Iran

[Aargh]

I don't see any way to a good outcome.

The Repub outlook seems to be spend trillions and lose thousands of American lives to destroy Iran's nuclear capability. The problem with that is that we have to keep a military force there or Iran merely rebuilds their nuclear capability after we leave.

The Dem approach may lead to Iran continuing to develop nukes.

Both approaches leave Iran still developing nukes.

Reagan spent so much money on military that when the USSR tried to keep up, they went bankrupt. That led to the downfall of the USSR.

Terrorists are using the same approach to try to bring the USA down. The more they get us to spend fighting them, the closer they bring us to failing on an economic basis.

The terrorist element of Muslim benefits every time they bring us into military conflict with them. They're willing to go a hundred years with us spending a trillion a year to fight them. They win in that scenario.

[RoyalShock]

Rand Paul was right that toppling Hussein has likely made the Iran situation worse. And nobody else in the middle east seems to want to fill that void.

[SB Shock]

I don't see any way to a good outcome.

Ezekiel Option is the only thing left. Of course U.S.A. is not Israel, so we are jus SOL.

[CBB_Fan]

The Republican approach is NOT about Iran developing nuclear weapons. It is about Iran becoming an economic power in the region that would threat Saudi dominance and the balance of the petro-dollar. Here is the truth about the Middle East:

Virtually every terrorist you've ever heard of is funded by or directly influenced by the extremely conservative doctrine of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who joined with the House of Saud in the 1700s to help create the theocratic nation we now know as Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism has had crazy cultural impact on the region even in non-terrorist groups as well. Before Al-Wahhab, there was no outlash against pictures of Mohammad or other Islamic figures. Muslims made paintings of Jesus and Mohammad, and were similar to Catholics in the way they revered saints and visited tombs/shrines. Wahhabism is responsible for the burka, for Al-Qaeda, for the Taliban, for ISIL, for the Muslim Brotherhood, for Boko Haram, etc. This is directly linked to the Saudi royal family and government, which has spent tens of billions of dollars over decades or centuries either directly aiding these groups or educating these extremists.

We tolerate this outpouring of terrorism, which far outscales the threat of Iran, because it is vital to the US-Saudi alliance. We don't particularly care for the oil Saudi Arabia produces (we produce our own oil and Saudi Arabia mostly sells to China), but it is vital that they buy and sell their oil with American dollars. This goes back to Nixon, which agreed to provide arms and protection to Saudi Arabia as long as they denominated oil sales in US dollars. All OPEC countries agreed to similar deals, which created an artificial demand for the US dollar and effectively let us export some of our inflation. Without this alliance, global exchange rates would be dangerously unstable and the US inflation rate would surely rise. For various reasons Republicans value this alliance with the Sauds far more highly than the Democrats.

Iran threatens this global economic truce, because they are a natural rival to the Sauds and they aren't party to the same deal. We don't supply arms and protection to Iran, so they have no reason to honor the petrodollar deal (we currently would keep arms sanctions on Iran even if we approve the deal).

The truth of the nuclear deal is that Iran is already going to have its sanctions removed by its primary trading partners regardless of what the US does. We either get to have oversight over their nuclear program, or we don't. Outside of economics, signing the deal is a no brainer. We give up nothing (since we aren't going to be a trading partner to Iran even if we remove sanctions) and get Iran to give up nuclear capabilities for free.

However, it is very politically inconvenient to say that we should oppose the deal because it threatens the political alliance that funnels money and power to the same groups that attacked us on 9/11, so Republicans have great incentive to change the debate. The average voter isn't going to be sympathetic to the idea the Islamic terrorism is a small price to pay for economic stability and lower inflation, because we've spent so much time hyping it as threat number one to our national interests. So Republicans have spent a ton of time and resources to change the public's perception on the deal and the arguments for/against it.

[wufan]

I had not heard that take before @CBB_Fan:. Very interesting.

[WuDrWu]

Somehow I imagine there's a counterpoint to that, although there is little doubt over the course of time we've been in bed with bad folks far more often than we care to admit, regardless of who's making the decisions.

[Aargh]

Actually, CBB's perspective seems like a logical percursor for our policies and actions in the Middle East.

That explanation would be a logical reason for our actions in Iraq. As a response to 9/11, that made no sense. As an effort to rid the area of weapons of mass destruction, that made no sense. As a means of preserving some economic ideologies, it makes sense.

The American public isn't excited about throwing young lives at economic issues, so we were told some different things. And told - and told - and told. The American public seems a bit willing to accept inaccuracies if they are repeated often enough by enough different people.

[wu_shizzle]

Follow the money.

[tropicalshox]

It's one of those things you really hate to dig into. But there's a lot of info leading to the belief of Saudi Arabia being one of the most extreme in the Muslin world and are responsible for much of the problems. I'll just add besides Saudi's pivotal role in OPEC, it's a major purchaser of US weapons, investor in US bonds and have been involved in covert U.S. actions. More and more people are starting to doubt the given reasons for many of our military actions.

[shocka khan]

It's one of those things you really hate to dig into. But there's a lot of info leading to the belief of Saudi Arabia being one of the most extreme in the Muslin world and are responsible for much of the problems. I'll just add besides Saudi's pivotal role in OPEC, it's a major purchaser of US weapons, investor in US bonds and have been involved in covert U.S. actions. More and more people are starting to doubt the given reasons for many of our military actions.

In a lot of ways, it's somewhat like the situation Israel seems to be sinking into. There are a lot of defenders of Israel on this board, but the Israeli's have alienated the Europeans with their treatment of the Palestinians (if it weren't for our veto power at the U.N., there would have been votes on sanctions). I'm not defending either the Palestinians or the Israelis, I am simply pointing out the current situation outside the U.S.

Netanyahu also was one of the largest supporter of our ill-fated foray into Iraq - he even told Bush back then if we took Saddam Huessein out it would stabilize the middle east.

I'm probably in the minority on this board, but I feel if Mr. Netanyahu thinks someone should be 'neutralized', then perhaps he should do it. I think the next war we fight we should have few to no deferments and the vast majority of kids ought to serve. We have been told about republicans (and I'm sure there are democrats too) who received repeated draft deferments. I think that there should either be no deferments granted or they should be granted until the person graduates, then they go serve. I think the only deferments that should ever be granted are 'unable to physically perform' or religious and religious should come with mandatory alternative service where people are supervised and records are kept.

[MoValley John]

In a lot of ways, it's somewhat like the situation Israel seems to be sinking into. There are a lot of defenders of Israel on this board, but the Israeli's have alienated the Europeans with their treatment of the Palestinians (if it weren't for our veto power at the U.N., there would have been votes on sanctions). I'm not defending either the Palestinians or the Israelis, I am simply pointing out the current situation outside the U.S.

Netanyahu also was one of the largest supporter of our ill-fated foray into Iraq - he even told Bush back then if we took Saddam Huessein out it would stabilize the middle east.

I'm probably in the minority on this board, but I feel if Mr. Netanyahu thinks someone should be 'neutralized', then perhaps he should do it. And we have been told about republicans (and I'm sure there are democrats too) who received repeated draft deferments. I think that there should either be no deferments granted or they should be granted until the person graduates, then they go serve. I think the only deferments that should ever be granted are 'unable to physically perform' or religious and religious should come with mandatory alternative service where people are supervised and records are kept.

Deferments? You're speaking of deferments? The draft ended forty years ago. Let it go.

[MoValley John]

Were not talking practice, were talking deferments.

[SB Shock]

Netanyahu also was one of the largest supporter of our ill-fated foray into Iraq - he even told Bush back then if we took Saddam Huessein out it would stabilize the middle east..

Source?

[tropicalshox]

Source?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/world/middleeast/kerry-reminds-congress-netanyahu-advised-us-to-invade-iraq.html?referer=&_r=0

[SB Shock]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/26...?referer=&_r=0

Thanks - but Netanyahu was right. There was a youth movement (green revolution) in Iran but the Obama administration turned it back and allowed it to be crushed.

2nd - the present upheaval lies not at Bush but Obama. From the undermining of the government of Egypt, Libya and Syria to the premature pullout of American support in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the fiasco with Ukraine has made it the world what it is.