• 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!

Netanyahu ‘spat in our face,’ White House officials said to say[W:223]

ironhorse said:
Then you don't understand the constitution but few if any leftist do. The different branches of gov were created so than none of them had absolute power. The congress is meant as a counter balance to the white house.
Click to expand...

wow. thank you for that powerful insight, sharing with us something from fourth grade civics
 
ironhorse said:
Then you don't understand the constitution but few if any leftist do. The different branches of gov were created so than none of them had absolute power. The congress is meant as a counter balance to the white house.
Click to expand...

Balance means non-stop obstruction for the sake of sabotaging the president? You're right. I don't understand.
 
Amadeus said:
Balance means non-stop obstruction for the sake of sabotaging the president? You're right. I don't understand.
Click to expand...

When a pres stats out to "fundamentally change America" there is bound to be obstruction. Most of us like America fundamentally the way it is and do not want to become Cuba.
 
ironhorse said:
When a pres stats out to "fundamentally change America" there is bound to be obstruction. Most of us like America fundamentally the way it is and do not want to become Cuba.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Most of America voted for Obama twice over the Republican alternative. Whatever Obama was selling, America bought it.
 
Amadeus said:
Wrong. Most of America voted for Obama twice over the Republican alternative. Whatever Obama was selling, America bought it.
Click to expand...

You know winning the majority of the vote doesn't mean the majority of the country voted for you. It just means that of those that voted you got the majority of their votes.
 
Amadeus said:
Balance means non-stop obstruction for the sake of sabotaging the president? You're right. I don't understand.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the constitution that says congress has to work with the president.
 
Amadeus said:
Wrong. Most of America voted for Obama twice over the Republican alternative. Whatever Obama was selling, America bought it.
Click to expand...

All blacks voted for Obama because he's black. Most if not all dems voted for Obama because they hate reps. Everyone on welfare voted for Obama. Mexicans both legal and illegal voted for Obama because they want no border. Communist voted for Obama. Socialist voted for Obama and people that hate America voted for Obama. After a while all these little groups add up to a victory. We are now in a mainstream America VS the groups I just mentioned era and mainstream America has the right and obligation to stop or at least slow Obama in his pursuit to drag us over the left wing cliff. Eras like these come and go, the pendulum swings and thank God for our constitution which keeps those in the temporary majority from " fundamentally changing America".
 
ironhorse said:
All blacks voted for Obama because he's black. Most if not all dems voted for Obama because they hate reps. Everyone on welfare voted for Obama. Mexicans both legal and illegal voted for Obama because they want no border. Communist voted for Obama. Socialist voted for Obama and people that hate America voted for Obama. After a while all these little groups add up to a victory. We are now in a mainstream America VS the groups I just mentioned era and mainstream America has the right and obligation to stop or at least slow Obama in his pursuit to drag us over the left wing cliff. Eras like these come and go, the pendulum swings and thank God for our constitution which keeps those in the temporary majority from " fundamentally changing America".
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]

and you voted for romney because he was white
got it
 
ironhorse said:
All blacks voted for Obama because he's black. Most if not all dems voted for Obama because they hate reps. Everyone on welfare voted for Obama. Mexicans both legal and illegal voted for Obama because they want no border. Communist voted for Obama. Socialist voted for Obama and people that hate America voted for Obama. After a while all these little groups add up to a victory. We are now in a mainstream America VS the groups I just mentioned era and mainstream America has the right and obligation to stop or at least slow Obama in his pursuit to drag us over the left wing cliff. Eras like these come and go, the pendulum swings and thank God for our constitution which keeps those in the temporary majority from " fundamentally changing America".
Click to expand...


lots of citations needed.
 
apdst said:
You're taking the ideological view to all things.
Click to expand...

No, I'm being practical and reasonable.

Instead of thinking that all it will take to bring governments who disagrees with you in line or to get them to the negotiating table is to formulate a coup to overthrow said government or to beat them into submission militarily, I'm saying you use all other resources at your disposal first short of full scale war. Now, if you think that's being ideological so be it. I see that as just using common sense.

Again, even former President Reagan was willing to negotiate with governments he didn't necessarily agree with. And he only exercised military strength once.
 
Amadeus said:
Wrong. Most of America voted for Obama twice over the Republican alternative. Whatever Obama was selling, America bought it.
Click to expand...
That is true. But America also elected a House and a Senate controlled by republicans. So whatever they were selling was bought by the American people as well. The issue isn't the parties, IMHO, it is the public. We are a very sharply divided country with sharply differing ideas of what is good for the country. As long as thing remain that way nothing can or should get done.
 
Objective Voice said:
No, I'm being practical and reasonable.

Instead of thinking that all it will take to bring governments who disagrees with you in line or to get them to the negotiating table is to formulate a coup to overthrow said government or to beat them into submission militarily, I'm saying you use all other resources at your disposal first short of full scale war. Now, if you think that's being ideological so be it. I see that as just using common sense.

Again, even former President Reagan was willing to negotiate with governments he didn't necessarily agree with. And he only exercised military strength once.
Click to expand...

Common sense, and history, suggests that Iran isn't interested in negotiations. The only thing they understand is strength and force. If you think that's being ideological, then so be it.
 
We have been told that Obama had the British PM lobby senators to vote against sanctions during his recent visit. One can only wonder why the President would be so irate that the Israeli PM also lobby, but for rather than against sanctions. Could it be that the President does not want the U.S. to really get a sense of what Obama is willing to give Iran to get a treaty? Not that this president has ever lied to the American public.

The president asks that no sanctions be voted on while negotiations are ongoing. A guess a question would be when are they expected to end. There has already been two 6 month extensions. Does anyone still believe anything this imperial president says.
 
justabubba said:
[emphasis added by bubba]

and you voted for romney because he was white
got it
Click to expand...

I left out one voting group and that is whites that voted for Obama because he's black. They felt it would be a healing process for America and end the black white divide. Boy were they wrong! I myself felt that way when Obama first appeared on the scene but when I became informed on who this guy really was I just couldn't vote for him.
 
I'm going to break this down a little because you have several separate points that need to be addressed on their own.

Objective Voice said:
I disagree completely.

We're using drone strikes in areas where military/special forces can't easily get into.
Click to expand...

Aside from the issues of just ordering drones to take out a building that may or may not have innocents in it, children, etc. The amount of these strikes is far less force than we have had to bear on this enemy before Obama, and the enemy knows it...Can you say that the region has become more safe, in terms of potential attack against us, or our interests in the region? I don't think that truthfully you can....

We're using special forces to provide ground surveillance, coordinate air strikes and train foreign combatants how to "take the fight to a common enemy".
Click to expand...

See I don't think we are...At least not in the way we need to be doing it...Our military leaders have far too often been at odds at the policies in place by this administration in terms of not only application, but intelligence...

We're using our political and economic influence (soft power) in an attempt to force rouge countries (Russia, North Korea, Iran) into compliance moreso with UN/NATO resolutions/treaties.
Click to expand...

Really? Our "soft power" these days is all but non existent...We are being played in nearly all theaters in the world today...Obama's word means nothing, and players like Russia, NK, China, and in the ME know it. Ukraine is a prime example...

Political persuasion to bring Arab nations to the table to "collective" resolve this regional problem called ISIS.
Click to expand...

See, that's the thing...ISIS isn't just some regional annoyance. They are a force that is in total disregard of the borders, and treaties set up almost a hundred years ago that established the countries that are in place now...They want to go back to the traditional settings of that region, and do not recognize the structure of the ME as it is today...As such they want their own country, and are slaughtering those in their way to achieve it...

While I would agree that the Obama Administrations foreign policy agenda where the Middle East is concerned does seem to be inconsistent if not incoherent to some...
Click to expand...

It's not inconsistent...Obama is an anti Colonialist, he in many ways like ISIS, or like AQ sees that their claim of false borders, false constructs in the ME sees that, and agrees with that, so he sees these people not as enemies, but "freedom fighters" of a sort, and sympathizes with them. Problem is, that they know that at most when he came in, that he only had 8 years, and in the beginning used that to buy time til now, and now he is on his way out so they could care less about him, or what he has to say. And they have used the incoherence you speak of as a way to pull off the old slight of hand trick...Iran is doing that right now as we speak...

Continued.
 
Continued...



...but when you don't have willing partners in the region who are willing to take matters into their own hands and fight for their own freedom AND your fellow countrymen are really tired of fighting AND your "all volunteer force" is tired of constantly being thrown into the meat grinder for wars/military campaigns that don't seem to have an end-game, do you think it wise to pursue a single-minded military option as the only solution to the Middle-East problem especially since no other U.S. President before Obama was able to fix the problem?
Click to expand...

If this were the world of the early 1900s and we could afford to look at it, shrug our shoulders, and say 'eh, that's their problem over there' then I am sure more people than not would agree with you, but....BUT! it is NOT that world today. We are in a time where we could be in the ME by air in a few hours, which means that they can be here in the same time. Our interests, and partnerships are intertwined around the world to a greater degree also, and they have had a century of inhabiting places like Europe, and Africa with ideology to the point where some countries within are having a hard time keeping their traditional heritage...They are in a way colonizing from within.

A military campaign has an end when there is a winner. Anything short of that is a loss. And they know it...We seem to have forgotten that.

Oh, wait! The problem wasn't exacerbated until The Bush Doctrine went into affect. My bad!
Click to expand...

Oh yes...The world started with Boooooosh! :roll: Do you realize how not only short sighted that sounds, but what a lack of historical understanding it displays about radical Islam? Truly that sentence doesn't even deserve a response...

My point here is simply this: STOP TAKING THE IDEOLOGICAL VIEW to all things.
Click to expand...

You really want to scream at me about ideology, when you just made a statement steeped in nothing but ideologue laden rhetoric? :lamo

The ME in particular isn't a one size fits all situation.
Click to expand...

Not for our enemy it isn't...While we prance around worrying about who's feelings we hurt with language, they saw off the heads of those in their way and count the victories....Good strategy....

It's far more complicated that you might think.
Click to expand...

Not having the intestinal fortitude to actually fight and win this doesn't make it 'complicated'... That is only an excuse for those of your ideological bent to say 'we can't win, so why try'...
 
MMC said:
Heya DS. :2wave: Do you recall BO a couple years ago going into 2013 stating when he gave a time-frame that Iran would reach getting their Nuke?

Also.....besides the 2 deadlines coming and going. BO has given them another break, Right here in Dec.



US reportedly accusing Iran of violating nuclear sanctions.....

Washington has discreetly accused Iran of violating United Nations-imposed restrictions on purchasing materials for a nuclear facility, a US magazine reported Monday. Washington has evidence that Iran is attempting to purchase equipment needed for its heavy-water reactor at Arak, but has not publicly addressed the reported non-compliance, Foreign Policy reported, citing parts of a document compiled by US officials. Foreign Policy said it obtained portions of the confidential briefing, which does not name the US, that outlined the allegations of non-compliance. The paper stated that the US delegation detected an “increase in procurement on behalf of the IR-40 Heavy Water Research Reactor at Arak.”

Diplomatic sources confirmed to Foreign Policy that the United States presented the briefing to the UN compliance committee. Although Tehran has recently authorized increasing numbers of International Atomic Energy Agency inspections, it has yet to comply with the UN agency’s long-standing requests for information outlining Iran’s military involvement in its nuclear program.

Last week, outgoing Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez criticized the compromises made by the US and the other P5+1 countries and called for additional sanctions against Iran if a framework agreement is not reached by March 2015.....snip~

Read more: US reportedly accusing Iran of violating nuclear sanctions | The Times of Israel US reportedly accusing Iran of violating nuclear sanctions | The Times of Israel
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook


Moreover.....now with the Coup in Yemen wrapping up and knowing Iran was behind it. Should that be taken into consideration for these talks? Shouldn't Congress' legislation be ready to kick in if Iran doesn't comply? I think the Iranians need to be totally clear on that. The Stick that comes down. Automatically if they don't bring the agreement.
Click to expand...

At this point in time, I remain concerned that the P+5 is largely yielding while Iran has yet to make the kind of firm commitments (or to signal them) to alleviate the core issues related to Iran's nuclear activities. IMO, should Iran miss yet another deadline, Congress most definitely should increase the sanctions.
 
donsutherland1 said:
At this point in time, I remain concerned that the P+5 is largely yielding while Iran has yet to make the kind of firm commitments (or to signal them) to alleviate the core issues related to Iran's nuclear activities. IMO, should Iran miss yet another deadline, Congress most definitely should increase the sanctions.
Click to expand...

15 or 16 Democrats were ready to override. Now they plan to wait until March and see what BO can come up with. They should be in place. I showed how the Iranians and The Turks worked that gas for gold scheme.

BO won't take the hard stand, and that's despite knowing Iran is behind Yemen. As well as in Lebanon and Syria.
 
MMC said:
15 or 16 Democrats were ready to override. Now they plan to wait until March and see what BO can come up with. They should be in place. I showed how the Iranians and The Turks worked that gas for gold scheme.

BO won't take the hard stand, and that's despite knowing Iran is behind Yemen. As well as in Lebanon and Syria.
Click to expand...

I hope that they will be ready to override if Iran misses the March deadline. It makes little sense to give Iran an indefinite timeframe. An extension makes sense if the differences are relatively small so that a modest amount of extra time could bridge them. If the differences remain large with little realistic prospect that they can be overcome, then an extension of time makes little sense. Instead, increased pressure e.g., tightened sanctions would be a better approach.
 
donsutherland1 said:
At this point in time, I remain concerned that the P+5 is largely yielding while Iran has yet to make the kind of firm commitments (or to signal them) to alleviate the core issues related to Iran's nuclear activities. IMO, should Iran miss yet another deadline, Congress most definitely should increase the sanctions.
Click to expand...

what's your hurry?
itchy trigger finger?
 
donsutherland1 said:
I hope that they will be ready to override if Iran misses the March deadline. It makes little sense to give Iran an indefinite timeframe. An extension makes sense if the differences are relatively small so that a modest amount of extra time could bridge them. If the differences remain large with little realistic prospect that they can be overcome, then an extension of time makes little sense. Instead, increased pressure e.g., tightened sanctions would be a better approach.
Click to expand...



Their not going to allow access to Parchin, anyways. Moreover we already know they are getting some more reactors from Russia. Which would need to be included in any deal. Especially with being open to inspections. We also caught them obtaining parts that they shouldn't be trying to get.

Plus they have been enriching all this time. More than likely they have what they need. Other than the delivery system.
 
MMC said:
Their not going to allow access to Parchin. Moreover we already know they are getting some more reactors from Russia. Which would need to be included in any deal. Especially with being open to inspections. We also caught them obtaining parts that they shouldn't be trying to get.

Plus they have been enriching all this time.More than likely they have what they need. Other than the delivery system.
Click to expand...

cite please
 
justabubba said:
cite please
Click to expand...

President Obama told an Israeli television station on Thursday that his administration believed it would take Iran “over a year or so” to develop a nuclear weapon, and he vowed that the United States would do whatever was necessary to prevent that from happening. “Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously we don’t want to cut it too close,” Mr. Obama told the Israeli station, Channel 2 TV. Mr. Obama’s estimated timeline contrasts with Mr. Netanyahu’s stated belief that Israel and its Western allies are likely to have to intervene by the spring or summer, when, he says, Iran’s scientists will have enriched enough uranium to become a nuclear threat. Iran denies that its nuclear program has any military aim.

Mr. Obama has rarely been so specific about how long American intelligence agencies estimate it will take Iran to build a bomb. In defining the problem as he did — when Iran could get a weapon, rather than when it could have the capability to build one — he subtly indicated that he and Mr. Netanyahu still saw the problem in very different terms. Mr. Obama, in the interview, offered a different estimate: How long it would take Iran to build a full weapon. That would mean enriching enough uranium; fashioning it into a weapon, surrounded by detonators; and being able to be delivered by airplane, cargo ship or missile.

In saying that day was over a year away, he was echoing what intelligence agencies have said to him about their estimates of Iran’s “breakout” capability — how long it would take Iranian nuclear scientists to turn their stockpiles of fuel into a working weapon. Mr. Obama has never talked about stopping Iran from achieving weapons capability......snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/w...pon-to-take-year-or-more-obama-says.html?_r=0
Published: March 14, 2013 <<<<< !


Hows BO peep and his Team look?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Common sense, and history, suggests that Iran isn't interested in negotiations. The only thing they understand is strength and force. If you think that's being ideological, then so be it.
Click to expand...

:lamo ... :doh But if that's truly the case, why has no President since Reagan - even when our problems with Iran's anti-American rhetoric and radicalism first began - has ever done anything militarily against them? The ONLY country that's ever gone to war with Iran since the 1980's has been Iraq. So, if we're giving credit to any country's leadership for exercising said "strength and force" as you exclaim well, GWB made sure Iraq's ruler would never demonstrate to the world how best to handle the Iran's Supreme Leader. :roll:

Tell "W" I said thanks! :2wave:

....:roll:
 
Lets say Bibi DID spit in Obama's face. WoOuldnt the prudent question to ask be 'why', not run around like a bunch of outraged children?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom