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.
I don't blame Obama though. He took the high road and made an effort to create peace. Had it worked, I think that would have gone down as one of Obama's greatest achievements. Probably not right away, because the right is pretty much dedicated to their view that Iran is evil no matter what, but close mindedness usually dies out with the passage of time.
Sadly, Iran is currently still pretty effed up. I was impressed with Obama's efforts to make a peaceful agreement with Iran. If that respect is to remain in tact, he'll need to handle whatever comes next effectively.
'had it worked...' that summarizes Obama. Everything he proposes or claims is futuristic academic theory or simply delusional ramblings. He is divorced from the reality in which everyone else lives.
Then he goes the Tariq Aziz route. the iraqi spokesman was caliming vicroty as US marines were mugging for the camera behind him. Obama claims Yemen is a role model for his mid east policy when yemen goes up in flames. Obama calims the vidoe caused benghazi attack.....there is a pattern of incompetence and desperate clinging to his myths while the rest of the country and world shakes their head as they cringe to see a delusional 'king' at play in his fantasy world.
If he was there to vote when the Iran invasion vote was taken......if if if
Obama has been told for years what Europe has known for much longer. Each and every time the Obama administration says or does something in relation to the Middle East "10 second Tom" comes to mind.
Iran getting enough material to make the bomb is not an "if", but a "when". And when they enter testing phase and creates a radioactive cloud that heads north, Russia will take care of the problem.
since you probably copied and pasted talking points from some corporate Media. I won't bother addressing all the ones that I have numerous times before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Not permitting UN inspectors at nuclear sites?
IAEA has been going to Iran for at least 20 years. They have been inspecting various facilities.
in many cases they have visited totally non-nuclear related facilities as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
3. The Iranian navy and airforce intervening on behalf of the rebels in Yemen?
"Rebels" Interesting language used to describe a group that consists of something 70% Yemenies.
I guess the establishment in corporate media world would be Alqaida financed elements by Saudi Clan.
but back to your main point. where on earth did you get that propaganda from? the Saudi Embassy's website? There has been no Iranian Arial or Naval Help to people in Yemen.
The only countries bombing Yemenie people are saudis (our client state). and the Egyptians who are performing a naval blockade. and unfortunatley we are providing logistical support.
Even the Pakistanis who are financed by Saudis are not eager to send their ground forces or naval forces to help Saudis.
[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
4. Elements of the Iranian army and guard fighting and occupying Iraq?
another copy and paste point from corporate media?
show me these tens of thousands of IRanians troops who are occupying Iraq?
Perhaps recent history would suggest that "the right" was correct.
If the answer is war, no they are not right.
Quote:
I, on the other hand, do not "respect" Obama for attempting to make peace with the Iranians, as it made as much sense as having a rattlesnake for a pet. Perhaps historical behavior, current acts, and the statements of the Iranian leadership itself would have been cause for concern for an intelligent man. A naive, reckless man, on the other hand, would ignore such warning signs.
Not sure many will like your painting of the U.S. as a rattlesnake but it is pretty apropos the last 50 years.
Yawn, we still have no right to control what Iran does or does not do. We've exerted our maximum level of reasonable influence via sanctions. Given the results of countries giving up nukes (Ukraine), or stopping programs (Libya, Iraq) vs's not doing so (North Korea), I see no reason why any country would give them up. Quite the opposite really.
Perhaps recent history would suggest that "the right" was correct.
I, on the other hand, do not "respect" Obama for attempting to make peace with the Iranians, as it made as much sense as having a rattlesnake for a pet. Perhaps historical behavior, current acts, and the statements of the Iranian leadership itself would have been cause for concern for an intelligent man. A naive, reckless man, on the other hand, would ignore such warning signs.
This alternative would have been far cheaper than a war we would have no business fighting in anyway.
Like it or not, Iran does not actually have to listen to us. The UN may have made laws restricting Iran's ability to proceed nuclear, but the UN has no standing arming to enforce it. And frankly, I fail to see how the US should be required to be involved in the first place. Iran wouldn't be stupid enough to even pretend to nuke us. Obama got involved in a way that would both keep Iran from doing damage and keep us from throwing money into a war that would provide no actual improvements.
And just to bash conservatives; often the argument against public education is throwing money into a broken system. What exactly have these wars in the ME been? What productive solution has happened in the last decade? Not that ISIS isn't a huge improvement from Saddam (sarcasm I have to address; only an idiot would think Iraq was a good idea at this point), but maybe a solution other than bombs should be considered at this point.
since you probably copied and pasted talking points from some corporate Media. I won't bother addressing all the ones that I have numerous times before.
IAEA has been going to Iran for at least 20 years. They have been inspecting various facilities.
in many cases they have visited totally non-nuclear related facilities as well.
"Rebels" Interesting language used to describe a group that consists of something 70% Yemenies.
I guess the establishment in corporate media world would be Alqaida financed elements by Saudi Clan.
but back to your main point. where on earth did you get that propaganda from? the Saudi Embassy's website? There has been no Iranian Arial or Naval Help to people in Yemen.
The only countries bombing Yemenie people are saudis (our client state). and the Egyptians who are performing a naval blockade. and unfortunatley we are providing logistical support.
Even the Pakistanis who are financed by Saudis are not eager to send their ground forces or naval forces to help Saudis.
Iran is at least consistent. They are Shiites fighting Sunnis in Iraq (ISIS) and Yemen.
The US is consistent in that it fights for Saudi interests against rebels in Iraq (ISIS) & Yemen.
We are picking and choosing good guys and bad guys in the middle of a holy war.
IMHO Shiites are the least jihadist, more civilized, and more westernized.
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.
