• 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!

US thanks Iran for swift release of 10 Navy sailors

monty of ll said:
Let me give you a likely scenario for the whole incident. They were spying but the circumstances with the nuclear deal are front and center and Iran took precautions not to upset the US. The incident was timed to coincide with Obama's speech and to embarrass Obama. It was done by a faction in government (likely R's or hawks) who want to see the deal destroyed. Nearly the entire US government is opposed to the deal with Iran and this was perhaps the last opportunity to ruin the progress made by Kerry and the Obama admin.

This is an explanation on why Iran responded so quickly and that was not usual in an instance such as this. Iran was obviously on the side of right and could have held them much longer.

As for the future of the nuclear deal with Iran, there is little doubt that the next president, along with congress will destroy the deal on the pretence of Iran not abiding by it's mandate.
Click to expand...
Hah!

I'm usually not too much into CT, but this one is pretty interesting.

Though I would suggest if it did occur, it was generated somewhere in the military, perhaps in even a self-serving manner (to promote or expand hostilities if the deal could be rescinded).

Yours is an interesting & creative take on this.
 
monty of ll said:
Let me give you a likely scenario for the whole incident. They were spying but the circumstances with the nuclear deal are front and center and Iran took precautions not to upset the US. The incident was timed to coincide with Obama's speech and to embarrass Obama. It was done by a faction in government (likely R's or hawks) who want to see the deal destroyed. Nearly the entire US government is opposed to the deal with Iran and this was perhaps the last opportunity to ruin the progress made by Kerry and the Obama admin.

This is an explanation on why Iran responded so quickly and that was not usual in an instance such as this. Iran was obviously on the side of right and could have held them much longer.

As for the future of the nuclear deal with Iran, there is little doubt that the next president, along with congress will destroy the deal on the pretence of Iran not abiding by it's mandate.
Click to expand...
Newsflash...Iran is NOT abiding by the crappy deal.
 
Chomsky said:
Hah!

I'm usually not too much into CT, but this one is pretty interesting.

Though I would suggest if it did occur, it was generated somewhere in the military, perhaps in even a self-serving manner (to promote or expand hostilities if the deal could be rescinded).

Yours is an interesting & creative take on this.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply Chomsky. It's hard to break into the conversation on a forum as a newcomer for the first day or so. I have no idea who would be behind the conspiracy to destroy the deal but the scenario seems to be the most plausible. The speed with which Kerry set matters right even before the Obama speech was an indication that the speech was a part of it and the disruption was timed.

I think there is little doubt that the deal is hugely unpopular in the US because of the fear factor that has been generated by those opposing Obama. The only factor that could come into play to save the deal would be the end of the Obama term and the hate factor against Obama diminishing. However, I would still see it as doomed.

Obama's admin has been largely responsible for the US signing on to the deal with Iran and had it been another president, I think it's most likely that the US would have not become a part of the negotiation along with the other countries. That would have in my opinion stopped the deal.

As for the side issue of Syria, Putin's initiative saved Syria from the PNAC planned US war against Syria. It could not have succeeded had Obama not willingly signed onto Putin's initiative. Some will even say that Obama's red line speech completely set the stage for Putin. It could have been planned by Putin and Obama in concert! When Assad agreed to the proposition of destroying his chem/bio weapons, that made it virtually impossible for the US to pursue war with Assad.

As for Assad's chem/bio weapons, we can assume that he was gleefully anxious to fulfill the demand as those weapons are very overrated by the US for the purpose of demonizing Assad with the WMD's claim. Again!

Your comments?
 
j-mac said:
Newsflash...Iran is NOT abiding by the crappy deal.
Click to expand...

True or not, I would expect to hear that over and over again from nearly all of government in the US. In the interest of making it a part of the discussion it would be helpful to hear some evidence to support the claim?

In my opinion, Obama is almost standing alone in support of the agreement holding. Other countries are nearly all onside with success also.

If the deal is to be destroyed then the US will need to act alone in doing it and the US will have to build credibility for itself in order to do it. If not then it puts Russia and China in positions of strength with their nuclear deterrent threat to the US on behalf of both Iran and Syria. The world is going to be asking for substantial proof before abandoning the deal to satisfy US demands.

That's my opinion but I'm interested in hearing yours.
 
Chainsaw said:
" thanks for the 'swift' release" , says Mr Swift Boater. I love irony.


I am just glad Obama didn't offer to trade a Carrier Battle Group for the 10 brave men and women. As soon as I heard it, I expected O to trade the rest of the ISLAMIC terrorist scum bags in Gitmo
Click to expand...

