Iranian Nuclear treaty

[Torpedo]

We USE TO BE a country that wouldn't start a war, but would finish one ... but with GW Bush, that all changed, and it changed the way the rest of the world looks at the USA as well. Other than Israel, we seem to be the only country expressing disappointment in the Iran deal. Even if all this 'deal' has done is push the inevitable into the future 10 years or so, maybe we should look at it as an opportunity to change the relationship between Iran and the US, and to think of the number of families that will get to keep their military sons & daughters alive a little longer. I wonder, if Republicans held the White House (Mitt Romney), if we'd still be in Afghanistan and Iraq? And I wonder how many thousands more of our military would have lost their lives if we had. I think the majority of Iranian citizens (even some of those yelling hate to the US) do not want war, and instead, would like to see a long period of peace. I think we should give the Iranian government that opportunity to disappoint us, first.
View attachment 633100

The Saudi's aren't to happy with the deal and it appears that some of the top Democrats in the house have some serious reservation.

As to American involvement abroad maybe you should take a look at our involvement Columbia, the formation of Panama and the Panama Canal from around 1901 to around 1914. Hell the Constitution of Panama was written in the Presidential Suite of the Waldorf Astoria in New York City.

1820-23 the U.S. Navy raided slave traffic in Africa puruant to an 1819 act of Congress.

1827 invaded three Greek Islands looking for pirates

If you want to just go with action involving Muslims and/or the Mideast you can go back to
1801-05 the First Barbary war.
Then in 1815 the there was the Second Barbary War
1851 the U.S. Navy was ordered to the Levantine Coast of the Ottoman Empire to quell violence against foreigners
1858-59 Ottoman Empire U.S. naval forces ordered to the coast of the Levant because of a massacre at Jaffa and as a reminder of U.S. strength.

Let's jump ahead to post WWII
1948 a Marine contingent was sent Jerusalem to protect the U.S. consulate and American interests.
1956 we sent Marines into Egypt to evacuate U.S. nationals and others during the Suez crisis
1958 Lebanon Crisis U.S. marines sent to Lebanon to support the existing government from insurrection that has support outside the country,
1967 there was an attack on a U.S. naval reseach vessel USS Liberty by Israeli forces 34 dead 170 wounded. Put a bit of a chill on our relations for awhile
1974 Evacuation the Cyprus U.S. Naval forces evacuated US citizens and allies during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus
1976 US naval forces evacuated Us and European citizens after land egress was blocked
1980 Operation Bright Star US forces trained in the Sinai with Egyptian forces
1981 First Gulf of Sidra incident US forces shot down two Libyan jets after they fired on US forces.
1982 US military observers were stationed in the Sinai as part of a multinational *******
1982 800 Marines as part of a multinational ******* assisted in the evacuation of Palestinian Liberation forces from Lebanon
1982-83 a contingent of 1200 marines was stationed in Lebanon as part of multinational ******* to assist in the establishment of a stable government
1983 provided AWAC's aircraft to Sudan and Egypt after Libya bombed a city in the Sudan
1984 2 Saudi fighters aided by US AWAC's refueled by US aerial tankers shot down twi Iranian jets that were in a shipping protected zone

And since 2010 there have been approximately 20 military operation that have started at 2010 or later. Most are in the Mideast some in Africa. Approximately 6 of these are still ongoing.

Really Mac you need to do your homework a little better. I will give high points for your graphics arts skill but your knowledge of history and economics appears to be pretty limited. The history of our nation is far from flawless but Bush and the Republicans are hardly responsible for all of out sins. Maybe we should look at the fine job your Democratic Party did for Black Americans after the Civil War.

 

[Daphne&D]

Using your own list you have included America's response to actions or disputes that were ****** upon it. Examples.

1. 1801-05 First Barbary war. Started by the Barbary corsairs and crews from the North African Ottoman provinces of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and the independent Sultanate of Morocco under the Alaouite dynasty (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and enslaving or ransoming their crews provided the Muslim rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. So not an action taken for any other reason than the protection of US merchants and sailors etc.

2. 1815 Second Barbary WarStarted for the same reason as the first.
3. 1948 a Marine contingent was sent Jerusalem to protect the U.S. consulate and American interests.
4. 1956 we sent Marines into Egypt to evacuate U.S. nationals and others during the Suez crisis
5. 1974 Evacuation the Cyprus U.S. Naval forces evacuated US citizens and allies during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus
6. 1976 US naval forces evacuated Us and European citizens after land egress was blocked
7. 1981 First Gulf of Sidra incident US forces shot down two Libyan jets after they fired on US forces.
8. 1982 US military observers were stationed in the Sinai as part of a multinational *******.
9. 1982 800 Marines as part of a multinational ******* assisted in the evacuation of Palestinian Liberation forces from Lebanon
10. 1982-83 a contingent of 1200 marines was stationed in Lebanon as part of multinational ******* to assist in the establishment of a stable government.
11. 1983 provided AWAC's aircraft to Sudan and Egypt after Libya bombed a city in the Sudan
12. 1984 2 Saudi fighters aided by US AWAC's refueled by US aerial tankers shot down twi Iranian jets that were in a shipping protected zone.

You stated
"And since 2010 there have been approximately 20 military operation that have started at 2010 or later. Most are in the Mideast some in Africa. Approximately 6 of these are still ongoing."

"Really Mac you need to do your homework a little better. I will give high points for your graphics arts skill but your knowledge of history and economics appears to be pretty limited."

It would seem you have a very limited idea of the US's intervention to crisis's and the responses given by the then US government.

An example is ....1974 evacuation of cyprus. Not only was the US involved but also a multi national ******* including the UK. In fact the UK had the lead roll, the US providing humanitation relief efforts by way of evacuation transporters. So to include a humanitarian response as US intervention or involvement abroad is a bit backward due to the very nature of the action/s taken by the US under UN mandate..

Take 1948, 1956,1958, 1974,1976, 1982 x 3. All actions taken for the protection of US civilains, personnel and property. Quite different from the US involvement for the sake of involvement picture you're trying to paint.

 

[Torpedo]

Using your own list you have included America's response to actions or disputes that were ****** upon it. Examples.

1. 1801-05 First Barbary war. Started by the Barbary corsairs and crews from the North African Ottoman provinces of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and the independent Sultanate of Morocco under the Alaouite dynasty (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and enslaving or ransoming their crews provided the Muslim rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. So not an action taken for any other reason than the protection of US merchants and sailors etc.

2. 1815 Second Barbary WarStarted for the same reason as the first.
3. 1948 a Marine contingent was sent Jerusalem to protect the U.S. consulate and American interests.
4. 1956 we sent Marines into Egypt to evacuate U.S. nationals and others during the Suez crisis
5. 1974 Evacuation the Cyprus U.S. Naval forces evacuated US citizens and allies during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus
6. 1976 US naval forces evacuated Us and European citizens after land egress was blocked
7. 1981 First Gulf of Sidra incident US forces shot down two Libyan jets after they fired on US forces.
8. 1982 US military observers were stationed in the Sinai as part of a multinational *******.
9. 1982 800 Marines as part of a multinational ******* assisted in the evacuation of Palestinian Liberation forces from Lebanon
10. 1982-83 a contingent of 1200 marines was stationed in Lebanon as part of multinational ******* to assist in the establishment of a stable government.
11. 1983 provided AWAC's aircraft to Sudan and Egypt after Libya bombed a city in the Sudan
12. 1984 2 Saudi fighters aided by US AWAC's refueled by US aerial tankers shot down twi Iranian jets that were in a shipping protected zone.

You stated
"And since 2010 there have been approximately 20 military operation that have started at 2010 or later. Most are in the Mideast some in Africa. Approximately 6 of these are still ongoing."

"Really Mac you need to do your homework a little better. I will give high points for your graphics arts skill but your knowledge of history and economics appears to be pretty limited."

It would seem you have a very limited idea of the US's intervention to crisis's and the responses given by the then US government.

An example is ....1974 evacuation of cyprus. Not only was the US involved but also a multi national ******* including the UK. In fact the UK had the lead roll, the US providing humanitation relief efforts by way of evacuation transporters. So to include a humanitarian response as US intervention or involvement abroad is a bit backward due to the very nature of the action/s taken by the US under UN mandate..

Take 1948, 1956,1958, 1974,1976, 1982 x 3. All actions taken for the protection of US civilains, personnel and property. Quite different from the US involvement for the sake of involvement picture you're trying to paint.

I would tend to believe that US involvement occurred when it was necessary. I tend to think that overall the US involvement abroad has had a positive effect in the world. Being a super power can't be a popularity contest

 

[MacNfries]

I would tend to believe that US involvement occurred when it was necessary. I tend to think that overall the US involvement abroad has had a positive effect in the world. Being a super power can't be a popularity contest

.....I think maybe Daphne just schooled your ass, Torp .... that's the shortest response I've seen you give in quite a while to a correction to your posts. I simply don't have the time to correct or challenge all the rambling BS you post on here. You missed my point, altogether, but then that's normally your approach ... find one sentence to a person's overall post, then expand your vast knowledge of correction to it.

And Daphne, thanks for enlightening the ole guru. My interests, coincidently, are more in current, post Prez Johnson '60s politics, not ancient history. Both parties made major changes in the last half of 20th century. Mac

 

[Illa]

Barack Obama admits Iran nuclear deal will mean more money for terror groups - Telegraph

 

[MacNfries]

I would tend to believe that US involvement occurred when it was necessary.

Yes, but necessary for what? Are you saying, for example, that our involvement in the middle east, the past 30 years, has been to protect our $17 billion dollar a year ally, Israel?
The only reason we're so involved in the middle east is for one thing, and you know quite well what that is. Israel is our excuse for being there. And the thing is, the US could have moved away from fossil fuels decades ago, but the oil lobbyists and humongous bribery money has kept our country addicted. And, don't you think that possibly Israel has been a bit of a bully in that region simply because they know that we have their backs?

I tend to think that overall the US involvement abroad has had a positive effect in the world. Being a super power can't be a popularity contest

It's ok to think ... but we should admit that our involvement in some conflicts around the world have been for less than honorable reasons. We can't push democracy and capitalism down the throats of countries who don't want it. I, too, could turn my head and pretend our well intent until we started sacrificing our own troops for political reasons. It looks like we would have learned a lesson with Vietnam. And look at the way we treat our troops who return home maimed and broken. Our priority should be given to those guys who risked & sacrificed ... as a government, we've failed them.

The Iran deal may just turn out to be exactly what some suspect, however, Obama is willing to give peace negotiations a try in order to try to avoid another middle east conflict. The US can take out Iran anytime it wants, but what I've been reading in the US Today and other media, most Iranian citizens want peace. We should encourage THEM to put the pressure on their government to seek the peace. The treaty will buy us at least some time to try to improve relations.

I'm fed up with these Washington fat cats who like the bully pulpit and then put our guys in danger. I can't see it any different than the terrorists who use women & children for their suicide missions ... its always someone else's ass that pays the ultimate price. And I'm tired of reading articles such as this:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...dern-soldiers-are-more-susceptible-to-suicide

 

[Illa]

I would tend to believe that US involvement occurred when it was necessary. I tend to think that overall the US involvement abroad has had a positive effect in the world. Being a super power can't be a popularity contest

the US involvement outside national borders has had a positive effect on you and your country, not on the world

 

[Torpedo]

Yes, but necessary for what? Are you saying, for example, that our involvement in the middle east, the past 30 years, has been to protect our $17 billion dollar a year ally, Israel?
The only reason we're so involved in the middle east is for one thing, and you know quite well what that is. Israel is our excuse for being there. And the thing is, the US could have moved away from fossil fuels decades ago, but the oil lobbyists and humongous bribery money has kept our country addicted. And, don't you think that possibly Israel has been a bit of a bully in that region simply because they know that we have their backs?


It's ok to think ... but we should admit that our involvement in some conflicts around the world have been for less than honorable reasons. We can't push democracy and capitalism down the throats of countries who don't want it. I, too, could turn my head and pretend our well intent until we started sacrificing our own troops for political reasons. It looks like we would have learned a lesson with Vietnam. And look at the way we treat our troops who return home maimed and broken. Our priority should be given to those guys who risked & sacrificed ... as a government, we've failed them.

The Iran deal may just turn out to be exactly what some suspect, however, Obama is willing to give peace negotiations a try in order to try to avoid another middle east conflict. The US can take out Iran anytime it wants, but what I've been reading in the US Today and other media, most Iranian citizens want peace. We should encourage THEM to put the pressure on their government to seek the peace. The treaty will buy us at least some time to try to improve relations.

I'm fed up with these Washington fat cats who like the bully pulpit and then put our guys in danger. I can't see it any different than the terrorists who use women & children for their suicide missions ... its always someone else's ass that pays the ultimate price. And I'm tired of reading articles such as this:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...dern-soldiers-are-more-susceptible-to-suicide

Give peace try? I would have went along with the Iranian treaty if there were any real constraints. Iran can actually increase their enrichment rate. The inspection notification requirements render the treaty pretty much unenforceable. We had the chance to deal with Bin Laden a lot of years ago and we didn't and exactly where did that get us? The head of ISIS has stated his intention to fly his flag over the White House. I would really rather deal with him in the Mideast than in the United States

 

[Torpedo]

Yes, but necessary for what? Are you saying, for example, that our involvement in the middle east, the past 30 years, has been to protect our $17 billion dollar a year ally, Israel?
The only reason we're so involved in the middle east is for one thing, and you know quite well what that is. Israel is our excuse for being there. And the thing is, the US could have moved away from fossil fuels decades ago, but the oil lobbyists and humongous bribery money has kept our country addicted. And, don't you think that possibly Israel has been a bit of a bully in that region simply because they know that we have their backs?


It's ok to think ... but we should admit that our involvement in some conflicts around the world have been for less than honorable reasons. We can't push democracy and capitalism down the throats of countries who don't want it. I, too, could turn my head and pretend our well intent until we started sacrificing our own troops for political reasons. It looks like we would have learned a lesson with Vietnam. And look at the way we treat our troops who return home maimed and broken. Our priority should be given to those guys who risked & sacrificed ... as a government, we've failed them.

The Iran deal may just turn out to be exactly what some suspect, however, Obama is willing to give peace negotiations a try in order to try to avoid another middle east conflict. The US can take out Iran anytime it wants, but what I've been reading in the US Today and other media, most Iranian citizens want peace. We should encourage THEM to put the pressure on their government to seek the peace. The treaty will buy us at least some time to try to improve relations.

I'm fed up with these Washington fat cats who like the bully pulpit and then put our guys in danger. I can't see it any different than the terrorists who use women & children for their suicide missions ... its always someone else's ass that pays the ultimate price. And I'm tired of reading articles such as this:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...dern-soldiers-are-more-susceptible-to-suicide

Every country, everyone does things in their own self interest. Russia certainly seems to have desires beyond it's borders as does China. The world isn't an overly friendly place and that is the way it is. Possibly someday if we don't destroy ourselves we may learn to live in harmony. But that day is not today. There are people and governments that see negotiation and compromise as weaknesses to be exploited.

As to being concerned about our guys in danger have you ever wore a uniform in any branch of the U.S. military?

 

[Torpedo]

Using your own list you have included America's response to actions or disputes that were ****** upon it. Examples.

1. 1801-05 First Barbary war. Started by the Barbary corsairs and crews from the North African Ottoman provinces of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and the independent Sultanate of Morocco under the Alaouite dynasty (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and enslaving or ransoming their crews provided the Muslim rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. So not an action taken for any other reason than the protection of US merchants and sailors etc.

2. 1815 Second Barbary WarStarted for the same reason as the first.
3. 1948 a Marine contingent was sent Jerusalem to protect the U.S. consulate and American interests.
4. 1956 we sent Marines into Egypt to evacuate U.S. nationals and others during the Suez crisis
5. 1974 Evacuation the Cyprus U.S. Naval forces evacuated US citizens and allies during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus
6. 1976 US naval forces evacuated Us and European citizens after land egress was blocked
7. 1981 First Gulf of Sidra incident US forces shot down two Libyan jets after they fired on US forces.
8. 1982 US military observers were stationed in the Sinai as part of a multinational *******.
9. 1982 800 Marines as part of a multinational ******* assisted in the evacuation of Palestinian Liberation forces from Lebanon
10. 1982-83 a contingent of 1200 marines was stationed in Lebanon as part of multinational ******* to assist in the establishment of a stable government.
11. 1983 provided AWAC's aircraft to Sudan and Egypt after Libya bombed a city in the Sudan
12. 1984 2 Saudi fighters aided by US AWAC's refueled by US aerial tankers shot down twi Iranian jets that were in a shipping protected zone.

You stated
"And since 2010 there have been approximately 20 military operation that have started at 2010 or later. Most are in the Mideast some in Africa. Approximately 6 of these are still ongoing."

"Really Mac you need to do your homework a little better. I will give high points for your graphics arts skill but your knowledge of history and economics appears to be pretty limited."

It would seem you have a very limited idea of the US's intervention to crisis's and the responses given by the then US government.

An example is ....1974 evacuation of cyprus. Not only was the US involved but also a multi national ******* including the UK. In fact the UK had the lead roll, the US providing humanitation relief efforts by way of evacuation transporters. So to include a humanitarian response as US intervention or involvement abroad is a bit backward due to the very nature of the action/s taken by the US under UN mandate..

Take 1948, 1956,1958, 1974,1976, 1982 x 3. All actions taken for the protection of US civilains, personnel and property. Quite different from the US involvement for the sake of involvement picture you're trying to paint.

They were all in our best interest. And you are quite correct many of our actions that put U.S. personnel at risk were not unilateral actions. I will give some points that you are better read than Mac

 

[easyuk]

Give peace try? I would have went along with the Iranian treaty if there were any real constraints. Iran can actually increase their enrichment rate. The inspection notification requirements render the treaty pretty much unenforceable. We had the chance to deal with Bin Laden a lot of years ago and we didn't and exactly where did that get us? The head of ISIS has stated his intention to fly his flag over the White House. I would really rather deal with him in the Mideast than in the United States

So what is the alternative to the treaty?

 

[Torpedo]

So what is the alternative to the treaty?

The alternative is to get a treaty that is enforceable, making them cut back on their enrichment activities wouldn't be a bad idea. I would also prefer that they agree not to research and build ICBMs. The only ones that benefits from the treaty is Iran and the terrorists they support. I don't see this treaty doing anything to improve the stability of the Mideast

 

[MacNfries]

The alternative is to get a treaty that is enforceable, making them cut back on their enrichment activities wouldn't be a bad idea. I would also prefer that they agree not to research and build ICBMs.

That's nice; a lot of detail there... "not". Other than getting their middle finger, how do you think Iran would respond? A lot of Iranians didn't want the agreement either, thinking it was too harsh. The fact that, in March of this year, 47 Republicans drafted/signed a letter to the Iranians warning them not to accept any agreement from Obama wasn't helpful with the negotiations, and certainly borderline treasonous to our country. Particularly, the first term Rep Cotton from Ark, who drafted the open letter ... should have been charged with interfering with diplomatic relationships and removed from Congress. I can't recall ANY congress doing something like that to a President, but then this bunch in Washington DC are a breed of their own.

Obama is quite aware of the overall weakness of the agreement, however, it's the only agreement (and they worked on that one for quite a while) Iran would commit. The President is hoping that in the 5-10 years this agreement might avoid their nuclear weapons program, we will have developed a better relationship with Iran. Right now the USA is being looked upon as a world bully; our image tarnished. We managed to fuck up that region enough with the last administration's claims of Iraqi WMD's and destabilizing the entire region.
Give this peace agreement a chance to succeed or fail ... without our taking the world bully role for once. The US has access to Turkish bases now ... possibly that strengthens our position.

 

[mary anne]

The alternative is to get a treaty that is enforceable, making them cut back on their enrichment activities wouldn't be a bad idea. I would also prefer that they agree not to research and build ICBMs. The only ones that benefits from the treaty is Iran and the terrorists they support. I don't see this treaty doing anything to improve the stability of the Mideast

so you Americans have the right to own nuclear weapons but the other countries don't have the same right?
it's not very logical...

 

[Dan Teal]

so you Americans have the right to own nuclear weapons but the other countries don't have the same right?
it's not very logical...

Yes because we have owned the larger arsenal for close to 70 years and the world is still in tact. give Iran half of one percent of what we have watch armageddon ensue

 

[mary anne]

Iran just want to live in peace. They've never attacked other countries so I don't think they want nuclear weapons to do war.

 

[Dan Teal]

Iran just want to live in peace. They've never attacked other countries so I don't think they want nuclear weapons to do war.

Read about the obsession of the Persian Empire to dominate the west. Numerous wars fought between the Greeks and Persians. Now the jewel of west is the United States so there goes their new obsession.

 

[easyuk]

Read about the obsession of the Persian Empire to dominate the west. Numerous wars fought between the Greeks and Persians. Now the jewel of west is the United States so there goes their new obsession.

Jewel of the West? That's quite a claim.

Russia and China have had an awful lot of nuclear weapons too and the world is still intact. So?

The USA and most, if not all, other western states have fought proxy wars and funded less than saintly covert operations and organisations.

Let's not play white hats and black hats. The world is significantly more complex.

 

[MacNfries]

A nuclear war, someplace in the world, is almost inevitable ... we shouldn't kid ourselves. We just hope its in someone else's country. Terrorism ... the US is unfortunately overdue. I'm just glad I live in an insignificant part of the US and only attend college functions.

 

[mannago]

A nuclear war, someplace in the world, is almost inevitable ... we shouldn't kid ourselves. We just hope its in someone else's country. Terrorism ... the US is unfortunately overdue. I'm just glad I live in an insignificant part of the US and only attend college functions.

the new Nostradamus....