US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

On the other hand US sanctions on Iran allow it to develop nuclear weapons with their delivery systems and actually theaten Europe.

Idealism is when you envision or see things in an ideal or perfect manner. Realism, on the other hand, tends toward a more pragmatic and actual view of a situation. A nuclear Iran is inevitable.

According to one U.S. government source we hoped by lifting sanctions that Iran’s leaders would use this influx of investment to lift up their people. Instead, the regime did what it always does: poured money into supporting terrorism, fomenting violence and promoting regional instability. From its support of Syria’s brutal Bashar al-Assad regime and the Houthis in Yemen, to missile attacks on its neighbours, the Iranian regime actually grew more aggressive. Its increasingly brazen actions highlighted the deal’s fundamental flaws and reinforced the decision to withdraw.

Europe can spill their blood in Syria they're paying for it.

But I'm sure Russia will, just as we have seen, defend its interests in Syria even against Iran. Europe as usual will just sit back and bitch and complain all day long while they make money which only makes our job harder.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Idealism is when you envision or see things in an ideal or perfect manner. Realism, on the other hand, tends toward a more pragmatic and actual view of a situation. A nuclear Iran is inevitable.

According to one U.S. government source we hoped by lifting sanctions that Iran’s leaders would use this influx of investment to lift up their people. Instead, the regime did what it always does: poured money into supporting terrorism, fomenting violence and promoting regional instability. From its support of Syria’s brutal Bashar al-Assad regime and the Houthis in Yemen, to missile attacks on its neighbours, the Iranian regime actually grew more aggressive. Its increasingly brazen actions highlighted the deal’s fundamental flaws and reinforced the decision to withdraw.

Europe can spill their blood in Syria they're paying for it.

Originally it was a trade of, but now indeed the nuclear Iran may well be inevitable after how US sabotaged the control regime.


The added "benefit" to that is the decreased credibility of USA (and other powers, Europeans and Russia) in any future negotiations, for example Korean de-nuclearisation.


p.s. this is uniquely an USA challenge, as US has allies everywhere and has to balance the interests of it's local allies (ie Saudis fighting a proxy war with Iran) and it's out of region allies (ie Europeans who do not want a nuclear Iran). In the end I think that US has sabotaged it's long term interests by leaving the control regime as nuclear Iran would not only undermine the interests of the out of region allies, but also of the local allies, with the regional nuclear arms race.

[Skybird]

trump betrays everybody. The Kurds. The sisraelis. The Europeans. And the long-time intersts and strategic perspectives of the US. He opens the field for Iran. And Russia.



But he sticks to the murderous terror regime of Saudi Arabia, because, as he reminded everybiody, they buy Amerian weapons, and that is good for America.


Financing and equipping a global terror exporter is good for America, that means.



I thought after Bush jr, foreign politics could not get worse, but then came Obama. And after Obama I thought again foreign politics could not get worse, but then came the Donald. Making idiocy grrreat again.


"Again"...? American foreign politics is in constant degenration since at least 18 years. Well. Scientists claim peak IQ was in the early and mid 70s already.

[em2nought]

I don't see why Europe would fear a nuclear Iran? You're going to be a collection of caliphates soon, why would Iran nuke their bestest buddies.

[Catfish]

^ Exactly. And since we inherited the mess you anglo-saxons initiated there since decades we let Russia 'solve' it all. Along with the good-friend-Saudis.

Eh bien ... maintenant, il se passe exactement ce qui est arrivé à de nombreux grands empires: ils expirent et perdent une importance énorme. Dans 20 ans, les États-Unis n’ont plus rien à dire dans l’histoire du monde: ce ne sont que des terres agricoles.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Bleiente

Eh bien ... maintenant, il se passe exactement ce qui est arrivé à de nombreux grands empires: ils expirent et perdent une importance énorme. Dans 20 ans, les États-Unis n’ont plus rien à dire dans l’histoire du monde: ce ne sont que des terres agricoles.

It would be nice if we didn't hasten that ending along by embracing politically correct stupidity



Ce serait bien si nous ne précipitions pas cette conclusion en embrassant une stupidité politiquement correcte

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

edit: Russia has been in Syria since 1972. Its nothing new go home stop complaining and figure out what you should be doing

I’d like to know what you know that General (retired) Mattis doesn’t. Especially given the fact that he has half a century of experience in military matters, especially in the Middle East.

“For a sitting U.S. president to see our allies as freeloaders is nuts."
- General (retired) Mattis

[Buddahaid]

It's another great Republican push for isolationism that presages most of our wars.

[August]

Ah I see, we're not the Worlds Policeman but apparently if we stop being the Worlds Policeman then we're allowing foreign children to be eaten.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

It's another great Republican push for isolationism that presages most of our wars.

Hmm, what are you suggesting here? Will Syria become the next Afghanistan? If the United States of America, the richest, most technologically advanced military power the world has ever known can't resolve one problem in a backwater country like Afghanistan against a single adversary after seventeen years and 1.07 trillion dollars what hope do they have in Syria which is a far more complicated situation? What is the end game in Syria and is there any possible chance it will ever be accomplished?

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by em2nought

I don't see why Europe would fear a nuclear Iran? You're going to be a collection of caliphates soon, why would Iran nuke their bestest buddies.

Russia is not a (purely) European countries, yet even we are concerned with nuclear Iran.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

On the other hand US sanctions on Iran allow it to develop nuclear weapons with their delivery systems and actually threaten Europe.

If anyone 'allowed' Iran to build a nuclear weapon I think that would be Abdul Qadeer Khan and (though not proven) Pakistan. And if Iran decides to enrich enough uranium to build nuclear warheads its because they choose too. There is nobody else to blame not the U.S., not the E.U. not Russia not China or some far and away distant island in the Pacific.

However at the moment IMO the immediate concern seem to be the conventional hostilities Iran is waging thanks to their new found wealth. I also read somewhere that Iran pledged to stand with Europe and the JCPOA, meanwhile the U.S. pressures Iran with sanctions, kinda reminds me of the good cop bad cop routine.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

I’d like to know what you know that General (retired) Mattis doesn’t. Especially given the fact that he has half a century of experience in military matters, especially in the Middle East.

“For a sitting U.S. president to see our allies as freeloaders is nuts."
- General (retired) Mattis

I have the utmost respect for General Mattis he's an outstanding soldier. But maybe we dont need soldiers right now.

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Russia is not a (purely) European countries, yet even we are concerned with nuclear Iran.

Now you're concerned about that? Didn't seem to worry Russia when you were building reactors for them.