What a shame! This forum doesn't disallow that kind of spamming either. Oh well, there's no harm in trying it out for a while to see if it can be fixed a little.
 
iguanaman said:
Why is that? Trump would have gone to war over the "incident"? LOL Trump is fooling you.
Click to expand...


I don't know about Trump (Cruz would have probably 'carpet bombed' them), but Screwy Louie sure jumped up and down.


While the White House was saying....


“We’ve received assurances from the Iranians both that our sailors are safe, that they’re being sort of afforded the proper courtesy that you would expect,” Earnest told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “We’ve also, most importantly, received assurances that they will be allowed to continue their journey promptly.”


Screwy Louie was saying this....


Rep. Louie Gohmert was on Dana Loesch's television program saying "we should demand that Iran let these people go, our Navy men or women, whatever they are, let them go or we're going to start taking your ships out one at a time."




I like the "whatever they are" comment and east Texas keeps electing this mouth foaming fool time after time.
 
Chainsaw said:
" thanks for the 'swift' release" , says Mr Swift Boater. I love irony.


I am just glad Obama didn't offer to trade a Carrier Battle Group for the 10 brave men and women. As soon as I heard it, I expected O to trade the rest of the ISLAMIC terrorist scum bags in Gitmo
Click to expand...

Must have been a very disappointing day for you.
 
monty of ll said:
True or not, I would expect to hear that over and over again from nearly all of government in the US. In the interest of making it a part of the discussion it would be helpful to hear some evidence to support the claim?

In my opinion, Obama is almost standing alone in support of the agreement holding. Other countries are nearly all onside with success also.

If the deal is to be destroyed then the US will need to act alone in doing it and the US will have to build credibility for itself in order to do it. If not then it puts Russia and China in positions of strength with their nuclear deterrent threat to the US on behalf of both Iran and Syria. The world is going to be asking for substantial proof before abandoning the deal to satisfy US demands.

That's my opinion but I'm interested in hearing yours.
Click to expand...

Iran fired ballistic missiles in direct violation of the deal less than 1500 meters from a US Navy Carrier....Nothing, they said, could infringe on their fundamental right to build a “defensive technology,” intended to counter Saudi Arabia and Israel.

After firing the missile they told the NYTimes:

"Nothing, they said, could infringe on their fundamental right to build a “defensive technology,” intended to counter Saudi Arabia and Israel."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/world/middleeast/iran-strait-of-hormuz-rockets.html?_r=0

Then Iran took 10 Sailors during the SotU, and Obama mentions nothing about it in a clear act of deference IMHO...

"Washington (CNN)Despite 10 American sailors being in Iranian custody, President Barack Obama stuck to his State of the Union script Tuesday night and made no mention of the incident, instead touting his nuclear deal with Tehran."

10 U.S. sailors in Iranian custody - CNNPolitics.com

Iran during this incident, released video of the captured soldiers in a submissive position in violation of the GC, and we apologize? Oh but, we are the strong ones eh?

pfft! :roll:

You say you'd "expect to hear this over, and over again from the administration" well, you're not going to....When have you ever heard from this collection of tards that they screwed up?

No, they'll continue to tout the POS deal as a great success, kiss the Iranian's arse, and hope like hell they can get out in a year leaving the whole mess to the next administration without too much embarrassment...And the bottom line is that this deal acknowledges that Iran will have a Nuke in 10 to 15 years. So, much like how Clinton paved the way for NK to get their Nukes, Obama's deal makes it possible, in fact probable that Iran will have a Nuke also, but that's ok right, because by then Obama will be out, and lying, disgusting libs can blame it on what ever repubs are in power at the time....


The ME is a mess, and this administration owns that **** sandwich....
 
Chainsaw said:
" thanks for the 'swift' release" , says Mr Swift Boater. I love irony.


I am just glad Obama didn't offer to trade a Carrier Battle Group for the 10 brave men and women. As soon as I heard it, I expected O to trade the rest of the ISLAMIC terrorist scum bags in Gitmo
Click to expand...

There was a Seinfeld where Kramer had a lawsuit against a coffee shop. They decided to offer him free coffee and $50k. When they offered, he said, "I'll take it" right after the free coffee part, before they could even offer the $50k.

I'm sure Obama was getting ready to release more terrorists and who knows what when they released our guys. He's pretty much the worst negotiator ever, at least for our side.
 
Oh yeah. A super BIG thanks to those dear Iranian friends...

1119961-capture-ecran-media-iranien-montre.jpg
 
Simpleχity;1065462495 said:
Oh yeah. A super BIG thanks to those dear Iranian friends...

1119961-capture-ecran-media-iranien-montre.jpg
Click to expand...

We can thank the administration for what looks like our Navy being captured by individuals on a bass boat.
 
Well it is good to see our soldiers released and unharmed.:thumbs:

There is no comparison of this event and the Iran hostage situation in 1979.

Iran had every right to detain our sailors in their waters. Had an Iranian war ship entered our waters we would have done the same to say the least. It is good that cooler heads prevailed. If this was a simple navigation error or break down allowing our ship to drift into their waters the situation was handled correctly by both nations.

Obama should have acknowledged the situation in the State of the Union even if no details could be released because of ongoing talks. He could at least have said this is a priority and being worked on at this time.:Oopsie
 
j-mac said:
Iran fired ballistic missiles in direct violation of the deal less than 1500 meters from a US Navy Carrier....Nothing, they said, could infringe on their fundamental right to build a “defensive technology,” intended to counter Saudi Arabia and Israel.

After firing the missile they told the NYTimes:

"Nothing, they said, could infringe on their fundamental right to build a “defensive technology,” intended to counter Saudi Arabia and Israel."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/world/middleeast/iran-strait-of-hormuz-rockets.html?_r=0

Then Iran took 10 Sailors during the SotU, and Obama mentions nothing about it in a clear act of deference IMHO...

"Washington (CNN)Despite 10 American sailors being in Iranian custody, President Barack Obama stuck to his State of the Union script Tuesday night and made no mention of the incident, instead touting his nuclear deal with Tehran."

10 U.S. sailors in Iranian custody - CNNPolitics.com

Iran during this incident, released video of the captured soldiers in a submissive position in violation of the GC, and we apologize? Oh but, we are the strong ones eh?

pfft! :roll:

You say you'd "expect to hear this over, and over again from the administration" well, you're not going to....When have you ever heard from this collection of tards that they screwed up?

No, they'll continue to tout the POS deal as a great success, kiss the Iranian's arse, and hope like hell they can get out in a year leaving the whole mess to the next administration without too much embarrassment...And the bottom line is that this deal acknowledges that Iran will have a Nuke in 10 to 15 years. So, much like how Clinton paved the way for NK to get their Nukes, Obama's deal makes it possible, in fact probable that Iran will have a Nuke also, but that's ok right, because by then Obama will be out, and lying, disgusting libs can blame it on what ever repubs are in power at the time....


The ME is a mess, and this administration owns that **** sandwich....
Click to expand...

Iran firing the missile next to the US ship wasn't a violation of anything. In fact it's quite possible that the US ship moved to within that distance while Iran was conducting operations. Can you fin out for sure? And of course Iran has a right to defend themselves against Saudi, the apartheid state, or any other country. The pictures would have been regrettable if the US hadn't violated international law time and time again. That includes a phony war against Iraq slaughtering a million people for phony reasons of WMD's that didn't exist.

As I've said before, Obama signed on to the proposed deal with Iran, along with Russia and other countries. I would agree with you that Obama has chopped the legs right out from under his country by helping to finalize the deal. I also consider that Obama snookered the US hawks by working with Putin on his deal to prevent a US led war on Syria. The rest of the world see both of these agreements as accomplishments toward peace but I understand that the US doesn't. I think that Obama has succeeded in legitimizing the Russian's now being able to stand up in defence of both with their nuclear deterrent to US led wars as planned with the PNAC.

Because of the Russian deterrent to US led wars, neither Iran or Syria need nuclear weapons to protect themselves and thus won't seek them. That would give the US the justification it seeks for war. That would be stupid on the part of Iran. In order to understand this, just consider that the apartheid regime doesn't need them either when it is safely under the US nuclear umbrella.

The ME isn't a mess. It hasn't looked better in many years because of the fact that Obama was instrumental in legitimizing Russia to stand up and protect both Iran and Syria. However, I can understand how you and your fellow Americans would see that as a mess.

Iran has stopped it's programs to obtain nuclear weapons, if in fact it ever had one. For that reason Iran can legally test any missiles it chooses. The UNSC resolution states it for you. Perhaps you would care to read it?
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Well it is good to see our soldiers released and unharmed.:thumbs:

There is no comparison of this event and the Iran hostage situation in 1979.

