• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'If Obama just shakes hand with new Iran leader, it's a huge change' [W:25]

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist


Video @:
'If Obama just shakes hand with new Iran leader, it's a huge change' - YouTube

Just shake his damn hand!
:mrgreen: But on a more serious note something needs to be done with this. We need direct contact between are two countries leaders on this issue. A new change has come to Iran and lets see what happens with direct talks.
 
Cease enrichment, allow full access to inspectors and acquire fuel (for plants) from Russia. That deal has been on the table for years. I'll believe the regime wants peace when they agree to that.
 

There has been NO change in leadership in Iran which is run by the head Mullah. Only the figurehead has been changed.
 

Change? What change? The politcal leader of the most powerful free nation in Earth, making nice with the political leader of a pugilistic small country with an espoused philosophy of world domination and genocide of the Jews? *Yawn* It's a rerun. We saw it in Munich in 1938.
 
Cease enrichment, allow full access to inspectors and acquire fuel (for plants) from Russia. That deal has been on the table for years. I'll believe the regime wants peace when they agree to that.

They accepted the same accept with Brazil and Turkey until the U.S stated that it reserved the right to attack.
 
Franklin Roosevelt was in Munich in 1938? I must have missed that.

Menachem Begin, no liberal he, made peace with Anwar Sadat, beginning that process just 4 years after Sadat launched a war against his country. Because Sadat saw that enough was enough, and a perpetual war footing wasn't working for his country. Perhaps Rouhani sees the same thing with his country's situation.

Besides, in 1938, Britain and France, even together, were underdogs against Germany. In 2013, America is a much bigger threat to Iran (should a war start) than vice versa. Obama is operating from a position of strength. If you don't believe me, ask Osama bin Laden. Ask Moammar Khadafy. Ask Hosni Mubarak. And, yes, ask Bashar Assad.
 
They accepted the same accept with Brazil and Turkey until the U.S stated that it reserved the right to attack.

The Iranian regime attacks the US and US interests around the globe through terror proxies. The US would be very stupid to guarantee no attack. The Grand Poobah will always find a way to claim the West is unreasonable.
 

The president of Iran is a mouthpiece nominated by the Grand Poobah. He has not said anything different than past years.
 
The president of Iran is a mouthpiece nominated by the Grand Poobah. He has not said anything different than past years.
Clearly, you haven't been paying attention to what he has been saying.
 
Clearly, you haven't been paying attention to what he has been saying.
We want talks, we want a deal. We have no intention of producing nukes... Same old Poobah.
 

Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister. Roosevelt represented a second tier power at the time. Historical awareness is a vital trait in order to be the informed citizen of a republic. Carry on.


Remedial reading:

 
At least he hasn't publicly called for the murder of a novelist

Or a nutbag preacher.

List of fatwas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
America won World War I. That made us a first-rate power.

Don't you right-wingers DARE suggest "remedial reading." You trying to lecture me about history is like bringing a peashooter to a tank battle.
 
At least he hasn't publicly called for the murder of a novelist

I wouldn't mind him recommending that Orson Scott Card get slapped. And if he wants to hurl insults at Ayn Rand's grave, I'm all for it.
 

Never trust a guy that won't even shake hands.

But on a more serious note, it is not clear yet that Iran has changed its policy. Words are cheap. Also, it is not primarily a US responsibility. The international community (UN, AL as institutions and the EU, Russia, India etc as neighbors) should handle this. The US should make perfectly clear, however, that it will use the cheapest instrument in its arsenal to stomp out the program as of indication Iran has a weapon.
 
I wouldn't mind him recommending that Orson Scott Card get slapped. And if he wants to hurl insults at Ayn Rand's grave, I'm all for it.

I don't think any of us would have a problem with that. Care to address reality?
 
I don't think any of us would have a problem with that. Care to address reality?
Here's reality: Conservatism doesn't work, in either domestic or foreign policy.

"Reality has a liberal bias."
 
Here's reality: Conservatism doesn't work, in either domestic or foreign policy.

"Reality has a liberal bias."

That's all I need. Everything else is details.

That's so closed-minded.
 
I wouldn't mind him recommending that Orson Scott Card get slapped. And if he wants to hurl insults at Ayn Rand's grave, I'm all for it.

Well, it wasn't either of those people. It was the satiricist Salman Rushdie, critiquing the origins of Islam in The Satanic Verses. And when Ayatollah Khomeini said that it was "incumbent" on every Muslim to kill Rushdie, it resulted in his having to go into hiding and two men who translated his book being killed.

Open calls for murder aren't funny, and no state participates in it should get international respect or recognition.
 
America won World War I. That made us a first-rate power.

Don't you right-wingers DARE suggest "remedial reading." You trying to lecture me about history is like bringing a peashooter to a tank battle.

Oh dear. How I hate having to point out the incandescently obvious, but to be "conservative," think about the word, is to conserve knowledge, such as for instance history.

In fine, knowledge is the natural ally of conservatism. A few seconds of coherent though will reveal to those of even modest mental gifts why this must be so. (Conservatives will remember their conclusions, obviously.)

I will continue to point out remedial reading, so vital to the hoped for mental healing of the tragically impaired Leftist Community.

Allow me to point out things that the slower students are probably unaware of.

America did not "win WWI" for several reasons:

  1. America was part of an alliance, not fighting alone, you may, inaccurately as we shall see, claim that the Allies won, but not with accuracy that America won.
  2. WWI did not end in a classic victory wherein one side is destroyed or surrenders, it was fought inconclusively to an armistice.
  3. WWI and WWII are largely arbitrary divisions of a singe cycle of warfare. The period between the two was more accurately a period of ceasefire between active periods of a single complex conflict.

After WWI, America was still a second tier military power with isolationist leanings. The interested student is referred to accounts of early WWII Soviet military doctrine which assumed that following a positive outcome of the Great Patriotic War, their major global opponent would be Great Britain. America had reduced its military to levels alarming to many military planners following the first World War and the advent of the Great Depression. Note that the U.S. Pacific Fleet was small enough and incompetent enough to be crippled in a single attack in December 1941.

What made America's participation in WWII so vital to the Allies was initially its first tier industrial power, and then future potential as a military power once mobilized and given time to arm.

Further remedial reading:

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Orders-of-Battle/United-States/US-Army-1942.htm

The 1941 Carolina Maneuvers found America unprepared for a world conflict - Tags: UNITED States. Army MANEUVER warfare

http://www.nationalww2museum.org/le...closer-look/draft-registration-documents.html
Americans were growing uneasy about Great Britain’s ability to defeat Germany on its own. Our own military was woefully unprepared to fight a global war should it called upon to do so.


There may be a quiz later.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Just a reminder that you're in the ME Forum here folks and to be careful to stay on topic and leave the personal comments aside. Thanks!
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…