All Activity
- Past hour
-
-
Sunset: Because deals can never be renewed or renegotiated. Instead of being rehashed in 30 years it was abandoned in 3. Missiles: "Capable of delivering nuclear weapons." Firstly the whole idea of the deal was they don't get a nuke so who cares? Secondly anything can deliver a nuke. A car. A plane. A fishing boat. A person. Thirdly they're a sovereign nation with some backing of some other state actors. Regardless of if any of us support them and their ideology there's only so much you can do, especially when it comes to trying to limit 1940s tech in 2010s. As we've seen today drones are a bigger threat than missiles. Regional Aggression: And control of the hormuz with a $1M toll per ship is better than decreased sanctions how exactly? Perhaps we should learn our lesson and stop diddling countries in the middle east. Weak inspection: Something is better than nothing weve had since and "weak" is an opinion. During the few years the deal was in place the inspections unequivocally worked. Iran was holding their side of the deal. Additionally inspections + intelligence is a strong combo. Past work: How exactly do you address past work? Did we do so after withdrawing from the deal? Does the current peace plan do this in any measurable form? Conventional weapons proliferation... As if we aren't equally guilty having given the taliban stingers in the 90s or humvees, guns and other equipment in 2020s. Do you expect Iran to fully disarm? Can you imagine China telling the US no nukes. Also no tomahawks. Or F-16s. Sanctions relief: Firstly they're now going for sanctions relief plus control of an international waterway with tolls extracted. That's better how? Secondly you've got to negotiate with something and act as enforcement mechanisms. If the deal didn't involve easing sanctions how do you punish violations of the terms? You didn't remove anything so you can't sanction them harder. You leave military force as the main mechanism. Which is drastic. Do you invade when they go to 2.6% vs 2.5%? Do you start bombing stuff causing fear, hate, and irreversible damage? I'd much rather be able to say "we're going to reimpose X level of sanctions until you return to compliance." If they don't, ramp it up. You still have military if truly needed. It gives you options. Seriously compare the peace plan to jcpoa and tell us a single point on which it's "better" for global stability and for the US.
-
You don't live and let live with enemies. You destroy them. One of the things that makes the United States stand above the rest is that we have historically defined our enemies only as those who seek to do us harm, rather than those who have land or resources we want. The enemies we tolerate are the ones we cannot easily destroy. We're pretending like China and Russia aren't enemies, using the justification that they don't want to do us harm, they only want power within their own region. I think we know that's not true, but at least it's plausible. With Iran, only the most fearful, ignorant analysis of reality can lead you to believe they aren't our enemy. It would be bad enough to have them chanting death to America at every turn, but they put their money where their mouth is. For decades. You don't make deals with that type of enemy unless you have no other choice. We are the United States. And the last month is shown we definitely have another choice. The administration has been relatively consistent on what we're doing there. Right now there's no "deal," and everyone posting the Iranian demands are shoving their heads so far up their ass to pretend this represents some sort of settled failure, that I'm surprised they aren't being canceled for wearing blackface. Trump has given a lot of "two week warnings." Often it's a TACO. Other times worldwide tariffs jump 10x, or the president of a country gets kidnapped, or nuclear facilities get bombed, or the entire country gets bombed. I think what we're seeing here is more about personality differences than anything else. Some people are words focused, other people are deeds focused. The group here hyperventilating about Trump day in and day out are repeating how "we" keep downplaying how Trump is making everything worse. But they won't stop shouting long enough to understand that we don't think it's worse, because we aren't comparing it to a hypothetical world that no longer exists. Our European allies aren't allies anymore. Just like NATO isn't an alliance anymore, it's a European insurance policy and the Europeans haven't been paying their premiums. Free trade hasn't been free for a long time, and what we got in exchange for a bunch of cheap electronics is a national defense nightmare (the loss of manufacturing) and a social catastrophe (the destruction of the middle class). Immigrants don't make America, America. Values do, and we're no longer assimilating those values into immigrant populations. Politicians aren't respectable war veterans anymore, they're profit-seeking sociopaths. Then when they are confronted with the concept of trade-offs, we get: oh you're just saying the ends justify the means!! Well, yeah, sometimes. When the "means" are ugly and undignified hyperbole and rhetoric, sure. If the "means" become war crimes or racial discrimination or some other horrible act, then the "ends" will no longer justify the means. I don't like the term TDS which is why I never use it. More accurate would be "Trump Fixation Syndrome" where the detractors can't look past the man long enough to intelligently argue the policy. That's not unreasonable, he's insane and becoming more insane. Maybe his brain is finally going through the same old-man collapse that Biden experienced shortly into his term. We'll see. But the Biden administration didn't do anything that broke our democracy, even with an invalid at the helm. So far this administration hasn't done anything to break our democracy either, even with a madman at the helm. Alternatively, we could have had a moron who couldn't string 10 words together despite decades of political experience. Bad choices all around. But comparing the policy preferences of the three (Biden, Harris, Trump) both domestically and internationally, it's not even close for me.
- Today
-
The pundits on both site cheery pick to make it look great or horrible, I lean to the horrible side for reasons outlined below. I've read a lot of what Gen Jack Keene has written and said on the matter. For those that support do you really think Iran honored the deal? They are masters of lying and delay. JCPOA had a HUGE loophole that allowed Iran up to 24 days before a site could be inspected. Bottom line for me: Why were the enriching in the first place? They lied about the TBMs as proven by four that were launched at Guam (4,000 Miles). There were the single largest exporter of terror in the world. How many dead injured Americans have they impacted? Posted on other sites here are the key faults of JCPOA. Sunset Clauses: Restrictions on uranium enrichment and other activities begin to expire, allowing Iran to expand to an industrial scale after 2030, merely delaying rather than preventing a nuclear program. No Missile Restrictions: The deal did not address Iran's ballistic missile program, which is capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Regional Aggression: Critics claimed sanctions relief provided Iran with funds that enabled it to expand its network of proxy military forces in the Middle East. Weak Inspection Regime: IAEA inspectors did not have unconditional "anytime, anywhere" access, specifically to military sites, with a potential 24-day waiting period for accessing suspicious sites. Limited Scope: The agreement failed to address Iran's past work on nuclear weapons and didn't cover conventional weapons proliferation. Sanctions Relief: The deal freed up billions in assets, which opponents argued empowered a hostile regime rather than encouraging it to change its regional policy.
-
Had something like that for the Herks too. Never saw one installed though.
-
It's....transitioning?
-
-
The War ZoneA-10 Warthog Being Tested With Aerial Refueling Probe (Up...Beyond a win for the A-10, putting refueling probes on USAF tactical jets could be a boon of the service's Agile Combat Employment strategy.
-
Lord Ratner, First, the lesser of two evil's argument you keep repeating is such a lame cop-out. "Well....we must have a psycho, liar, piece-of-shit in office....it's just the price of politics" is such an obvious false dichotomy. There's no middle ground? Really? Everyone that's a liar is a liar to the same extreme? Everyone that's corrupt or narcissistic display those traits to the same degree? You know that’s nonsense. …."Like mosquitoes?" (--you just can’t get rid of them, so eff it?) Are you kidding me? You’re smarter than this, so I can only believe you're being intentionally disingenuous. Second, you act like there are no possible ways to suppress Trump's madness or hold him accountable. Once he's in office, that's it. He's in, so he just gets free rein? You’re going to tell me <verbatim> “that's just the politics that I have been delivered.” Wow. If you want to tuck your tail and embrace this “not my fault, can’t control it,” defeatist BS, enjoy. I see right-wingers with “We The People" and “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, stickers, and tattoos all the time. When did those slogans turn into “Govern me harder, daddy” and “Mmm, your tread tastes delicious??” See, this is a huge aspect of the “No Kings” protests that a lot of people on the right aren’t understanding. They think No Kings is about Trump personally. And no doubt, it is, to an extent. But many people are much less worried about Trump attempting to act like a King, as they are about the willingness and enthusiasm of so many people to push him along that way. The folks who encourage him to rule with unlimited power. And on the flip side of the coin, the folks who just allow it. The apathetic and resigned people (i.e. Lord Ratner), who can be just as dangerous as the enthusiastic ones because they just rollover and go along to get along. Go to one of his rallies. Listen to his cabinet members speak. Watch interviews with supporters. These people like when he deploys the military in our own cities. They cheer when government buildings and airports are re-named and giant portraits are hung up. They salivate when ICE murders American civilians and are granted “absolute immunity.” They applaud when he pardons criminal political allies as a reward for loyalty. They like that he starts wars without consulting congress. They don’t care if he tries to bypass the Constitution with executive order, or if he ignores legislative mandates. He tells his voters, straight to their faces, that he’s now doing the total opposite of his core campaign promises…..and they lap it up and ask for seconds. He tells them the Epstein list is a hoax and that he's going to solve the national debt, and they believe him. Religious leaders routinely say he’s divinely ordained or some sort of “chosen vessel.” And “Trump 2028” hats and shirts and flags were on sale at CPAC. This shit is disgusting and cult-like and anti-American. No