Kerry Fails Again-Iran Talks Extended-No Agreement In Sight

[CAA Flagship]

Here's a better deal:
1. Hey Iran, the world community will have access to inspect your facilities whenever we want, and for that, we will not wipe out your regime.
2. Sign Here: __________________________________

This reasoning is why I advocate complete civilian control of the military.

With that suggestion, why not completely eliminate international diplomacy and threaten any nation with destruction? I mean comparatively, no nation is in a position of strength against us.

No offense, but this line of thinking is the military-industrial mindset Eisenhower warned about. As civilians, it's our duty to be wary, vigilant, critical, and question military action over diplomacy.

You are forgetting about the worldwide terrorism that Iran has been supporting.
We all want a perfect world, and if it wasn't for people, we would have it. There is a percentage of people that suck and there is nothing we can do about it. So we create laws and rules, and provide counseling, treatment, and punishment. Iran doesn't seem to want to go through the counseling and treatment phases.

[HI54UNI]

Here's a better deal:
1. Hey Iran, the world community will have access to inspect your facilities whenever we want, and for that, we will not wipe out your regime.
2. Sign Here: __________________________________

This reasoning is why I advocate complete civilian control of the military.

With that suggestion, why not completely eliminate international diplomacy and threaten any nation with destruction? I mean comparatively, no nation is in a position of strength against us.

No offense, but this line of thinking is the military-industrial mindset Eisenhower warned about. As civilians, it's our duty to be wary, vigilant, critical, and question military action over diplomacy.

How about we assassinate the leadership in Iran? Or destroy all their military installations?

[kalm]

This reasoning is why I advocate complete civilian control of the military.

With that suggestion, why not completely eliminate international diplomacy and threaten any nation with destruction? I mean comparatively, no nation is in a position of strength against us.

No offense, but this line of thinking is the military-industrial mindset Eisenhower warned about. As civilians, it's our duty to be wary, vigilant, critical, and question military action over diplomacy.

You are forgetting about the worldwide terrorism that Iran has been supporting.
We all want a perfect world, and if it wasn't for people, we would have it. There is a percentage of people that suck and there is nothing we can do about it. So we create laws and rules, and provide counseling, treatment, and punishment. Iran doesn't seem to want to go through the counseling and treatment phases.

Trip's obviously forgetting about how we took Iraq in a weekend....

Speaking of worldwide support of terrorism, it's a good thing we provide the Saudis with arms and money....so they can fight evil Iranian client states and make sure the other brand of islamic fundie doesn't spread.

[Ibanez]

What's it say about the other signatories of the Iran deal that they can't continue without the US? You'd think Iran would be pleased to see us go.

[CID1990]

Here's a better deal:
1. Hey Iran, the world community will have access to inspect your facilities whenever we want, and for that, we will not wipe out your regime.
2. Sign Here: __________________________________

With that suggestion, why not completely eliminate international diplomacy and threaten any nation with destruction?

Because there’s only one nation that

1) avows the total destruction of a peaceful neighbor
2) exports terrorism as foreign policy
3) is working on nuclear weapons

all at once

BTW we do have complete civilian control of the military - did you think we didn’t? That was a clumsy straw man if not

[89Hen]

I wonder what Tripp's views will be when he grows up.

[AZGrizFan]

With that suggestion, why not completely eliminate international diplomacy and threaten any nation with destruction?

Because there’s only one nation that

1) avows the total destruction of a peaceful neighbor
2) exports terrorism as foreign policy
3) is working on nuclear weapons

all at once

BTW we do have complete civilian control of the military - did you think we didn’t? That was a clumsy straw man if not

Yeah, I gotta admit I stopped reading after that post from trip.

[∞∞∞]

BTW we do have complete civilian control of the military - did you think we didn’t? That was a clumsy straw man if not

I know; I'm simply stating that I advocate it. I thought it was appalling that Mattis, who I respect for his military career, was nominated and confirmed to lead the DoD.

