• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bad idea on part of Netanyahu. Drawing a "red line"

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
BTW LL what solution do you offer which will provide nuclear power for Iran and at the same address the Wests security concerns beside "Trust, but please don't verify"?

We're all aquiver with anticipation. How will you duck the question? I wonder.
-----------------------------
Hayabasa, In post #73 on this thread I promised to address your question by yesterday or today, isn't it a little early for you to proclaim I ducked your question?

As Haybasusa, I have seen your claim that you side with with the Iranians in being allowed to generate nuclear energy used to provide electricity, but first Iran has to prove they have no nuclear weapons ambitions. I statement I somewhat agree with, but if we want to fair and unbiased, we have to apply the same standards to Israel.

Will you Hayabusa join me in applying the same standards to Israel? To quote you Hayabusa, "We're all aquiver with anticipation. How will you duck the question? I wonder."
As I will also guess, Hayabusa, that you will claim since Israel never signed the NPT, their nuclear weapons program that already has some 200+ nukes is somehow legitimate. But if that is the critera, why should not the Iranians simply with draw from the NPT, and in so doing achieve the same legitimacy as Israel.

If Iran with draws from the NPT, would you consider that as a act of war Hayabusa? "We're all aquiver with anticipation. How will you duck the question? I wonder."

After that we greatly differ on the track record of the body called on to monitor NPT performance, namely the IAEA. It did a miserable job in coming right out and saying definively GWB was lying about Niger sending yellowcake unranium to Saddam in his state of the Union address.

And now the IAEA has again compiled a even more miserable record. As everytime Israel makes stupid and false claims, the most recent at the Netanyuhu speech at the UN last week, the IAEA says nothing to debunk Israeli bullshit. Or makes a effort TO DISCHARGE ITS REAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO SAY TO THE WORLD, THIS IS WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE IRAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND THIS WHAT WE DON"T KNOW. "We're all aquiver with anticipation. How will you duck the question? I wonder." Hayabusa.

Because if the IAEA is biased, we have a situation of guilty until proved innocent. And its imposible for either Iran, Israel, or anyone else to prove they will later misuse a nuclear program.----------even if basically everyone in the world already knows Israel is mis using their nuclear program.

Then there is maybe a trust question, it may blow your mind Hayabasusa, that I place more trust in Iran to not mis use their nuclear program than I place in Israel who already has WMD and regularly uses it on their neighbors.

But still Hayabususa, what I propose is that the larger world makes and enforces the concept that the entire mid-east should become a nuclear weapons free zone. The real question Hayabusa? Let us have none of your self serving hypocracy that you support the rights of Iran to gnerate electricy, while doing everything to advocate making it impossible.

"We're all aquiver with anticipation. How will you duck the question?" I wonder Hayabusa?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Training other fighters is something they would do to keep western powers obligated elsewhere, getting a nuke is the only way they prevent an occupation.

It makes perfect sense if you are completely surrounded by superior armies who need little reason to destroy you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I got only one question nextJin, who is "They"? And if "they" means either Israel or Iran, your statement is not a very accurate depiction of either nation.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,670
13,749
136
1) Did Persian not attempt to conquer Greece and that area as an expansion out of Persia itself.
So what? That was 2500 years ago.

2) Did Iran not lose influence when the kicked out the Shah and become a pariah by taking over the US embassy? If not; please provide a list of countries that applauded the takeover.
Again, so what?

3) Is Iran now supporting Syria (against the world), supporting proxies in attacking Israel; supporting Shite groups to keep Iraq unstable? This seems to be extension of her power more into the ME and ensure that in three critical areas, there is no peace.
As if it wasn't the US who destabilized Iraq, and as if the Pals & the Lebanese aren't supported by a variety of govts other than Iran. Syria? The only reason that the West hasn't intervened is because there are no moderate forces capable of assuming power if Assad is ousted, only radicals.

4) Is Iran threatening to close down the Gulf (against the world) if Israel sneezes her way. If that not a threat of power demonstration; she can rule over the complete area; ignoring/overriding what the little Gulf state want.
They threaten to shut down shipping in the Gulf if attacked, realizing that Israel cannot act alone but only with the complicity of the US and gulf states. Which of those states are actual democracies of any sort, anyway?

Which is not to say that I'm any sort of fan of the current Iranian regime, at all, but they're not the raving religious nutjobs their detractors claim they are, either. They've weathered adversity well, and their nuclear program enjoys enormous popular support all across the political spectrum. Attack that, and you'd better be ready for a fight, because they will.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
There is that other issue that is maybe more important, the whole idea of setting up a crushing economic embargo on Iran. Only a gulliable fool thinks its only because of Iran's nuclear program. As the USA's and the Western Status Quo powers simply can't tolerate an oil rich mid-east nation having a foreign policy that acts in the best interests of the Iranian people. And our US Iranian policy has always been based on getting Iran back into the US harem ever since the Iranian people gave our US puppet the Shah of Iran the ole heave ho 33 years ago.

Then we can ask, has the foreign policy of Iran been US government hostile and I submit it by in large has not.

Then we can also note, every US policy we have tried to get Iran back into the US harem has backfired badly on the USA. GWB&co tried to get at Iran through Afghanistan and Iraq, and bit off way more than they could chew. At least Iraq was still part way in the US harem in 1979, Iraq was politically stable, and now, as we now discover Iraq may have very close to the oil reserves Saudi Arabia. And now the people of Iraq deeply distrust the US and Western powers, have a very unstable government, at a time when every oil dependent nation in the world depends on the political stability of the Mid-east

At exactly the same time when the USA and Israel are the #1 threats to mid-east stability. As Israel and USA scream economically embargo Iran, for no real good reason. But the USA and Israel, especially if they screw up mid-east oil stability, may well find, the end world wide economic embargo will become directed against the economies of the USA and Israel. With the USA being doubly vulnerable, because if nations like China and India quit loaning money to the USA, the US economy will come to a screeching Halt.

Like JHNN, I am not a fan of other foreign governments, but when the USA has a stupid and unsustainable foreign policy, I as a USA citizen am already paying the price and have been paying that price for a very long time.

Maybe its time for other P&N forum members to take a good look at our US results and ask if our recent foreign policy is working yet??????????

Or is our own foreign policy the number one threat to American prosparity?????????????????
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
As Haybasusa, I have seen your claim that you side with with the Iranians in being allowed to generate nuclear energy used to provide electricity, but first Iran has to prove they have no nuclear weapons ambitions. I statement I somewhat agree with, but if we want to fair and unbiased, we have to apply the same standards to Israel.
Israel has nothing to do with the question I asked. You ducked already.

As Haybasusa, I have seen your claim that you side with with the Iranians in being allowed to generate nuclear energy used to provide electricity, but first Iran has to prove they have no nuclear weapons ambitions.
Iran has to allow unfettered inspections. That's part of it's treaty obligations. If they do so there are ways they can get nuclear power.

I statement I somewhat agree with, but if we want to fair and unbiased, we have to apply the same standards to Israel.
No we don't. You don't seem to be able to see that Iran's ass is in the sling for failing to do what it said it would under the treaty. That creates concerns by the West and so we have this mess. Israel is your diversion.

Will you Hayabusa join me in applying the same standards to Israel? To quote you Hayabusa, "We're all aquiver with anticipation. How will you duck the question? I wonder."
As I will also guess, Hayabusa, that you will claim since Israel never signed the NPT, their nuclear weapons program that already has some 200+ nukes is somehow legitimate. But if that is the critera, why should not the Iranians simply with draw from the NPT, and in so doing achieve the same legitimacy as Israel.
You duck and divert. That's not my style. No the same standards do not apply to Israel and yes the NPT is the difference. There is your straight answer. If Iran wants to withdraw, then it can say so now and be out from it's obligations in one year.

If Iran with draws from the NPT, would you consider that as a act of war Hayabusa? "We're all aquiver with anticipation. How will you duck the question? I wonder."
If a nation chooses to leave that's not an act of war. Iran is free to do so.
After that we greatly differ on the track record of the body called on to monitor NPT performance, namely the IAEA. It did a miserable job in coming right out and saying definively GWB was lying about Niger sending yellowcake unranium to Saddam in his state of the Union address.
We do greatly differ. I deal in facts you do not. The IAEA has a pretty good record and you can't provide any material evidence that it does not besides your begging the question. The IAEAs job is not to scream a the top of their lungs, but to present the facts as it finds them, and Blix did precisely that. Neither he, nor the IAEA, nor the UN, nor the Security Council is obliged to have spittle running down their face as you seem to think they should. In fact it's not the job of the IAEA to do that whatsoever. Inspect, determine facts, report. That's what they are to do.

And now the IAEA has again compiled a even more miserable record. As everytime Israel makes stupid and false claims, the most recent at the Netanyuhu speech at the UN last week, the IAEA says nothing to debunk Israeli bullshit.
The IAEA has reported. They aren't foaming at the mouth against Netanyahu making a disgrace of themselves, that's your job, not theirs. Inspect, assess, report. That's a hard concept for you. Oh, and Israel isn't the topic you were supposed to address. Iran is. You keep diverting.

Or makes a effort TO DISCHARGE ITS REAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO SAY TO THE WORLD, THIS IS WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE IRAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND THIS WHAT WE DON"T KNOW. "We're all aquiver with anticipation. How will you duck the question? I wonder." Hayabusa.
Precisely where in their reports do they say otherwise? Let's have some concrete evidence of your claims. The only thing you didn't mention that they have done is say they don't know what they should and that's Iranian obstruction.

Because if the IAEA is biased
Which you never demonstrated.

we have a situation of guilty until proved innocent.
What we have is a situation of non cooperation.

And its imposible for either Iran, Israel, or anyone else to prove they will later misuse a nuclear program.
Which is why the emphasis on LEU for Iran. For the nth time Israel isn't the problem with inspections.

even if basically everyone in the world already knows Israel is mis using their nuclear program.
Actually you imagine that. Well maybe that depends on your definition of misuse. Israel can't be wiped off the map without consequences. I suppose that irks you. Oh, did I say Israel hasn't anything to do with the questions I asked? Yeah I did.

Then there is maybe a trust question, it may blow your mind Hayabasusa, that I place more trust in Iran to not mis use their nuclear program than I place in Israel who already has WMD and regularly uses it on their neighbors.
Well that's amazing. Would you link to where Israel nuked anyone? Oh they haven't. Maybe they gassed the Kurds. Nope. Oh, Israel isn't the question. Iran is.
But still Hayabususa, what I propose is that the larger world makes and enforces the concept that the entire mid-east should become a nuclear weapons free zone.
I propose the area be safe for Israel to disarm. Let me know when that happens.

Let us have none of your self serving hypocracy that you support the rights of Iran to gnerate electricy, while doing everything to advocate making it impossible.
I'm glad you saved the best for last to show us that you are going full bore crazy. Note the bolded. I've stated again and again the Iran can have the option of using LEU technology for energy production. Considering that such technologies exist and can meet various concerns precisely how does using nuclear power for electrical generation mean not using nuclear power for electrical generation? You've gone so far off the deep end you can't even understand basic concepts like that.

But thanks for not answering my post. We all knew it would wind up like this with you not doing so.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
No line in the sand for now, but hopefully time has been purchased to allow all three major players to resolve the issue.

Link

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to get what they hoped for at the annual U.N. General Assembly after closing ranks to send a message to Iran that it may face war over its nuclear program.

Obama and Netanyahu did not meet with each other at the United Nations, where leaders and foreign ministers from the world body's 193 member states have gathered since last week to give speeches and hold private talks to resolve conflicts and boost trade.

But the two men left the U.N. meeting with more than they arrived with: Obama with an assurance that Israel would not attack Iran's nuclear sites before the November 6 U.S. presidential election, and Netanyahu with a commitment from Obama to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from producing an atomic bomb

<snip>
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
No line in the sand for now, but hopefully time has been purchased to allow all three major players to resolve the issue.

Link
That should piss LL off to no end.

OK, the message is sent. Let's make an offer to address both sides concerns as they state them and see what happens.

Ball in Iran's court.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Iran has been wanting time to develop negotiations (stalling).

They now have the time - what will be the result.

Openness to prove their honorable intentions
Deception like Saddam did with the potential results already stated.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Iran has been wanting time to develop negotiations (stalling).

They now have the time - what will be the result.

Openness to prove their honorable intentions
Deception like Saddam did with the potential results already stated.
The results depend on the reason that Iran has been stalling and that goes beyond a nuke program. The Ayatollah has an agenda that I do not understand. He's acting much like the late unlamented Kim from NK.

He either does not understand that Iran will be attacked or he wants it. It could be a deliberate move on his part to further consolidate power in Iran, but that makes little sense considering he has it anyway. Perhaps he hopes for a general uprising and intends to use his people as martyrs for that reason, something I can see happening, but the question is why now?

He might be mentally unstable and that's driving this. He certainly recruits crazies to work for him.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Allah is stronger than the Great satan

Allah will provide
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
That should piss LL off to no end.

OK, the message is sent. Let's make an offer to address both sides concerns as they state them and see what happens.

Ball in Iran's court.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of pissing me off no, I may be dissapointed, but not surprised. Its just a further extension of existing US mid-east policy that is unsustainable and becoming ever more costly to the American people.

What you miss Hayabusa, is the fact that USA foreign policy in the mid-east isn't working or having the desired effects in adavancing American prosparity. The P5+ already had to tell Netanyuhu that they would not support a unilaterial Israeli attack on Iran. Right now words are cheap, but if Obama or Romney wants to invade Iran and do, Every nation on earth may have to move to muzzle the US Pitt Bull if the flow of Mid-east oil is disrupted.

Of course, Hayabasus, we can believe Leon Pinhead who assures us the Persian gulf will stay open, just as we can believe Donald Dumsfeld telling us Afghanistan and Iraq were going to be pieces of Cake, as Steven Hadley hold us Iraq would cost us 50 billion tops. But my all time favorite is still Robert MacNamara, who kept telling us there was light at the end of the Tunnel. Just fill one more body bag and drop one mor bomb, and peace would break out.

Maybe ball in the US side of the net.

Meanwhile while the sanctions against Iran become ever more draconian, many many nations will get the insight, if the USA can do this to Iran on the basis on only suspicion, they can and will do it to them next.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Allah is stronger than the Great satan

Allah will provide
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I submit you are wrong EK, its the Christian God who is most powerful, simply because 50% of all living Human's profess to be Christians, the Islamic God is second most powerful, as Allah can now claim 25% of all living human's worshipping under his banner, as for the Jewish God of Yeawai or what ever name they call him, is still stuck as a way way distant last place, because there are less than 25 million living humans who profess to be Jewish.

Yet funny thing, EK, among Religious scholars, the 3 Gods are lumped together in the 3 great Abahamic faiths class with one and the same God at root. And the Abrahamic religions are distinctly different than other religions of the Buddist and Hindu types.

And yet another non funny thing to observe, EK, most wars in human history have involved same faith struggles as Christians battle Christians, and Muslims battle Muslims as everyone involved cries kill in the name of God.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
In terms of pissing me off no, I may be dissapointed, but not surprised. Its just a further extension of existing US mid-east policy that is unsustainable and becoming ever more costly to the American people.

What you miss Hayabusa, is the fact that USA foreign policy in the mid-east isn't working or having the desired effects in adavancing American prosparity. The P5+ already had to tell Netanyuhu that they would not support a unilaterial Israeli attack on Iran. Right now words are cheap, but if Obama or Romney wants to invade Iran and do,
Define "invade" and what purpose would it be for?

Right now words are cheap, but if Obama or Romney wants to invade Iran and do, Every nation on earth may have to move to muzzle the US Pitt Bull if the flow of Mid-east oil is disrupted.
I know this is a favorite fantasy of yours, however no one has the means nor the desire (excepting a few kooks) to muzzle us for IRAN attacking shipping. They might not be happy with our actions, but they'll understand that it was IRAN (do I need to bold and underline that) which did it. Their ass will be in a sling and if you think there's trouble brewing for the US in the straits then you can figure it's going to be infinitely worse for Iran. Bluster all you want the end result of Iranian leadership doing something so foolish will be a punishing response the citizens will bear. When that happens I'll bring up this post and go after the whining that ensues from you about how the US and Israel are so cruel and that the Iranian leadership responded in a perfectly acceptable way. You had better get on your Hot Line to the Ayatollah and let him know that tidbit.

Of course, Hayabasus, we can believe Leon Pinhead who assures us the Persian gulf will stay open, just as we can believe Donald Dumsfeld telling us Afghanistan and Iraq were going to be pieces of Cake, as Steven Hadley hold us Iraq would cost us 50 billion tops.
Leon may or may not be right, Donald the Duck (as I like to call him) had as little credibility in my eyes as you do, and I never bought Hadley or any other line concerning Iraq. I was against the war before it happened so that avenue of attack is pointless on your part.

But my all time favorite is still Robert MacNamara, who kept telling us there was light at the end of the Tunnel. Just fill one more body bag and drop one mor bomb, and peace would break out.
That's nice. Completely irrelevant, but nice. I never held with that foolishness.

Maybe ball in the US side of the net.
We and others own the court, but the ball is most definitely on Iran's side. They now have been given a less than ambiguous reason to come back to the table and act in good faith. If that happens then things will move along to the benefit of both sides (not yours) and we can get on with satisfying all relevant concerns. If not? Well they have engaged in a game of chicken which you are sure they'll win.

Meanwhile while the sanctions against Iran become ever more draconian, many many nations will get the insight, if the USA can do this to Iran on the basis on only suspicion, they can and will do it to them next.
Well, no. First the US is part of the force behind sanctions, but a whole lot of the rest of the western world is too. Second this isn't "suspicion" it's about the refusal to allow lawful inspections and THAT CREATES suspicion.

Iran has exactly two choices which is completely independent of Israel having nukes or whatever and those are these.

They come back to the table in good faith and stop obstructing talks and inspections to the satisfaction of the West. Once we're satisfied that things are as they should be we can start a series of steps which give us control over HEU while a the very same time start working on LEU technologies and establishing facilities as appropriate.

We have a series of mutual benchmarks. Since it's in writing and very public it's something the West will have to live by UNLESS Iran acts to invalidate it by their actions. Assuming good faith on the part of Iran, once a LEU enrichment facility is established and the bugs worked out of test reactors AND an agreed to monitoring system worked out, then we begin removal of HEU. Iran gets what it says it wants and so does the West. Israel has no basis to worry about a nuclear program as long as inspections are not hindered and they stand down. The region has a peaceful solution.

On the other hand they can choose your method of resolving disputes, refuse to comply, point at the US and Israel, continuing to stall, etc. That will result on strikes on facilities, and if you think they are hardened to withstand US capability I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

At that point they can comply or follow your strategy to its completion and take on the rest of the world through attacks on shipping.

When that happens and you start blaming the US and the P5+1 and Israel and everyone else, remember you wanted to let slip the dogs of war. We won't have to invade. That's so 20th century thinking. We will shut down Iran's military and if need be it's economic blood. That will cause real suffering for the Iranian people, but they don't matter to you. The leaders digging in do. For you this isn't about the US or Israel or Iran for that matter. It's a way to get even with those you don't like.

I know you. You are the Grim Reaper, and I've told you many times to get the hell out and leave people be.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,583
430
126
Training other fighters is something they would do to keep western powers obligated elsewhere, getting a nuke is the only way they prevent an occupation.

It makes perfect sense if you are completely surrounded by superior armies who need little reason to destroy you.
I don't think anyone disagrees that it is utterly obvious and rational for Iran to be seeking nuclear arms. It's just that from sitting where the rest of us are that's not a desirable outcome. An inevitable outcome, but, still, do not want.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I don't think anyone disagrees that it is utterly obvious and rational for Iran to be seeking nuclear arms. It's just that from sitting where the rest of us are that's not a desirable outcome. An inevitable outcome, but, still, do not want.
The thing of it is that the only reason anyone is considering attacking is the failure of Iran to comply with inspections and perhaps their support of terrorists.

The pursuit of nukes wasn't to do with the West invading.

The origins of nuclear programs comes about as a response to a very costly war between Iran and Iraq. Both sides were in an arms race like we and the USSR with the idea to make themselves immune to attack from the other. At that time the Mullahs weren't interested in a nuclear program and in fact opposed it initially, but the secularists convinced them that it was better than facing a nuclear armed Saddam. The programs move forward in both nations. Israel was a secondary concern in all this, but not the driving one.

Things change as they do and we went to war with Iraq. The program supposedly ended except perhaps for some design research, as Saddam had his hands full and his eventual influence was bound to be permanently removed. Unfortunately Bush having the uncanny gift of being able to ruin things in the fewest possible words caused a dramatic shift in the power structure by announcing himself as a threat to Iran. Completely tactless.

That brings us into uncertain times. The balance between the secularist/moderates and the fundamentalist extreme was broken, with the former entirely vanquished for what appears for all time or until the current leaders are removed by natural or unnatural causes and assuming their replacements are more stable.

Considering the statements of Imawhatsit, it's hard to credit him with any grasp of reality, and while it's said that he has no real power, that does not mean he isn't reflective of the current dominate philosophy. That's more certain than less because the voting system only allows those vetted in advance to run and they exercise that to ensure there are no serious challenges to the the Ayatollah or his ideas. Everyone else is a mouthpiece to some degree of the real power behind the very thin curtain.

One would expect that if a nation which is a member of the NPT announced that it was developing nuclear power capabilities, inspections set up would be conducted. If the goal stated is true the NPT is designed to not only allow but provide assistance to that end.

Unfortunately the future is dark, because what Iran does makes no sense in that context. Either there is a nuclear program that the Ayatollah allows, or there is some mental challenge he's facing which keeps normal and rational perceptions at bay. Frankly he could be chasing shadows, something seen done by someone here I need not mention, and be beyond paranoid. He could hope to start some violent action on the part of the Muslim world, to his credit at the cost of his people. In any case there is no sane explanation for the current behavior and THAT is why everyone else is worried.
 
Feb 4, 2009
28,751
9,325
136
We all know something has to change in Iran, sanctions are strangling them. There is no way any culture can survive is 40% unemployment and no strip clubs for men under 30 and not think something bad isn't going to happen
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Maybe Hayabusa Rider best explains why we intllectually disagree in the future by saying
"Unfortunately the future is dark, because what Iran does makes no sense in that context. Either there is a nuclear program that the Ayatollah allows, or there is some mental challenge he's facing which keeps normal and rational perceptions at bay." With the key phrase being " in that context "

The question is and remain in whose " context " ? Everyone on this forum, especially me, understands you like the Status quo, so everything you say makes perfect sense to you. ( But calling me the grim reaper for being a minority US voice calling out from the wilderness screaming bullshit is maybe over the top. ) But when I ask the larger question, about in whose "contex ", I also ask the far larger question of is the US foreign policy sustainable? And if its even short term sustainable, how much money will it cost US citizens like you and me to try to keep trying to sustain it?

If there is even one abiding lesson from world history, its that Status quo powers get to be Status quo fat cats powers by engaging in a initially wise domestic and foreign policy, and always fall later by stupidly trying to prevent inevitable world changes.

I can well understand that you Hayabusa, in your heart, believe the US can prevent inevitable world changes, and thus keep the USA on top of the world for the project for the next American Mellenium. Easily outstripping earlier boasts of only a 4000 Reick that ended in 15 years.

As I ask are we winning yet or the other more important question, why has the American economy and world prestige been steadily falling ever since 1950?

As that is maybe the better question of why we, both fellow US citizens, have such divergent world views regarding US foreign policy!!!!!!!!

As I ask, Hayabasusa, how blind do have to be, to not see how badly our current US foreign policy is flopping and as a result destroying our economy, while you, Hayabsusa the blind, are an advocate for more of the same US stupidity.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Maybe Hayabusa Rider best explains why we intllectually disagree in the future by saying
"Unfortunately the future is dark, because what Iran does makes no sense in that context. Either there is a nuclear program that the Ayatollah allows, or there is some mental challenge he's facing which keeps normal and rational perceptions at bay." With the key phrase being " in that context "

The question is and remain in whose " context " ? Everyone on this forum, especially me, understands you like the Status quo, so everything you say makes perfect sense to you. ( But calling me the grim reaper for being a minority US voice calling out from the wilderness screaming bullshit is maybe over the top. ) But when I ask the larger question, about in whose "contex ", I also ask the far larger question of is the US foreign policy sustainable? And if its even short term sustainable, how much money will it cost US citizens like you and me to try to keep trying to sustain it?

If there is even one abiding lesson from world history, its that Status quo powers get to be Status quo fat cats powers by engaging in a initially wise domestic and foreign policy, and always fall later by stupidly trying to prevent inevitable world changes.

I can well understand that you Hayabusa, in your heart, believe the US can prevent inevitable world changes, and thus keep the USA on top of the world for the project for the next American Mellenium. Easily outstripping earlier boasts of only a 4000 Reick that ended in 15 years.

As I ask are we winning yet or the other more important question, why has the American economy and world prestige been steadily falling ever since 1950?

As that is maybe the better question of why we, both fellow US citizens, have such divergent world views regarding US foreign policy!!!!!!!!

As I ask, Hayabasusa, how blind do have to be, to not see how badly our current US foreign policy is flopping and as a result destroying our economy, while you, Hayabsusa the blind, are an advocate for more of the same US stupidity.

What's amazing is in that entire rant you managed to completely ignore the issues at hand, the reasons that Iran is having problems now, and apparently haven't a clue as to what they are.

The context is why Iran is choosing to be obstructionist when they could have nuclear power. You haven't even mentioned anything about the situation as it exists and I'm not even sure you have a grasp of what's going on.

As far as the Grim Reaper, you are shooting off your mouth in supporting something (just what no one has any real clue), but definitely not addressing the issues which have Iran in trouble. You completely ignore Iranian non compliance and rant against the US, the West and Israel. If Iran does just as you there will be real problems faced by the Iranian people. Why that eludes you is incomprehensible. Going off on irrelevant and meaningless points instead of addressing the real here and now issues will prove disastrous, but you embody and encourage that approach. So you'll whine about how unfair the coming consequences are while having urged on the behaviors that brought Iran to that point, and you'll still not get it. You bitch and complain and I've offered a solution which you completely ignore and go on about outdated policies like you are reading from a manifesto. Frankly I think it's beyond your ability to deal with the situation and that your purpose here is to read scripted denouncements and use the forum as you soapbox. The Iranian people are as irrelevant to you as they seem to be to the Ayatollah.

I've given you things to discuss intelligently however you cannot and therefore I'll comment on your strange perspectives, but your ability to make a useful contribution is clearly absent.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Hayabusa claims, "I've given you things to discuss intelligently however you cannot and therefore I'll comment on your strange perspectives, but your ability to make a useful contribution is clearly absent."

Easy for you to say Hayabusa, as you are clearly a legend in your own mind.

But when the time comes to discuss the clear proof of the pudding in actual real world results, Hayabusa, you are totally missing in action in explaining why the US foreign policy you advocate is just plain not working? No matter how hard you try to pretend it is.

As you want me to deny current reality, deny my lying eyes as a eyewitness to current history, and intead believe in your baseless fantasies.

At the rate you are making useful contributions, Hayabasusa, the American people can surely achieve a Haitian style economy in another 10 or 15 years.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
When you can not debate; you deflect.

You can not debate regarding Irans actions, so you start to divert in an anti US policy vs the world.

Well the world has come to the US for 60 years asking to solve their problems.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
When you can not debate; you deflect.

You can not debate regarding Irans actions, so you start to divert in an anti US policy vs the world.

Well the world has come to the US for 60 years asking to solve their problems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are exactly correct here EK, as the so called leader of the "free world", the free world naturally looks to the USA to provide that wise and effective leadership. And so does the so called second and third world nations.

However EK, that is exactly my point too, the so called rest of the world has looked for the EFFECTIVE US problem solving in that same 60 years, and found it missing in action. Did the USA effectively solve anything in Vietnam? When all the US did is destabilized a whole region of countries, directly and indirectly managing to kill 3 million or so East Asians,
and that set of destabilized nations still have not totally recovered today. And meanwhile what did the US win EK? You might say, doodly sqat, when the correct answer was more decidedly negative. As a large swath of Asian nations yanked our US basing agreements because they did not want then USA to have a single excuse to monkey around with their internal politics.

Or we can talk about the USA winning the 45 year cold war with mainly Russia. As that vicious peace monger Gorbachev finally waved a white flag, declaired the USA the winner of the Super power arms race. Which caused total terror inside the USA military industrial complex as the rational reasons for spending a huge percentage of our GDP on military spending totally evaporated.

As the Russians was forced to quit dominating the big swath of Eastern European nations claimed in wars of conquest during WW2, and also transitioned from Communism to capitalism which was anything but fair as various Russian Oligarks made assets that formely belonged to the Russian people into their personal possessions by tilting the playing field.

But still, the Russian people took the peace dividend, it was a pretty tough 20 years for the Russian people and their pride, but now the Russian economy and their pride is not fully but now mostly restored. As the Russian economy now has a healthy positive balance of trade, and and an even brighter future.

But the fall of Russian Communism can maybe traced back to its ill fated attempted conquest of Afghanistan that it lost when the US armed terrorists with State of the arts missiles and also trained terrorists with CIA instructors. But when the Russians were sent packing out of Afghanistan, the USA lost a golden opportunity to help stabalize Afghanistan, by in action. As a result Afghanistan went into a long civil war, that led to the rise of Taliban as the only entity that could defeat the rule of war lords, drug dealers,
and total gangs of thugs.

