• 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!

Iran releases new photos of U.S. sailors crying

truthatallcost said:
Its OK, because Obama will secure Trumps victory, who I will be voting for. Then you can start saying "omg impeach Trump!" on DP. Lmao.
Click to expand...
Side wager on that
Trump wins I take a sabbatical.
Anyone else wins, you take a longer sabbatical.
Game on?
 
JANFU said:
Respected or feared?
Click to expand...

Given a choice, respected. But feared works OK too. I guess it depends on who's either respecting or fearing the US.

I really don't give a **** if militant Islamic terrorists fear the US or not. Allies I'd much rather have them respect the US.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Once you've been captured by an enemy force, you then will have the credentials required to either condemn or affirm the actions of these young men under such stress.
Click to expand...

I normally disagree with this guy, but yeah, basically that.

I find it in extremely poor taste to criticize people for their actions in situations in which the person doing the criticizing has never been in. Like Ben Carson's disgusting remarks about how he would have sacrificed his life and charged at an active gunman instead of trying to hide under his desk.




You just don't know what you'll do in an emergency unless you've been in that particular type of emergency.
 
eohrnberger said:
I thought were was some sort of international agreement or treaty or something that prevented captured soldiers from being paraded around as propaganda material.
Click to expand...

You actually expect Iran to recognize treaties with "death to America"?

If there is one serous mistake Obama has made it is with the Iranians. We know them. Iran is the only country on the face of the earth who has ever entered a cold war with Canada. They are the only people to whom we have abandoned Canadian principles and said "**** off."

Weeks before the attack on Benghazi station, Canada began warning of attacks run out of Iran, and right after that Canada withdrew its entire diplomatic staff and kicked out Iranian diplomats from Canada.

Meanwhile, Obama has gotten cozier and cozier and now Americans get to see pictures of their fighting men and women crying in an Iranian prison. Iran is a rogue state, we shouldn't even be trading with them.
 
Fearandloathing said:
You actually expect Iran to recognize treaties with "death to America"?

If there is one serous mistake Obama has made it is with the Iranians. We know them. Iran is the only country on the face of the earth who has ever entered a cold war with Canada. They are the only people to whom we have abandoned Canadian principles and said "**** off."

Weeks before the attack on Benghazi station, Canada began warning of attacks run out of Iran, and right after that Canada withdrew its entire diplomatic staff and kicked out Iranian diplomats from Canada.

Meanwhile, Obama has gotten cozier and cozier and now Americans get to see pictures of their fighting men and women crying in an Iranian prison. Iran is a rogue state, we shouldn't even be trading with them.
Click to expand...

No. Not really. Guess I have more wisdom to me than Obama and Kerry do.

Agreed. The previous sanctions regime should have remained in place until compliance to disband their nuclear program. Period. Caving in, such as Obama and Kerry have done, is little more than waving a red cape in front of a bull, and it's this kinda **** that's going to result. Mark my words, there'll be more of this kinda of **** between now and a year from now.
 
eohrnberger said:
No. Not really. Guess I have more wisdom to me than Obama and Kerry do.

Agreed. The previous sanctions regime should have remained in place until compliance to disband their nuclear program. Period. Caving in, such as Obama and Kerry have done, is little more than waving a red cape in front of a bull, and it's this kinda **** that's going to result. Mark my words, there'll be more of this kinda of **** between now and a year from now.
Click to expand...

What. You myopic "conservatives" fail to understand is that every one else in the world wanted this deal done. It was the best we could do. Our allies would have started doing business with them if we walked away and it's not like we would boycott them. Also much of the frozen assets were in European countries. Besides a nuclear armed Iran will be a nice counter weight to Israel.
 
The US took Turkey's side in saying the Russians should be severely punished for spending 17 seconds in Turkish airspace without permission.

Goodness, if the Iranians had responded in a similar manner to our sailors transgression we would have started WWIII over that.

What would be nice to know is what REALLY happened, what the mission was, for those 2 boats.
 
Soho gator said:
What. You myopic "conservatives" fail to understand is that every one else in the world wanted this deal done. It was the best we could do. Our allies would have started doing business with them if we walked away and it's not like we would boycott them. Also much of the frozen assets were in European countries. Besides a nuclear armed Iran will be a nice counter weight to Israel.
Click to expand...

Make a deal with the up and coming regional Sunni power while in the middle of Iraq, in a majority Shia was the best deal we could get? You still don't get it, do you.

It would have been better to not make a deal, to have not made a deal with the other major Islamic sect. It pretty much puts us in the middle between the two in the middle of both of their cross hairs.

Better to have not made a deal, as now the long ally of Saudia Arabia doesn't trust us, as they too are against the Sunnis.

This deal is a loser on both those fronts, not to mention is showing weakness, not to mention is also unverifiable and unenforceable, proof being what sanctions on Iran after they launched their missiles? Snap back what?

And what thanks do the Iranians pay us back with? Sailors used as propaganda, questionable behavior according to international treaty.

No, it would have been better to have not made a deal with Iran.

Supporting this deal you are supporting the prostration of the US before Iran.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The US took Turkey's side in saying the Russians should be severely punished for spending 17 seconds in Turkish airspace without permission.

Goodness, if the Iranians had responded in a similar manner to our sailors transgression we would have started WWIII over that.

What would be nice to know is what REALLY happened, what the mission was, for those 2 boats.
Click to expand...

Possibly to provide Iran with an intelligence windfall?
 
Thoreau72 said:
The US took Turkey's side in saying the Russians should be severely punished for spending 17 seconds in Turkish airspace without permission.

Goodness, if the Iranians had responded in a similar manner to our sailors transgression we would have started WWIII over that.

What would be nice to know is what REALLY happened, what the mission was, for those 2 boats.
Click to expand...

Yeah they didn't go 50 miles off course by accident. I'd ask my ex seal friend but he works at CENTCOM and is very tight lipped even if it would just be speculation. We can assume that they were conducting a military operation in Iranian territory though.
 
eohrnberger said:
Possibly to provide Iran with an intelligence windfall?
Click to expand...

My goodness, you're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist! ;)

I doubt much that the USN sent them there to be captured, but I cannot help but wonder if perhaps the same electronics the Russians used on the Navy destroyer in the Black Sea last year was employed by the Iranians?
 
eohrnberger said:
Make a deal with the up and coming regional Sunni power while in the middle of Iraq, in a majority Shia was the best deal we could get? You still don't get it, do you.

It would have been better to not make a deal, to have not made a deal with the other major Islamic sect. It pretty much puts us in the middle between the two in the middle of both of their cross hairs.

Better to have not made a deal, as now the long ally of Saudia Arabia doesn't trust us, as they too are against the Sunnis.

This deal is a loser on both those fronts, not to mention is showing weakness, not to mention is also unverifiable and unenforceable, proof being what sanctions on Iran after they launched their missiles? Snap back what?

And what thanks do the Iranians pay us back with? Sailors used as propaganda, questionable behavior according to international treaty.

No, it would have been better to have not made a deal with Iran.

Supporting this deal you are supporting the prostration of the US before Iran.
Click to expand...

What Sunni power in Iraq? ISIS?

As for the deal. It was a five party deal. If we walked away France Germany England Russia China the rest of the EU would have embraced Iran and given them their money back. Just days after the deal Air Bus signed a deal to sell them 25 new passenger jets. Wake up Umerica!!

As for SA they facilitate 9/11 **** them
 
Last edited:
Soho gator said:
What Sunni power in Iraq? ISIS?

As for the deal. It was a five party deal. If we walked away France Germany England Russia China the rest of the EU would have embraced Iran and given them their money back. Just days after the deal Air Bus signed a deal to sell them 25 new passenger jets. Wake up Umerica!!
Click to expand...

Oh, so it's all about the money with you then. OK, but as the ME continued to blow up, spill over into places like, say France, I sure hope you enjoy your money.
 
Soho gator said:
What Sunni power in Iraq? ISIS?

As for the deal. It was a five party deal. If we walked away France Germany England Russia China the rest of the EU would have embraced Iran and given them their money back. Just days after the deal Air Bus signed a deal to sell them 25 new passenger jets. Wake up Umerica!!

As for SA they facilitate 9/11 **** them
Click to expand...

Oh and after Operation AJAX we should prostate ourselves.
 
eohrnberger said:
Oh, so it's all about the money with you then. OK, but as the ME continued to blow up, spill over into places like, say France, I sure hope you enjoy your money.
Click to expand...

you are incoherent. How am I making any money on this deal. Lower gas prices?
 
Beaudreaux said:
Once you've been captured by an enemy force, you then will have the credentials required to either condemn or affirm the actions of these young men under such stress. Unless they broke the Code of Conduct, which it doesn't appear that they did, then they should not be condemned or made to look less than what they are - Members of the US Military that have been captured by an aggressive enemy force that deserve our complete support and understanding.



The Geneva Conventions forbids the use of video or pictures of prisoners of war to be used for propaganda purposes - Article 13 of the third Geneva Convention says PoWs must be humanely treated and "protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity". Which they signed and agreed to on 12/08/1949, 02/20/1957, 02/20/1957, and 09/12/2000.
Click to expand...

We are not at war with Iran and those marines were not POW's. They do appear to be a bit emotional but why is that so bad?
 
Fearandloathing said:
You actually expect Iran to recognize treaties with "death to America"?

If there is one serous mistake Obama has made it is with the Iranians. We know them. Iran is the only country on the face of the earth who has ever entered a cold war with Canada. They are the only people to whom we have abandoned Canadian principles and said "**** off."

Weeks before the attack on Benghazi station, Canada began warning of attacks run out of Iran, and right after that Canada withdrew its entire diplomatic staff and kicked out Iranian diplomats from Canada.

Meanwhile, Obama has gotten cozier and cozier and now Americans get to see pictures of their fighting men and women crying in an Iranian prison. Iran is a rogue state, we shouldn't even be trading with them.
Click to expand...

1) he shouldn't have been crying they were treated well and given decent accommodations and a nice meal
2) They shouldn't have been conducting military operation in Iranian waters
 
Soho gator said:
What Sunni power in Iraq? ISIS?

As for the deal. It was a five party deal. If we walked away France Germany England Russia China the rest of the EU would have embraced Iran and given them their money back. Just days after the deal Air Bus signed a deal to sell them 25 new passenger jets. Wake up Umerica!!

As for SA they facilitate 9/11 **** them
Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:
Oh, so it's all about the money with you then. OK, but as the ME continued to blow up, spill over into places like, say France, I sure hope you enjoy your money.
Click to expand...

Soho gator said:
you are incoherent. How am I making any money on this deal. Lower gas prices?
Click to expand...

You are saying that if the US walked away from the deal, that France, Germany, England, Russia, China the rest of the EU would jump in and make business deals, and enrich themselves. Right? So it's about the money then. Except, I'm not seeing any big business deals between the US and Iran. So this deal is a benefit to the US how, exactly? Oh, right. It isn't of any benefit at all. Typical Obama / Kerry deal then. Just like Cuba. No benefit there either.

It doesn't take a mental giant to know and understand that as soon as you show a crack in the wall, the wall will come tumbling down. It would have been better to have not even started the talks with Iran, or at least a precondition to even starting talks would need to be the verified disbanding of the Iran nuclear program.

It certainly looks like the US is under greater threat, greater danger, with this deal, than the US would have been without it. How is it justifiable to place the nation in greater danger just so that a president can claim a foreign policy victory for his legacy?

Operation AJAX? Come join us in this 21st century. That was a long, long time ago.
 
iguanaman said:
We are not at war with Iran and those marines were not POW's. They do appear to be a bit emotional but why is that so bad?
Click to expand...

Iran has been officially a belligerent of the United States of America since they invaded US territory (our embassy) on November 4th, 1979.

The Geneva and Hague Conventions cover belligerents, and official declarations of war by the belligerents are not required for belligerents that are also signatories to the Conventions to be bound by them.
 
eohrnberger said:
You are saying that if the US walked away from the deal, that France, Germany, England, Russia, China the rest of the EU would jump in and make business deals, and enrich themselves. Right? So it's about the money then. Except, I'm not seeing any big business deals between the US and Iran. So this deal is a benefit to the US how, exactly? Oh, right. It isn't of any benefit at all. Typical Obama / Kerry deal then. Just like Cuba. No benefit there either.

It doesn't take a mental giant to know and understand that as soon as you show a crack in the wall, the wall will come tumbling down. It would have been better to have not even started the talks with Iran, or at least a precondition to even starting talks would need to be the verified disbanding of the Iran nuclear program.

It certainly looks like the US is under greater threat, greater danger, with this deal, than the US would have been without it. How is it justifiable to place the nation in greater danger just so that a president can claim a foreign policy victory for his legacy?

Operation AJAX? Come join us in this 21st century. That was a long, long time ago.
Click to expand...



They already have. I just saw an item about oil Iran and Germany.

I suspect deals with the US will take longer, as the US can offer technology and arms in the sale end, and doesn't need Iran oil. So, for the military industrial complex there may be some benefit.

I said all along this was more about Obama's "legacy" than about what's good for the nation.
 
eohrnberger said:
You are saying that if the US walked away from the deal, that France, Germany, England, Russia, China the rest of the EU would jump in and make business deals, and enrich themselves. Right? So it's about the money then. Except, I'm not seeing any big business deals between the US and Iran. So this deal is a benefit to the US how, exactly? Oh, right. It isn't of any benefit at all. Typical Obama / Kerry deal then. Just like Cuba. No benefit there either.

It doesn't take a mental giant to know and understand that as soon as you show a crack in the wall, the wall will come tumbling down. It would have been better to have not even started the talks with Iran, or at least a precondition to even starting talks would need to be the verified disbanding of the Iran nuclear program.

It certainly looks like the US is under greater threat, greater danger, with this deal, than the US would have been without it. How is it justifiable to place the nation in greater danger just so that a president can claim a foreign policy victory for his legacy?

Operation AJAX? Come join us in this 21st century. That was a long, long time ago.
Click to expand...

I) AJAX gave us modern day Iran
2) So what if we aren't making any money from this
3) IT DOESN'T MATTER IF WE WALKED AWAY FROM THIS DEAL OR NOT
4) Eventually Iran will be a nice counterweight to a nuclear armed Israel
 
Beaudreaux said:
Iran has been officially a belligerent of the United States of America since they invaded US territory (our embassy) on November 4th, 1979.

The Geneva and Hague Conventions cover belligerents, and official declarations of war by the belligerents are not required for belligerents that are also signatories to the Conventions to be bound by them.
Click to expand...

Not that it has anything to do with the current thread, but even if it doesn't fit the official international definition of a "belligerent", what about our actions in installing the Shah, which actions ultimately ended up leading to the Iranian revolution?

As with quite a lot of the ME's current problems, we or some other European country set the stage by poking the area with a pointy stick.
 
Mr Person said:
Not that it has anything to do with the current thread, but even if it doesn't fit the official international definition of a "belligerent", what about our actions in installing the Shah, which actions ultimately ended up leading to the Iranian revolution?

As with quite a lot of the ME's current problems, we or some other European country set the stage by poking the area with a pointy stick.
Click to expand...

See my post immediately above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom