for yourself.
“Why should ANY Republican make any proposals whatsoever?”
Exactly.
Worth repeating…so I will. See the front page soon!
Tina: “Great argument except for one thing…it demonstrates your ignorance about intelligence and how decisions are made. The intelligence community does not rely only on one questionable source. The president does not make such an important decision based on the word of one questionable source.”
Except in this case, that’s exactly what they did. Jack has written about that before here.
“The UN? You’ve got to be kidding! This is a body that had put in place seventeen resolutions, none of which had done any good. Inspectors were repeatedly blocked from getting at the truth.”
Yes, and they STILL did not support the invasion and said they needed more time.
“Several journalists? There are any number of leftist journalists that are anti-war under any circumstance or politically motivated to smear republicans.”
Yes, and in this case, they were right.
“Big mistakes, both military and diplomatic,have been made over the last six years that make the invasion of Iraq look mild by comparison!”
That’s insane. While Obama has made military and diplomatic mistakes, I don’t see how any of them could possibly make the invasion of a country over nothing look “mild.”
You think instances like Benghazi are somehow worse than starting the Iraq War under faulty premises for no other reason than one of them happened under Bush, and one of them happened under Obama.
Chris, shut up. if you want to —- yourself off, fine, but quit trying to —- off everyone else with your nonsense.
Sanctuary Cities Are Illegal – It’s Anarchy – They Must Be Stopped! –
Jul 9, 2015 4:58 pm Post #35 Chris : I’m only going to respond to one thing above, and then I don’t plan on engaging with or talking about Pie Guevara again.
Stick to your plan, you pathological left wing clown.
Re #13 Peggy : Thanks Peggy, I stand corrected.
Approval of Iran deal craters in polls —
http://tinyurl.com/pw4yqer
Iran Dictates Terms on Inspections
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/iran-dictates-terms-inspections
Pie Guevara: “Chris, shut up. if you want to —- yourself off, fine, but quit trying to —- off everyone else with your nonsense.”
The a- – hole once again shows the level of discourse he’s comfortable with.
Chris: “Except in this case, that’s exactly what they did. Jack has written about that before here.’
I won’t discuss what Jack may or may not have said. I do recall his listing the violations that contributed to the decision to go to war. Your own opinion about what “they did” takes the decision making process out of context and attempts to nail the President with a one liner…typical Alinsky!
“Yes, and they STILL did not support the invasion and said they needed more time.”
How much time is enough time, Chris? Saddam was playing cat and mouse with UN inspectors through the Clinton presidency. It was a complete joke!
You aren’t accurate about the UN’s stance or the process that led Bush to his decision:
Bush went to war with authorization given him by the full Congress. Hindsight makes weak leaders scramble to justify their own failings!
At the time the world had been demanding Saddam’s compliance or removal for years. But, most of the world doesn’t have the guts to make the hard decisions…they draw useless red lines in the sand as the enemy thumbs it’s nose and continues with activities that make the world unsafe and the people oppressed.
The bottom line, Saddam could not be trusted, and he was not cooperating with the UN inspectors. He was i breach of the cease fire he signed following our defense of Kuwait.
“While Obama has made military and diplomatic mistakes, I don’t see how any of them could possibly make the invasion of a country over nothing look “mild.”
Bush didn’t just invade Iraq. He removed a dangerous evil dictator who was a sponsor of terrorism! He supported the Iraqi’s in establishing a Democracy and parliament. He set in place the opportunity to make Iraq an example to other ME nations. He left office with a relatively stable ME.
And I don’t want to hear about how the tribes and religion made this strategy wrong. It took a long time to establish a peaceful United States of America, post WWII Germany, or Japan.
The truth in all of this is the left leadership wanted to destroy Bush to set the stage for a better performance by Democrats. They have been seen as weak on defense and American values. Bush had to be discredited for political reasons. Nothing in history is ever as simple as the one liner criticisms that flow from politics.
Benghazi isn’t the only stupid decision made during the Obama term…there are many. He just isn’t targeted for criticism as Bush was.
Chris do you really consider the rise of ISIL, the destruction of borders in several nations, red lines he had no intention to enforce, a ridiculous deal with Iran, and the overall turmoil in the ME “nothing?”
If so you are being incredibly generous toward the catastrophic decisions of the Obama administration while being stupidly critical of the Bush administration.