Iran had every right to detain our sailors in their waters. Had an Iranian war ship entered our waters we would have done the same to say the least. It is good that cooler heads prevailed. If this was a simple navigation error or break down allowing our ship to drift into their waters the situation was handled correctly by both nations.

Obama should have acknowledged the situation in the State of the Union even if no details could be released because of ongoing talks. He could at least have said this is a priority and being worked on at this time.:Oopsie
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right and regardless of the hypocrisy and arrogance being displayed by many Americans, appearances for the rest of the world is all that matters. About the only other thing that matters is that both Iran and Syria are safely under the protection of both Russia's and China's nuclear umbrella. The US is not going to be able to manufacture justification for ME wars anymore, as was done for the Iraq war. Solid proof will be required and unanimous agreement at the UNSC too. That will be quite impossible now. It's no wonder people like j-mac are having their periods early over it! Obama has really done it this time!
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Well it is good to see our soldiers released and unharmed.:thumbs:

There is no comparison of this event and the Iran hostage situation in 1979.

Iran had every right to detain our sailors in their waters. Had an Iranian war ship entered our waters we would have done the same to say the least. It is good that cooler heads prevailed. If this was a simple navigation error or break down allowing our ship to drift into their waters the situation was handled correctly by both nations.

Obama should have acknowledged the situation in the State of the Union even if no details could be released because of ongoing talks. He could at least have said this is a priority and being worked on at this time.:Oopsie
Click to expand...

Nice to see such honesty.
 
monty of ll said:
You're absolutely right and regardless of the hypocrisy and arrogance being displayed by many Americans, appearances for the rest of the world is all that matters. About the only other thing that matters is that both Iran and Syria are safely under the protection of both Russia's and China's nuclear umbrella. The US is not going to be able to manufacture justification for ME wars anymore, as was done for the Iraq war. Solid proof will be required and unanimous agreement at the UNSC too. That will be quite impossible now. It's no wonder people like j-mac are having their periods early over it! Obama has really done it this time!
Click to expand...

Not sure what the bolded means. But yes, Russia and China are pushing back against US aggression and both have criticized the US led uni-polar world as a danger to global security. This has every potential for being a good thing.
 
monty of ll said:
Iran firing the missile next to the US ship wasn't a violation of anything. In fact it's quite possible that the US ship moved to within that distance while Iran was conducting operations. Can you fin out for sure? And of course Iran has a right to defend themselves against Saudi, the apartheid state, or any other country. The pictures would have been regrettable if the US hadn't violated international law time and time again. That includes a phony war against Iraq slaughtering a million people for phony reasons of WMD's that didn't exist.

As I've said before, Obama signed on to the proposed deal with Iran, along with Russia and other countries. I would agree with you that Obama has chopped the legs right out from under his country by helping to finalize the deal. I also consider that Obama snookered the US hawks by working with Putin on his deal to prevent a US led war on Syria. The rest of the world see both of these agreements as accomplishments toward peace but I understand that the US doesn't. I think that Obama has succeeded in legitimizing the Russian's now being able to stand up in defence of both with their nuclear deterrent to US led wars as planned with the PNAC.

Because of the Russian deterrent to US led wars, neither Iran or Syria need nuclear weapons to protect themselves and thus won't seek them. That would give the US the justification it seeks for war. That would be stupid on the part of Iran. In order to understand this, just consider that the apartheid regime doesn't need them either when it is safely under the US nuclear umbrella.

The ME isn't a mess. It hasn't looked better in many years because of the fact that Obama was instrumental in legitimizing Russia to stand up and protect both Iran and Syria. However, I can understand how you and your fellow Americans would see that as a mess.

Iran has stopped it's programs to obtain nuclear weapons, if in fact it ever had one. For that reason Iran can legally test any missiles it chooses. The UNSC resolution states it for you. Perhaps you would care to read it?
Click to expand...

Obama wanted, sought vigorously to wage a US led war with Syria. He snookered no one.
 
Montecresto said:
Obama wanted, sought vigorously to wage a US led war with Syria. He snookered no one.
Click to expand...

Well consider this: Obama's presented his red line speech. Putin very quickly presented his initiative that would order Assad to destroy his chem/bio weapons. Assad immediately agreed, thereby defusing any justification the US had for war on Syria.

That's what happened but it's arguable how it was all engineered. In any case, any other president would have likely refused to be a part of Putin's peace initiative by employing negative propaganda against Putin and Russia. Some Americans would definitely see Obama as a traitor to his country for that. But they have to be careful of proclaiming that because of what it implies. Get it?

Fwiw, my opinion is that Putin and Obama engineered the deal together after Putin has made the arrangement in secrecy with Assad. I say that because of the obvious stance of Obama's admin on the Iran deal while nearly the entire US was screaming bloody murder for him to stop. No matter how much some Americans hate Obama, I think they have to accept facts on the ground and the obvious outcome.

If you have an alternative explanation for the success on both Syria and Iran then I would like to hear it.

Fwiw, some argue that peace hasn't come to Syria. I disagree in that a US led war is no longer likely or would even be seen as legitimate now. The status quo could go either way with Assad, that is granted, but it is likely going to be a meeting of Russia's interests in a new government after Assad that is sympathetic to Russia and China's interests.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Well it is good to see our soldiers released and unharmed.:thumbs:

There is no comparison of this event and the Iran hostage situation in 1979.

Iran had every right to detain our sailors in their waters. Had an Iranian war ship entered our waters we would have done the same to say the least. It is good that cooler heads prevailed. If this was a simple navigation error or break down allowing our ship to drift into their waters the situation was handled correctly by both nations.

Obama should have acknowledged the situation in the State of the Union even if no details could be released because of ongoing talks. He could at least have said this is a priority and being worked on at this time.:Oopsie
Click to expand...

The most likely reason Obama didn't mention it at the SOTU was that he was being set up by the hawks. The timing was perfect and mot understood how it could have worked against him if he mentioned anything about the successful nuclear deal. He handled it the only way he could.
 
Anthony60 said:
There was a Seinfeld where Kramer had a lawsuit against a coffee shop. They decided to offer him free coffee and $50k. When they offered, he said, "I'll take it" right after the free coffee part, before they could even offer the $50k.

I'm sure Obama was getting ready to release more terrorists and who knows what when they released our guys. He's pretty much the worst negotiator ever, at least for our side.
Click to expand...

ReverendHellh0und said:
Iran violated the geneva convention

John traitor kerry thanks them. smh
Click to expand...

j-mac said:
Iran fired ballistic missiles in direct violation of the deal less than 1500 meters from a US Navy Carrier....Nothing, they said, could infringe on their fundamental right to build a “defensive technology,” intended to counter Saudi Arabia and Israel.

After firing the missile they told the NYTimes:

"Nothing, they said, could infringe on their fundamental right to build a “defensive technology,” intended to counter Saudi Arabia and Israel."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/world/middleeast/iran-strait-of-hormuz-rockets.html?_r=0

Then Iran took 10 Sailors during the SotU, and Obama mentions nothing about it in a clear act of deference IMHO...

"Washington (CNN)Despite 10 American sailors being in Iranian custody, President Barack Obama stuck to his State of the Union script Tuesday night and made no mention of the incident, instead touting his nuclear deal with Tehran."

10 U.S. sailors in Iranian custody - CNNPolitics.com

Iran during this incident, released video of the captured soldiers in a submissive position in violation of the GC, and we apologize? Oh but, we are the strong ones eh?

pfft! :roll:

You say you'd "expect to hear this over, and over again from the administration" well, you're not going to....When have you ever heard from this collection of tards that they screwed up?

No, they'll continue to tout the POS deal as a great success, kiss the Iranian's arse, and hope like hell they can get out in a year leaving the whole mess to the next administration without too much embarrassment...And the bottom line is that this deal acknowledges that Iran will have a Nuke in 10 to 15 years. So, much like how Clinton paved the way for NK to get their Nukes, Obama's deal makes it possible, in fact probable that Iran will have a Nuke also, but that's ok right, because by then Obama will be out, and lying, disgusting libs can blame it on what ever repubs are in power at the time....


The ME is a mess, and this administration owns that **** sandwich....
Click to expand...

Chainsaw said:
" thanks for the 'swift' release" , says Mr Swift Boater. I love irony.


I am just glad Obama didn't offer to trade a Carrier Battle Group for the 10 brave men and women. As soon as I heard it, I expected O to trade the rest of the ISLAMIC terrorist scum bags in Gitmo
Click to expand...

You all seem bothered by the fact that this didn't end the way your politics wanted.
 
As someone who served many years in the U.S. military, I can say it was extremely embarrassing to see our G.I.s having to bow to a 3rd world terrorist country like that. I think it makes the U.S. look pitiful at a time we desperately need respect. I talk to U.S. military members frequently who say they don't have the pride they once had. Guess who they thank for it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom