Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As Trump said many times over, the Obama Nuclear Iran deal is by far the worse deal ever negotiated.
Obama and his cronies duped the American public once again, just like they did with the passing of Obamacare, in creating a false narrative to push the passing and support of the Iran deal.
Whistle blower exposes the deception behind the Obama Iran Nuclear deal:
Iran is part of the Russia China Syria North Korea bloc. China Iran and Russian are anti zionists States. But anyway the world is supposed to move away from oil as a primary energy source and in its place use cleaner fuel systems. Nuclear energy which can power kilowatts of energy, nuclear energy can still be dangerous for the environment, example fukushima and chernoybl. But anyway if Iran gets schematics on how to build nuclear reactors, it won't be far off until they build a nuclear bomb then nuke Islamic rival in Riyadh, tel a Viv, maybe Ankara too. This is a game of chess that is being played in the middle east. I advice you to watch closely. As for Trump? Trump has an agenda and he has to support his kosher friends and now kosher family in the NYC real estate market, limelight and now national spotlight. The fear of Israel getting nuked is very worrisome for Trump and his nyc constituents.
Last edited by Bronxguyanese; 05-10-2016 at 07:54 AM..
Obama's 2nd term revealed he's realed he's truly a muslim.
He has:
- Created and enabled ISIS
- Gave Iran Nukes
- Made a mockery out of US Israeli relationship
- Allowed Iraqis to overthrow the Bush installed leadership and replace with ultra religious leaders
- De-stablized Egypt and Syria by enabling the rebels in Egypt and Syria causing tidal waves of refugees to Europe
I wonder if the Europeans want their Nobel Peace Prize recalled from Obama after he caused huge surges in refugees in those regions that he help de-stablized. Obama once was consider genius for sending aid to the rebels in an attempt to over throw Asad of Syria having successfully over throw Mubarek of Eqypt.
Obama's 2nd term revealed he's realed he's truly a muslim.
He has:
- Created and enabled ISIS
- Gave Iran Nukes
- Made a mockery out of US Israeli relationship
- Allowed Iraqis to overthrow the Bush installed leadership and replace with ultra religious leaders
- De-stablized Egypt and Syria by enabling the rebels in Egypt and Syria causing tidal waves of refugees to Europe
I wonder if the Europeans want their Nobel Peace Prize recalled from Obama after he caused huge surges in refugees in those regions that he help de-stablized.
All great powers stabbed the Jewish nation in the back. Persians, Greeks did it after the death of Alexander the great, and the Romans did after making the Jewish state it's client state. America is no different from ancient Rome or greece when it comes to middle east policy. Also the Bush backed iraqi government was weak, so weak that the sunni saw no intention of joining the Iraqi Shia in forming a government, and it also allowed Iran to make Iraq a puppet government. But I have to admit, Obama did a bad job by supporting the Arab spring movement which destabilized Libya and Syria. The Syrian conflict is pushing America into close conflict with Russia. As for Israel? Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are their allies. Israel needs to worry about hizbollah, Syria, Iran and Russia.
Obama's 2nd term revealed he's realed he's truly a muslim.
He has:
- Created and enabled ISIS
- Gave Iran Nukes
- Made a mockery out of US Israeli relationship
- Allowed Iraqis to overthrow the Bush installed leadership and replace with ultra religious leaders
- De-stablized Egypt and Syria by enabling the rebels in Egypt and Syria causing tidal waves of refugees to Europe
I wonder if the Europeans want their Nobel Peace Prize recalled from Obama after he caused huge surges in refugees in those regions that he help de-stablized. Obama once was consider genius for sending aid to the rebels in an attempt to over throw Asad of Syria having successfully over throw Mubarek of Eqypt.
Several things here.
He didn't create and enable ISIS. The invasion of Iraq and believing that it was going to be a simple affair was what caused Isis to be created. The only reason why we need allies in the region now is because we basically headed out to a completely ruinous policy in our invasion of Iraq due to an unrelated attack from a government in Afghanistan, hence our wavering relationship with Israel as we try to appease other allies or to court new ones as well as trying to tone down our enmity with Iran. The US does not want to be involved in a rapidly expanding quagmire in the region though the US did get the ball rolling with that invasion which in almost no terms could have been a good idea.
He also did not "give" Iran nukes. Do you understand that "nukes" generally means nuclear weapons and not nuclear power plants, right?
The Iraqi invasion destabilized Syria. It's harder to say what it was in Egypt though Egypt is also a very different situation where it is far more stable as a country and has far less split ideological lines since Egypt is overwhelmingly of just one sect (Sunni) and the nascent conservative political movement that everyone feared Egypt was swinging towards initially is actually now banned and their leader in jail. Meanwhile, the elections that happened subsequent to that, while not completely without issue, were certainly much more transparent than anything that happened under Mubarek. So, I'm not sure why you are lumping in Egypt with Syria on this one as these are two extremely different turnouts. Can you piece this one together for me on why you think these two are comparable?
Also, a lot of the instability in the region as a whole is also attributed to several years of particularly unfortunate weather (mostly drought) during the growing season for the Mediterranean. Keep in mind, these are not wealthy countries so when you have food shortages and basic staples (think grain and produce, not shoes and shampoo) rising massively in price when the average citizen has to devote an already massive portion of wages to those basic staples, then you really got a stew going.
Just curious though--do you recall what you thought of the Iraq war? Did you at the time have an opinion in either direction?
As for the original topic, I think it makes more sense to read the piece with the Ben Rhodes comment themselves (at least read them first) rather than other people's comment on that commentary. If you're worried about US politics, then it probably makes sense to not go through a game of commentary telephone for your news.
I'm sure the ballistic missile test was just a coincidence. Nice Obama bumper sticker you got.
Did you actually read anything I posted? I'm not even an Obama supporter, but I also think people have gone simple-minded where they can't discern the difference between bad political policy due to the limitations of human knowledge, bad political policy due to self-interest, and bad political policy due to some inner malevolence. For some reason, we have continuously shifted more and more towards believing the last of those options as what guides politicians which is absolutely insensible.
Again though, ask yourself, were you one of the people of incredibly poor judgment (or incredible lack of information, but perfectly willing to argue) who thought the Iraq War should have been waged?
Our military had everything under control in Iraq when Bush left office. The rise of ISIS was a result of Obama pulling out our troops prematurely and against the advise of military commanders.
Had Obama not pulled out our troops early, ISIS would either not exist today or possibly have been a small underground group, nothing like they are today. Obama cleared the path for ISIS to recruit and expand as there were no troops in Iraq to keep them in check.
Our military had everything under control in Iraq when Bush left office. The rise of ISIS was a result of Obama pulling out our troops prematurely and against the advise of military commanders.
Had Obama not pulled out our troops early, ISIS would either not exist today or possibly have been a small underground group, nothing like they are today. Obama cleared the path for ISIS to recruit and expand as there were no troops in Iraq to keep them in check.
It's also a pretty strong overstatement to say that our military had everything under control--that's patently untrue though at that moment there was much less overt violence. Also, it's debatable how much latitude Obama had in terms of pulling out troops when he did. He pulled out in the time period stipulated by this agreement which had been created and signed in W's last year in office. Meanwhile, he had at that point a majority of the population and the electorate who supported withdrawing from Iraq by that time period (for many, the withdrawal was actually too slow) so there was a constituency and campaign promises problem. Mind you, I'm not saying that the withdrawal was actually the worse of the two evils (the other would have been keeping our soldiers there, spending more resources, and possibly being responsible and on the ground when the government there found itself in turmoil and having to commit more American lives and resources).
In regards to the withdrawal or keeping our presence there--maybe! It's hard to tell in hindsight on things like this because it's also possible that having an increased presence in Iraq on our part in order to help serve as a military tool of a very fledgling and contentious government in a highly sectarian society where a minority group used to wield absolute power over a majority group which now has only come into power because of a completely foreign armed force coming in could have become an even worse and more intense drain on the US.
It might not have been ISIS in there had we stayed, but it might have been something as bad or worse and we would have had engaged much more in resources and had a far higher stake in it than we have now. We've certainly amped up our responses in the past (see: Vietnam) only to see that our overwhelming show of force means little when we're mired in what is essentially many civil wars being played out and with each side trying to use us as a tool to engage the other side. I.e. the sheer fact of their being far more weaponry and funding going into a fight (from our end once we are explicitly committing to fully funding whomever has convinced us is the right side in the new Iraq) means that we may have ended up in a far larger crises than now. It might also have ended up better where the fledgling government would have actually been able to have kept itself together through some deft political statesmanship given enough time and backing of a US military presence.
So it's hard to say. ISIS is terrible, but there is a good chance it could have been worse had we actually fully engaged our resources in there.
What is not arguable though is that we should have never invaded Iraq in the first place. It never made sense and there was a sizable, vocal, and well-reasoned opposition to it within the US.
Out of curiosity, do you recall what your thoughts of opening up another military action in Iraq were at the time?
I do like Trump hammering the Bush family for that a lot though. I also think it's not great that before we went into Iraq, Trump had explicitly been in favor of the invasion. However, there were a lot of people who were mislead into it. Were you one of those? If so, are you, like Trump, able to see how terrible of an idea that was now?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 05-10-2016 at 01:42 PM..
I'm unsure why you seem to think geopolitical decisions should be exempt from a similar axiomatic standard.
I agree completely that criminal negligence should be a jailable offense. I feel like parts of the Bush administration, perhaps Cheney, and Khidir Hamza (definitely) should be put on the spot for that. What's murkier are the journalists who gave them the spotlight and lacked judgment in terms of their sources.
What I'm saying is that I don't understand why so many people seem to turn to the idea that there is so often actual malevolence behind bad policy. Bad policy has so many, many more reasons for it, but the way some people talk about it now is increasingly as if the world is run by people who simply just want to stick it to others.
NAH! It's way easier than that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
