A short study in contrasts in leadership

[WVPATX]

Obama was asked why Iran didn't have to give up their terrorists activities, their hegemony or even recognized Israel's right to exist as part of the nuclear deal. He responded that it was unfair to ask Iran to do this since it would require the regime to change radically (paraphrasing). So Iran gets the sanctions lifted if they promise to wait 10 years before they can produce a nuclear weapon (Obama recently said their breakout period would be zero months at the end of this agreement).

Reagan, on the other hand, came into office with an adversary as thuggish as Iran, only much bigger and more powerful. Reagan could have decided that the Soviet Union couldn't possibly change and that he would simply negotiate whatever deal they would agree to. But that wasn't Reagan's belief. He used every means possible to suffocate the Soviet Union, economic, diplomatic, military and weapons development including SDI. We all know that the Soviet Union did eventually collapse winning the Cold War for the U.S.

Leadership makes a difference.

 

[moe]

So Iran gets the sanctions lifted if they promise to wait 10 years before they can produce a nuclear weapon...Why do you make stuff up and put your spin on things? Does it entertain you? You know that you can't be trusted to get one thing right when you try to characterize news articles or what someone else has said don't you? It's good comic relief though.

 

[WVPATX]

Obama has stated that Iran's breakout period is zero when the agreement ends. That means that Iran can, with the world community's blessing, produce a nuclear weapon. Iran will get the sanctions lifted. The U.S. says it will be lifted over a period of time. Iran says the sanctions get lifted immediately.

But the much bigger point is that Obama is not requiring any fundamental change in Iran's behavior or hegemony and Reagan stood firm with a much bigger, more powerful enemy. The contrast could not be more clear.
This post was edited on 4/9 11:55 AM by WVPATX

 

[WhiteTailEER]

If he sells them weapons, then he can be just like Reagan

Wouldn't that be great?

 

[WVPATX]

Re: If he sells them weapons, then he can be just like Reagan

One forced the collapse of the Soviet Union and the other is propping up a terrorist state. Nice try though.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Selling a terrorist state weapons isn't propping them up?

How exactly do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[moe]

Re: If he sells them weapons, then he can be just like Reagan

and we're still paying for and trying to figure out what to do with the nuclear weapons stockpile that played a role in it. Propping up a terrorist state? okey dokey

 

[WVPATX]

Re: Selling a terrorist state weapons isn't propping them up?

lol. Reagan lead the effort that caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and Obama is prepping the path for Iran's nuclear bomb (breakout period is zero according to Obama) and you are complaining about an arms trade to Iran? LMAO. I am talking about strategic leadership and you are focused on petty tactics.

 

[WVPATX]

Re: If he sells them weapons, then he can be just like Reagan

You're complainging about our nuclear weapons stockpile? So I assume you prefer an active Soviet Union still in existance spreading communism and misery around the world as long as it means a reduction in our nuclear weapons stockpile? Is that really your argument?

 

[Keyser76]

No, You are talking about a president from almost 30 years

ago and equating todays Iran with the old Soviet Union while predicting the future and laughing your ass off at the same time.

 

[moe]

Re: If he sells them weapons, then he can be just like Reagan

Just saying that a huge nuclear stockpile of weapons in the U.S. and Russia and other Soviet era block countries is a legacy that RR left us. It's not my job to speculate as to what would have happened had the USSR stayed intact. Russia is still a thorn in our (and Europe's) side in case you hadn't noticed.
This post was edited on 4/9 12:51 PM by moe

 

[WhiteTailEER]

It is amazing

Originally posted by WVPATX:
lol. Reagan lead the effort that caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and Obama is prepping the path for Iran's nuclear bomb (breakout period is zero according to Obama) and you are complaining about an arms trade to Iran? LMAO. I am talking about strategic leadership and you are focused on petty tactics.

So, Obama is putting restrictions on their nuclear capabilities, but he is prepping the path for their nuclear bomb? Is he providing plans? Materials? Enriched Uranium? Showing them how to get from 20% to the 90% needed for a nuclear bomb? (for those playing at home, the answer to all of those is "no") You keep saying the breakout period is zero, but are ignoring the other factors. Do you honestly think everybody else is just going to grant them that ability?

Your words. Obama is propping up a terrorist state. Reagan sold this same terrorist state weapons (inspite of an arms embargo), but that isn't propping them up? Oh no, don't look at that, even though it's the same country, that's irrelevant, instead look over here.

The dance you do is comical.

The Soviet Union wasn't exactly strong when Reagan took office. Their financial structure was extremely weak (Carter's grain embargo played a role in that also). Reagan's role hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union, but many say that it was going to collapse under its own weight anyway. And it's not like he eliminated all the threat from that region, Russia was part of the Soviet Union and we are still having issues with them.

 

[WVPATX]

Re: If he sells them weapons, then he can be just like Reagan

What an absolutely insane argument. Please let me know when you find one credible Democrat that still wishes the Soviet Union exists.

BTW, another Obama/Hillary fail. The Russia reset button, lol.

 

[WVPATX]

Re: It is amazing

You need to read more. Obama, in an NPR interview, said that Iran's breakout period at the end of this agreement would be ZERO. Do you even now what breakout period means? It means the time it would take for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. If that is not prepping the way, with world approval, I don't know what is.

 

[WVPATX]

Re: No, You are talking about a president from almost 30 years

I am contrasting leadership. One stood firm and demanded change and the other is basically saying that we can't get Iran to change so let's stop trying.

 

[countryroads89]

Re: If he sells them weapons, then he can be just like Reagan


Blinded by Homerism.

 

[moe]

Re: If he sells them weapons, then he can be just like Reagan

What are you talking about? Did I say that I wished the USSR had never disintegrated? No. I'm just pointing out one big downside of that time period which was the nuclear arms race and resulting nuclear stockpiles that we're still dealing with. Maybe you prefer our tax dollars spent on building nuclear stockpiles instead of on infrastructure, education, etc. I have no idea what kind of crackpot theory is contained in your last sentence.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Re: It is amazing

Originally posted by WVPATX:
You need to read more. Obama, in an NPR interview, said that Iran's breakout period at the end of this agreement would be ZERO. Do you even now what breakout period means? It means the time it would take for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. If that is not prepping the way, with world approval, I don't know what is.

You need to stop reading, because it doesn't seem like you understand what you're reading ... or at least won't allow yourself to understand it.

You say over and over again that at the end of the 10 year period the breakout period is zero. That's not true and it's not what he said.

"The president told NPR the Iran's capabilities will be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms - not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material. It would extend the country's "breakout time" - the period needed to acquire sufficient material for a weapon - to at least a year, up from an estimated two or three months now.



After a decade, some restrictions would start phasing out. In years 13 to 15 of the deal, Obama said, Iran could use "advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly. And at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."


So, the current breakout period is 2-3 months, but we are limiting their capabilities for 10 years and then maybe 13-15 years from now they'd have the capability.

It's not perfect, but it's way better than 2-3 months. A lot can happen in 13-15 years and hte lanscape could be vastly different. Things aren't going to be much different in 2-3 months, but could be VERY different in 2-3 months +1 day without this deal.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Re: No, You are talking about a president from almost 30 years

Originally posted by WVPATX:
I am contrasting leadership. One stood firm and demanded change and the other is basically saying that we can't get Iran to change so let's stop trying.

Also ... one is saying "let's keep them from getting more weapons" and the other said "hey, let's sell them a bunch of weapons!!"

He also isn't saying "let's stop trying" he is specifically saying that we can't get them to change right away so let's at least limit their abilities to do massive damage.

I guess in your mind a 2-3 month breakout period now is better than a zero breakout period 13-15 years from now.

 

[WVPATX]

Re: It is amazing

This deal is a disaster. The breakout period would be zero at the end of this deal according to Obama. That is insane and this assumes that we can trust Iran to keep its word, which we can't. As Kissinger and Shultz pointed out the inspections would be a nightmare and Iran has already stated that its military bases are off limits to inspections.

Again, one confronted a much bigger, more dangerous enemy and brought them to their knees as he rallied the world around his ideas. The other has given up trying to change the regime. Iran will dominate the middle east and this "agreement" will lead to an arms race in that region. Iran will continue to export terrorism around the world. Iran will not even recognize Israel's right to exist. Obama is so desperate for a deal that he will accept a bad deal and this is a bad deal.

 

[WVPATX]

Re: No, You are talking about a president from almost 30 years

No, my idea is to enforce even more stringent sanctions. Oil is priced at $50/bbl. Iran cannot survive with oil at that price. The regime came to the table because of the sanctions and we are going to lift them? For this deal?

Keep the pressure on. Put the military options back on the table. Fund insurgencies in Iran. If Iran gets a weapon the entire region becomes one gigantic arms race. We cannot allow Iran to get that weapon. We would be allowing a country to get a devastating weapon that is full of leaders that want to hasten the end times. Its insane.

At least in the Cold War we knew both sides wouldn't use their nuclear weapons. Both sides were rational. Not with the Iranians.

 

[WVPATX]

Re: If he sells them weapons, then he can be just like Reagan

You posted that Russia was still a problem. I am simply pointing out that one of Obama/Hillary's biggest foreign policy objectives was the Russian reset. Obviously, they failed miserably at that objective.

You are complaining about our nuclear stockpiles. I am simply pointing out that this is a very, very small price to pay for the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is not even a rational argument on your part. BTW, it was SDI far more than nuclear weapons that brought the Soviet Union to ruin.

 

[moe]

Re: If he sells them weapons, then he can be just like Reagan

Much of your post made no sense and I disagree with the rest but I deserve that for getting in one of your threads.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

How could Russia still be a problem when Reagan crushed them?

Obviously he failed miserably at his objective.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Re: No, You are talking about a president from almost 30 years

Originally posted by WVPATX:
The regime came to the table because of the sanctions and we are going to lift them? For this deal?

"Obama also said in the NPR interview, released Tuesday, that the U.S. and European negotiators are trying to reach a deal with Iran in which sanctions could be reimposed without a U.N. Security Council vote, where Tehran-ally Russia could exercise its veto power.

"We are absolutely convinced we can do it again," Obama said of the international sanctions, which have crippled Iran's economy."

Originally posted by WVPATX:
Fund insurgencies in Iran.

Fund insurgencies in Iran? Really? And you don't think the funds and weapons won't later (or sooner) be used in terrorist attacks? They are a terrorist state after all, so who do you trust with that?

 

[WVPATX]

Re: No, You are talking about a president from almost 30 years

You're really incredibly stupid. How has the US ever supported insurgencies in enemy countries? With money! Obama really screwed up by not supporting the Green Revolution and we are paying a huge price for his stupidity.

 

[CAJUNEER]

Re: If he sells them weapons, then he can be just like Reagan

Originally posted by WhiteTailEER:
Wouldn't that be great?

It would be great. Reagan understood that leadership is from the front, and that those who attempt to lead from behind are really just followers.

Not to mention, RR was attempting to free American hostages, while the current President attempts to free Gitmo terrorists.