Maybe read the article you posted? It was cash that settled a decades old dispute over an old arms deal.
Is the new Iran deal better than the old one?
12,824 Views |
246 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by flown-the-coop
Almost anything is better than Obama's Iran deal! What could be worse? Giving them $500 billion instead of $150 billion and giving them our nuclear stockpile too?
BusterAg said:2040huck said:
What new advantage have we gained?
Iran's military capabilities have been obliterated, they cannot hold the ME hostage with their ballistic missile arsenal so that they can build a nuke, and the straight is open.
So, yeah, its light-years better.
Obliterated? Unlikely. Nothing has changed on the ballistic missile front. Where did you get that idea? Was the straight closed? I am not saying that we might not get a better deal, but I am asking what the terms of the better deal might be
BusterAg said:2040huck said:
What new advantage have we gained?
Iran's military capabilities have been obliterated, they cannot hold the ME hostage with their ballistic missile arsenal so that they can build a nuke, and the straight is open.
So, yeah, its light-years better.
Obliterated last year and this year. I look forward to next year.
Username checks out.
What was the "Old One"? Was that where the cash was palletized versus loose?
PCC_80 said:NeverSeenEmWin said:
I don't see how you can answer this question with anything but an emphatic "no."
We started this war without a clear path to regime change, and the IRGC and inner circle regime proved as resilient as most analysts predicted. Iran closed the strait as predicted and the economic fallout was actually much lower than predicted due to US production, alternate supply routes, and Chinese strategic reserve strength.
Meanwhile, US magazine depth is depleted, we showed a lot of new capabilities to our enemies, and gave some credibility to adversary air defense systems. The Iranian regime has successfully galvanized some degree of popular support after being attacked without provocation. It will be some time before dissident elements gain strength. And most of the Iranian missile launch sites and Shaheds remain intact.
We had to unfreeze Iranian assets to get them to the table, and had we offered that before the war, we likely could have gotten better than the current deal. And now Iran will use that capital to strengthen their position and fund terror.
This was an own-goal on so many levels.
You left out that the top two - three levels of Iranian Leadership were killed.
The Iranian Air Force and Navy have been wiped out. Iranian missile forces have suffered significant losses. The Republican Guard has taken a beating and lost lots of their leadership. The Iranian Nuclear Program has probably been halted and knocked backwards by maybe a decade.
Iran has suffered billions of dollars worth of damage that needs to be repaired. We tried to keep the damages to a minimum too. We purposefully avoided striking Oil, Electric and Water Systems. So we could have done lots more.
The Iranian Economy is in shambles after months of zero oil exports. So rebuilding is going to take a long time.
If anything I would say it was a draw. But, living in Iran is now a pretty miserable existance and the population is not happy which is not good for any regime.
Exactly. It's amazing how some are glossing over the fact that Iran lost a majority of their key leadership along with their Air Force and Navy. It's like we're supposed to pretend like that didn't happen and they're just getting money out of this...so therefore they win. Nevermind the fact that their military capabilities have been significantly weakened from where they were before.
Just because it wasn't executed flawlessly doesn't mean it's a failure and the U.S. "lost" while Iran won. That is next level TDS there.
We basically sat by and let Iran do what they wanted for decades. We assumed the frozen assets and sanctions were enough. Interesting that the harshest critics of our current situation had no concerns over Iran's threat back then. Only now are they worried about Iran strengthening itself. Oh, and then of course you had Obama's brilliant idea of paying them off. Of course it was crickets for that too...only now are some concerned over Iran getting more funds. Come on.
Gigem314 said:PCC_80 said:NeverSeenEmWin said:
I don't see how you can answer this question with anything but an emphatic "no."
We started this war without a clear path to regime change, and the IRGC and inner circle regime proved as resilient as most analysts predicted. Iran closed the strait as predicted and the economic fallout was actually much lower than predicted due to US production, alternate supply routes, and Chinese strategic reserve strength.
Meanwhile, US magazine depth is depleted, we showed a lot of new capabilities to our enemies, and gave some credibility to adversary air defense systems. The Iranian regime has successfully galvanized some degree of popular support after being attacked without provocation. It will be some time before dissident elements gain strength. And most of the Iranian missile launch sites and Shaheds remain intact.
We had to unfreeze Iranian assets to get them to the table, and had we offered that before the war, we likely could have gotten better than the current deal. And now Iran will use that capital to strengthen their position and fund terror.
This was an own-goal on so many levels.
You left out that the top two - three levels of Iranian Leadership were killed.
The Iranian Air Force and Navy have been wiped out. Iranian missile forces have suffered significant losses. The Republican Guard has taken a beating and lost lots of their leadership. The Iranian Nuclear Program has probably been halted and knocked backwards by maybe a decade.
Iran has suffered billions of dollars worth of damage that needs to be repaired. We tried to keep the damages to a minimum too. We purposefully avoided striking Oil, Electric and Water Systems. So we could have done lots more.
The Iranian Economy is in shambles after months of zero oil exports. So rebuilding is going to take a long time.
If anything I would say it was a draw. But, living in Iran is now a pretty miserable existance and the population is not happy which is not good for any regime.
Exactly. It's amazing how some are glossing over the fact that Iran lost a majority of their key leadership along with their Air Force and Navy. It's like we're supposed to pretend like that didn't happen and they're just getting money out of this...so therefore they win. Nevermind the fact that their military capabilities have been significantly weakened from where they were before.
Just because it wasn't executed flawlessly doesn't mean it's a failure and the U.S. "lost" while Iran won. That is next level TDS there.
We basically sat by and let Iran do what they wanted for decades. We assumed the frozen assets and sanctions were enough. Interesting that the harshest critics of our current situation had no concerns over Iran's threat back then. Only now are they worried about Iran strengthening itself. Oh, and then of course you had Obama's brilliant idea of paying them off. Of course it was crickets for that too...only now are some concerned over Iran getting more funds. Come on.
Their air force wasn't really a factor before and they've proven adept at shutting down the Strait of Hormuz with glorified bass boats. But it's still a victory until they start lobbing missiles and drones again and we have to waste more MOPs on mountainsides holding nuke materials. Looking forward to going back next year.
Username checks out.
pfo said:
Almost anything is better than Obama's Iran deal! What could be worse? Giving them $500 billion instead of $150 billion and giving them our nuclear stockpile too?
Funny how some of the "experts" on here declaring this a failure were silent back then. This has way more to do with Trump than it does the actual policy of how we should handle Iran. Because Trump did it, everything has to be spun as a complete failure as if the U.S. is evacuating Saigon all over again. It's why we can't have honest conversation about the positives and negatives.
EFR said:
The straight was open beforehand.
But, Iran also had a military beforehand.
Now, the straight is opened and Iran has no ballistic missiles.
Huge improvement.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Quote:
Their air force wasn't really a factor before and they've proven adept at shutting down the Strait of Hormuz with glorified bass boats. But it's still a victory until they start lobbing missiles and drones again and we have to waste more MOPs on mountainsides holding nuke materials. Looking forward to going back next year.
We should definitely go back to pretending like they're making good on their promises to not build a nuclear program and do nothing but blame Republicans. That will solve everything.
2040huck said:BusterAg said:2040huck said:
What new advantage have we gained?
Iran's military capabilities have been obliterated, they cannot hold the ME hostage with their ballistic missile arsenal so that they can build a nuke, and the straight is open.
So, yeah, its light-years better.
Obliterated? Unlikely. Nothing has changed on the ballistic missile front. Where did you get that idea? Was the straight closed? I am not saying that we might not get a better deal, but I am asking what the terms of the better deal might be
This is incorrect. Everything has changed on the ballistic missile front.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
It seems that the main thing we lost was the ability to spell "strait".
There is a significant difference between "no ballistic missiles" and "fewer ballistic missiles".
EFR said:
There is a significant difference between "no ballistic missiles" and "fewer ballistic missiles".
So you were fine with previous policies of keeping their weapons/military capabilities unchecked and having no idea how much/little they had, but taking out a significant amount of them in addition to infrastructure is just a complete a failure and not good enough. Got it.
Gigem314 said:EFR said:
There is a significant difference between "no ballistic missiles" and "fewer ballistic missiles".
So you were fine with previous policies of keeping their weapons/military capabilities unchecked and having no idea how much/little they had, but taking out a significant amount of them in addition to infrastructure is just a complete a failure and not good enough. Got it.
That's definitely better than before.