Kings is as much about that aspect of today's politics as it is about simply "Orange Man Bad."For the record let's exam the last deal the US managed to negotiate in 2015. Key Aspects of the JCPOA: Nuclear Constraints: Iran agreed to reduce its installed centrifuges, cap uranium enrichment at (far below the needed for weapons), and redesign the Arak heavy-water reactor to prevent plutonium production. Sanctions Relief: The UN, US, and EU agreed to lift nuclear-related economic sanctions on Iran. Monitoring: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was granted enhanced access and monitoring of Iranian facilities, including 25-year surveillance of uranium mines. Sounds like much better terms than were getting now. What happened to that deal? Oh right trump couldn't stand someone else's signature on it. Withdrawal: In 2018, the US withdrew under President Trump, citing limitations in the deal (e.g., sunset clauses) and re-imposed sanctions. Iran subsequently began enriching uranium to higher levels. Iran isn't going to negotiate. Last time they did in earnest, we said "lol jk" within 3 years. Then used the fact they're enriching uranium, even though we are the ones that backed of the agreement that prevented them from doing so, to bomb the shit out of them 7 years later.Reading all of the “pundits” posts here, listening to all of the “pundits” on Cable TV and Network stations. Communicating with Family and Friends, and listening to their definitive opinions….is like listening to debates of the existence of God, Heaven, or Hell… And since I’m getting older, and wiser now, to when knowing to sit and wait things out… And so, I’ll Toast (with another IPA from “tac airlifter”) to all of you my fellow pilots and to your Family and Friends. Cheers, keep it civil guys…. Check 6100%. It's always the case. Bring paragraphs of arguments and the evidence to back it up and the only counter is "TDS. But what about Harris." 5 pages ago these guys refused to believe osint reporting we'd lost an F-15E. Now let's sweep it under the rug along with 2x MC-130s, 1x E-3, 5+ KC-135s, 1x A-10 and sky-high oil prices. Look at the backlash regarding the troops lost at abbey gate executing Trump's poorly negotiated withdrawal deal. The ability to project outrage only when the other side is at the helm is ridiculous.https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/trump-iran-deadline-israel-hormuz-april-7.amp So we won, right? Just have to negotiate around this concept that: Explicitly allows Iranian enrichment Explicitly gives Iran control of the Strait Removes US military from Middle East Lifting of all sanctions Even Fox is struggling on how to spin this. But we all know they’ll find a way, and the 30% will be happy.Do I think the woman who had years and years of political experience and a foreign policy team that didn't consist of her immediate relatives, some real estate tycoons, and a fox news/Nat guard maj, would have done better? You can't seriously tell me that the answer to the question is anything other than yes. We wouldn't be in the conflict because diplomacy would've prevailed. If we were drawn into it anyways, we'd have more experience and stability at the helm to lead it. A person that actually could read their daily intelligence briefings, understand the levers Iran has, and work with rather than allienate allies and experts (Ukraine) to nullify their advantages. Remind me, how much was gas when Biden left office? How much is it now?Honestly no. And if she had started this war I would’ve been against it too. I just argue against trump here because railing on the dems in a predominantly conservative forum isn’t any fun The dems have their own huge issues, namely being so insane on social and economic policy that it will drive people to vote for candidates like trump. And I will always blame the democrats for trump round two. He should have been easy to beat but when you run a senile guy and then sub in a cackling crazy lady at the 11th hour #brat #joy they somehow made trump look (temporarily) like the sane option.Saw this as the list of demands. My replies after... 1. Guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again - OK, but conditions 2. Permanent end to the war, not just a ceasefire - OK, but conditions 3. End to Israeli strikes in Lebanon - we don't control Israel, so conditions 4. Lifting of all US sanctions on Iran - OK, conditions 5. End to all regional fighting against Iranian allies - stop your proxies 1st 6. In return, Iran would open the Strait of Hormuz 7. Iran would impose a Hormuz fee of $2 million per ship - No. Free transit or we seize all your tankers. 8. Iran would split these fees with Oman - No 9. Iran to provide rules for safe passage through Hormuz - No. No rules. Everyone is free to pass. 10. Iran to use Hormuz fees for reconstruction instead of reparations. - No fees. You want to be part of the free world, act like it.
(1).thumb.jpg.7759999c13b3f642753de813ad11dd09.jpg)
