Bolton Out

[Ivytalk]

We do not need to be in Afghanistan to prevent it becoming a threat to us

Your opinion places you all by yourself on this one

Is us trying to pull out of there a critique of Trump or have you moved on now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have always said that we need to be willing to persist in our conflict with the Islamists. They do not think in terms of years or time limits. I said the on this board long before Trump ran for office. The fact that we think in terms of needing to get out and get impatient is a weakness. Our enemies know that is our tendency. So they wait us out. They know that if they can just stay active we will quit.

So you’re an interventionist. Some libertarian you are.

[CID1990]

I have always said that we need to be willing to persist in our conflict with the Islamists. They do not think in terms of years or time limits. I said the on this board long before Trump ran for office. The fact that we think in terms of needing to get out and get impatient is a weakness. Our enemies know that is our tendency. So they wait us out. They know that if they can just stay active we will quit.

So you’re an interventionist. Some libertarian you are.

He flits around from position to position suspiciously with similar frequency and magnitude as the POTUS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[css75]

So you’re an interventionist. Some libertarian you are.

He flits around from position to position suspiciously with similar frequency and magnitude as the POTUS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has Trump and JSO ever been seen together at the same time?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Versus staying there forever because the Afghans won't stop it?

Yes, John. I think having no more US troops in Afghanistan is favorable to the US in the long term. We aren't willing to kill a million Afghans so all else is a waste of blood and treasure.

So I take it you don't think having the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan so that they can create a safe haven for groups like the old Al-Qaeda is a threat to US interests?

Tell you what John - I did some thinking on this one and it occurred to me ....

You are in favor of cutting non-binding deals with bad actors.

So let's try it with the Taliban. What if Trump negotiates a deal with the Taliban that has them promising to uphold democratic processes, representative government, to not harbor terrorist organizations, and to generally just play nice. And, they can choose when and where we check on them to make sure they are keeping their promises.

In exchange, we can unfreeze all their assets, send them a C-17 full of hard cold cash, and then declare that we have cut a deal that will prevent Afghanistan from descending into anarchy and terror.

Would that pass muster with you? Is that all Trump has to do to get this right?

Personally, I'd rather we just leave, period.

[UNI88]

Why don't we leave with the understanding that we'll go back in like Genghis if they misbehave? The first time they get the white tent, the second the red and third is black and it's lights out Afghanistan.

China isn't going to mess around with white or red tents.

[JohnStOnge]

So you’re an interventionist. Some libertarian you are.

He flits around from position to position suspiciously with similar frequency and magnitude as the POTUS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have been very consistent in that position. I was taking it while Bush was President.

I have no problem with not getting involved to start with. But we do have a problem with getting involved then showing that we lack staying power. I think it started with Vietnam. With Vietnam we established the precedent that we can be defeated psychologically when we cannot be defeated militarily.

If we get into something, we need to show that we are not looking at time limits.

[GannonFan]

He flits around from position to position suspiciously with similar frequency and magnitude as the POTUS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have been very consistent in that position. I was taking it while Bush was President.

I have no problem with not getting involved to start with. But we do have a problem with getting involved then showing that we lack staying power. I think it started with Vietnam. With Vietnam we established the precedent that we can be defeated psychologically when we cannot be defeated militarily.

If we get into something, we need to show that we are not looking at time limits.

But what is the outcome where you'd say it's fine to leave? Do you if we just stay long enough that Afghanistan will resemble some American suburb with a McDonald's and CVS every other mile and every so often one of those strip malls with the obligatory Lowe's, Bed Bath and Beyond, and Target stores there? Since you think it's an Islamist thing do we just stay there until they all renounce Muhammed, they become Presbyterians and Troy becomes the number one name for newborn babies?

[dbackjon]

I will just leave this here...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bo ... li=BBnb7Kz


Trump and Bolton - both nuts, just in different ways

[JohnStOnge]

So I take it you don't think having the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan so that they can create a safe haven for groups like the old Al-Qaeda is a threat to US interests?

Tell you what John - I did some thinking on this one and it occurred to me ....

You are in favor of cutting non-binding deals with bad actors.

So let's try it with the Taliban. What if Trump negotiates a deal with the Taliban that has them promising to uphold democratic processes, representative government, to not harbor terrorist organizations, and to generally just play nice. And, they can choose when and where we check on them to make sure they are keeping their promises.

In exchange, we can unfreeze all their assets, send them a C-17 full of hard cold cash, and then declare that we have cut a deal that will prevent Afghanistan from descending into anarchy and terror.

Would that pass muster with you? Is that all Trump has to do to get this right?

Personally, I'd rather we just leave, period.

I am not in favor of cutting non binding deals. I am in favor of keeping our end of a deal when the other party is keeping their end of the deal. I would not be in favor of cutting a deal with the Taliban. I was not in favor of the Iran deal before it was made.

But when the deal is made it is made. And Iran was keeping its end of the deal.

[JohnStOnge]

I have been very consistent in that position. I was taking it while Bush was President.

I have no problem with not getting involved to start with. But we do have a problem with getting involved then showing that we lack staying power. I think it started with Vietnam. With Vietnam we established the precedent that we can be defeated psychologically when we cannot be defeated militarily.

If we get into something, we need to show that we are not looking at time limits.

But what is the outcome where you'd say it's fine to leave? Do you if we just stay long enough that Afghanistan will resemble some American suburb with a McDonald's and CVS every other mile and every so often one of those strip malls with the obligatory Lowe's, Bed Bath and Beyond, and Target stores there? Since you think it's an Islamist thing do we just stay there until they all renounce Muhammed, they become Presbyterians and Troy becomes the number one name for newborn babies?

In this case we should be saying we will not leave until it's clear that there is no risk that the Taliban will recapture control. And we should be saying that it doesn't matter how long it takes to get there. We should be saying that there is no time limit on it. We will persist for as long as it takes. Indefinitely.

The fact that we as a culture have that "impatience" where we think 10, 15, 20 or more years is "too long" and we want to get out puts us at a disadvantage. We have made it clear to our enemies that all they need to do is outlast us. Right now the Taliban knows that we want out. Meanwhile they don't care if it takes 1,000 or more years to get what they want.

If we are not going to take an "as long as it takes" attitude we should not get in in the first place.

[CID1990]

Tell you what John - I did some thinking on this one and it occurred to me ....

You are in favor of cutting non-binding deals with bad actors.

So let's try it with the Taliban. What if Trump negotiates a deal with the Taliban that has them promising to uphold democratic processes, representative government, to not harbor terrorist organizations, and to generally just play nice. And, they can choose when and where we check on them to make sure they are keeping their promises.

In exchange, we can unfreeze all their assets, send them a C-17 full of hard cold cash, and then declare that we have cut a deal that will prevent Afghanistan from descending into anarchy and terror.

Would that pass muster with you? Is that all Trump has to do to get this right?

Personally, I'd rather we just leave, period.

I am not in favor of cutting non binding deals. I am in favor of keeping our end of a deal when the other party is keeping their end of the deal. I would not be in favor of cutting a deal with the Taliban. I was not in favor of the Iran deal before it was made.

But when the deal is made it is made. And Iran was keeping its end of the deal.

Sure you are - that’s what the Iran non-treaty was

A planeload of cash and sanctions relief for a non-verifiable promise to slow down nuke development

BTW - you cannot say Iran was following the deal, and any source you quote saying otherwise is wrong.

The reason I know this is because literally nobody has eyes in Iran on the matter. Because the “deal” made it that way. No random inspections regime, no sniffing, no nothing. The IAEA, the entire IC, nobody can say or verify that Iran was keeping up their end of the bargain.

That’s the definition of a bad arrangement that should be scrapped for a binding one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

There were (and still are) IAEA inspectors in Iran. Here's an example from earlier this year:

U.N. nuclear watchdog inspects Iran 'warehouse' Netanyahu pointed to - sources

The IAEA has the power under the landmark 2015 deal to carry out so-called complementary access inspections in Iran, which are often conducted at short notice, wherever it needs to.

The IAEA carried out 35 complementary access inspections in Iran in 2017, the latest year for which data is available, according to an annual report to member states that is itself confidential and which Reuters obtained.

Diplomats familiar with the IAEA’s work say such inspections are often carried out to clear up questions Iran has not fully answered or discrepancies in its declarations.

The IAEA has repeatedly said Iran is holding up its end of the deal, which lifted international sanctions against Tehran in exchange for restrictions on its atomic activities that increased the time it would need to make a nuclear bomb if it chose to. Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful.