Still a long way from Trump's own words of:
Quote:
In March, Trump posted that there would be "no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!".
Unless "unconditional" has a different definition to Trump now than it did then.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
EFR said:
There is a significant difference between "no ballistic missiles" and "fewer ballistic missiles".
There is also a difference between $1billion, $10, and $0.
What's your point?
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Tough crowd.
Is that the only thing that would make you happy?
Is that the only thing that would make you happy?
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
BusterAg said:2040huck said:
What new advantage have we gained?
Iran's military capabilities have been obliterated, they cannot hold the ME hostage with their ballistic missile arsenal so that they can build a nuke, and the straight is open.
So, yeah, its light-years better.
Wasn't the straight open before the war? Like their nuclear capability was obliterated last year? Because Trump says. He lies occasionally or worse yet just doesn't know what he's talking about
richardag said:Old McDonald said:
better for iran? yes
Please explain.
He can't. He just hates Trump.
I don’t get enough credit for the things I manage not to say.
NeverSeenEmWin said:
I don't see how you can answer this question with anything but an emphatic "no."
We started this war without a clear path to regime change, and the IRGC and inner circle regime proved as resilient as most analysts predicted. Iran closed the strait as predicted and the economic fallout was actually much lower than predicted due to US production, alternate supply routes, and Chinese strategic reserve strength.
Meanwhile, US magazine depth is depleted, we showed a lot of new capabilities to our enemies, and gave some credibility to adversary air defense systems. The Iranian regime has successfully galvanized some degree of popular support after being attacked without provocation. It will be some time before dissident elements gain strength. And most of the Iranian missile launch sites and Shaheds remain intact.
We had to unfreeze Iranian assets to get them to the table, and had we offered that before the war, we likely could have gotten better than the current deal. And now Iran will use that capital to strengthen their position and fund terror.
This was an own-goal on so many levels.
This seems appropriate here (and to the left, this is how you meme)
Gigem314 said:pfo said:
Almost anything is better than Obama's Iran deal! What could be worse? Giving them $500 billion instead of $150 billion and giving them our nuclear stockpile too?
Funny how some of the "experts" on here declaring this a failure were silent back then. This has way more to do with Trump than it does the actual policy of how we should handle Iran. Because Trump did it, everything has to be spun as a complete failure as if the U.S. is evacuating Saigon all over again. It's why we can't have honest conversation about the positives and negatives.
It's ridiculous that most can't acknowledge any positives whatsoever. Iran was reduced almost solely to the SOH as their only card left to play (and it's good card to acknowledge a negative for everyone else), but to your earlier point we are just supposed to ignore that everything else about their military was severely degraded to annihilated.
We are going to memory hole all of that though, I guess.
2040huck said:
What new advantage have we gained?
B-2s with deep penetrating munitions and no hesitation to use them.
Any more questions?
Being in TexAgs jail changes a man……..no, not really
A better question would be do you trust Iran with nukes or not?
If the answer is no then the rest is fairly immaterial.
I guess we could work through the numbers of losing a major U.S. city, and do a cost-benefit analysis, but for the sake of expedience why don't we assume it's less than what we've spent.
If the answer is no then the rest is fairly immaterial.
I guess we could work through the numbers of losing a major U.S. city, and do a cost-benefit analysis, but for the sake of expedience why don't we assume it's less than what we've spent.
If there is ever a war in which our president and many top members of congress are assassinated, our economy is left in complete shambles, multiple bombs were dropped on American soil with no repercussions, we gained no territory, and we inflicted for all intents and purposes, 0 damage on our enemy - I will be the first to admit that we lost.
2040huck said:
What new advantage have we gained?
Do you care one way or the other?
Did this post get approval from aipac?
Trump says we didn't give them any money
But then is Trump authorized to nego with Iran? Some idiot lib judge may overturn that too.
But then is Trump authorized to nego with Iran? Some idiot lib judge may overturn that too.
Exposing Hypocrisy - one CEO at a time
2040huck said:BusterAg said:2040huck said:
What new advantage have we gained?
Iran's military capabilities have been obliterated, they cannot hold the ME hostage with their ballistic missile arsenal so that they can build a nuke, and the straight is open.
So, yeah, its light-years better.
Obliterated? Unlikely. Nothing has changed on the ballistic missile front. Where did you get that idea? Was the straight closed? I am not saying that we might not get a better deal, but I am asking what the terms of the better deal might be
Do you get paid to just make **** up here?
A significant number of missiles have been destroyed.
A HUGE number of launchers have been destroyed - the US estimates 50% and Israel estimates 75%.
That right there limits how many missiles can be launched, which is why Iran has been tossing out single digit salvos for the past couple months...
In addition, a large amount of their production capability has been destroyed or damaged.
All of that is significantly different than "nothing".
You can turn off signatures, btw
EFR said:
There is a significant difference between "no ballistic missiles" and "fewer ballistic missiles".
There's a significant difference between having a lot of launchers and only having a few launchers, too...
You can turn off signatures, btw
No Spin Ag said:Gigem314 said:EFR said:
There is a significant difference between "no ballistic missiles" and "fewer ballistic missiles".
So you were fine with previous policies of keeping their weapons/military capabilities unchecked and having no idea how much/little they had, but taking out a significant amount of them in addition to infrastructure is just a complete a failure and not good enough. Got it.
That's definitely better than before.
Still a long way from Trump's own words of:Quote:
In March, Trump posted that there would be "no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!".
Unless "unconditional" has a different definition to Trump now than it did then.
I'll agree that we're a far way from unconditional surrender.
However, that sounds like classic Trump when he's dealing. Give a totally over-the-top first offer, so he has room to negotiate...
You can turn off signatures, btw
I think Iran and their proxies capabilities have been set back significantly . I think their ability to deliver a nuclear bomb has been set back. Nothing has been totally "solved" but it's significantly better than it was 5 mos ago imo.
halfastros81 said:
I think Iran and their proxies capabilities have been set back significantly . I think their ability to deliver a nuclear bomb has been set back. Nothing has been totally "solved" but it's significantly better than it was 5 mos ago imo.
Agreed, it's objectively better from an Iranian military projection and nuke dev standpoint. Not even arguable.
It's worse from an O&G supply chain perspective with the 20% that flows through Hormuz due to tolls and constant stop/starts.
Both of these are true and anyone that can't admit that has an agenda.
halfastros81 said:
I think Iran and their proxies capabilities have been set back significantly . I think their ability to deliver a nuclear bomb has been set back..
Agree with all this.
But that is all due to the military action Trump wisely did, not any deal that was made.
I still don't see what we get out of this "deal".
BusterAg said:
Tough crowd.
Is that the only thing that would make you happy?
I never stopped being happy.
Seeing Trump and his maga twist themselves into pretzels to show how less is acceptable makes me even happier, thanks to the entertainment value being at peak level from Trump and his maga.
Seeing many a maga online (not so much here, but the interwebs are filled with so many) swallow this as if it's what Trump wanted all along and that this is a "Mission Accompllished" just tickles nont-stop.
Again, happy always, but after Trump's deal with Iran, even happier.
Well, except for the citizens of Iran, and tax money going to the MIC, but hey, as long as Trump says all is good, then all is how his 4D Chess plans wanted all along, que no?
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
BMX Bandit said:halfastros81 said:
I think Iran and their proxies capabilities have been set back significantly . I think their ability to deliver a nuclear bomb has been set back..
Agree with all this.
But that is all due to the military action Trump wisely did, not any deal that was made.
I still don't see what we get out of this "deal".
Right or wrong, fair or not, it's this:
Quote:
In signing a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz this week, President Trump made a massive bet that doing so would lead to the agreement he covets: one that restricts Tehran's ability to acquire a nuclear weapon.
He pulled up short because the global economy was about to get bent over and he didn't want to be Hoover, or he would have continued with the blockade. His own words.
It will most likely fail. Hez keeps attacking Israel after two ceasefires in a matter of 24 hours which sabotaged right out of the gate.
All pretty pointless at this juncture.
Featured Stories
See All
20:47
1d ago
4.4k
4:33
20h ago
5.6k
16:01
20h ago
1.9k
Pass the Sticks: Angelo McCullom vs. Marco Jones
by Andrew Wu
Upcoming announcements for Texas A&M's top targets
by Ryan Brauninger
7:01
17h ago
1.5k
CJ Mims feels ready to face the SEC gauntlet
by Ryan Brauninger