• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hillary Touts Sanctions

T

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
After a week of tussling with the Israeli government on the issue of Iran, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reaffirmed the Obama administration's commitment to a dual-track policy to stop the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

"The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and has pursued a dual-track policy to do so," Clinton said in a statement championing the sanctions put in place by the administration.

"Iran must cooperate fully and immediately with the IAEA on all outstanding issues. We welcome the resolve of the international community to make clear the onus is on Iran to abide by its international obligations, honor its commitments to the IAEA, and prove that its intentions are peaceful," she said.

The dual-track policy refers to pursing both high-level negotiations and punitive sanctions to keep the regime in Tehran from enriching weapons-grade nuclear material.
Click to expand...

Clinton touts Iran sanctions policy - POLITICO

aren't we gratified to hear that the onus is on iran to abide?

more particularly, isn't it pleasing to be told that the success or failure of obama's entire iranian policy is all dependent on the honor of the holocaust deniers in tehran?

because were we to look elsewhere to spot that onus, we would see:

So Much for Sanctions: China, Iran Iron Out Oil Agreement - WSJ

Russia upgrades radar station in Syria to aid Iran - Washington Times

China Is Helping to Arm Iran and Sidestep Sanctions Thanks to an Assist From North Korea | Fox News

still clinging to those negotiations, ms clinton?

still convinced that barack obama can go where no one else ever could in suddenly rendering amenable the hate spewing extremists presently in power in the ancient lands of the sassanids?

this administration, this state dept, is delusional

sept 11, the day the mideast caught fire:

HuffPo: Iran Nuclear Weapon Capabilities Closer: UN Report

after apologizing and not apologizing, after blaming the first amendment and defending it, after stating that egypt is and is not an ally, after refusing to meet with bibi then improvising a panicked appointment for morsi, after stubbornly sticking to the specious claim that benghazi was spontaneous, after trying to attribute all the anti american animus engulfing the middle east to a still rather anonymous video...

sanctions, anyone?

iran is gonna nuke, a fact awful and terrifying

it's not just the supreme leader and adolf ahmedinejad the west needs worry about

the iranian sponsorship of hamas, hezbollah and the palestinian front is equally troubling

State Sponsors Terror: Iran - Council on Foreign Relations

why did the administration leak to nyt the stuxnet program which had worked such success?

Senate Democrats blast national security leak about cyberattack against Iran - The Hill

as well as the gratuitous publicity given such spike-worthy goodies as the kill list, the ubl op, the zafridi capture, the drone kills?

Feinstein: "Avalanche of leaks" – CNN

indeed, it is the effects of that very drone program (namely, al libi's assassination in pakistan in june) that seniors in the state dept, libyan security and the democratic chair of armed services, carl levin---after being briefed by defense secretary panetta---see as the motivation behind the benghazi attack

Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination - The Independent

obama's foreign policy is built wholly on denial

his gratuitous apologizing to the egyptian aggrieved merely gasses em up, they naturally seize on any admission as an indication of fault

obama's policy is marked by the exact same head-in-the-sand delusion and denial in afghanistan

general allen two weeks ago, in response to this frightening frequency of green on blue killings, asserted adamantly that the turning of our "allies" against us in obama's war is NOT taliban directed

Insider Attacks Don't Threaten U.S. Strategy, Allen Says - Businessweek

rather, it is the natural product of "stress and personal grievances"

you can't run a foreign policy by lying to yourself

and if obama thinks that all that middle east anger and animosity burning thru our tv screens is explainable only after looking at some obscure video...

either way, his middle east policy is in ruins, his grand reachout rebuffed

meanwhile, 4 more americans were killed this weekend by greens vs blues

Afghan inside attack kills 4 US troops - Yahoo! News

and an astonishing attack was mounted saturday in south helmand against massive camp bastion, 28,000 strong, home of prince harry, presumably wearing a uniform, resulting in 2 americans killed and a portion of the base, including 6 fighter jets, destroyed

NATO releases details of brazen raid on base in Afghanistan - CNN

so obama lays out the first 10% of a full half T in sequestered defense cuts, including 130 mil for embassy defense

White House details 'destructive' spending cuts - Washington Times

in times like these, we simply can't afford so much self defense

we have to invest in birth control pills
 
Last edited:
What should we do with Iran, Prof?
 
Deuce said:
What should we do with Iran, Prof?
Click to expand...

You know, thats a great a question. The right loves to squawk about Obama not doing enough but they have yet to present a better option. Even our best bunker busters can't touch Iran's primary nuclear facility because it is conveniently tucked beneath 250 feet of solid granite. So, short of an all-out invasion; there's nothing we can do to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We might be able to delay it but it is an inevitability.The right can whine all it wants but it didn't do a better job with North Korea and it won't do anything more than we are doing already in terms of Iran's nuclear program.
 
Napoleon said:
You know, thats a great a question. The right loves to squawk about Obama not doing enough but they have yet to present a better option. Even our best bunker busters can't touch Iran's primary nuclear facility because it is conveniently tucked beneath 250 feet of solid granite. So, short of an all-out invasion; there's nothing we can do to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We might be able to delay it but it is an inevitability.The right can whine all it wants but it didn't do a better job with North Korea and it won't do anything more than we are doing already in terms of Iran's nuclear program.
Click to expand...

'Cause your boy's doing such a bang up job with the Middle East, huh?
 
Velvet Elvis said:
'Cause your boy's doing such a bang up job with the Middle East, huh?
Click to expand...


GWB could teach BHO a thing or two about invading other countries.

GWB knew that sanctions were for wussies.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
'Cause your boy's doing such a bang up job with the Middle East, huh?
Click to expand...

I'd say he's doing the best any President could do under the circumstances. Decades of supporting and bribing tyrannical dictators finally caught up with us when their people had had enough and the instruments of oppression literally had "Made In The USA" stamped on them. The old ways of buying loyalty in the Middle East are over and the best we can hope for is to ride out the turmoil and come out the other side with a few allies when its over. We can't bomb our way into alliances and, frankly, I'm not interested in even entertaining the idea of war with a nation six times larger than Iraq and that actually does have weapons of mass destruction.

johnny_rebson said:
GWB knew that sanctions were for wussies.
Click to expand...

Is that so? And what exactly did our dear topiary-in-chief do to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons aside from bumbling through a few speeches that amounted to little more than calling its leader a big fat meanie? I think "sanctions" might be the word you're looking for.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
I'd say he's doing the best any President could do under the circumstances. Decades of supporting and bribing tyrannical dictators finally caught up with us when their people had had enough and the instruments of oppression literally had "Made In The USA" stamped on them. The old ways of buying loyalty in the Middle East are over and the best we can hope for is to ride out the turmoil and come out the other side with a few allies when its over. We can't bomb our way into alliances and, frankly, I'm not interested in even entertaining the idea of war with a nation six times larger than Iraq and that actually does have weapons of mass destruction.
.


Is that so? And what exactly did our dear topiary-in-chief do to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons aside from bumbling through a few speeches that amounted to little more than calling its leader a big fat meanie? I think "sanctions" might be the word you're looking for.
Click to expand...

The current leaders of Iran are tyrannical dictators. And when the people had enough and rose up in opposition in 2009, Obama turned his back on them. That was the best chance the US had to stabilize the situation since President Carter helped the Ayatollah's return.
 
jerry7 said:
The current leaders of Iran are tyrannical dictators. And when the people had enough and rose up in opposition in 2009, Obama turned his back on them. That was the best chance the US had to stabilize the situation since President Carter helped the Ayatollah's return.
Click to expand...

The events of 2009 were peaceful protests not a revolution. People have to be willing to help themselves before we can even consider getting involved in another war of "liberation." We need Iranians with the courage of their convictions to take bold action not hordes of protestors who run and hide when the bullets start flying and expect America to fight their battles for them and shoulder the entire burden in blood and resources required to achieve freedom.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
Is that so? And what exactly did our dear topiary-in-chief do to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons aside from bumbling through a few speeches that amounted to little more than calling its leader a big fat meanie? I think "sanctions" might be the word you're looking for.
Click to expand...

Our dealings with North Korea fell victim to the exact same problem we have with Iran....China.

China will support these nations because they know that it will keep us busy militarily. If we really want to have an impact we need to work on improving tech and consumables production in Mexico and India. If it starts to look like we might back off from buying $30-40 billion in Chinese made goods every year and go with another provider they just might start paying a little bit more attention to what we're trying to accomplish.
 
Napoleon said:
The events of 2009 were peaceful protests not a revolution. People have to be willing to help themselves before we can even consider getting involved in another war of "liberation." We need Iranians with the courage of their convictions to take bold action not hordes of protestors who run and hide when the bullets start flying and expect America to fight their battles for them and shoulder the entire burden in blood and resources required to achieve freedom.
Click to expand...

The "peaceful protests" were ruthlessly crushed. The leaders begged Obama to help, he did nothing.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************
During their brutally suppressed protests in 2009, Iranian freedom fighters sent the White House an urgent memo calling for help. Under Obama, America ignored it.

'So now, at this pivotal point in time, it is up to the countries of the free world to make up their mind," Iranian opposition leaders told the Obama administration in an eight-page memo in 2009. "Will they continue on the track of wishful thinking and push every decision to the future until it is too late, or will they reward the brave people of Iran and simultaneously advance the Western interests and world peace."

President Obama made his choice, and like so often before it was to vote "present."

The memo, written by leaders of Iran's Green Party after the summer 2009 anti-government demonstrations, was obtained by the Washington Examiner.
Memo Shows Iranian Cries For Help During 2009 Green Revolution Went Unheeded - Investors.com
 
Lutherf said:
Our dealings with North Korea fell victim to the exact same problem we have with Iran....China.
Click to expand...

China wasn't exactly thrilled with the idea of North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons.The problem is that we're not the only big kid on the block with an agenda anymore and unfortunately the other major players on the world stage (China and Russia) often do not share our interests. Not much we can do about it.

Lutherf said:
China will support these nations because they know that it will keep us busy militarily. If we really want to have an impact we need to work on improving tech and consumables production in Mexico and India. If it starts to look like we might back off from buying $30-40 billion in Chinese made goods every year and go with another provider they just might start paying a little bit more attention to what we're trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...

Or they'll just dump the Treasury Bills they hold and send the US spiraling into recession or depression. We have each other over the same economic barrel.

jerry7 said:
The "peaceful protests" were ruthlessly crushed. The leaders begged Obama to help, he did nothing.
Click to expand...

If they wanted a revolution then they should have started one. The United States and international community undoubtedly would have come to their aide if they had demonstrated a willingness to fight instead of trying to hide behind the US military whenever something happened. I wouldn't expect any President to pimp out our military to people who don't have the courage to fight their own battles. We helped the Libyans because they helped themselves.
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
Clinton touts Iran sanctions policy - POLITICO


more particularly, isn't it pleasing to be told that the success or failure of obama's entire iranian policy is all dependent on the honor of the holocaust deniers in tehran?
Click to expand...

There are several million Jews living in Iran and they dont seem to be threatened by the Iranian state - why are Jews in the USA or Israel threatened?

In fact Israel has offered the Jews living in Iran to come to Israel and live, but they refuse even though they are given free land and other incentives. It looks as though that your arguments dont stand up too well with the reality.

Are you sure you have a genuine grip on this situation?

Am I interpreting your stance correctly? You seem to be spouting hatred and pro-war drum beating!
 
Napoleon said:
China wasn't exactly thrilled with the idea of North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons.The problem is that we're not the only big kid on the block with an agenda anymore and unfortunately the other major players on the world stage (China and Russia) often do not share our interests. Not much we can do about it.



Or they'll just dump the Treasury Bills they hold and send the US spiraling into recession or depression. We have each other over the same economic barrel.



If they wanted a revolution then they should have started one. The United States and international community undoubtedly would have come to their aide if they had demonstrated a willingness to fight instead of trying to hide behind the US military whenever something happened. I wouldn't expect any President to pimp out our military to people who don't have the courage to fight their own battles. We helped the Libyans because they helped themselves.
Click to expand...
Obama helped the Libyans despite the fact that Libya posed no threat to the US. He ignored the US Congress and used the US military to wage an illegal war in support of the UN. When a situation arose in Iran to weaken and destroy a government hostile to the US and responsible for killing US forces in Iraq he did nothing.
 
Napoleon said:
Or they'll just dump the Treasury Bills they hold and send the US spiraling into recession or depression. We have each other over the same economic barrel.
Click to expand...

China holds roughly $1.5 Trillion in US Debt. That's a big number but it's also less than 10% of the outstanding debt (heck, it's less than our projected annual deficit). On top of that they would need to find someone to take it off their hands. Odds are that the "someone" would end up being the Fed. Would such a transaction cause people to start sweating the dollar? Heck yes, but if the buy back was combined with real and substantive spending cuts that could reasonably be expected to reduce deficits and do so over the long term the impact wouldn't be too bad at all.
 
jerry7 said:
Obama helped the Libyans despite the fact that Libya posed no threat to the US. He ignored the US Congress and used the US military to wage an illegal war in support of the UN.
Click to expand...

Obama exercised his authority under the War Powers Act as several of his predecessors have done.

jerry7 said:
When a situation arose in Iran to weaken and destroy a government hostile to the US and responsible for killing US forces in Iraq he did nothing.
Click to expand...

There was no such situation. There was no one on the ground willing to fight and don't make it sound so easy. Iran is six times larger than Iraq with a standing, reserve, and paramilitary army double our own (nearly 4 million men) and an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons with the ability to deliver them anywhere within a radius of 1200 miles. And don't think Russia would simply sit on the sidelines and watch as we invade another one of their client States. The geopolitical implications of war with Iran are complex and dangerous. Fortunately reason prevails and neither Bush, Obama, or the Congress were/are as eager to send our troops to the slaughterhouse with no backup or local support as you seem to be.
 
Last edited:
jerry7 said:
When a situation arose in Iran to weaken and destroy a government hostile to the US and responsible for killing US forces in Iraq he did nothing.
Click to expand...

I see - so the US invades Iraq illegally, sets up military bases there, is reponsible for 1.4 million Iraqi civilians deaths. corporatises its oil reserves under US firms and NOW Iran is responsible for killing US forces in Iraq?

Interesting theory

Can you demonstrate how Iran is hostile towards the USA?
 
Napoleon said:
Obama exercised his authority under the War Powers Act as several of his predecessors have done.



There was no such situation. There was no one on the ground willing to fight and don't make it sound so easy. Iran is six times larger than Iraq with a standing, reserve, and paramilitary army double our own (nearly 4 million men) and an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons with the ability to deliver them anywhere within a radius of 1200 miles. Fortunately reason prevails and neither Bush, Obama, or the Congress were/are as eager to send our troops to the slaughterhouse with no backup or local support as you seem to be.
Click to expand...

Obama violated the War Powers Act. No one was asking for US troops to be sent into Iran. There were people on the ground willing to fight. They did fight. They were slaughtered. The same type of aid given to the Libyans anmd Egyptians was denied to the Iranians. Even though of the 3 Iran was the only danger to the US.
*************************************************************************************************************
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) announced Wednesday that they are suing Obama in federal court over the constitutionality of leading the U.S. into war with Libya without seeking Congressional approval. Specifically, their lawsuit challenges the executive branch’s circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations -- namely, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- to authorize the use of military force abroad
The lawsuit is signed by a bipartisan mix of lawmakers, including Reps. Howard Coble (R-N.C.), John Duncan (R-Tenn.), Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Ron Paul (R-Texas), Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), Tim Johnson (R-Ill.) and Dan Burton (R-Ind.). Of note: Paul is one of Obama's GOP challengers for the presidency in 2012
Kucinich Sues Obama For Violating War Powers Act In Libya
 
Klown said:
I see - so the US invades Iraq illegally, sets up military bases there, is reponsible for 1.4 million Iraqi civilians deaths. corporatises its oil reserves under US firms and NOW Iran is responsible for killing US forces in Iraq?

Interesting theory

Can you demonstrate how Iran is hostile towards the USA?
Click to expand...


U.S. officials tell CBS News that American forces have begun an aggressive and mostly secret ground campaign against networks of Iranians that had been operating with virtual impunity inside Iraq.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress on Friday that Iranians are now on the target list.

"Twice in the last two or three weeks, in pursuit of those networks, when we have gone and captured those cells, we've captured Iranians," said Gen. Peter Pace
U.S. Forces Fighting Iranians In Iraq - CBS News
 
jerry7 said:
Obama violated the War Powers Act.]
Click to expand...

Obama did not violate the War Powers Act and the lawsuit was dismissed. Try again.

jerry7 said:
No one was asking for US troops to be sent into Iran. There were people on the ground willing to fight. They did fight. They were slaughtered. The same type of aid given to the Libyans anmd Egyptians was denied to the Iranians. Even though of the 3 Iran was the only danger to the US.
Click to expand...

THere was no uprising in Iran; merely street protests. Like I said; fortunately reason prevails and neither Bush, Obama, or the Congress were/are as eager to send our troops to the slaughterhouse with no backup or local support as you seem to be. Cooler heads decide our foreign policy and I'm grateful for that as I'm sure our troops are as well.
 
Napoleon said:
Obama did not violate the War Powers Act and the lawsuit was dismissed. Try again.



THere was no uprising in Iran; merely street protests. Like I said; fortunately reason prevails and neither Bush, Obama, or the Congress were/are as eager to send our troops to the slaughterhouse with no backup or local support as you seem to be. Cooler heads decide our foreign policy and I'm grateful for that as I'm sure our troops are as well.
Click to expand...

Even the far left Obama worshipping NY Times acknowledged that Obama violated the law. However not being a republican all was forgiven. Once again US troops were never needed. The same US aid that helped topple the regimes in Libya and Egypt was denied to the Iranians.
***************************************************************************************************************
IT has now been over three months since the first NATO bombs fell on Libya, yet President Obama has failed to request Congressional approval for military action, as required by the War Powers Act of 1973. The legal machinations Mr. Obama has used to justify war without Congressional consent set a troubling precedent that could allow future administrations to wage war at their convenience — free of legislative checks and balances
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/opinion/21Ackerman.html?_r=0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom