• 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 Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership [W:251]

Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

j-mac said:
Translation: If you don't agree with Obama, you're a racist...:roll:
Click to expand...

That's a piss poor translation. Surely you know that.

Translation: No one should disagree with "The One"
Click to expand...

Also not what I said. In fact, anyone who can read English knows I specifically said there are points of disagreement. So, you're not responding to what was said.



Translation: Anyone not a far left liberal I don't understand, so I lash out....
Click to expand...

Yet another very poor translation.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership - Bloomberg Politics

President Obama: "It's somewhat ironic seeing some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran..... It's an unlikely coalition."

Interesting. Seems to me, the President distorts the issue for political gain and is subtly trying to claim that Republicans are fraternizing with the enemy or perhaps even treasonous. And yet no reaction or condemnation from Democrats or their friends in the media. Rudy Guilliani states that he believes that President Obama doesn't love his country and all hell breaks lose, the full force of the Democrat party and their media puppets attacking with all force. But when the shoe is on the other foot, again the attack is on the Republican party and the Democrat media protects their saviour and master.

Interesting. Also, isn't President Obama trying to 'make common cause with the hardliners in Iran" through the deal negotiations he's involved in?
Click to expand...

Obama trying to paint Conservatives as Iranian sympathisers...think of the irony! As he's stepped on by terrorists from all corners of the world!

But besides that point, Hillary told us that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, right?

 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

iguanaman said:
You mean kicked out don't you? Malaki made it quite clear that we were not welcome. He refused to get the parliment to pass a SOFA.
Click to expand...

Malaki made it clear he was willing to get us the SOFA if we were willing to commit enough troops to help him maintain his coalition. We weren't, and so he had to make a deal with the Sadrists, instead. The White House pretty much torpedoed it's own negotiations in the final month or two by coming back in and declaring 5,000 troops was their ceiling.


But it's sort of ironic to see folks admit that The Smartest President Ever wasn't able to negotiate a simple SOFA with Iraq.... heck, even George Bush managed that..... :mrgreen:
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Boo Radley said:
No, I think there is just an irrational hatred of Obama that has little merit. There are always points of disagreement, but nothing that warrants the silliness his detractors embrace. Republicans should be criticized. What they did was wrong.
Click to expand...

As posted a number of times in a number of forums, there are instances, between 5 and 7 times, where the Democrats have done exactly the same and even more so (or have you forgotten Pelosi's visiting Assad of Syria, calling him a reformer, and declaring that the road for reform goes through Damascus [or some other equally silly and unfounded assertion])?

No, this is pure partisan fauxrage with no factual basis nor factual standing. Pure partisan fauxrage because it's Democrats whining at something the Republicans did that they didn't like (what a bunch of cry babies when they don't get their way). Did the Democrats and Obama expect the Obama's presidency to fall under some sort of protected class coverage? :lamo If anything, they are treating him just like any other Democratic president, and doing what the opposition party should be doing, which is opposing.

Can't handle the heat in the kitchen? Get out of the kitchen.

Now, if you want to make the general statement that Senators shouldn't have a voice in, nor voice their concerns about or objections to, executive branch foreign policy actions, then it'd have to apply equally to both Republicans and Democrats.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

poweRob said:
Assad or ISIS? Your choice.
Click to expand...

No thanks - I don't address false choice fallacies.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

iguanaman said:
LOL So that was Bush's plan? To install a sectarian terrorist and Iranian puppet as President thereby guaranteeing that we would need to babysit in Iraq forever? Tha tis the "inteligence" you want from a President?
Click to expand...
Bush isn't President, it's 2015 not 2006. When compared to the current plan of putting in place a bad agreement that cannot be enforced with the terrorist nation of Iran and allowing them to develop nuclear weapons and subsequently start a proliferation and arms race in the middle east? Yeah, I'll take a 2006 Bush plan over Obama's current one any day of the week.

iguanaman said:
The only chance for a stable and united Iraq was to get rid of Maliki and Obama has made that happen.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn't learn the Saddam lesson yet. We got rid of Saddam how did that work out again?

iguanaman said:
The Iraqi's are poised to take back Tikrit from ISIS and the new President is making peace with the Sunni tribes. This is the progress Iraq needs.
Click to expand...
Iran is poised to take back Tikrit which is a pimple on the ass of an Elephant so far. Making Tikrit the cause celeb is moronic and myopic. Iran now controls 4 or 5 capitals in the ME including Baghdad. With the backing of Russia and China in the UN and Russia on the side, removing US troops from "babysitting" in Iraq was a huge blunder, as was Yemen which btw, the US has closed our embassy and bugged out after Obama said 6 months ago :

Obama said:
This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.
Click to expand...

We seem to have not taken out terrorists in Yemen.

Rebels In Yemen Seize U.S. Embassy Vehicles After Evacuation


That's what this President calls a success.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

j-mac said:
Oh, but it is....They made it so, by threatening us, then moving toward acquiring the means to carry out that threat.
Click to expand...

Both Israeli and US intelligence agencies conclude that Iran is in fact not building nuclear weapons. We've heard false claims of other middle eastern countries as well.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

cpwill said:
Malaki made it clear he was willing to get us the SOFA if we were willing to commit enough troops to help him maintain his coalition. We weren't, and so he had to make a deal with the Sadrists, instead. The White House pretty much torpedoed it's own negotiations in the final month or two by coming back in and declaring 5,000 troops was their ceiling.


But it's sort of ironic to see folks admit that The Smartest President Ever wasn't able to negotiate a simple SOFA with Iraq.... heck, even George Bush managed that..... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The agreement Bush signed stipulated that all US troops would leave in 2 years and the Iraqi's held us to it. You would think someone as "smart" as Bush would have been able to get a more long term agreement. He tried but Maliki would have none of it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

j-mac said:
Yes, and everyone knows how very much Obama wanted that agreement....Right? I mean he tried so awfully hard to get it in place before the pull out....:roll:
Click to expand...

Obama promised to get us out of Iraq and stop the bleeding, but he would have been willing to keep troops there if Maliki was not such an a-hole about it. It was obvious that Maliki was taking his orders from Iran and Al Sadr.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

cpwill said:
Malaki made it clear he was willing to get us the SOFA if we were willing to commit enough troops to help him maintain his coalition. We weren't, and so he had to make a deal with the Sadrists, instead. The White House pretty much torpedoed it's own negotiations in the final month or two by coming back in and declaring 5,000 troops was their ceiling.


But it's sort of ironic to see folks admit that The Smartest President Ever wasn't able to negotiate a simple SOFA with Iraq.... heck, even George Bush managed that..... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Of course it does not help to leave the matter to the first president in our history who does not much like the United States. That agreement gave President Limpwrist a convenient excuse for leaving no residual force in Iraq, which is what he wanted anyway--part of his general policy of appeasing Muslims. And we are seeing the result. A forceful U.S. president could have had pretty much whatever he'd insisted on, and could have explained to the American people why it was necessary.

There were South Korean politicians who from time to time in the 1950's clamored for the U.S. to remove its forces, too, but Dwight Eisenhower wanted them there, and there they stayed. The "Americans were too weary of war" argument doesn't excuse Obama, either. They were at least as sick of war in 1953, having been forced into another one--and one which cost far more American lives than Iraq and Afghanistan put together--only five years after the end of WWII. But despite that, a powerful force of more than 35,000, with armor, artillery, air power, etc., was left in South Korea.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

iguanaman said:
The agreement Bush signed stipulated that all US troops would leave in 2 years and the Iraqi's held us to it. You would think someone as "smart" as Bush would have been able to get a more long term agreement. He tried but Maliki would have none of it.
Click to expand...

:) oh, you mean like Obama's 3-Year AUMF?

All SOFA's have renegotiation points, and Bush's had to schedule his so as to get continued funding from a hostile, Democrat-held Congress. The Maliki Government wanted us to remain, and they were willing to sign the extended SOFA to do it... but we had to support them in order to make it possible. We chose not to do that. :shrug: Results: Maliki had to make a deal with the Sadrists, turn on the Sunni's (including his own VP), convincing the Sunni tribes that the government in Baghdad would no longer represent them now that the Americans were gone, creating incentives for them to enable ISIL to push Shia-led ISF out of the region.

It would have been a relatively cheap investment for us to secure our gains, but, the President wanted a 2012 campaign point about Getting Us Out Of Iraq.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

iguanaman said:
Obama promised to get us out of Iraq and stop the bleeding, but he would have been willing to keep troops there if Maliki was not such an a-hole about it. It was obvious that Maliki was taking his orders from Iran and Al Sadr.
Click to expand...

Maliki didn't start doing that until we told him he was on his own. Well. "We", but "POTUS" is the one who told him that.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Montecresto said:
Both Israeli and US intelligence agencies conclude that Iran is in fact not building nuclear weapons. We've heard false claims of other middle eastern countries as well.
Click to expand...

Just because they are not physically building a bomb doesn't mean they are not doing what they need to do to be able to build a bomb. And, believe me, if they are able to build a bomb...it's too late to stop them from putting the parts together and setting it off.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Ockham said:
There was just another post similar to this posted.

I'll summarize what I posted in that thread: Obama has gone out of his way to thumb his nose at Congress and Republicans in general. "I won" and "I have a pen and phone" are just a sample of those astoundingly arrogant statements. Now Congress shows they have a pen and phone as well. Obama could have invited Congress to oversee (which is Congress' duty by the way) such international deals but he cut them out. Now he gets the slap of a cold fish in the face and doesn't like it. The moral of the story to Obama: Actions have consequences. Are you surprised? Really?
Click to expand...
Obama has thumbed his nose at Democrats also but they seem to quietly accept it.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

iguanaman said:
The agreement Bush signed stipulated that all US troops would leave in 2 years and the Iraqi's held us to it. You would think someone as "smart" as Bush would have been able to get a more long term agreement. He tried but Maliki would have none of it.
Click to expand...
No matter how often this is explained to Liberals you never seem to get it. Your beliefs ALWAYS override the facts.

Your lack of knowledge re SOFA agreements and their expiration dates and renewals is lacking, But in fact they happen regularly all over the world, wherever the military is stationed, and Iraq was no different. The difference with the Iraqi SOFA was that Obama was determined to leave anyway, under any circumstances, as promised in his campaign and celebrated here.

You don't seem to understand the depth of Barack Obama's ignorance but instead are willing to go so far as to invent facts to support him.FLASHBACK
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Mycroft said:
Just because they are not physically building a bomb doesn't mean they are not doing what they need to do to be able to build a bomb. And, believe me, if they are able to build a bomb...it's too late to stop them from putting the parts together and setting it off.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Iran could work on all the other components of an atomic bomb so that they were tested and ready, just waiting for the nuclear material. And once uranium has been enriched to 20% U-235, enriching it to the 80 or 90% usually used in a weapon doesn't take all that long. The process gets easier as it goes on--the slow, hard part is getting to 20%.

Testing a bomb design by setting off a full explosion is less important than it used to be. It's possible to set off the conventional explosive and determine if it exploded precisely enough to have caused a nuclear explosion if the nuclear materials had been in the bomb. Or it may be possible to get the necessary information without even the conventional explosion, by observing whether the triggering mechanism worked as it would need to. Some of the U.S. tests are that kind of computer simulation, and Iran also might be able to learn enough that way to be very confident its bomb design would work.

No one in the civilized world can afford to trust the Islamist bastards in Tehran. The U.S. air force could destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, along with its missile facilities and air defenses, without too much trouble. We certainly have more than enough air power for that, but it seems extremely unlikely that this president will ever do it. That leaves the job to Israel, whose far smaller air force, carrying far fewer and lighter bombs, would only be able to destroy even the four or five major nuclear weapons facilities by the skin of its teeth. Doing nothing turns a sure thing into a very uncertain thing. The only way for Israel to be sure of doing the job would be to use nuclear weapons, at least on the very deeply buried centrifuge galleries at Fordow. I think it is a very poor idea to force it into that situation.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

eohrnberger said:
As posted a number of times in a number of forums, there are instances, between 5 and 7 times, where the Democrats have done exactly the same and even more so (or have you forgotten Pelosi's visiting Assad of Syria, calling him a reformer, and declaring that the road for reform goes through Damascus [or some other equally silly and unfounded assertion])?

No, this is pure partisan fauxrage with no factual basis nor factual standing. Pure partisan fauxrage because it's Democrats whining at something the Republicans did that they didn't like (what a bunch of cry babies when they don't get their way). Did the Democrats and Obama expect the Obama's presidency to fall under some sort of protected class coverage? :lamo If anything, they are treating him just like any other Democratic president, and doing what the opposition party should be doing, which is opposing.

Can't handle the heat in the kitchen? Get out of the kitchen.

Now, if you want to make the general statement that Senators shouldn't have a voice in, nor voice their concerns about or objections to, executive branch foreign policy actions, then it'd have to apply equally to both Republicans and Democrats.
Click to expand...

I will agree there is a certain amount of hypocrisy, but I would not agree those acts were EXACTLY the same. The hypocrisy, btw, is on both sides. The point is, regardless of what democrats have done, this is still wrong no matter who does it.

And that doesn't make congress voiceless. Like all things, there is a proper medium and an improper medium. No said Congress can't speak on this, or address the president. Besides being childish, this act was improper and not helpful to anyone.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Mycroft said:
Just because they are not physically building a bomb doesn't mean they are not doing what they need to do to be able to build a bomb. And, believe me, if they are able to build a bomb...it's too late to stop them from putting the parts together and setting it off.
Click to expand...

Your probably right. The US wasted no time after assembly of its first nuke to try it out, on civilian targets even!
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Grant said:
No matter how often this is explained to Liberals you never seem to get it. Your beliefs ALWAYS override the facts.

Your lack of knowledge re SOFA agreements and their expiration dates and renewals is lacking, But in fact they happen regularly all over the world, wherever the military is stationed, and Iraq was no different. The difference with the Iraqi SOFA was that Obama was determined to leave anyway, under any circumstances, as promised in his campaign and celebrated here.

You don't seem to understand the depth of Barack Obama's ignorance but instead are willing to go so far as to invent facts to support him.FLASHBACK
Click to expand...

The fact is that Bush tried to negotiate a longer term agreement and failed. Even the 3 year one was a bit tricky and caused a little panic when it looked like we would have to leave as soon as the UN wanted us to. It is your beliefs that prompt you to rewrite history, something conservatives have done (and needed to do) since time immemorial. History and facts related to history are the thorn in every Conservatives side. That could be why there are no Govts. that have Conservative philosophies, they just don't hold up in the REAL world.

Conservatives now like to claim the SOFA as a “Bush-negotiated” success. But Bush entered the SOFA negotiations looking for something entirely different than what emerged at the end. The U.S. went into the SOFA talks intent on obtaining legitimacy for a long-term military presence in Iraq once the Security Council mandate ended. When negotiations began, it was widely assumed that Bush would extract from the Iraqis an agreement which made the removal of U.S. troops entirely contingent upon American assessments of conditions on the ground. There were widespread discussions of permanent U.S. bases and a Korea-style presence for generations, an assumption that the U.S. would retain a free hand in its operations, and an absolute rejection of an Obama-style timeline for withdrawal.

But Iraqi leaders, to most everyone’s surprise, took a hard line in the negotiations. Their tough line was encouraged by Iran, no doubt, as stressed by many frustrated American commentators. But it also reflected Iraqi domestic considerations, including several rounds of upcoming elections and an intensely strong popular Iraqi hostility to the U.S. occupation under any name.
Click to expand...

Bush’s finest moment on Iraq: SOFA, not the surge | Foreign Policy
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Montecresto said:
Your probably right. The US wasted no time after assembly of its first nuke to try it out, on civilian targets even!
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Do you want the same thing to happen when Iran builds one?
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Thrilla said:
he was when we pulled out...Doh!
Click to expand...

Too bad he wasn't the president in 2003.
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

cpwill said:
Maliki didn't start doing that until we told him he was on his own. Well. "We", but "POTUS" is the one who told him that.
Click to expand...

Maliki gave us the "bums rush" out the door as soon as he could and had an agreement signed by GW Bush saying that he could. Why couldn't Bush negotiate the long term agreement he wanted? Because the Iraqi's were having none of it that's why.

Bush’s finest moment on Iraq: SOFA, not the surge | Foreign Policy
 
Re: Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership

Moot said:
Actually, it's true....

Iraq Surge Fail Update
Click to expand...

Just more lefty Bush-bashing without foundation. I suspect I'm the only participant here who has actually been to Iraq, so I hope you'll excuse my preference for my own judgment. Even the author of the linked tripe can't deny violence dropped; he just tries to quibble about why. IMHO it was BHO's failure to retain American forces in Iraq after 2011 that gave free rein to Maliki's sectarian tendencies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom