Let me guess ... deep down in the inner recesses of your tortured, liberal secular soul, you think America is THE problem in the world? Only someone with that mindset and view of the world could ask such an inane question.

If we ever put a hard right person in charge, we will be a bigger threat than Iran. I AM A CONSERVATIVE, but that does not mean I must support war t every turn. The United States needs to keep its nose out of the Middle East.

You guys never miss an opportunity call names. Last time I checked, we are the only country to ever use an atomic weapon.

Yes. And we killed tens of thousands of innocent people. Some think that being American gives us the badge, the judgement ability and executioner when any other country does something we disagree with. I love this country and have fought for America in Combat. I have also traveled extensively and have lived all over the globe.

We are thought of as meddling bullies in many places.

Because of birth, family ties and more, I choose to live in America, BUT, I can not honestly say America is better than any other nation. I also think God loves other nations citizens every bit as much as us.

You don't seem to recall the circumstances under which we used the atomic bomb. Please give us your revisionist analysis and tell us why we should have invaded Japan with ground troops instead.

Then you fully agree with Obama when he says every country is exceptional. That's fine and your right .. .under our exceptional constitutional protections.

I wonder if the French or Brits think of us as meddling bullies ...ie given that they would be speaking German now except for the American military.

Just out of curiosity, since you're here by an accident of birth, where would you prefer to live if you could?

If you think being a conservative means supporting war at every turn, then you OBVIOUSLY don't have a clue about what being a conservative even means. The whole idea here is we are best off if we deter war through strength and resolve, vs invite it through weakness and being irresolute.

Speaking of putting a hard right guy in charge, as I recall Reagan came into power in 1981 and the Soviet Union dissolved about 10 years later. Have you ever thought about why that occurred?

I believe he did that through negotiation just like the current administration is doing in Iran. Not sure if you had a point there or you were adding validation to my suggestion to talk and not rattle sabers.

With all due respect, Reagan negotiated from a position of strength. The ABM system and deployment of the Pershings to Europe was called saber rattling at the time interestingly enough. I think some find the use of strength to be frightening at some level, whereas others are hopelessly wrapped up with moral equivalence coupled with liberal guilt. Not saying that describes you but it certainly does a number of recent posters on this thread imho.

Back to topic, Obama's upbringing was fundamentally anti-Western and we're seeing the fruits of that now. He is by no means negotiating from strength because it's obvious that iran does not fear him ... why should they?

Does Iran fear the other countries that are part of this framework; Russia, China, Germany, France, and the UK?

No they don't. Iran does want to get rid of the sanctions. But they know with Obama as the leader, they can safely assume the threat of military force is not on the table.

Why is the concept of peace through strength so hard for some people to accept anyways? Historically speaking it's obvious that it works and is the best way to avoid war.

How much stronger do we need to be? We spend almost a TRILLION dollar on defense each year. We spend more on the military than any other country in the world, so I believe we are always in a position of strength.

At some point, you just have to let countries fight it out among themselves. Probably, one of the worst things to happen was removing Saddam Hussain from power in Iraq. He kept the warring factions at bay, including Iran.

But, hindsight is always 20/20

I have no problem with other countries fighting it out if we don't have a strategic interest ... ie fully agree on that point.

But, it doesn't really matter how much we spend on defense if our enemy has no fear of our leader using or threating to use it. Deterrence is a combination of capability and intentions. In other words, Iran has no reason to be afraid of us and thus we lose the ability to deter their aggressive behavior. Does that seem reasonable to you?

That does seem reasonable to me.

However, I don't believe the first effort should be a military offensive or even the threat. What the 5+1 have done, with Iran, is the right thing to do. I hold out hope that Iran would like to join the world community and become more prosperous. The people in Iran are hurting from the sanctions. They have worked or Iran wouldn't be at the table. It will take congressional approval to remove sanctions, that is the congressional role. They have no role in developing an agreement. That responsibility is squarely on the Executive branch of government.

I just don't happen to believe we are in such a position of weakness as some on this board.

I do not think we have to make a threat if we portrayed a strong entity that have a history for winning world wars....have the wher with all to take down any country in the world......and with that conveyed a don't tread on me or my people or my friends or else we will sting you bad.

We are no longer that caliber world power.
We have all the capabilities and have made it known around the world we will not use force even when our citizens are being murdered by terrorists.

We are the paper tiger. Unlike the King of Jordan who responded to the killing of his people within 24 hours. And now the Arabs are going into battle to protect their own.

While we wait and watch......as demonstrated time and again over the past 6 years.

Our enemies have us pegged for what we have earned....wimp status.

LOL. Lucifer is a hawk. Jesus was a dove. I will go with Jesus and leave my future to him. All the talk about streaghth and fear, will never be the best way to obtain peace. I will pray for the Hawks to change their ways and repent from their violent ways. If you show your brother love you will not have to kill him. If I am wrong, I would rather die than murder my fellow man.

God Bless you for your sensible comment. This site desperately needs more of your well thought out posts. Violence should, NO MUST be the last action. In 2015, we are not serving the population of earth with the way of God when we call for killing before peaceful negotiation.

Pacifism in the age of Radical Islam is a effective strategy for national suicide. Mohammed was a warrior and his followers still believe in spreading the religion by the sword.

Interestingly I was reading a history of the Crusades today. Does anyone recall that the entire Middle East and North Africa all used to be Christian? Unfortunately, for them and us, the Muslims slaughtered and fought their way to victory. In other words, the hawks devoured the doves.

A better religious philosophy is "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition"

Sorry ... that's just the way the imperfect world is

Go back and read the post. There was not a word said about killing anybody.

And what should we do about Jihadi John and his collection of American heads from his fellow man?

It's one thing to "hope" for this but it's not a strategy by which to deter a Radical Islamic regime. Don't forget ... it's a genuine theocracy thus their militant faith is what drives them. I think you are projecting Western liberal values onto a fundamentalist medieval-oriented regime except it is armed to the teeth with modern weapons.

Recently two questions were asked on this thread regarding the Iran deal. Here they are again by way of quick summary:

1. Does anyone think this deal will prevent Iran from getting nukes at some point?

2. Once they have nukes, does anyone believe the Iranians will refrain from using them (covertly) in nuclear jihad.

Up until today, no posters have responded. But, President Obama apparently reads the TOTV Political Blog because he has now answered the first question.

Turns out it is NO … ie the deal WILL allow Iran to get nukes down the road. (my reaction: what a surprise and who could have possibly known??)


Here’s what Obama said:
“What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

So now we need someone to answer question 2.

I didn't say it was a strategy. I said "I Hope", as in me, the private citizen. I'm not the Secretary of State or the President.

The Iranians have a relatively new government and the people are struggling under the collapse of oil prices and sanctions from the international community. "I HOPE" they would like to see a better future for their people than what they currently have.

All I can do is "guess" what might happen, just like everyone else on this board.

Have you taken a look at North Korea in recent years. That is how much Iran worries about a better life for their people. Zero. Nada. Same values as NK.....gimme the N bomb and a palace.
A dose of reality is sorely needed by some!

Take your dose of reality. You cannot speak about your knowledge unless you have seen it personally.

Surely you jest.
Then you are inferring all accounts of RECOED regarding North Koreas lack of caring for it's people are incorrect.
You also infer more crdibilty for Iran's care of it's people because of.......what is it that we missed?
You are entitled to your opinion. You just happen to be wrong on this issue. It happens.

Some people, apparently including you based on your comments, simply REFUSE to "take a dose of reality." This mindset genuinely defies logic and common sense. Maybe you can explain where it comes from? Is it religious, political, philosophical or what?

Ben Franklin once said the following and it applies to people like you who "refuse' to learn or accept the obvious based on the experience of others. ""Experience is a teacher whom the wise will consult as rarely as possible" meaning that learning things the hard way is not the smart way. Do you need to "experience" the whiff of cordite smoke, or the heat of a blast to understand we are at potential danger down the road.??

I think some (maybe you, not sure) are simply, and understandably, afraid of the threats we face. They are indeed sobering. Thus, the least scary way to deal with it is to deny they exist.

You are suffering from the delusion that the "people" of Iran have a voice in the matter. The last time they raised their voices, the government crushed them. Obama also ignored them for that matter.

Iranians have a new President that appears to be a bit more moderate than the previous. All news coming out of Iran has been very positive, concerning the potential future agreement. At least, the news I have seen.

I don't believe I am delusional. I'm not an uneducated person; have travel the world and lived in many foreign countries, during my career. Certainly, I am not an expert on foreign policy, but like others, I have an opinion. I simply don't subscribe to the apocalyptic scenerio that others describe on this board.

That may be what you see, think or conclude but in most cases is incorrect.
Some of us are in fact learning and have learned from the past. Some obviously have not or sa you said simply ignore it.

North Korea is a perfect eaxample, like it or not. The status of the people are not a priority. Proven time and time again. They also round up and kill those who disagree with them.

I am afraid you are assigning too much hope on Iran's new leader who is merely the public face of Iran. The same Ayotallah and his followers are in real command. They have shown no hesitation to put down and kill those of their people who do not conform. Their belief is if you are not one of them you are inferior....an infidel.....and they belive infidels should be removed.

Back to North Korea....how many agreements have the been a party to signing? Many over the years, usually tied to wanting something in return. Then to only violate and go back to their original ways. This mentality has survived the old guard and the very youngest of them. One can hope there will be change here too......but I think we have learned.

The only reason Iran is in the negotiations is to get the economic sanctions lifted. Period end of any need for much analysis. They too have shown their heritage and their legacy is that of Islam without any doubt. They are most definitely playing Obama and the others involved. They are sponsors of terrorism who would anihalate us in a heart beat...they have said they would.

Feel free to cling to your hope.

Another model? Take a look at Syria. Another country that does not hesitate one nano second to eliminate whole segments of their population if they are deemed unworthy. The too are sponsers of terrorism in the world. We have negotiated, played nice nice with the leadership only for them to continue supporting those who openly claim to remove us from the face of the planet.

Nuclear deterrance has served the USA and it's adversaries for many, many years. The thought of mutual self destruction has been the stabalizing catalyst. The radicals who are involved in Iran, Syria and North Korea would not be deterred by something like deterrance. By their very actions for hundreds of years they will use the weapons they have.

By the way while you are hoping, why is it OK for Iran to want to have nuclear weapons?

Excellent post ... the bothersome thing is you would think this would be intuitive and even self evident. But, even after you lay it out, some leftward leaning souls will still opt for "hope" or for "the people" to sort things out.

I'm reminded of the line from American Sniper where the Dad is teaching the young boys there are three types of animals in the world: wolf, sheep and sheep dogs.

No matter what one says, about the only time the sheep finally understand the realities is when they become the wolves' dinner.