Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    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.
    How can anyone negotiate with Iran?

    - A set of classified documents leaked by the website WikiLeaks.org in July 2010 reports extensive collaboration between Iran and the Taliban, Afghan warlords, and al-Qaeda, but all the claims have not been corroborated (Guardian).

    - Iran has also been blamed for attacks in Balochistan in Pakistan.

    - In April 2011, the United States and the European Union accused the Quds Force of providing equipment and support to help the Syrian regime suppress revolts in Syria.

    - In October 2011, Washington accused the Quds Force of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador (NYT) to the United States, and plotting to bomb the Israeli Embassy in Washington and the Saudi and Israeli Embassies in Argentina.

    http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362#p1

    Will the government fall apart, maybe but will this happen before they get an atomic weapon whether it be a bomb of a residue radiation device? With their record, we can't afford to take the chance that they will negotiate
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Nichols View Post
      How can anyone negotiate with Iran?

      - A set of classified documents leaked by the website WikiLeaks.org in July 2010 reports extensive collaboration between Iran and the Taliban, Afghan warlords, and al-Qaeda, but all the claims have not been corroborated (Guardian).

      - Iran has also been blamed for attacks in Balochistan in Pakistan.

      - In April 2011, the United States and the European Union accused the Quds Force of providing equipment and support to help the Syrian regime suppress revolts in Syria.

      - In October 2011, Washington accused the Quds Force of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador (NYT) to the United States, and plotting to bomb the Israeli Embassy in Washington and the Saudi and Israeli Embassies in Argentina.

      http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362#p1

      Will the government fall apart, maybe but will this happen before they get an atomic weapon whether it be a bomb of a residue radiation device? With their record, we can't afford to take the chance that they will negotiate
      Which is why it depends on the type of negotiations. Personally, I don't want to send the US military into Iran to force them to stop pursuing nuclear power, except as a last resort. Even a simple, targeted military campaign solely against Iranian nuclear infrastructure doesn't sound like a prudent move

      Negotiations are not the same as unconditional surrender. In the end, the key component is going to be what negotiations work, and what don't. Neither the US, the EU, nor Israel wants to see Iran with nuclear weapons - but nuclear power is a different story.

      In the end it all depends on just what both sides can live with and accept.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        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.
        More revolutionary?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
          More revolutionary?
          In a sense. There are lots more jihadists, Taliban, Al Qaeda, and assorted other terrorists there today than 20 or 30 years ago...

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
            What Obama is doing is called appeasement. And that's not a good thing.
            Nothing new, we've made deals with the devil before. Look at what Regan did with the Contras in South America, plus Operation Ajax in the 1950's, plus our work with Cuba, then their was our dealings with Mubarak in Egypt. Plus it's not like this is our first time doing deals with Iran, we sold weapons to them in the 80's in exchange for cash and hostages.
            "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


            • #36
              Originally posted by ace View Post
              Nothing new, we've made deals with the devil before. Look at what Regan did with the Contras in South America, plus Operation Ajax in the 1950's, plus our work with Cuba, then their was our dealings with Mubarak in Egypt. Plus it's not like this is our first time doing deals with Iran, we sold weapons to them in the 80's in exchange for cash and hostages.
              Nuclear weapons are the game changer with this situation.
              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                In a sense. There are lots more jihadists, Taliban, Al Qaeda, and assorted other terrorists there today than 20 or 30 years ago...
                One could argue that stems from the nearby War in Afghanistan and is more an issue of regional instability than 'revolutionary' sentiment. The Pakistani establishment isn't growing more like Iran's leadership.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  Cause he is the girl.

                  My worst jump story:
                  My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
                  As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
                  No lie.

                  ~
                  "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
                  -2 Commando Jumpmaster

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    One could argue that stems from the nearby War in Afghanistan and is more an issue of regional instability than 'revolutionary' sentiment. The Pakistani establishment isn't growing more like Iran's leadership.
                    None of that changes anything I said. You confuse cause with affect.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by ace View Post
                      Nothing new, we've made deals with the devil before.
                      This isn't a deal with the devil. It's smacking of Chamberlain Appeasement.

                      Look at what Regan did with the Contras in South America, plus Operation Ajax in the 1950's, plus our work with Cuba, then their was our dealings with Mubarak in Egypt. Plus it's not like this is our first time doing deals with Iran, we sold weapons to them in the 80's in exchange for cash and hostages.
                      Apples and oranges, those examples are not the same as appeasement. Obama is seeking the easy way out with an enemy of the United States that he either fears or agrees with on a fundamental level. He is not dealing from a position of strength.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
                        Apples and oranges, those examples are not the same as appeasement. Obama is seeking the easy way out with an enemy of the United States that he either fears or agrees with on a fundamental level. He is not dealing from a position of strength.
                        It's more like he is taking a position that no matter the outcome he can claim it was either his success or not his fault. That is, he's taking a no risk position in order to have a good political outcome for himself. It doesn't matter what happens with anyone else, Obama the Ignorant is only interested in himself.
                        The odds on favorite is that this will end badly but Obama won't care. He'll claim success whatever the outcome and nobody will believe him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
                          Apples and oranges, those examples are not the same as appeasement.
                          How?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            None of that changes anything I said. You confuse cause with affect.
                            So how is the government of Pakistan becoming more revolutionary when... the government of Pakistan is not becoming more revolutionary?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                              So how is the government of Pakistan becoming more revolutionary when... the government of Pakistan is not becoming more revolutionary?
                              I never mentioned Pakistan's government, just Pakistan itself. But, even the government is becoming less stable and in a sense revolutionary.

                              http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/islam-po...akistan/p24728

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                                I never mentioned Pakistan's government, just Pakistan itself. But, even the government is becoming less stable and in a sense revolutionary.

                                http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/islam-po...akistan/p24728
                                Less stable most certainly, although the trend might be reversing as support for the extremists is strongest in the tribal areas, and the violence is helping to alienate other parts of the country.

                                Gunning down dozens of Muslim Pakistani school-children doesn't build widespread support.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X