Tina: “You aren’t accurate about the UN’s stance or the process that led Bush to his decision”
Nothing in your TIME link contradicts my claims about the UN’s stance or Bush’s process.
It is a fact that the UN inspectors asked for more time to complete their investigation:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/20/iraq.garyyounge
It is also a fact that many have come forward to say that the Bush administration was intent on invading Iraq and ignored contradictory information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction
“He left office with a relatively stable ME.”
Unbelievably wrong.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/243853-jeb-bush-is-wrong-iraq-was-not-stable-before-obama
Saddam was of course a terrible dictator. But there are a lot of countries with terrible dictators that we did not invade in a massive land war. Iraq in 2002 was not the hub of terrorist activity it was in 2008. Bush absolutely left the place worse than it was before, and the rise of ISIL is directly attributable to the Iraq War.
Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. Continuing to defend the Iraq War shows a level of willful blindness that is hard for me to fathom. Nearly everyone, on the right and left, has acknowledged that this was a mistake. When will you?
Chris: “Nothing in your TIME link contradicts my claims about the UN’s stance or Bush’s process.”
Your claim was basically a one liner, “Bush rushed to war on false evidence and the UN should have been given more time.”
The UN was feckless and Bush did not “rush” to war on false information.
There were many reasons for Bush’s decision and he gave diplomacy and sanctions a chance first. But your narrative fits the “Bush lied people died” political line just fine…you go ahead and buy that crap! I don’t!
“It is a fact that the UN inspectors asked for more time to complete their investigation ”
Whoop-de-doo! The UN had already spent years inspecting. Inspections and sanctions went back to the Persian Gulf War.
How many years would it take for you to finally say inspections aren’t working?
A presidency doesn’t happen in a bubble. Every president inherits conditions from the previous administrations efforts.
“…many have come forward to say that the Bush administration was intent on invading Iraq and ignored contradictory information.”
When any president makes a decision that doesn’t follow what others believe should happen what else are they going to say? It doesn’t make it true.
Also the word “ignored” suggests Bush didn’t even consider other opinions. There’s no evidence suggesting that’s true.
It makes perfect sense to have planned for the possibility of going to war with Iraq given Saddam’s breach of the cease fire agreement, history of terrorist activity, and decades long defiance of UN resolutions and inspections. Saddam was given plenty of time. He also could have done what Gaddafi did and just give up everything:
Saddam chose to play games with the international community instead with disastrous results for him…somebody finally took the adult position and called him on his game playing. A red line was drawn and when it was crossed there were consequences.
Now Obama and Kerry have given Iran rewards that Gadaffi had to earn…what dopes! They will leave the next president with a real mess to clean up and very dangerous conditions that threaten the entire world.
Chris Iraq wasn’t perfect post war but it would be insane to expect as much. Considering the sacrifices made by American soldiers to secure near defeat of Al Qaeda and the establishment of a fledgling democracy it was in fairly stable condition. It sure as he77 was more stable than it is now. America still had the upper hand and should have used the investment in blood and treasure to negotiate a continuing presence. But our current president decided to play politics, call it a “stupid war,” and abandon our hard won achievements. His arrogance makes him a poor leader. The rise of ISIL is directly attributed to the failures of the Obama administration to follow through as the next president. He acted defiantly and arrogantly abandoning Iraq at a most important time and running off to secure a legacy as the man who caught Bin Laden.
Bush would have credited the SEALS!!!!!
I’m not surprised you are unable to “fathom” defense of a decision that was imperative, all things considered. Unfortunately, your vision and hindsight are narrow and based more on emotion than reality of conditions. The threat posed by extremist Muslims is greater than ever. I can’t fathom your insistence that Obama has improved conditions.
“Nearly everyone, on the right and left, has acknowledged that this was a mistake. When will you?”
What exactly makes it a mistake? The years following the Bush administration have made certain that we will never know whether or not the policy to establish a democracy in the heart of the ME and make Iraq a friend of the west would ultimately work…the policy wasn’t even given as much time (And support) as those ineffective UN inspections you find so appealing.
As I’ve indicated before we all think of Japan and Germany as our immediate friends following the war as if it happened with the surrender agreements. But directly following the war there were still pockets of resistance. We established a strong military presence and remained in those countries for many decades. The outcome was better than the undermining, cut and run, appeasement policies of the Democrat Party and the radicals that run it.
