World War Three?

[Mountain Man]

Maybe Trump should have delivered pallets of cash to the Iranian government in the middle of the night. Liberals swooned when Obama did it.

[firstfloor]

My goodness...

The twittersphere will drive you insane, I mean, even more insane. Stick to WaPo and Rachel.

[JimL]

This is not going to end well....

Trump in 2011:

"He's weak, and he's inneffective. So, I believe he will attack Iran sometime prior to the election, because he thinks that's the only way he can get elected."

"I say that he will start a war with Iran before the election, which will make it very hard for a republican to win."

"I think it's going to happen sometime prior to the election, there'll be some kind of war started."

"I think Obama will go to war with Iran, because I think he views it as good politically. I think he's just waiting for the right moment."

"I happen to think the President is going to start a war with Iran. I think it will be a short term popular thing to do. And I think he's going to do that for political reasons."

[lilpixieofterror]

Maybe Trump should have delivered pallets of cash to the Iranian government in the middle of the night. Liberals swooned when Obama did it.

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
Winston Churchill

You can’t make a lasting peace with a country, that stated goal is to kill you. Peace is merely a way to stall for time, in the eyes of the Iranian government until they get strong enough to kill us all.

[lilpixieofterror]

If, by 'battle space', you mean AN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FULL OF CIVILIANS AND COMMERCIAL PLANES...

Apparently, you’ve never been at an airport. Ever see how far, out of the way, airport access roads are or is your experience with airports, sitting in terminal buildings?

[lilpixieofterror]

No method is foolproof. Leaving significant margins for error is basic stuff. Not operating a military strike within civilian airspace is basic stuff.

It was on the airport grounds. It was a road heading toward the exit of the airport, yes, but it was within the physical airport perimeter, and definitely within the civilian airport's airspace.

Killing the leader of the fight against ISIS was not a good idea. Starting a war with Iran was not a good idea. Doing a military attack within the bounds of a civilian airport was not a good idea. Doing this in Iraq in violation of the US status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government was not a good idea. Doing an act of war unauthorized by the US Congress and thus unconstitutional was not a good idea.

Whether or not anyone thinks this guy was a Bad Guy^TM isn't really relevant. I think Trump's a Bad Guy^TM, yet it would be a VERY bad idea to send in the drones to strike him at a D.C. airport. Though that may well be what Iran does next, because Trump was too stupid to think through the predictable consequences of his actions.

There you have it folks, Starlight says it’s a bad idea, so it’s a great idea.

[seanD]

The twittersphere will drive you insane, I mean, even more insane. Stick to WaPo and Rachel.

Rachel Maddow?

No wonder why you have Putin on the brain.

[Watermelon]

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
Winston Churchill

You can’t make a lasting peace with a country, that stated goal is to kill you. Peace is merely a way to stall for time, in the eyes of the Iranian government until they get strong enough to kill us all.

So wouldn’t the Iran nuclear deal have been the best option for finally ending the hostilities?

It opened Iran up to global trade markets and the economic growth that comes with it. Iran could’ve steadily progressed to become a developed nation with opportunities for Iranian citizens to acquire business interests and partnerships all over the world. Once they see that this level of prosperity and increase in living standards is possible then they would be less willing to sponsor terrorism and risk losing it.

The Iranian youths would grow up connected to the wider international community and have similar ideals and values when it becomes their turn to lead. That was supposed to be a key reason for the 2035 end date of the nuclear deal as the current Iranian youths would be in leadership positions by then. I believe that version of Iran would’ve been a huge step in finally resolving the conflict in that region.

[Cow Poke]

So wouldn’t the Iran nuclear deal have been the best option for finally ending the hostilities?...

Do you really think Iran wasn't operating proxy wars during the time they duped Obama into signing a nuclear deal with Iran which our congress never ratified and the Iranian government never accepted?


A Bad Deal Off to a Worse Start

President Barack Obama never submitted his Iranian nuclear deal for ratification by the Congress because he knew it would have no chance of passing. That does not make the United States unique: The Iranian parliament has never approved it either (that body passed a heavily amended version) and the Iranian president has never signed it. The Iranian cabinet has never even discussed it. And the other members of the P5+1 – Britain, China, Germany, France and Russia – have likewise given it short legal shrift. Indeed, President Obama "may end up being the only person in the world to sign his much-wanted deal, in effect making a treaty with himself," as the Gatestone Institute's Amir Taheri has said.

In other words, Iran is not legally bound to do anything, something which a State Department official admitted last November in a letter to Kansas GOP Rep. Mike Pompeo of the House Intelligence Committee, in which she stated the deal "is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document." Instead, the official wrote, its success "will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures" and our "capacity to reimpose and ramp up our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments." And how is that going? .....

CNN: State Department report finds Iran is top state sponsor of terror

Washington (CNN)The State Department on Thursday released its annual report on global terrorist activity, listing Iran as the top state sponsor of terrorism and labeling ISIS "the greatest threat globally."
The report also includes statistics on terrorist activity worldwide, and said 11,774 terrorist attacks in 92 countries occurred in 2015.
The department's acting coordinator for counterterrorism, Justin Siberell, briefed reporters Thursday on the report's content, saying the document was used to assess the effectiveness of the effort to combat terrorism and to determine where to best place resources.

On Iran, the report said that country "remained the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in 2015, providing a range of support, including financial, training, and equipment, to groups around the world."
The report also said that Iran was continuing to provide arms and cash to terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata'ib Hizballah (KH). Both groups are designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations in the report. ....

[NorrinRadd]

Who the sam thunder is she?

Hot chick who replaced Shannon Doherty on "Charmed."

But that's a classic example of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".


ETA: Good Lord, the woman needs to buy a shirt!

Well now I'm going to have to actually check out the link.

[NorrinRadd]

I will pay for a limo to drive you to your nearest recruitment office. I'll even pay for your lunch you lunch after. Heck, I'll even throw in a year of cigs on top.

Surely you will be first to the fight you so clearly desire.

I'll be glad to fly drones and push buttons to rain down fire from above!

[shunyadragon]

World War III? Its been going on for over 60 years.

[NorrinRadd]

What is it with the women from the original Charmed TV show? First Alyssa Milano became unhinged and now this from Rose McGowan.

I am hearing that she's getting a great deal of blowback.

Delayed effects from the fumes of their various "vanquishing potions."

[Watermelon]

Do you really think Iran wasn't operating proxy wars during the time they duped Obama into signing a nuclear deal with Iran which our congress never ratified and the Iranian government never accepted?


A Bad Deal Off to a Worse Start

President Barack Obama never submitted his Iranian nuclear deal for ratification by the Congress because he knew it would have no chance of passing. That does not make the United States unique: The Iranian parliament has never approved it either (that body passed a heavily amended version) and the Iranian president has never signed it. The Iranian cabinet has never even discussed it. And the other members of the P5+1 – Britain, China, Germany, France and Russia – have likewise given it short legal shrift. Indeed, President Obama "may end up being the only person in the world to sign his much-wanted deal, in effect making a treaty with himself," as the Gatestone Institute's Amir Taheri has said.

In other words, Iran is not legally bound to do anything, something which a State Department official admitted last November in a letter to Kansas GOP Rep. Mike Pompeo of the House Intelligence Committee, in which she stated the deal "is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document." Instead, the official wrote, its success "will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures" and our "capacity to reimpose and ramp up our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments." And how is that going? .....

CNN: State Department report finds Iran is top state sponsor of terror

Washington (CNN)The State Department on Thursday released its annual report on global terrorist activity, listing Iran as the top state sponsor of terrorism and labeling ISIS "the greatest threat globally."
The report also includes statistics on terrorist activity worldwide, and said 11,774 terrorist attacks in 92 countries occurred in 2015.
The department's acting coordinator for counterterrorism, Justin Siberell, briefed reporters Thursday on the report's content, saying the document was used to assess the effectiveness of the effort to combat terrorism and to determine where to best place resources.

On Iran, the report said that country "remained the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in 2015, providing a range of support, including financial, training, and equipment, to groups around the world."
The report also said that Iran was continuing to provide arms and cash to terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata'ib Hizballah (KH). Both groups are designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations in the report. ....

Isn’t that even more incredible that they were abiding by an agreement that they never accepted?

Is there no bigger picture in laying a foundation for the Iranian “revolutionary” youths who grew up watching the rest of the world through the internet and embraced the popular culture of their generation and felt disconnected to the previous Iranian generations. They are a real chance of finally ending hostilities with the west once they get in power.

Otherwise where does it end?

[lilpixieofterror]

So wouldn’t the Iran nuclear deal have been the best option for finally ending the hostilities?

Can you name an historical case where appeasing your enemy has made him like you more?

It opened Iran up to global trade markets and the economic growth that comes with it. Iran could’ve steadily progressed to become a developed nation with opportunities for Iranian citizens to acquire business interests and partnerships all over the world. Once they see that this level of prosperity and increase in living standards is possible then they would be less willing to sponsor terrorism and risk losing it.

That policy is the same policy that has been tried in China, for the past 40 years. Has China left its barbaric ways behind or has the Chinese government benefited from the huge flow of cash and has spread its barbaric ways far further? Such a policy has failed in China, why do you think Iran would be any different? You can’t appease those that want you and everyone you know, dead.

The Iranian youths would grow up connected to the wider international community and have similar ideals and values when it becomes their turn to lead. That was supposed to be a key reason for the 2035 end date of the nuclear deal as the current Iranian youths would be in leadership positions by then. I believe that version of Iran would’ve been a huge step in finally resolving the conflict in that region.

As I pointed out above, such a policy has been tried in China, for decades. Is China less of a brutal dictatorship today?