...that freak Netanyahu...
That explains it all. Yep, it's that Jew who is the "freak". Not the facist islamo Nazi's that commit inhumane crimes on their people. Nope, it's Netanyahu. Tell us again who it is that doesn't understand what's going on.
[/B]
Indubitably. Hatred of Obama is confounding rational engagement.
He's the Israeli PM that has been crying wolf on Iranian nukes for 25 years now. He's been assassinating civilian scientists in Iran, and killing women and children in Gaza, Lebanon and elsewhere. Yes he's a freak. Stop making this a religious issue.
Reagan wrote to and even phoned Gorbachev often during nuclear arms negotiations. Yet, the far Right-wing space nuts thumb their noses up over Pres. Obama doing the same thing with Iran? How absurd!
Are you guys that fearful of Iran nuking us or do you really despise any and all efforts at peace at every turn when a Democrat tries it? Are you that desperate to go to war?
This is an interestingly flawed argument that the left likes to make. "Well, we negotiated with the Soviet Union. Why not Iran?" This incorrectly assumes that Iran is the equal of the Soviet Union. As anyone can see, that is completely erroneous. The Soviets were a a super power with ICBM's, thousands of nukes, and a huge military force that we could not hope to engage without taking tremendous losses, win or lose.
Don't tell me you are just going to ignore those facts. The Soviets weren't promising that they would exterminate a race, either. We were jocking for power with them on the world stage, trying to stop the evil of communism.
Iran is a terrorist state that wants a nuclear weapon. They must be stopped. They don't deserve our respect in any way that the Soviet Union did. We need to make that clear to them. But instead, Obama has decided to negotiate, as if we are equals, and deserve to be bargained with. They are terrorists, and deserve no such thing until they give up their terrorist ways.
Exactly the reason why we should strive to broker a nuclear weapons deal with Iran now before they are able to stockpile nukes. But to your post above, there are two faces to Communism:
1) The State can provide the essentials to a sustainable quality of life; and,
2) The State controls everything.
It is the second, the tyrannical, dictatorial perspective, that America feared (...mistrusted...hated...call it what you will). The only difference between the spread of Communism and the spread of radical Muslim extremism is that Communist did not go around killing people indiscriminately who disagreed with their governing philosophy AND they had more nukes!
Now, let's not pretend that American hasn't had a long and torrid history of mistrust of Communism. Politicians and political advocates had been beating Communism about the head and feet for decades long before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The only thing that kept both countries at bay was fear of mutually assured destruction. Having nukes in the hands of a Communist leader who was just crazy enough to push the button and rain down fire and brimstone on America...
...WAIT...
This is the same argument pundits have leveled against Iran. Yes, the Supreme Leader is a religious zealot and yes there is a faction of the Iranian people who hate America, but if folks believe Iran is as big a threat to America's national security as the Soviet Union once was you're delusional! This isn't to say there isn't cause for concern...just not grave concern. Why shouldn't we at least attempt to find a peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear weapons issues - a lessor inclusive global threat than Russian ever was - if we were very willing to do so against Russia? That's what doesn't make sense to me. We were willing to talk with the Soviets and keep coming back to the bargaining table and eventually were able to hammer out an acceptable deal that is still in effect some 30 year later, but we're unwilling to work with a country that posses a smaller threat to us? That makes no sense whatsoever!
I understand "give them an inch they'll take a mile" just as I understand the concept behind "trust but verify". You do need a willing partner here with Iran just as we once had with Russia. But you have to start somewhere. And just as Reagan started with a more moderate, more reasonable Gorbachev, Obama is now starting with a more reasonable, more moderate Iranian Prime Minister. I think we owe it to the Middle-East and the world to at least try...just as we once tried and succeeded with Russia.
Well, the "Death to America" stuff that their leader says kind of makes me think that he's not the reasonable guy that you think he is.
Soon after the U.S. and other major powers entered negotiations last year to curtail Iran’s nuclear program, senior White House officials learned Israel was spying on the closed-door talks.
The spying operation was part of a broader campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to penetrate the negotiations and then help build a case against the emerging terms of the deal.
...
Mr. Netanyahu and Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer early this year saw a rapidly closing window to increase pressure on Mr. Obama before a key deadline at the end of March, Israeli officials said.
Using levers of political influence unique to Israel, Messrs. Netanyahu and Dermer calculated that a lobbying campaign in Congress before an announcement was made would improve the chances of killing or reshaping any deal. They knew the intervention would damage relations with the White House, Israeli officials said, but decided that was an acceptable cost.
The campaign may not have worked as well as hoped, Israeli officials now say, because it ended up alienating many congressional Democrats whose support Israel was counting on to block a deal.
I could be wrong, but I don't think negotiations are taking place with the Ayatollah, but rather with the Iranian Prime Minister. Of course, not without the Ayatollah's blessing. But worse case is no deal is reached and everyone goes back to where things were before. Best case: A reasonable "no-nuclear weapons development" agreement is reached that is verifiable and all sides are happy. I'm hoping for the latter, but wouldn't be surprised if the former comes true.
In other news, I wonder how folks feel about Israel's "SpyGate" over Iran nuke talks?
Thoughts...comments?
/threadI'm perfectly happy with the tact that Obama is taking with Iran.
The majority of the world is able to work perfectly decently with Iran. As a German, for example, you can fly into Iran and live and work at the Iranian branch of Siemens or Krupp without any Iranian or German ever thinking twice. It's a completely unremarkable situation, because believe it or not, Iran is a completely middle-of-the-road, 80 million pop country that falls into line with the expectations/problems we have with every other non-Western developing country.
America (and Israel) is the only odd one out here. No other countries have such bizarre trust issues with Iran, nor does Iran have such difficulty rest of the world, probably because the rest of the world doesn't have such a large number of Cowboy-diplomat, conservative jingoists who seem to want to level Iran every chance they get.
________________________
Ayatollah Khamenei doesn't participate in the nuclear talks. It he supports the talks & praised the negotiators.
“Iran’s Hard-Liners Show Restraint on Nuclear Talks With U.S.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/world/middleeast/irans-hard-liners-nuclear-talks.html?_r=0
EXCERPT “Ayatollah Khamenei has largely supported the nuclear talks and the Iranian negotiators, whom he has called “good and caring people, who work for the country.””CONTINUED
"Their "Death to _________" has simply become meaningless Revolution mantra & has nothing to do with their private sentiments. McCain's casually singing of "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran is a far more chilling indicator of his (McCain's) instability
Why politicians / Religious leaders say things they do not mean? That is a question with varied answers as old as history & diverse as different cultures.
What is more important is Iran's deeds & they have attacked no one in 300 years in spite of foreign provocations, active Foreign "Hit Squads" & Western support for anti Iranian Terrorist groups like MEK.
Thanks
Obama Sends Iran a Nowruz Message, Calls Nuclear Talks a 'Historic Opportunity' - NBC News
This is... the most insane thing I've ever heard or seen...
He really, REALLY believes he can just talk "sensibly" and everyone will fall in line...
Are you kidding me?
...
Why politicians / Religious leaders say things they do not mean? That is a question with varied answers as old as history & diverse as different cultures.
What is more important is Iran's deeds & they have attacked no one in 300 years in spite of foreign provocations, active Foreign "Hit Squads" & Western support for anti Iranian Terrorist groups like MEK.
And of course the old.. "Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 300 years"ridiculous... your analogy is a joke...
McCain is not "the supreme leader" and the commander of Proxies like Hezbollah...
Your post is just over the top liberal gibberish.. and honestly dangerous in its falacy..
You're right. It' so much better to bomb sensibly. :roll:
Because, that's the alternativee, a terrible deal that fails or bomb them... you're backing a plan that guarantees disaster.
And of course the old.. "Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 300 years"
Of course:
1. They've only had this Radical theocracy since 1979.
2. The support Terror groups like Hezbollah.
3. They ARE involved in Proxy wars with the Gulf state Sunnis and Israel.
4. They are in control of 4 M-E capitals now by those wars, including Sanaa, Yemen; Baghdad; and Beirut.
Bombing should always be the very last resort. History has told us this time-and-time again, yet we still make the very same mistakes. Dialogue should always be on the table.
I could be wrong, but I don't think negotiations are taking place with the Ayatollah, but rather with the Iranian Prime Minister. Of course, not without the Ayatollah's blessing. But worse case is no deal is reached and everyone goes back to where things were before. Best case: A reasonable "no-nuclear weapons development" agreement is reached that is verifiable and all sides are happy. I'm hoping for the latter, but wouldn't be surprised if the former comes true.
In other news, I wonder how folks feel about Israel's "SpyGate" over Iran nuke talks?
Thoughts...comments?
_______________________________ridiculous... your analogy is a joke...
McCain is not "the supreme leader" and the commander of Proxies like Hezbollah...
Your post is just over the top liberal gibberish.. and honestly dangerous in its falacy..
_______________________________
McCain's history of War Mongering is specific & well known while Iran's hostile sounding rhetoric has proven meaningless. He is so out of touch with reality & obsessed with pushing the US into Fatally Flawed Military Operations he even supports fictional Wars that don't even exist (See Below
“Welcome back to Iraq fear-mongering, brought to you by John McCain and Co”
Welcome back to Iraq fear-mongering, brought to you by John McCain and Co | Jeb Lund | Comment is free | The Guardian
EXCERPT “For the last five years, McCain has called on Barack Obama to involve the US in every potential war available – including the Tek War, which he only just heard about by picking up William Shatner’s histories of it.”CONTINUED
An attack on Iran will ensure the deaths of thousands of American G.I.s already in the Region, far more deaths of innocent Regional civilians, an environmental disaster affecting the whole planet (yes, Including Israel) & a horrific cataclysm beyond your imagination.
If that doesn't move you, please consider Iran's Jewish community.
Do you plan on "Signing Up" to serve in the hostilities you seem to want so dearly or just leave the dirty work to someone else?
"One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are NOT fighting."
George Orwell, 1938
ooooh "disprove"!mbig""And of course the old.. "Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 300 years""
A. The fact that Iran hasn't attacked anyone in 300 years is another salient reality to this topic you cannot disprove. A State's history of non-Aggression is one of the most compelling factors in deciding its eligibility for possessing a nuclear program. It also reveals how that State will behave in the future with its nuclear program.
Name the existing nuclear States who have attacked no one in 300 years.
RONGU.B'smith said:mbig "They've only had this Radical theocracy since 1979."
A. Iran had an existing Democratic form of government under popularly elected, Reformist PM Mossadeh until the C.I.A. Regime change leaving Iranians under a dictator with his dreaded SAVAK.
Iran has repeatedly reached out to the US for better relations, especially by Iranian President Khatami. Iran has frequently offered aid with underwater US Oil Spills & natural disasters only to be rebuffed.
Um no.B'Smith said:mbig "2. The support Terror groups like Hezbollah."
A. Only 3 countries & the Gulf Co-operation Council classified Hezbollah as a "Terrorist" organization until the U.S. dropped it as one this year.
That leaves only Israel, Canada & G.C.C. to call it a "Terrorist" organization. That's hardly a "Terrorized" quorum. Hezbollah's Defensive nature & extensive Humanitarian & Rebuilding programs account for its support & popularity. It was conceived in 1982 & primarily formed to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation & Invasions of S. en fighting in Lebanon
Absolutely no denial of Iran's aggresions through third parties.B'Smith said:mbig: "3. They ARE involved in Proxy wars with the Gulf state Sunnis and Israel."
A. Israel, the US & other Western States are involved in "Regional Proxy Wars" too.
IOW, another NON-answer to my showing the successful Proxy Wars/Aggression Iran has engaged in.B'Smith said:mbig: Re: They are in control of 4 M-E capitals now by those wars, including Sanaa, Yemen; Baghdad; and Beirut"
That's simply your opinion depending on the meaning of "in control of"
ooooh "disprove"!
I didn't Dispute it, I showed how Ridiculous/Irrelevant a Claim it was since the current Radical govt only came in, in 1979.
DOH!
RONGU.
Since 1979 it's been "Death to America".
Been "studyin" the M-E have ya?
Um no.
Hezbollah, as a said, is fighting Israel, and also fighting for Assad-the-murderer in Syria with Iran's backing and Arms.
Hezbollah Blew up our Marine Barracks in Lebanon.
Absolutely no denial of Iran's aggresions through third parties.
Totally violating the spirit of the 'no war' clownery you first claimed.
IOW, another NON-answer to my showing the successful Proxy Wars/Aggression Iran has engaged in.
"welcome to the Message board world".
Can't wait til YOU learn how to use the quote and other features.
I note in your first post after I Thrashed your low brow conspiracy sources/Link Dumps, you used the NYT.
That's the spirit! (but there goes 99% of your material)
"welcome to the Message board world".
Can't wait til YOU learn how to use the quote and other features.
I note in your first post after I Thrashed your low brow conspiracy sources/Link Dumps, you used the NYT.
That's the spirit! (but there goes 99% of your material)
Don’t waste my time with another of your puerile, sarcastic, insulting & evasive tantrums again.
If you can’t compose a civil, relevant & mature comment, contact a Mod. for guidance.
| Moderator's Warning: |
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?