I don’t know if a different decision would have had a better result or a worse result and neither does anyone else! Our opinions are pure speculation. I do know that since Korea and Vietnam there has been a concerted effort to undermine all US military efforts. I have no respect for those who willfully work against the efforts of their nation. The mistakes made in Vietnam are well documented and frankly, we failed as a nation to learn how to conduct a war from those mistakes.
Please don’t don that supercilious self-agrandizing high hat with me about acknowledging mistakes. My purpose has always been to defend Bush against politically motivated attacks about the war and his decision to go to war. During WWII there was disagreement about what we should do but when the decision was made the nation acted with one voice. Sixties radicals have destroyed the unity of the nation. “Fundamental transformation has been their strategy for decades. This is just another front in their little war to destroy America…as is the Obama administrations willingness to make us weak in the eyes of our enemies and our friends. What an ugly scheme…to bring down America’s standing in the world by ensuring that we lose and retreat in war and go crawling on our knees to appease ugly, evil dictators.
To answer you question, it will never happen.
Tina: “What exactly makes it a mistake?”
If you’re still asking this question, you don’t care to know the answer, and there is no answer you would accept.
“The mistakes made in Vietnam are well documented and frankly, we failed as a nation to learn how to conduct a war from those mistakes.”
The main mistake in Vietnam was invading the country in the first place. Had you learned anything from Vietnam other than “hippies suck,” you’d see why the Iraq War was wrong. But no, the real reasons we lost those wars were the damn hippies. Unreal.
“To answer you question, it will never happen.”
Wow. Now you are literally admitting that there is no amount of evidence that could ever persuade you to admit that the Iraq War was a mistake. And you’re proud of this.
Points for transparency, I guess.
Chris: “The main mistake in Vietnam was invading the country in the first place. Had you learned anything from Vietnam other than “hippies suck,” you’d see why the Iraq War was wrong.”
There’s more to history than isolationism v. engagement. Your point of view is simple and naive. It dismisses the ambitions of narcissistic despots who see themselves as ruling the world.
Also “hippies suck” is an opinion about the radicals that are now in charge of the Democrat Party a body whose goal is the “fundamental transformation of America to a socialist, despotic state! This was also the goal of communist Russia. While you can argue that it’s possible for Americans to ignore the oppressive goals of such as these and not engage in defense of liberty, you cannot argue that it will create peace in the world or more freedom and a better life for oppressed peoples.
“And you’re proud of this.”
I’d call it certain and confident.
Pride is a staple of liberal motivation and thought. The only time I can recall that a liberal admitted a mistake was when Bill Clinton said, “The era of big government is over.” It was only temporary posturing for his personal legacy.
Tina: “There’s more to history than isolationism v. engagement.”
So then why are you pretending I drew such a false dichotomy? It doesn’t take an isolationist to realize that the Vietnam War was a mistake. It simply takes a realist.
“One man was responsible for the deaths or injuries of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq. That same man is responsible for sowing sectarian conflict today in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. And yet, in the nuclear deal with Iran, this man, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force, Major General Qassem Suleimani, will have sanctions lifted against him. Indeed, he will receive a large infusion of cash to wreak more havoc and terror. Having served in Iraq, having experienced first-hand his proxy operations against American forces, and having lost men to Gen. Suleimani’s terror operations, I find this offensive.”
Says it for me.
Empowering the Iranian Who Murdered Americans
http://tinyurl.com/ombal9w
Good article Pie!
Adm Ace Lyons rips Kerry and Obama a new one.
Adm Ace Lyons – Reject Iran Deal Then Impeach Kerry And Obama – America Sabotaged From Within: (video)
http://rickwells.us/adm-ace-lyons-reject-iran-deal-then-impeach-kerry-and-obama-america-sabotaged-from-within/
Good Vietnam article here. The war wasn’t a mistake; managing it very badly was a mistake.
I have wondered if the minority loud mouths that undermined our efforts during that war would have been as effective had Kennedy not been assassinated. Would the nation that adored Kennedy rise up to stand behind his position that America would, “Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend…to assure the survival and success of liberty.”?
Kennedy believed that the Soviets (communism) were seeking power and control by land grab and that if South Vietnam fell others would follow: “If we withdrew from Vietnam, the Communists would control Vietnam. Pretty soon, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Malaya, would go…”
Had America fought to win in Vietnam history would tell a much different story. As it was South Vietnam fell to communism after we left and Cambodia became the victim of a brutal communist leader.
The lessons of the Vietnam era are clear for those with the courage to see them. These are lessons that would be useful today. See if this sounds familiar:
The wars we fight for liberation and freedom are not “mistakes,” for we will be challenged to fight, or become overwhelmed and surrender completely, to despotic ambitions one way or the other. Once again we find ourselves in appeasement mode. When we finally next become desperate, and decide freedom is important after all, will it be too late?
Ho Chi Minh had the same basic philosophy as the radical Mullahs have today. People are expendable commodities. None of these leaders values/valued life. Both were/are willing to sacrifice as many people as necessary over any length of time to realize their goals. America could summon the strength and the power to defeat them but we hesitate (Or grovel).
Nobody prefers war. But when we do go to war we must be unified and go to win as swiftly as possible. Anything else is a big mistake. Too often since WWII have we abandoned our strength and turned to weakness.
Obama gave up and spit on America’s sacrifice in Iraq, calling it a “dumb war.” That was a mistake.
Obama has weakened America in the eyes of the world and that is a continuing mistake.
Strength in a nation dedicated to freedom and human rights has a better chance of repelling the advances of murderous despots than any appeasement plan. Obama doesn’t believe in America’s unique dedication to liberty and strength and has said so. That is a big mistake.
So today and tomorrow we will confront the ambitious religious Middle Eastern maniacs over and over again until we wise up or are defeated, killed and oppressed ourselves.
I hope we finally wake up. I hope we finally resolve to defeat this nasty enemy in defense of our liberties and in the name of common decency, before the missiles they plan to use against us and our allies hit our shores.
I should have known a defender of the Iraq War would also be a defender of the Vietnam War. Both are almost universally regarded as two of America’s greatest mistakes, but some people are incapable of learning from our mistakes. Warmongers will always find a justification for war, and they will always blame those who tried peace for the war’s failures. They can’t accept the fact that our soldiers died for nothing; it’s too hateful of a thought to process, and since they are in their hearts idealists, they won’t accept facts that contradict their jingoistic worldview.
Good luck getting your war with Iran, Tina.
Another Bush vs. Obama legacy observation from a foreign country leader.
Nigerian Activist on Africa and Presidential Legacies: Bush Fought AIDS, Obama Promoted Homosexual Agenda:
“(CNSNews.com) – President George W. Bush, rather than President Barack Obama, will be best remembered for a legacy of having helped the African people, a Nigerian civil rights activist and attorney said on Tuesday.
“President Bush will really be remembered as the president who had the most impact on Africa of the last three presidents,” said Emmanuel Obege. “I think they’re no doubt about it.”
In his prepared remarks Obege, who was exiled to the United States from Nigeria, said Bush’s visits to Africa made a difference to countless people on that continent.
“When President Bush visited Africa he launched an initiative – a presidential emergency program for AIDS relief, which was meant to help combat a major pandemic that was taking so many lives,” Obege said.
“And for many of us who were there, who rejoiced to see what President Bush did. It was sad for us to see President Obama go to Africa and for the second year running his primary objective was sexual imperialism, where he was calling on Africans to legalize gay marriage.
“One doesn’t even want to go into the questions of how antithetical that would be to the very notions and the very programs that President Bush was trying to implement,” Obege said.
When asked to expand on his contrast of the impact on Africa of the Bush and Obama presidencies, Obege responded that each had very different priorities.
“The point I’m trying to make is President Bush actually did something that was relevant to the crisis that was facing the continent at the time,” he said.
“When you show up and you’re saying to the people of Africa ‘You need to legalize gay marriage’ – I had a lot of Africans say, ‘Well, when our presidents go to America we don’t say to you to legalize polygamy even though we have a lot of polygamy in Africa and we think it’s a great idea, but we don’t come to your country and tell you to do that.’”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/nigerian-activist-africa-and-presidential-legacies-bush-fought-aids-obama?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=n-nigerian-bush-Obama
Chris: “…and since they are in their hearts idealists, they won’t accept facts that contradict their jingoistic worldview.”
I see. I’m the “idealist” because I recognize that there are evil people in the world. I’m an “idealist” because I see the uselessness of drawing red lines without consequence (Obama), negotiating a nuclear deal with a sponsor of terrorism (Obama), years of drawing red lines (UN), mismanagement of a war that led to failure (Johnson). I’m the “idealist” for favoring peace through strength rather than suffering terrorism under fawning appeasement toward those who chant “death to America” and who’ve sworn to eliminate or dominate in the world.
I think you are a naive dreamer!
But you think you’re a realist since you favor sucking up to sworn enemies, making deals in which they win and we get nothing…sacrifice anything, even our freedom and the innocent, as long as we don’t have to go to war.
I would rather see a well trained (Volunteer) army take these jerks out than watch the slow death, oppression, and destruction produced by appeasement.
I’d also prefer a nation with the guts to follow through once the decision to go to war is made.
No matter how many times you sing Kumbaya you will not create peace through weakness. You will allow, support, and encourage those who create a lot of misery and death in the world.
“Warmonmger” is a word used in the Alinsky style. It does not describe anything the United States of America has ever done or my personal opinion or point of view. America has been a liberator. War has been a last resort solution to intolerable situations that diplomacy failed to ameliorate. I believe in absolute support for our military and giving them the tools and the commitment to win!
Your smug dismay at the thought of our soldiers deaths and sacrifice is typical of appeasers. You are also the ones who constantly fret over the millions who die or are imprisoned at the hands of despots. But their lives mean nothing to you in “reality” because the only thing you would do about it is talk.
Communism and its variants represent the worlds most devastating genocides/democides:
Death by “warmongers” doesn’t even come close:
Those stats are from 1998.
Your worldview is extremely naive and your position regarding war is/will be deadly. But you keep singing, Chris, “all we are saying…is give peace a chance.” Fool!
Peggy, there are so many things wrong with that homophoic activists’s comments, I’m not even sure where to start.
First, his entire premise is factually wrong. Obama never told Africa “You need to legalize gay marriage.” He said that they need to expand gay rights in Africa. For the record, the current state of gay rights in Africa is that it is a crime to be a homosexual or partake in homosexual activity in most African countries.
Given that current state, do you agree with Obama that gay rights should be expanded in Africa, or do you believe that being gay should remain a crime?
Second, the false dichotomy Obege draws is ignorant and wrong. He says:
“
The clear implication here is that promoting gay rights is somehow “antithetical” to AIDS prevention. This is absurd. If this were true, we’d see higher rates of AIDS in American today than we did in the eighties, when gay sex was criminalized in many states. The exact opposite has occurred; AIDS is down while acceptance of gays is at record highs. Obviously, there is no positive correlation between gay rights and AIDS as Obege implies; Obege is simply perpetuating the myth, once popular in America, that the AIDS epidemic requires further marginalization and shaming of gay people.
This did not work here, and I see no reason it would work anywhere; people don’t just stop having sex when their sexualities are unfairly demonized, they just don’t have safe sex, because they a) aren’t taught to, b) have to get it on the sly, and c) have extremely low self-esteem and are more prone to high risk behavior due to being told they are worthless deviants. This is not a recipe for AIDS prevention; forcing people into the closet is not a realistic solution to combatting any STI.
Any reputable sex education specialist will tell you that to prevent diseases, open dialogue is necessary. That is next to impossible in countries where admitting you are gay can literally get you put in jail.
Obege continued:
Homophobia is certainly a crisis facing he continent of Africa. But as a homophobe, Obege obviously doesn’t agree.
Bush certainly deserves credit for his efforts to fight AIDS in Africa, and Obama has praised him for it. It’s also true that under the Obama administration funding for the major AIDS relief program there has been cut. It strikes me as valid to criticize him for that. What isn’t valid is positing AIDS prevention and gay rights as somehow in opposition to each other. The two struggles are related in that AIDS does have a larger effect on the gay community. But Obege doesn’t realize that expanding gay rights is actually a necessary tool in AIDS prevention. Continuing to criminalize homosexuality in Africa only adds to the risk of AIDS among men and women in Africa.
Tina, you’re an idealist when it comes to war in that you refuse to admit that the Iraq and Vietnam Wars were pointless. We lost Vietnam; we didn’t lose to Communism in the end. That alone shows that invading Vietnam was unnecessary.
“War has been a last resort solution to intolerable situations that diplomacy failed to ameliorate.”
There is no way either the Vietnam or Iraq War could reasonably be described as “last resorts.”
I’d like to know, specifically, how you would have handled Iran. What would your nuclear deal look like? How would you improve it? Or do you believe we shouldn’t have tried negotiation at all? If no negotiation is acceptable, why was negotiation with Iran OK when Reagan did it, but not now?