Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Obama the Ignorant "My way or the highway..."

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Tsar View Post
    O'Bama doesn't know how to play ball. Seriously have you seen the guy pitch?
    Yeah, it's not great but at least he's trying to not go in guns ablazing, I'd prefer we try not to destabilize further.
    "The people never have the power, only the illusion of it. And here is the real secret: they don't want it. The responsibility is too great to bear. It's why they are so quick to fall in line as soon as someone else takes charge."
    "

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Tsar View Post
      O'Bama doesn't know how to play ball. Seriously have you seen the guy pitch?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Nichols View Post
        Who said the US was walking out?

        From what I understand the President said the US would walk out IF there is no deal.
        Correct. And your beef is?
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
          Correct. And your beef is?
          Mine is that that action without attached consequences is meaningless except to Iran who benefits from it. It might allow Obama the Ignorant to save face for himself with it being a useful distraction, but as a negotiating policy it is just plain stupid.

          What does Iran gain from accepting the US' position unilaterally? What does Iran gain by letting the US walk out?

          In the first case it is to Iran's detriment if they intend on manufacturing nuclear weapons. In the second, it benefits them greatly if that is their intent. Iran can claim that the US made unilateral demands and refused to negotiate. Because Iran would not go along with those demands and the US refused to hear Iran's position the US broke off talks. Iran can then claim "It wasn't our fault talks collapsed. We tried to negotiate but the US refused every offer we made."

          Other nations and the UN might try to step in. The US might try to re-open talks. Either way, it buys Iran more time to develop a weapon unimpeded while putting the onus of blame on the US.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
            Correct. And your beef is?
            I was pointing out that no one said it except you, why did you say it?
            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by ace View Post
              Yeah, it's not great but at least he's trying to not go in guns ablazing, I'd prefer we try not to destabilize further.
              Obama does not know how to 'go in guns blazing.' He'd rather appease than act decisively.

              Sincerely,
              M
              We are not now that strength which in old days
              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Massena View Post
                Obama does not know how to 'go in guns blazing.' He'd rather appease than act decisively.

                Sincerely,
                M
                Maybe this is another line in the sand thing like in Syria with chemical weapons...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ace View Post
                  Yeah, it's not great but at least he's trying to not go in guns ablazing, I'd prefer we try not to destabilize further.
                  What Obama is doing is called appeasement. And that's not a good thing.
                  The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
                    What Obama is doing is called appeasement. And that's not a good thing.
                    Why? We do it all the time. I appease my neighbors by picking up my dog's poop when I take her for a walk. I usually make concessions with my girlfriend when it comes to where we go to eat or what we watch on tv.

                    Just not when it comes to House of Cards, right DoD?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                      No, you and some other posters confused a single comment from the Iranian Foreign minister with Iran breaking off talks. Bad source and poor assumptions.
                      Riiiiiight, because who the hell is a Foreign minister, eh?

                      Sometimes, its just too easy to even ... meh.

                      Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
                      What Obama is doing is called appeasement. And that's not a good thing.
                      Sure it is, for the guys working day & night to build nuclear bombs and use proxies in 4 nations to destabilize and overrun them.

                      You know, I think I'm done with this.
                      The worst that can happen is that a US City or ten get obliterated... and seeing how Cities are full of people who push the rural folk around without a care...
                      Meh again.

                      Whatever, politics is awful dull this season, I'll check back in a few months, maybe.
                      "Why is the Rum gone?"

                      -Captain Jack

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Does Iran need us anyway?

                        Iran would like to produce nuclear generated electricity as their power needs grow at a rate of 4% a year and they would like to keep their oil for sale.

                        They have over the years been in agreements with other countries to build nuclear power plants and those deals have fallen through. In November, 2014 Russia agreed to build new nuclear power plants there.
                        Russia has remained active in negotiations with Iran despite the strains in Moscow’s relations with the West over Ukraine.

                        Samuel Charap, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the Russian model did not pose a proliferation risk in Iran, though it contradicted broader American efforts to isolate Iran economically over its suspected efforts to build a nuclear bomb.

                        Russia has reportedly considered accepting Iranian oil as payment in a barter arrangement for the nuclear reactors.
                        Maybe Obama is trying to keep on being a player there and not be cut out completely. If Congress doesn’t let him try to work a deal with the Iranians, the Iranians are liable to bypass us and our sanctions completely. This could be a part of the bigger game with Russia and also wanting to keep on the good side of the Shia side of Islam in a conflict with the Sunni ISIL.
                        Homo homini lupus

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                          Does Iran need us anyway?

                          Iran would like to produce nuclear generated electricity as their power needs grow at a rate of 4% a year and they would like to keep their oil for sale.

                          They have over the years been in agreements with other countries to build nuclear power plants and those deals have fallen through. In November, 2014 Russia agreed to build new nuclear power plants there.

                          Maybe Obama is trying to keep on being a player there and not be cut out completely. If Congress doesn’t let him try to work a deal with the Iranians, the Iranians are liable to bypass us and our sanctions completely. This could be a part of the bigger game with Russia and also wanting to keep on the good side of the Shia side of Islam in a conflict with the Sunni ISIL.
                          Personally I would have no problem with a negotiated settlement, because I think the best way to deal with Iran is through negotiations - extremist governments are not eternally stable and given enough time, Iran will fall apart or it will reform itself into something more palatable.

                          But working with Iran is predicated upon the concept that Iran does not make any sort of nuclear armament. I know it will offend their idea of national sovereignty, but Iran and it's rhetoric about "Death to Israel" and "Death to the USA" mean it can only be trusted if every level of its nuclear program are monitored and regulated by a 3rd party.

                          I'm happy to put Iran onto a path to normalization and economic engagement, but Iran still needs to prove that it can be trusted. If it doesn't want that subversion of its sovereignty, that is fine - but it should expect sanctions to continue until it comes back to the table.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I believe that the furor of its Revolutionary days during the Carter Administration is declining. Plus its current Grand Ayatollah is supposed to have a terminal disease and will die soon.

                            So perhaps there may even be a government in power in the near future that may be more interested in dealing with us in a reasonable manner.

                            No matter what, I would hate to offend the Iranians too much since they could be a natural ally against ISIL.
                            Homo homini lupus

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                              I believe that the furor of its Revolutionary days during the Carter Administration is declining. Plus its current Grand Ayatollah is supposed to have a terminal disease and will die soon.

                              So perhaps there may even be a government in power in the near future that may be more interested in dealing with us in a reasonable manner.

                              No matter what, I would hate to offend the Iranians too much since they could be a natural ally against ISIL.
                              Iran is becoming less a band of revolutionaries and more a state as it matures.

                              Again, compare the USSR of the 20s to the USSR of the 70s to see how a revolutionary state can change and politically "mature".

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                                Iran is becoming less a band of revolutionaries and more a state as it matures.

                                Again, compare the USSR of the 20s to the USSR of the 70s to see how a revolutionary state can change and politically "mature".
                                So? Pakistan is becoming more revolutionary and they have nukes. The USSR underwent a revolution, becoming Russia again, and they have nukes. Iran may become less revolutionary but they also signed the NPT and are likely not abiding by it. There is no certainty what they will do if they do develop a nuclear weapon. But it is certain if they do that they violated the NPT.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X