That said, I acknowledge I'd rather have Mattis advise Trump than the some of the civilian-members he's raised to positions of power. But I'm also weary of "experienced" people like Bolton.

[CID1990]

BTW we do have complete civilian control of the military - did you think we didn’t? That was a clumsy straw man if not

I know; I'm simply stating that I advocate it. I thought it was appalling that Mattis, who I respect for his military career, was nominated and confirmed to lead the DoD.

That said, I acknowledge I'd rather have Mattis advise Trump than the some of the civilian-members he's raised to positions of power. But I'm also weary of "experienced" people like Bolton.

You have a rather selective respect for our "traditional" institutions

Bending the rules on SecDef: appalling

Bending the rules on Senate and treaties: A-OK


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

You have a rather selective respect for our "traditional" institutions

Bending the rules on SecDef: appalling

Bending the rules on Senate and treaties: A-OK

I am selective because I don't think the Constitution is some be-all, end-all document. If it's a compassionate, moral, or common-sense argument, the Constitution should take a back-step to it.

[andy7171]

I wonder what Tripp's views will be when he grows up.

[89Hen]

You have a rather selective respect for our "traditional" institutions

Bending the rules on SecDef: appalling

Bending the rules on Senate and treaties: A-OK

I am selective because I don't think the Constitution is some be-all, end-all document. If it's a compassionate, moral, or common-sense argument, the Constitution should take a back-step to it.

[AZGrizFan]

I am selective because I don't think the Constitution is some be-all, end-all document. If it's a compassionate, moral, or common-sense argument, the Constitution should take a back-step to it.

What a ridiculous statement. One man's "common sense" is another man's idiocy.

See 2A.

Common sense: "shall not be infringed"
Idiocy: 10,000+ infringement laws on the books, because it's a "gun" thing

[AZGrizFan]

BTW we do have complete civilian control of the military - did you think we didn’t? That was a clumsy straw man if not

I know; I'm simply stating that I advocate it. I thought it was appalling that Mattis, who I respect for his military career, was nominated and confirmed to lead the DoD.

That said, I acknowledge I'd rather have Mattis advise Trump than the some of the civilian-members he's raised to positions of power. But I'm also weary of "experienced" people like Bolton.

Here's a hint for you: Once a military man retires, guess what he becomes?

Spoiler: show

a civilian

[∞∞∞]

Here's a hint for you: Once a military man retires, guess what he becomes?

Spoiler: show

a civilian

You can't take the bias out though; it's obviously a significant experience in someone's life. Terminology aside, I want people with zero military experience to oversee it.

And don't take me wrong, this is also for the military's protection. Experience-bias runs both ways; I've known veterans who have nothing but anger and hate for the armed forces. You don't want to inadvertently get someone like that running the whole thing.

[kalm]

Here's a hint for you: Once a military man retires, guess what he becomes?

Spoiler: show

a civilian

You can't take the bias out though; it's obviously a significant experience in someone's life. Terminology aside, I want people with zero military experience to oversee it.

And don't take me wrong, this is also for the military's protection. Experience-bias runs both ways; I've known veterans who have nothing but anger and hate for the armed forces. You don't want to inadvertently get someone like that running the whole thing.

Next thing ya know we’re going to have public school haters running the Dept of Education and oil industry lackeys heading up the EPA!

[∞∞∞]

You can't take the bias out though; it's obviously a significant experience in someone's life. Terminology aside, I want people with zero military experience to oversee it.

And don't take me wrong, this is also for the military's protection. Experience-bias runs both ways; I've known veterans who have nothing but anger and hate for the armed forces. You don't want to inadvertently get someone like that running the whole thing.

Next thing ya know we’re going to have public school haters running the Dept of Education and oil industry lackeys heading up the EPA!

[Ibanez]

Here's a hint for you: Once a military man retires, guess what he becomes?

Spoiler: show

a civilian

You can't take the bias out though; it's obviously a significant experience in someone's life. Terminology aside, I want people with zero military experience to oversee it.

And don't take me wrong, this is also for the military's protection. Experience-bias runs both ways; I've known veterans who have nothing but anger and hate for the armed forces. You don't want to inadvertently get someone like that running the whole thing.

This is probably the dumbest thing you've said. Trip - why would you want someone with zero experience running something like the DOD? It's more than paper pushing (and yes, the policy wonks are at the sub-cabinet level and blah blah blah) but you want your top person to have some experience in the field. You need to have someone that understand the military/education/energy/hospital administration, etc... to run those departments. You know what happens when we have someone running an agency or department that has ZERO qualifications?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown. A "lawyer" that ran a municipal power authority and an Arabian Horse Association. Yeah - that's the perfect pick to head a national emergency response agency.


You must be really happy with Trumps cabinet picks.

[Ibanez]

You can't take the bias out though; it's obviously a significant experience in someone's life. Terminology aside, I want people with zero military experience to oversee it.

And don't take me wrong, this is also for the military's protection. Experience-bias runs both ways; I've known veterans who have nothing but anger and hate for the armed forces. You don't want to inadvertently get someone like that running the whole thing.

Next thing ya know we’re going to have public school haters running the Dept of Education and oil industry lackeys heading up the EPA!

They are all doing a "heck of a job!"

[93henfan]

Ideally for DoD, you want somebody with some military experience, so their Generals and Commander in Chief don’t take advantage of their naivety. Take McNamara: a brilliant mind and balls the size of #9 bird shot. He was basically between LBJ and Westmoreland tapdancing and saying, “uh, yessah massah, whatever you need massah” for years and we just kept digging a deeper hole.

You also want somebody (if they exist) completely free of ties to defense contractors.

[∞∞∞]

Ideally for DoD, you want somebody with some military experience, so their Generals and Commander in Chief don’t take advantage of their naivety. Take McNamara: a brilliant mind and balls the size of #9 bird shot. He was basically between LBJ and Westmoreland tapdancing and saying, “uh, yessah massah, whatever you need massah” for years and we just kept digging a deeper hole.

You also want somebody (if they exist) completely free of ties to defense contractors.

I can accept this argument.

[93henfan]

Ideally for DoD, you want somebody with some military experience, so their Generals and Commander in Chief don’t take advantage of their naivety. Take McNamara: a brilliant mind and balls the size of #9 bird shot. He was basically between LBJ and Westmoreland tapdancing and saying, “uh, yessah massah, whatever you need massah” for years and we just kept digging a deeper hole.

You also want somebody (if they exist) completely free of ties to defense contractors.

I can accept this argument.

By the way, McNamara did serve a brief stint in the Army Air Forces providing systems analysis for the B-29 program. No combat or command experience. Just a really smart program management type.

[AZGrizFan]

Here's a hint for you: Once a military man retires, guess what he becomes?

Spoiler: show

a civilian

You can't take the bias out though; it's obviously a significant experience in someone's life. Terminology aside, I want people with zero military experience to oversee it.

And don't take me wrong, this is also for the military's protection. Experience-bias runs both ways; I've known veterans who have nothing but anger and hate for the armed forces. You don't want to inadvertently get someone like that running the whole thing.

Then perhaps we shouldn't have politicians running the government? You know...experience bias and all that...

[Ibanez]

You can't take the bias out though; it's obviously a significant experience in someone's life. Terminology aside, I want people with zero military experience to oversee it.

And don't take me wrong, this is also for the military's protection. Experience-bias runs both ways; I've known veterans who have nothing but anger and hate for the armed forces. You don't want to inadvertently get someone like that running the whole thing.

Then perhaps we shouldn't have politicians running the government? You know...experience bias and all that...

In that case - does experience matter at all? Why not pull some fry cooks from Burger King and have them doing missile watch at NORAD.

[AZGrizFan]

Then perhaps we shouldn't have politicians running the government? You know...experience bias and all that...

In that case - does experience matter at all? Why not pull some fry cooks from Burger King and have them doing missile watch at NORAD.

Great idea.