Quote:On the grounds of running under the democratic party banner. It's as simple as that with his type.
And don't forget - he's an expert regarding US Secretaries of State (as if one out of 100 people can name more than two or three).
Quote:I think negotiating with an enemy is an important step in bringing about a safer world. What would you propose? War with anyone you disagree with? Wait I already know that answer.
Negotiating with an enemy works fine when done from a position of strength. We're surrendering that position without a fight for zero tangible gain.
And yes, I disagree with them that America should die and I believe that disagreement is worth fighting over.
Quote:The accountability I mentioned has much greater consequences.
Ah. I see. I heartily disagree, and if you are thinking what I think you're thinking, based upon your history and choice of words, then that's disgusting and pathetic.
Quote:Ah. I see. I heartily disagree, and if you are thinking what I think you're thinking, based upon your history and choice of words, then that's disgusting and pathetic.
I have no idea what the reference is you are thinking of. But I stand by my comments.
While you might disagree with my point of view, which is your choice and the choice of anyone else reading it, I can't even imagine the reference being disgusting and pathetic. It's the antithesis of that.
Quote:Negotiating with an enemy works fine when done from a position of strength. We're surrendering that position without a fight for zero tangible gain.
And yes, I disagree with them that America should die and I believe that disagreement is worth fighting over.
I've heard this position of strength argument before...
I doubt anyone here can really make this argument unless you were sitting in on the talks...
Considering 5 other world powers were in on the deal... I think the position our side was negotiating from had the upper hand.
As for the hard liners and their chants, they are in the controlling minority. Did you not see the Iranians that were celebrating and chanting death to no one? That's the silent majority of that country. They are growing and are the future.
The Bush doctrine failed. It's time for diplomacy.
No, they could have been the future. The pro western elements in the country were ready to rise against the Supreme leader and the Islamic regime back in 2009. That was as a direct result of a fledgling democracy and the example of western freedoms in Iraq. The bush doctrine got us to that point and your boy pissed it all away and backed the regime.
Fast forward and now the regime has been emboldened to be more repressive of the pro western elements in the country and now that sanctions are going to be lifted they are going to be able to increase Iran's economic standing in spite of the actions of the supreme leader which will in turn make the masses a lot less likely to rise up against the regime.
You're wrong.
The green movement in 2009 was based on Obama's victory. I shouldn't say based on... but there was influence all around the world from the 2008 election... the party even called themselves "the green path of hope". The Obama election had some influence on the silent majority of Iran.
Iranians hated Bush after what they saw happen to iraq based on the neocon concept of democracy through occupation.
It's pretty simple stuff, if you pay attention...
Even if your minor premise is correct it still doesn't account for the fact that the president left them high and dry while we still had the assets on the ground to assist them should they have made a move.
It's pretty simple stuff if you pay attention...
Quote:Even if your minor premise is correct it still doesn't account for the fact that the president left them high and dry while we still had the assets on the ground to assist them should they have made a move.
It's pretty simple stuff if you pay attention...
Oh man, you neo cons are hilarious!!!!!!
The false war in Iraq was a complete disaster, but we should have done the exact same thing in Iran?!?!
Lol, ok chief...
Seriously, did you go into some sort of coma after the mission accomplished speech on the air craft carrier? Hint, a lot of other stuff happened after that.
I guess you weren't paying attention!! :-)
lol... you socialists are hilarious. I guess its up to old Berry to get us out of this mess huh? I guess you weren't paying attention during the Surge. I guess you were asleep when Obama tried to take credit for it huh? lol.
And you're right. A lot of stuff happened, including Iran killing hundreds of American soldiers. But soldiers smoldiers right?
I guess you can't pay attention...
Typical deflection... I would assume no less from you.
What does Obama or the surge have to do with the fact that your comment about us invading Iran to overthrow yet another country is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. And I've read a lot of your posts...
But keep trying to change the subject, that's what your ilk is good at. Lol. Pathetic...
Here's a lesson most of us learned from the the Bush era, war isn't always the answer... I'm not sure you can wrap your head around that concept...
You first try diplomacy, if Iran goes back on this deal, we all know what happens. But one does not just jump into war. Missions are not accomplished in the middle east with lies and shock and awe like you were lead to believe.
Quote:If this was good i'd agree with you. This is as close to full capitulation as you get without writing the words term of surrender on the cover page of the agreement.
What do I expect? If Iran wants to be treated like a responsible nation LET IT ACT LIKE ONE! Recognize israel's right to exist, recognize OUR right to exist, stop funding terrorism and give us back the hostages. Let us verify all of the above for six months and lets talk about sanctions relief. Those are negotiations. That's diplomacy.
Right now as we speak the leader of the country just published a book about how they are going to deceive us and wipe us off the Map. Their top general who killed hundreds of American soldiers is entering into negotiations with the Russians on how to buy advanced weapons systems. Even the architects of this agreement CONCEDE that the increase in funds is going to terrorist organizations and specifically those who wish to kill our soldiers abroad and the people of our ally Israel.
when you concede that none of the above behavior has to change and that we will allow billions of dollars to flow into their economy then it is you and YOUR ilk sir, who are operating from a point of fear Mr. Chamberlain.
I want peace so I am operating out of fear? That makes no sense at all.
Sheesh you guys act like the US as always acted in a righteous and just manner at every step of the way. We have not. Not for a very long.. We have done and continue to do some very bad things. How many civilians have died for our spreading of democracy? How many American soldiers? How many regimes have we toppled? How many arms have we sold to unsavory groups? The power vacuum we left in Iraq? Let's not pretend we are some paragon of good that can impose ourselves on others just because.
Do I like the Iranian government or what they stand for? Certainly not. I also don't believe the rhetoric they spew that apparently has you all shaking at night. Iran is boisterous but they are not dumb. They are not going to start a war with Israel or with us. That would be fool hardy beyond belief and I don't there leaders, however loud about their hateful rhetoric (who coincidentally sound a lot like our own angry hateful politicians at times) are not fool hardy enough to engage in a war there is no chance of winning.
From the article you quoted
"Parchin, near Tehran, is not a nuclear-declared site so it is not subject to IAEA inspections."
I said all known sites. You said I was wrong. I am not. All known nuclear sites. That one is just speculation.
Quote:Negotiating with an enemy works fine when done from a position of strength. We're surrendering that position without a fight for zero tangible gain.
And yes, I disagree with them that America should die and I believe that disagreement is worth fighting over.
We disagree fundamentally on "zero tangible gain" There was plenty gained. You didn't get total capitulation from a sovereign nation so are unhappy with it. At least that's how I interpret most people.
That said, I understand people's fears. I really do. I just do not share them.
Quote:Even if your minor premise is correct it still doesn't account for the fact that the president left them high and dry while we still had the assets on the ground to assist them should they have made a move.
It's pretty simple stuff if you pay attention...
Wait so stage coup to overthrow the Iranian government? I think I have read that book before. It was a bad read.
Quote:We disagree fundamentally on "zero tangible gain" There was plenty gained. You didn't get total capitulation from a sovereign nation so are unhappy with it. At least that's how I interpret most people.
That said, I understand people's fears. I really do. I just do not share them.
The only thing I care about is that they don't get the means to create the bomb. I don't care about sanctions or anything else really, except how those things contribute to a nuclear weapons program.
Quote:The only thing I care about is that they don't get the means to create the bomb. I don't care about sanctions or anything else really, except how those things contribute to a nuclear weapons program.
That's what is so frustrating about this debate for everyone I assume. We all want the same thing. Nobody wants them to get it.
I think History will be the judge of this being a successful deal or not. A lot of people are quickly jumping to conclusions. Maybe Iran cheats on the deal. Is it likely? Probably. The question becomes what happens when/if they do?
Without this deal, we might not be able to count on our European Allies. At least in my opinion. They'd see the deal as a failure on our part, and not Iran's. Diplomacy is a much more complicated 'game' than Country A vs Country B.
Quote:That's what is so frustrating about this debate for everyone I assume. We all want the same thing. Nobody wants them to get it.
Actually, I honestly believe there are some that do want war... the good thing is that they are in the vast minority.
Quote:Typical deflection... I would assume no less from you.
What does Obama or the surge have to do with the fact that your comment about us invading Iran to overthrow yet another country is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. And I've read a lot of your posts...
But keep trying to change the subject, that's what your ilk is good at. Lol. Pathetic...
Here's a lesson most of us learned from the the Bush era, war isn't always the answer... I'm not sure you can wrap your head around that concept...
You first try diplomacy, if Iran goes back on this deal, we all know what happens. But one does not just jump into war. Missions are not accomplished in the middle east with lies and shock and awe like you were lead to believe.
And you call me pathetic?
This is the circular logic of the left on this issue.
In the case of Iraq we had a UN inspection regime in place. Iraq refused to comply. A year and a half and two UN security council resolutions later the first shots are fired. That's not jumping into a war.
And then what happened? We wiped the floor with what was left of the Iraqi army and captured Baghdad. Then there was a subsequent insurgency. This insurgency was instigated and funded by elements of the Iranian Khudz force and emotionally subsidized by the American left. Iran has been linked to the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of American Soldiers as result.
So you cite the problems of the campaign as reason not to hold Iran accountable while simply ignoring the fact that they were the chief protagonist and then say we should rely on a process that failed to Bring Iraq or North Korea into compliance?
Iran is already in violation of international law. There current nuclear program is in violation of the last deal they struck, and the stage of the program at that point was in violation of the original ban on enrichment in its totality, they've killed our soldiers, funded the attacks on our allies and remain committed to our destruction.
There is a difference between pursuing diplomacy and burying your head in the sand hoping that the boogeyman won't get you.
Yawn, you bore me. I don't respect you enough to re-litigate the Iraq war. Keep believing what ever nonsense you want to believe.
As for Iran, I'm not the one worried about a boogeyman, you are. I'm not burying my head in the sand either. But you do sound like a chicken little, running around with your head cut off, soiling your shorts, and screaming that the sky is failing... (copyright FBT)
I'm saying let diplomacy run it's course. You are saying they want to destroy us and therefore we must attack first.