Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    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.
    I could see that as well. But he has shown he's afraid to stand up to the Iranians (and Syrians, and Russians, and ISIS....) So, to me, this smacks of appeasement, as he's trying to give the bad guys what they want no matter the cost to avoid anything complicated and avoid any real work on his part.

    Obama the Ignorant is only interested in himself.
    That is true. Regardless of the outcome of his appeasement, he thinks he'll get away with it and not have to deal with any repercussions 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.
    Yup. I can see him standing there during a press conference, his teleprompter whirring to life, waving that "piece of paper" and claiming success while it is all going to hell.
    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


    • #47
      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      Which is why it depends on the type of negotiations.
      The only negotiations should be with countries that are doing business with Iran. Stop the supply of technology and we wouldn't be in this situation.

      When they stop sponsoring terrorism, we can negotiate with them.
      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
        This isn't a deal with the devil. It's smacking of Chamberlain Appeasement.



        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.
        How is my example not appeasement, both involve giving dangerous people what they want in exchange for peace. At least this time were not selling them weapons and then giving that money to terrorists.
        "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


        • #49
          There are other countries involved in the negotiations, Russia, UK, France, China and Germany, and the talks are based out of Geneva. Who started this whole Negotiation thing and when did it start?

          http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/u...5a_Singh.pdfIt

          It appears that these negotiations have been going on for over 10 years. If we withdraw from them because of Conservative viewpoints and the other nations don’t—and they withdraw from sanctions as I think China might and Russia who has agreed to take Iranian oil for building a couple of nuclear power plants, what does that do?

          If our finger is not in the pie, does it affect anything? I think in all probability that Russia and China don’t want to participate in the sanctions anymore and that we had to get involved to seem like we were controlling the situation.
          Frankly, I don’t think we are.

          I think when the Iranian said in his letter back to the Senate letter writers, that we (the US) is not the world that is what he is implying.

          They will likely deal with the rest of the world without us.

          We are getting more and more cut out of things, not because of Obama’s foreign policy, but because of the intransigence of the Conservatives. Rising powers in Asia may be more determinative than we would like to think. Money talks and we let them have a good part of the world's wealth so we could have cheap goods.
          Homo homini lupus

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Jannie View Post
            We are getting more and more cut out of things, not because of Obama’s foreign policy, but because of the intransigence of the Conservatives.
            Here we go again, blame it on someone else....

            It is President Obama's intransigence that this thread is about. The blame Conservatives or blame Bush no longer holds water. It has been 6 years, the Arab Spring was lost by the current Administration. The President insisted a long time ago:

            CHICAGO, Oct. 31 — Senator Barack Obama says he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us...bama.html?_r=0

            Trying to 'bride' a known sponsor of terrorism will never work.

            As I posted earlier, the only countries that we should be negotiating with are the countries supplying Iran. Iran can not be negotiated with until they stop sponsoring terrorism.
            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Nichols View Post
              Here we go again, blame it on someone else....

              It is President Obama's intransigence that this thread is about. The blame Conservatives or blame Bush no longer holds water. It has been 6 years, the Arab Spring was lost by the current Administration. The President insisted a long time ago:

              CHICAGO, Oct. 31 — Senator Barack Obama says he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

              http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us...bama.html?_r=0

              Trying to 'bride' a known sponsor of terrorism will never work.

              As I posted earlier, the only countries that we should be negotiating with are the countries supplying Iran. Iran can not be negotiated with until they stop sponsoring terrorism.
              So we don’t do a deal with them—because of the intransigence of whoever—this will put them firmly in the sphere of Russia and China.

              They’ve been noodling around in Iran since Sept. 2014 and that is probably part of the reason why our dealing with them got pushed to the front of a lot of other issues.
              http://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-ru...ctions/5400429

              It looks to me like we’d want to poke a finger in Putin’s eye by dealing with Iran, but hey…if we don’t, they will be another country for him to add to his buddy list and be money pals with. And then will our sanctions be worth anything against them?
              Homo homini lupus

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                So we don’t do a deal with them—because of the intransigence of whoever—this will put them firmly in the sphere of Russia and China.
                You're quoting me but you aren't understanding what you quoted or you are trying to twist the message, here it is again:

                "As I posted earlier, the only countries that we should be negotiating with are the countries supplying Iran. Iran can not be negotiated with until they stop sponsoring terrorism."

                That means we negotiate with Russia, China, and every other country that deals with Iran.

                It also means we don't negotiate with Iran until they stop sponsoring terrorism.
                "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X