And now Afghanistan has come back full circle, the USA supports a Karzai government that is basically a collection of war lords, drug dealers, and a gangs of thugs. As the US people can't possibly understand why the Afghan people, after being betrayed by their own puppet government plus Nato, place more faith in the Taliban.

Twenty years ago the Arabs in the mid-east still placed some faith in the US to broker a just peace in the USA. Clinton then did nothing, GWB drove US world credibility to decidely negative levels, then Obama finally reived some Arab hope in his speech in Egypt as he promised some real US leadership. But talk is cheap, and Obama finally restored more hope when he asked Israel for a real settlement freeze in August September/ 2010 time frame with a year timeline to Iron out the differences. As we know, Netanyuhu refused and played the political AIPAC card, and Arab trust in Obama is now back to zero. As we can also note, after Saddam tried to steal Kuwait in 8/1989, the entire world, including some communist governments, willingly did their bit to join in a military coalition to make sure Saddam got out of Kuwait.

And now the USA can do, is form a coalition of the billing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the support we have gotten from our so called allies, mainly Western European Nato nations has been far less than half hearted at best. As nation like France and England, with centuries of experience in running military occupations know losing tactics when they see it. As for Germany who gives lip service to the USA, gives lip service and no troops.

But IMHO, its an all in all danerous trend line for the USA and the American people. As we want to claim leadership in the world, as you want to claim "Well the world has come to the US for 60 years asking to solve their problems". But when the news facts are, even our allies have little faith in the USA to solve anything. Or to put it another way EK, the USA can claim we are still the leaders we were 60 years ago, but when we have fewer and fewer followers, the reality of US leadership is rather increasingly hollow.

Or we can go back to that statement of Mao, that was hardly new at the time. That power flows from the barrel of a gun. A statement that, IMHO, was obsolute long before WW2, and is now totally obsolute in a nuclear age. As I submit power flows from the economies and technologies of various nations. World nations who have wise domestic and foreign policies kep thir economies in tact, foolish nations that sqaunder their existing economies with stupid and unsustainable domestic and foreign policies are heading to the scrap bin of history. In 1952, exactly your 60 years ago, the US was in fine shape. A positive balance of trade, a great economy, a great manufactering base, a very strong middle class, our corporations paid 50% of US taxes, and we had little debt. Now out foreign balance of trade has been going ever faster south since 1980, out economy is shrinking, we have outsourced almost all of our manufacturing base, our middle class is badly eroding, the very Rich and corportations have dumped much of their former tax burden onto the shrinking middle class, and US public debt is way past any control. As long as interest cost to service that public debt remain low, we can pretend our debt is ustainable, but if interest costs rise to 6%, the US economy will collapse. We the people of the USA did not dig ourself into this whole over night, it took 60 sustained years of foolish domestic and foreign policy.

Or we can look at who the future economic winners may be. Nations like Brazil, India, China, likely also Russia, Egypt, Iran, and possibly Turkey. And don't rule out resource rich nations in Africa and possibly Canada.

Why should I or you look at only unsustainable US polices in the mid-east. Or believe I use only deflections when its the VERY ROOT OF THE QUESTIONS we should be looking at as US citizens. Or for that matter citizens of the State of Israel.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
When you can not debate; you deflect.

You can not debate regarding Irans actions, so you start to divert in an anti US policy vs the world.

Well the world has come to the US for 60 years asking to solve their problems.
Yep, he hasn't caught up to todays issues, but at least hes only a half century behind. I don't think he can get any closer. May not be his fault.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Yep, he hasn't caught up to todays issues, but at least hes only a half century behind. I don't think he can get any closer. May not be his fault.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What an incredibly stupid thing to say, IMHO, Hayabusa. As my basic argument is based on where we were is the USA in 1952. And where we are now after a subsequent 60 years of stupid US foreign and domestic policy.

As I ask the members of the forum, who is that he referred by Hayabausa, in quote, "he hasn't caught up to todays issues"

And when I base my arguement on where we in the USA were in 1952 and where we are now, not only do you respond to that comparison, you are delusional and in denial about how far we in the USA have fallen since 1952.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY