97 replies to this topic

[Danny Noonin]

gearpig, on 22 August 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

Absolutely not. I was talking about Active Duty. I can't be bothered to read multiple posts and infer the context in which non-specific questions are asked. I'm a busy guy, deploying and all.

No need to sort through multiple posts and no need to infer anything. The only word you needed to understand context was "mobilized". It was in the very post you quoted. And it has quite a specific meaning.

Edited by Danny Noonin, 22 August 2012 - 02:19 PM.

[Prozac]

Sorry....I read the post reserve / AETC, not reserve AETC. Obviously, a AFRC AETC gig is pretty safe....for now.

[abmwaldo]

gearpig, on 22 August 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

Units aren't. Individuals are. Some arrive at UPT thinking they're getting a well-deserved reprieve from several years of constant deployments in operational squadrons only to be slapped with deployment orders for some bullshit staff job in theater.

Fact in our corner of AETC. Three year tour and you're going to get at least a 179 and if you're exceptionally fortunate two 179s in the span of 18 months.

[nsplayr]

Iran agrees to one-on-one negations with the U.S. over it's nuclear program. Source.

[Buddy Spike]

nsplayr, on 20 October 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Iran agrees to one-on-one negations with the U.S. over it's nuclear program. Source.

October surprise, anyone?

[Rainman A-10]

No shit!

[KState_Poke22]

I'm skeptical if Iran will actually take this seriously.

[Groundbounder]

nsplayr, on 20 October 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Iran agrees to one-on-one negations with the U.S. over it's nuclear program. Source.

They know who they will be able to run over and who they are not so sure they would be able to run over.

Help O get re-elected and then return to their own agenda.

[nsplayr]

Groundbounder, on 20 October 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

They know who they will be able to run over and who they are not so sure they would be able to run over.

Help O get re-elected and then return to their own agenda.

Invalid. From the article:

Quote

Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

At the United Nations in September, Mr. Ahmadinejad hinted as much, describing the reasoning to American journalists. “Experience has shown that important and key decisions are not made in the U.S. leading up to the national elections,” he said.

Edited by nsplayr, 20 October 2012 - 09:45 PM.

[Buddy Spike]

http://www.politico....lks-139083.html

So much for that.

[Rainman A-10]

I guess they get to enjoy another few months of full and satisfying sanctions.

[Prosuper]

Sounds like a great idea , just like the non aggression pact that Stalin and Hitler signed. Now since all I know I read in the papers, lets see you make a deal with your sworn enemy who refers to you as the Great Satan for a very short term gain like to swing a election. What can go wrong? Didn't Reagan get screwed dealing with them over a guns for hostages deal?

[Groundbounder]

nsplayr, on 20 October 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

Invalid. From the article:

nsplayr, on 20 October 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

At the United Nations in September, Mr. Ahmadinejad hinted as much, describing the reasoning to American journalists. “Experience has shown that important and key decisions are not made in the U.S. leading up to the national elections,” he said.

And of course they never lie. If you don't see this as an attempt to sway the election to the guy they think will not prevent them from nuking up, I believe you're wearing rose colored glasses.

edit: to add this disclaimer. Of course the quote I am posting from nsplr is something he copy and pasted, not his words. I just can get this iPad to show it in the correct format.

Edit: Change they to the in my second sentence.

Edited by Groundbounder, 21 October 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[nsplayr]

So now the story at NYT is "agreed in principle." Interesting to see what the truth actually is.

I frankly don't understand why folks seem to imply that this is a shrewd attempt by the administration to somehow swing the election. It's been their policy all along to seek negotiations with Iran, either the multilateral ones they reference in the politico story linked above or unilateral ones. That's not new or related to the election.

So if someone is changing their policy, if this whole thing is even true, it's Iran. They've been dodging negotiations for some time and suffering under the sanctions instead. They could be lying, they could be buying time, but they could be sweating under the sanctions and thinking negotiating some kind of deal where they get to enrich for civilian purposes but are denied weapons they claim not to seek anyways. No one knows the truth except the Iranians and it's not like they're monolithic.

It's easy to say, "Appeasement!" but ask yourself honestly what is the downside in negotiating at this stage in the game? We seem to hold the vast majority of the cards in this game and the status quo is crippling sanctions endorsed by pretty much everyone and a much-discussed potential military strike from Israel/us/both.

[HeloDude]

nsplayr, on 21 October 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

I frankly don't understand why folks seem to imply that this is a shrewd attempt by the administration to somehow swing the election.

Really dude? Just like when Clinton launched over a hundred missiles around the same day the Lewinksy hearings started...just a coincidence? Or just like why Obama said for several days that Benghazi was a result of a video...only much later for his administration to finally admit it was a terrorist attack when it shows they knew shortly after the event? It's all political, especially at this point. I remember pundits saying that the reason Bush was making a big deal about Iraq and WMD's the summer/fall of 2002 was so that his party wouldn't gt creamed in the midterms because of the weak economy(attempt to change the narrative)...I have a feeling that they were at least somewhat correct. Don't be so naive.

Quote

It's easy to say, "Appeasement!" but ask yourself honestly what is the downside in negotiating at this stage in the game?

The downside is that we appear weak to our enemy(s), and that gives them strength. The only way Iran will discontinue their nuclear weopans effort is if somebody destroys those capabilities or if they have a regime change...negotiating won't do anything to a country whose rulers rule by fear, intimidation, and who quite frankly, could care less about their people.

[SuperWSO]

I actually wonder if this is an attempt by Iran (not the current US administration) to sway US voters. The thought would be that Iran is better off with "4 more years". They publicly state that they are working on talks with the US. US voters are swayed (in this scenario) by the thought that one side is more likely to talk.

Iran's Nuclear program is a big deal, but it isn't the driving issue in this election. In the end, I think it just re-enforces what an abject failure we have had in our attempts to modify Iran's behavior.

[Groundbounder]

nsplayr, on 21 October 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

So now the story at NYT is "agreed in principle.&quote;

I frankly don't understand why folks seem to imply that this is a shrewd attempt by the administration to somehow swing the election. It's been their policy all along to seek negotiations with Iran, either the multilateral ones they reference in the politico story linked above or unilateral ones. That's not new or related to the election.

.

I didn't say it was The administration. I said "And they never lie....... " With what I was quoting out of your post, I believe it is pretty clear They = Iran.

Edit for clarity - F.... Posting from an iPad isn't easy.

Edited by Groundbounder, 21 October 2012 - 03:47 PM.

[nsplayr]

HeloDude, on 21 October 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

The downside is that we appear weak to our enemy(s), and that gives them strength. The only way Iran will discontinue their nuclear weopans effort is if somebody destroys those capabilities or if they have a regime change...negotiating won't do anything to a country whose rulers rule by fear, intimidation, and who quite frankly, could care less about their people.

So is it ever appropriate to negotiate with governments we oppose? Is there a better way forward WRT Iran? I'm just curious if you're interested in the status quo of letting the sanctions do their thing (although their thing is to bring them to the table and/or destabilize the government there...) or just go ahead with a strike.

Groundbounder, on 21 October 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

I didn't say it was the administration. I said And they never lie....... With what I was quoting out of you post, I believe it is pretty clear they = Iran.

They definitely could be lying...hell, the admin now says there's no deal so who knows what's actually going on. But if there is a deal an opportunity to negotiate, I don't see why we would not want to take it; we have basically nothing to lose and a negotiated settlement is easily the best end-game for the whole situation other than a spontaneous, relatively bloodless overthrow of the mullahs by the people, but then again it's hard to say what you get after that happens (see Libya, Egypt, etc.).