Quarterly IAEA reports say its inspectors have had access to all the places in Iran they have needed to visit, which IAEA chief Yukiya Amano repeated in a speech on Tuesday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran ... SKCN1RG2B9

IAEA inspections work. Your dismissal of them sound like Iraq warhawks in the mid-2000s (of which you were one, btw).

[GannonFan]

But what is the outcome where you'd say it's fine to leave? Do you if we just stay long enough that Afghanistan will resemble some American suburb with a McDonald's and CVS every other mile and every so often one of those strip malls with the obligatory Lowe's, Bed Bath and Beyond, and Target stores there? Since you think it's an Islamist thing do we just stay there until they all renounce Muhammed, they become Presbyterians and Troy becomes the number one name for newborn babies?

In this case we should be saying we will not leave until it's clear that there is no risk that the Taliban will recapture control. And we should be saying that it doesn't matter how long it takes to get there. We should be saying that there is no time limit on it. We will persist for as long as it takes. Indefinitely.

The fact that we as a culture have that "impatience" where we think 10, 15, 20 or more years is "too long" and we want to get out puts us at a disadvantage. We have made it clear to our enemies that all they need to do is outlast us. Right now the Taliban knows that we want out. Meanwhile they don't care if it takes 1,000 or more years to get what they want.

If we are not going to take an "as long as it takes" attitude we should not get in in the first place.

So, with all those words, you're basically saying that you're fine with us staying in Afghanistan for a thousand years. 1,000 years? A millennium? How do you type this stuff? Even you can't really believe that's a viable foreign policy.

[CID1990]

There were (and still are) IAEA inspectors in Iran. Here's an example from earlier this year:

U.N. nuclear watchdog inspects Iran 'warehouse' Netanyahu pointed to - sources

The IAEA has the power under the landmark 2015 deal to carry out so-called complementary access inspections in Iran, which are often conducted at short notice, wherever it needs to.

The IAEA carried out 35 complementary access inspections in Iran in 2017, the latest year for which data is available, according to an annual report to member states that is itself confidential and which Reuters obtained.

Diplomats familiar with the IAEA’s work say such inspections are often carried out to clear up questions Iran has not fully answered or discrepancies in its declarations.

The IAEA has repeatedly said Iran is holding up its end of the deal, which lifted international sanctions against Tehran in exchange for restrictions on its atomic activities that increased the time it would need to make a nuclear bomb if it chose to. Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful.

Quarterly IAEA reports say its inspectors have had access to all the places in Iran they have needed to visit, which IAEA chief Yukiya Amano repeated in a speech on Tuesday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran ... SKCN1RG2B9

IAEA inspections work. Your dismissal of them sound like Iraq warhawks in the mid-2000s (of which you were one, btw).

(Says the Reek who doesn’t stalk me desperate for a win)

I didn’t say IAEA inspectors aren’t in Iran, Reek

They are inspecting all the time- sites that Iran determines they can inspect. No new sites, nothing unannounced, and appointment only

So I’ll reiterate since you’re a hen pecking midget -

IAEA has no eyes on Iran


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

But what is the outcome where you'd say it's fine to leave? Do you if we just stay long enough that Afghanistan will resemble some American suburb with a McDonald's and CVS every other mile and every so often one of those strip malls with the obligatory Lowe's, Bed Bath and Beyond, and Target stores there? Since you think it's an Islamist thing do we just stay there until they all renounce Muhammed, they become Presbyterians and Troy becomes the number one name for newborn babies?

In this case we should be saying we will not leave until it's clear that there is no risk that the Taliban will recapture control. And we should be saying that it doesn't matter how long it takes to get there. We should be saying that there is no time limit on it. We will persist for as long as it takes. Indefinitely.

The fact that we as a culture have that "impatience" where we think 10, 15, 20 or more years is "too long" and we want to get out puts us at a disadvantage. We have made it clear to our enemies that all they need to do is outlast us. Right now the Taliban knows that we want out. Meanwhile they don't care if it takes 1,000 or more years to get what they want.

If we are not going to take an "as long as it takes" attitude we should not get in in the first place.

And if that day will NEVER come, then what? We just make it the 51’st state? Because we’ll have a presence there (and countless dead) for the next millennium if we did what you wanted.

[Skjellyfetti]

(Says the Reek who doesn’t stalk me desperate for a win)

I didn’t say IAEA inspectors aren’t in Iran, Reek

They are inspecting all the time- sites that Iran determines they can inspect. No new sites, nothing unannounced, and appointment only

So I’ll reiterate since you’re a hen pecking midget -

IAEA has no eyes on Iran

Still dismissing inspections just like you were in the goodle days on AGS.


What's your solution? Sanctions? Renegotiate a different treaty? Start the nationbuilding?

[CID1990]

(Says the Reek who doesn’t stalk me desperate for a win)

I didn’t say IAEA inspectors aren’t in Iran, Reek

They are inspecting all the time- sites that Iran determines they can inspect. No new sites, nothing unannounced, and appointment only

So I’ll reiterate since you’re a hen pecking midget -

IAEA has no eyes on Iran

Still dismissing inspections just like you were in the goodle days on AGS.


What's your solution? Sanctions? Renegotiate a different treaty? Start the nationbuilding?

Still reading like a second grader

I’m all for an actual inspections regime. We do not have one here.

I’ve said here already ad nauseum that the WORST thing we can do is have a nonbinding “deal” - there is no recourse

So yes- crippling sanctions remain in place until Iran comes to the table in good faith to negotiate an actual treaty. And a good faith measure would include ceasing being a state sponsor of terror (because that makes people nervous when combined with nukes for some mysterious reason)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

So JSO wants a never ending occupation of Afghanistan and Re...er I mean jellybelly actually believes the Iran deal has teeth.

[css75]

When it is ratified by Congress it is official, until then any new President can change it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

(Says the Reek who doesn’t stalk me desperate for a win)

I didn’t say IAEA inspectors aren’t in Iran, Reek

They are inspecting all the time- sites that Iran determines they can inspect. No new sites, nothing unannounced, and appointment only

So I’ll reiterate since you’re a hen pecking midget -

IAEA has no eyes on Iran

Still dismissing inspections just like you were in the goodle days on AGS.


What's your solution? Sanctions? Renegotiate a different treaty? Start the nationbuilding?

It is not a treaty, Reek. It is a non-binding presidential commitment that can be revoked by the next POTUS, just like Trump did. I can send you the cites for a couple of excellent articles on treaty law if you like,

[css75]

Still dismissing inspections just like you were in the goodle days on AGS.


What's your solution? Sanctions? Renegotiate a different treaty? Start the nationbuilding?

It is not a treaty, Reek. It is a non-binding presidential commitment that can be revoked by the next POTUS, just like Trump did. I can send you the cites for a couple of excellent articles on treaty law if you like,

Don’t bother, the libs think Obama never went around proper procedure and anything he did was meant to be forever.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

There is no reasonable argument that includes the U.S. having troops in Afghanistan...
I agree with Joe - pull out and observe from a distance - respond accordingly over time

I agree, I don't see how Afghanistan is anything other than this. It's up to them to stop this cycle from happening over and over again but they don't seem capable of breaking that cycle. We'll pull out, and then in a few years the human rights depravity will be so great again that we'll have to go back in and clear it out again. People will criticize the US for doing nothing and then when we go in we'll be criticized for intervening. That's part of the cycle too.

Osama bin Laden is dead. Everything else Afghanistan is about profits.

[kalm]

I agree, I don't see how Afghanistan is anything other than this. It's up to them to stop this cycle from happening over and over again but they don't seem capable of breaking that cycle. We'll pull out, and then in a few years the human rights depravity will be so great again that we'll have to go back in and clear it out again. People will criticize the US for doing nothing and then when we go in we'll be criticized for intervening. That's part of the cycle too.

Osama bin Laden is dead. Everything else Afghanistan is about profits.

If it was about human rights, what took us so long? Why didn’t we invade SA or the Marianas?

[AZGrizFan]

I agree, I don't see how Afghanistan is anything other than this. It's up to them to stop this cycle from happening over and over again but they don't seem capable of breaking that cycle. We'll pull out, and then in a few years the human rights depravity will be so great again that we'll have to go back in and clear it out again. People will criticize the US for doing nothing and then when we go in we'll be criticized for intervening. That's part of the cycle too.

Osama bin Laden is dead. Everything else Afghanistan is about opium.

FIFY

[css75]

Osama bin Laden is dead. Everything else Afghanistan is about profits.

If it was about human rights, what took us so long? Why didn’t we invade SA or the Marianas?

Or Chicago.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk