doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com It's been...

There was no agreement. It would have had to have been ratified by the Senate. All Obama's charade did was destabilize the region even more. That game is nowhere near over.

Asia will be less of a concern than you think, once the terrible weakness and incompetence of Obama's policies are reversed. Just like Carter's.

While there would be no meaningful forces standing between Russia and French border there is no point for Russia to take EU. All EU needs to do is buy oil and natural gas from Russia. There is nothing in EU that Russia needs except customers to buy their stuff.

The Stone Age didn't end for lack of stones, Jag. Oil is done.


__________________________
Better learn to like Vodka beehatches.

I said nothing of an agreement, Ken. These things are mostly done before stroking houses at home. Asia will be the fire pit because of markets and Chinese expansion. US will deploy keeping one on its side as usual, in this case Russia.

Trump will learn Obama's nuclear deal with Iran to explore detente with enemies when it discovered limits of its military power---all three now fighting ISIS---is all about finding solutions, not rattling firearms. shouting America First, we can do it alone.

The US built and led the Western Alliance for security over the last 50 years. A commander-in-chief can't measure security costs without the immeasurable benefits of allies, saying you're on your own, we don't need partners to protect our national interests when those national interests are at stake.

If there's anything that we have learned since we were assured of hill's victory, it's that russia has us in their back pocket. So sayeth the talking point, so sayeth the polls.

There obviously was an agreement between Obama and Iran. But not between the United States and Iran, part of the lawless nature of his administration.

Yes, the balancing act in the Far East will continue, but with the US in a position of strength, both economically as well as militarily.

The US signed the nuclear deal. An isolationist America, its citizens closing in on themselves, making barriers, taking in each others wash, was tried before with disastrous economic and military consequences. Why better now?

Irrelevant without Senate ratification.

All this Isolationist pap is merely another false narrative.

It's absurd to be even discussing it.

The nuc deal will be proven to have been a fool hardy attempt by tne former administration to force a solution. Eventually we will see Iran violate it.

Unfortunately the last Senate did accept it by default.

Concur on the rhetorical use of "isolationist" as being a false narrative without form. Progressives have been falsely trying to depict those who oppose them as luddites and such for decades. It was false when they started it in the 20's, it is a silly usage now.

Sovereign people aren't luddites or stupid because they make decisions in their national interests, as countries do. Canada wasn't stupid for not joining the US in its wars in Vietnam or Iraq. The US for more than 100 years tried to stay clear of foreign entanglements as policy. It had to be torpedoed into the First World War and bombed into the Second before it took up arms as our ally against fascism. "Isolationist" has been commonly applied to America's position for those years as an honourable legacy going back to Wilson of peace, order and good government. With respect, where is the falseness of use of the word "isolationist" historically, rhetorically, narratively or in any other form?