• 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!

Obama team thought Iran would not tolerate Bashar Assad's use of WMDs [W:19]

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Iran is enduring economic sanctions designed to slow the country's nuclear weapons program, but President Obama's team thought the regime might abandon dictator Bashar Assad over his use of chemical weapons in Syria's civil war.

Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, hoped that a team of UN investigators — many of whom, presumably, have a longstanding relationship with Iranian leaders -- could write a report that would convince Iran to abandon its ally at the behest of the United States
.

Obama team thought Iran would not tolerate Bashar Assad's use of WMDs | WashingtonExaminer.com



That's an amazingly new level of collectively naive stupidity. Stunningly so.

I really hope the administration isn't this naive, because this is embarrassing

And you wonder why Obama cant get any national or international support when you have this much ignorance in the administration.
who wants to follow an idiot into a war
 
It makes sense that the Iranian regime would oppose the use of WMDs, as they claim to have a religious edict against such and they would want to show their resolve/commitment in not allowing such things. Now we know, that religious edict is not worth crap.
 
It makes sense that the Iranian regime would oppose the use of WMDs, as they claim to have a religious edict against such and they would want to show their resolve/commitment in not allowing such things. Now we know, that religious edict is not worth crap.


NO, we don't, not so fast Eco. Again and still it is FAR from confirmed that president Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. And as pointed out on this board and elsewhere every single day, you are in a very tiny minority if you believe he did. So it makes complete sense that Iran has the position that it does. Why would they condemn something that did not happen. Thankfully your not a diplomatic negotiator.
 
Why would they condemn something that did not happen.

Taking a head-in-sand position is hardly respectable. The US president has presented an outline of the evidence in his possession, which includes recordings of Assad officers and video of preparation, deployment and after action investigation by the Assad regime.
 
.

Obama team thought Iran would not tolerate Bashar Assad's use of WMDs | WashingtonExaminer.com



That's an amazingly new level of collectively naive stupidity. Stunningly so.

I really hope the administration isn't this naive, because this is embarrassing

And you wonder why Obama cant get any national or international support when you have this much ignorance in the administration.
who wants to follow an idiot into a war

Miss Power is in a 180* position from her historical stance. Clearly she is appeasing her boss.
 
Taking a head-in-sand position is hardly respectable. The US president has presented an outline of the evidence in his possession, which includes recordings of Assad officers and video of preparation, deployment and after action investigation by the Assad regime.


Nothing that is happening with regard to Syria is respectable, funny you use that word. Almost nobody believes president Obama. Btw, did you hear/see the Syrian/American woman's passionate appeal to senator John McCain at his town hall meeting?
 
Nothing that is happening with regard to Syria is respectable,

Absolutism and false equivalence are the last refuge of nonsense.


Btw, did you hear/see the Syrian/American woman's passionate appeal to senator John McCain at his town hall meeting?

I would care about the passionate ramblings of a random X/American only slightly more than that of the average hysterical fundie posting on this website.
 
Last edited:
.That's an amazingly new level of collectively naive stupidity. Stunningly so.

I really hope the administration isn't this naive, because this is embarrassing

And you wonder why Obama cant get any national or international support when you have this much ignorance in the administration.
who wants to follow an idiot into a war

Comparisons cannot be avoided between dumb and dumber.

“This action of the Soviets has made a more dramatic change in my own opinion of what the Soviets' ultimate goals are than anything they've done in the previous time I've been in office.”

Lawrence Journal-World - Google News Archive Search
 
Absolutism and false equivalence are the last refuge of nonsense.




I would care about the passionate ramblings of a random X/American only slightly more than that of the average hysterical fundie posting on this website.


Ill repeat then, you are a very calloused individual.
 
Ill repeat then, you are a very calloused individual.

No, I'm an individual whose foreign policy positions are not determined by random individual people. Anyone whose position is determined by such is a moron.
 
NO, we don't, not so fast Eco. Again and still it is FAR from confirmed that president Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. And as pointed out on this board and elsewhere every single day, you are in a very tiny minority if you believe he did. So it makes complete sense that Iran has the position that it does. Why would they condemn something that did not happen. Thankfully your not a diplomatic negotiator.

It shouldn't matter who used chemical weapons. Obama said he was going to act, no matter which side used them.
 
It shouldn't matter who used chemical weapons. Obama said he was going to act, no matter which side used them.

I doubt anybody believes that Obama meant he would attack his ally's that he's been supporting all this time. You have to realise that the criticism should be toward Obama for making the silly ultimatum, not that he isn't acting on the silly ultimatum.
 
No, I'm an individual whose foreign policy positions are not determined by random individual people. Anyone whose position is determined by such is a moron.


What in the world does that mean? Who, here or anywhere is basing their foreign policy position on a random individual?
 
I doubt anybody believes that Obama meant he would attack his ally's that he's been supporting all this time. You have to realise that the criticism should be toward Obama for making the silly ultimatum, not that he isn't acting on the silly ultimatum.

In reality, there is criticism for both. It was dumb to throw down the gauntlet; even dumber not to carry through.
 
What in the world does that mean? Who, here or anywhere is basing their foreign policy position on a random individual?

You're proposing that someone ought give a crap about the rantings of a random person. Further, you propose that someone who does not is a "very calloused individual". Your attempt at personal demonization is BS, both in its premise (which is a plea for emotion-based positions) and its conclusion.
 
In reality, there is criticism for both. It was dumb to throw down the gauntlet; even dumber not to carry through.

If it was dumb (and it was) to throw down the gauntlet, then the smart thing to do is pick it back up and back away. Going forward with a second dumb action to save face makes no sense. Who wants us to start bombing Syria, killing people and destroying infrastructure, to save face?
 
[/b]If it was dumb (and it was) to throw down the gauntlet, then the smart thing to do is pick it back up and back away.[/b] Going forward with a second dumb action to save face makes no sense. Who wants us to start bombing Syria, killing people and destroying infrastructure, to save face?

The enemy will see that as a sign of weakness and exploit it. It would be totally idiotic to just back down.
 
You're proposing that someone ought give a crap about the rantings of a random person. Further, you propose that someone who does not is a "very calloused individual". Your attempt at personal demonization is BS, both in its premise (which is a plea for emotion-based positions) and its conclusion.

If you listened to her comments to John McCain and you weren't moved your calloused. If you didn't listen to her comments then your talking about something you know nothing about.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Be careful not to attack other posters.
 
The enemy will see that as a sign of weakness and exploit it. It would be totally idiotic to just back down.

Who's the enemy apdst?
 
Who's the enemy apdst?

The Iranians, Hezbollah, AQ, The Russians...plenty of bad guys around the world who are willing to take advantage our lack of resolve.

The appearance of a lack of resolve encouraged AQ to attack us on 9/11. Doing nothing has never worked.
 
The Iranians, Hezbollah, AQ, The Russians...plenty of bad guys around the world who are willing to take advantage our lack of resolve.

The appearance of a lack of resolve encouraged AQ to attack us on 9/11. Doing nothing has never worked.

AQ is fighting against Assad! How does it look weak to not attack a country that hasn't attacked us? Even rummy (you know, your hero from the previous admin.) says Obama has no case for a war with Syria.
 
AQ is fighting against Assad! How does it look weak to not attack a country that hasn't attacked us? Even rummy (you know, your hero from the previous admin.) says Obama has no case for a war with Syria.

It looks weak to not carry through with a threat. Do you have kids?
 
It looks weak to not carry through with a threat. Do you have kids?

You advocate people following through with stupid threats. Here's the thing. Maybe Americans don't want Obama to follow through with a stupid threat. That's what the polls say. That's what congressmen are saying as their phones are blowing up with Americans telling them no to military action in Syria. All but the warmongers that is.
 
You advocate people following through with stupid threats. Here's the thing. Maybe Americans don't want Obama to follow through with a stupid threat. That's what the polls say. That's what congressmen are saying as their phones are blowing up with Americans telling them no to military action in Syria. All but the warmongers that is.

Which screams to the bad guys, that the American people don't have any resolve, further encouraging the enemy to test the boundries, even more.
 
Back
Top Bottom