Iran criticizes Obama, calls on U.S. to scrap nuclear arms

BulletWounD said:

If they use nuclear weapons first, that's a first strike regardless of the circumstances and they would get nuked into oblivion.

Click to expand...

Thats not what I am suggesting.... let me try it this way:

1 us gets attacked (9/11)
2. Bush declares Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil"
3. we briefly enter Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden
4. then we enter Iraq selling the notion of Iraq being in possession of WMD's
5. After not finding any we decide to stay.... Much of the world could construe this as the US simply trying to manufacture reasons to enter and invade a country who's regime we have designated as evil
6. NK and Iran realize they cannot really defend against a US invasion they need a reliable deterrant..... they jump start a relitively dusty nuclear arms program....


I dunno..... seems to me to be a relitively logical progression especially once you consider the fact that we basically refused to talk to either of these nations at this particular point in time besides sending relatively threatening press releases their way

Thinkforyourself said:

Thats not what I am suggesting.... let me try it this way:

1 us gets attacked (9/11)
2. Bush declares Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil"
3. we briefly enter Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden
4. then we enter Iraq selling the notion of Iraq being in possession of WMD's
5. After not finding any we decide to stay.... Much of the world could construe this as the US simply trying to manufacture reasons to enter and invade a country who's regime we have designated as evil
6. NK and Iran realize they cannot really defend against a US invasion they need a reliable deterrant..... they jump start a relitively dusty nuclear arms program....


I dunno..... seems to me to be a relitively logical progression especially once you consider the fact that we basically refused to talk to either of these nations at this particular point in time besides sending relatively threatening press releases their way

Click to expand...

The regimes Iraq, Iran, and North Korea certainly ARE(/were) evil regimes. Whether they constitute an "axis" is another question. Iran and North Korea have worked extensively together in the construction of their nuclear programs. Without a doubt, Sadam, who had already attempted to build a nuclear program of his own, would have joined in. The nuclear programs of North Korea, Iran, and Iraq came BEFORE 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan not because of it.

BulletWounD said:

The regimes Iraq, Iran, and North Korea certainly ARE(/were) evil regimes. Whether they constitute an "axis" is another question. Iran and North Korea have worked extensively together in the construction of their nuclear programs. Without a doubt, Sadam, who had already attempted to build a nuclear program of his own, would have joined in. The nuclear programs of North Korea, Iran, and Iraq came BEFORE 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan not because of it.

Click to expand...

Oh i have no doubt that they have had a nuclear arms program long before 9/11.... once again that isn't my argument. It just seems to me that while it is very clear that all three countries shared nuclear ambitions the war in Iraq and the general disdain by our previous administration for all three countries have seem to accelerate their development instead of the converse.

Lets assume that their nuclear program was going at just as much of a breakneck speed prior to 9/11. Lets also assume that our previous administration new this. The only logic to attacking Iraq under the guise of "We must protect America from enemies that are developing or have WMD's" would be to deter Iran and North Korea from continuing their nuclear weapon ambitions while consequently ridding ourselves of a thorn in our side (Saddam). If these assumptions are true then our actions had completely the opposite effect than intended as both countries (Iran and North Korea) are basically flipping us the proverbial bird in terms of halting their nuclear programs.


If either assumption or both are Incorrect and they were in fact either having a nuclear arms program that was basically progressing at a crawl or if the administration simply didn't know about them, then I think we both can agree that they picked up the pace after the Iraq invasion enough for the international community to take notice and start screaming bloody murder.

I'm just saying our actions do in fact have consequences and I think at times we turn a blind eye to the parts of the world that view us as bullies or imposing. Hell the entire United states has a conniption fit if they believe Obama is appearing weak with a bow or for apologizing for past US indiscretions for fear that some small terrorists sect might blow up another building or subway station...... How can you blame 2 relatively small countries for being afraid we might do to them what we did to Iraq and destroy their ENTIRE country. Particularly when we lumped them into the same pie as Iraq.

Thinkforyourself said:

Oh i have no doubt that they have had a nuclear arms program long before 9/11.... once again that isn't my argument. It just seems to me that while it is very clear that all three countries shared nuclear ambitions the war in Iraq and the general disdain by our previous administration for all three countries have seem to accelerate their development instead of the converse.

Click to expand...

All that I ask is that you not confuse cause and effect. Iran and Iraq were developing nuclear weapons probably to protect themselves against each other. The concern now is that they will be used by Iran to bring about the destruction of Israel, a long term goal of the Iranian regime. North Korea wants nuclear weapons because their long-term goal is to conquer the South by force. Both Israel and S. Korea share a commonality - they're allies of the United States.

Lets assume that their nuclear program was going at just as much of a breakneck speed prior to 9/11. Lets also assume that our previous administration new this. The only logic to attacking Iraq under the guise of "We must protect America from enemies that are developing or have WMD's" would be to deter Iran and North Korea from continuing their nuclear weapon ambitions while consequently ridding ourselves of a thorn in our side (Saddam). If these assumptions are true then our actions had completely the opposite effect than intended as both countries (Iran and North Korea) are basically flipping us the proverbial bird in terms of halting their nuclear programs.

This is to be expected

Click to expand...

Not really. In all likelihood they would have done the same thing anyway.

If either assumption or both are Incorrect and they were in fact either having a nuclear arms program that was basically progressing at a crawl or if the administration simply didn't know about them, then I think we both can agree that they picked up the pace after the Iraq invasion enough for the international community to take notice and start screaming bloody murder.

I'm just saying our actions do in fact have consequences and I think at times we turn a blind eye to the parts of the world that view us as bullies or imposing. Hell the entire United states has a conniption fit if they believe Obama is appearing weak with a bow or for apologizing for past US indiscretions for fear that some small terrorists sect might blow up another building or subway station...... How can you blame 2 relatively small countries for being afraid we might do to them what we did to Iraq and destroy their ENTIRE country. Particularly when we lumped them into the same pie as Iraq.

Click to expand...

Obama never specified what exactly he was apologizing for. It's kind of hard to take him seriously. We destroyed Iraq but now we're rebuilding it. Most nations would have just gone in, destroyed, and rolled out.

Do you have any evidence that they "picked up pace?'

BulletWounD said:

All that I ask is that you not confuse cause and effect. Iran and Iraq were developing nuclear weapons probably to protect themselves against each other. The concern now is that they will be used by Iran to bring about the destruction of Israel, a long term goal of the Iranian regime. North Korea wants nuclear weapons because their long-term goal is to conquer the South by force. Both Israel and S. Korea share a commonality - they're allies of the United States.

Click to expand...

Good point, one I cannot reasonably argue with, except I do not believe i was confusing cause and effect. But the validity of your statement holds true. And as of yet we have not created a foreign policy of first strike to defend allies so i will concede perhaps my jump to nuclear arms for a deterrence to US invasion and acknowledge the existence of other external stimuli to their determination to posses nukes. However I do not believe that nukes would be 1st strike weapons in either case or even that Iran or North Korea would use them as such. Iran would not nuke Israel as it is the Holy land and would pit the entirety of the Middle East (as well the rest of the world) against them for nothing more than mere spite but then again they did call to have Israel "Wiped off the face of the Earth". And as far as North Korea actually nuking South Korea as a means of reunification.... i dunno I find it hard to believe that NK would believe that the International community at large wouldn't also step in and take whatever steps they deemed necessary to defeat a regime willing to nuke its neighbor.

BulletWounD said:

Not really. In all likelihood they would have done the same thing anyway.

Click to expand...

possibly, or perhaps if the Bush administration was more open to negotiations things would have been different.... Unfortunately we will never know the answer to that one

BulletWounD said:

Obama never specified what exactly he was apologizing for. It's kind of hard to take him seriously. We destroyed Iraq but now we're rebuilding it. Most nations would have just gone in, destroyed, and rolled out.

Click to expand...

In essence I see your point but it smacks of empire building in my mind. But once again only time will tell if we ever truly let go of Iraq. But keep in mind my statement about people complaining about Obama's apologies wasn't really trying to tie them into this debate but simply to state that a good portion of the general public seem to be saying that because he may be construed as appearing weak that we should be afraid of these nations attacking us. And if the population of the most powerful nation in the world gets scared because we are appearing weak we are either A. not as powerful as we think we are and are beginning to recognize that fact or B. just have a general distaste for admitting wrongdoings and somehow find it distasteful.

BulletWounD said:

Do you have any evidence that they "picked up pace?'

Click to expand...

Only observation. The international community has in general kept a close watch on nuclear ambitions ever since the cold war. While I cannot claim any evidence that anything was particularly ramped up (beside quoting a myriad of articles that more or less just seem to be overly dramatic in order to sell news better) I do believe the relative silence regarding their nuclear ambition is evidence enough that at least before the invasion of Iraq the powers that be (in terms of a nuclear watchdog) were not really making a lot of noise re: Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions. I'm not saying it was non-existent.... just no where in the volume of news regarding that issue as we got after the invasion.

Thinkforyourself said:

Good point, one I cannot reasonably argue with, except I do not believe i was confusing cause and effect. But the validity of your statement holds true. And as of yet we have not created a foreign policy of first strike to defend allies so i will concede perhaps my jump to nuclear arms for a deterrence to US invasion and acknowledge the existence of other external stimuli to their determination to posses nukes. However I do not believe that nukes would be 1st strike weapons in either case or even that Iran or North Korea would use them as such. Iran would not nuke Israel as it is the Holy land and would pit the entirety of the Middle East (as well the rest of the world) against them for nothing more than mere spite but then again they did call to have Israel "Wiped off the face of the Earth". And as far as North Korea actually nuking South Korea as a means of reunification.... i dunno I find it hard to believe that NK would believe that the International community at large wouldn't also step in and take whatever steps they deemed necessary to defeat a regime willing to nuke its neighbor.

Click to expand...

Perhaps they would, perhaps they would not. However, they would definitely use them as leverage were they to go on a crusade invading their "infidel" neighbors. If Israel intervened because a Pan-Islamic nation which seeks to destroy Israel is not in their best interest, I have no reason to believe they would not be used against Israeli forces or states outside of Israel. Nor do I have any reason to believe that these weapons will not end up in the hands of terrorists or irresponsible regimes which seek the destruction of Israel and/or the United States.

possibly, or perhaps if the Bush administration was more open to negotiations things would have been different.... Unfortunately we will never know the answer to that one

Click to expand...

Negotiating with these regimes has been proven futile time and time again. How many more resolutions would need to be passed before someone decides to go in there and do something about it? How many more concessions will be made to North Korea before the international community realizes that they are liars, scammers, and terrorists?

In essence I see your point but it smacks of empire building in my mind. But once again only time will tell if we ever truly let go of Iraq. But keep in mind my statement about people complaining about Obama's apologies wasn't really trying to tie them into this debate but simply to state that a good portion of the general public seem to be saying that because he may be construed as appearing weak that we should be afraid of these nations attacking us. And if the population of the most powerful nation in the world gets scared because we are appearing weak we are either A. not as powerful as we think we are and are beginning to recognize that fact or B. just have a general distaste for admitting wrongdoings and somehow find it distasteful.

Click to expand...

We will let it go. What we're doing now can be likened to post-WWII Japan. We needed to help them rebuild themselves so that they would not see militant conquest as the only viable way of obtaining resources. Now Japan is an ally and a trade partner. That doesn't make them part of our "empire." The US gave up their imperialist experiment in the early 1900's.

Only observation. The international community has in general kept a close watch on nuclear ambitions ever since the cold war. While I cannot claim any evidence that anything was particularly ramped up (beside quoting a myriad of articles that more or less just seem to be overly dramatic in order to sell news better) I do believe the relative silence regarding their nuclear ambition is evidence enough that at least before the invasion of Iraq the powers that be (in terms of a nuclear watchdog) were not really making a lot of noise re: Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions. I'm not saying it was non-existent.... just no where in the volume of news regarding that issue as we got after the invasion.

Click to expand...

When India, and especially Pakistan, obtained nuclear weapons it was a clear signal to the international community that these weapons can lead to unforeseen consequences as they proliferate to weaker, less stable regimes. 9/11 showed us that non-state actors can indeed pose a major threat to the interests of the United States and the international community.

Gibberish said:

Obviously the "ignore that Iran exists" method held by the previous administration worked wonders for the ME situation.

Click to expand...

What an absurd statement considering the grief Leftists gave Bush over his CORRECT labeling Iran as part of the "axis of evil".

But then, it is pretty common for the Bush haters to ignore reality, attempt to re-write the historical record and avoid the truth isn't it? :roll:

WI Crippler said:

Is it just me, or is there something horribly backwards here?

"Hey, that guys got a gun and might start shooting people. C'mon guys, lets get rid of our guns."

Click to expand...

It is always refreshing to see someone who "gets it."

Thinkforyourself said:

Man, I think the general atmosphere of this thread is just plain insane. Mosre of why we as American REALLY need to change our own worldview.

Click to expand...

It is not a change we are seeing, just the ongoing circle of stupidity where we go from being a nation of strength to one who hands over it's sovereignty to the UN and world body.

How's that working with North Korea by the way? Oh that's right, China and Russia blocked any useful UN sanctions....again.

The notion that Obama's world view is an improvement on REAL leadership from the previous administration is quite amusing.

Thinkforyourself said:

Let me see if I get this straight... for decades we have been going to countries with nuclear arms and suggested they disarm themselves.... that fine right. But the minute someone else follows our lead and does the same thing they are insane?

Click to expand...

Once more you don't get it; we have been going to countries like Russia and China begging them to join us in dismantling ALL of our arsenals. Meanwhile rogue states like Iran and North Korea attempt to secretly develop them knowing a feckless world body called the UN will do little if nothing to prevent them.

Thinkforyourself said:

Don't get me wrong... there is no way we would disarm ourselves in the current political state of affairs in the world nor will we be able to for a good long time to come. But so far this is the first rational thing Iran has suggested in a long time.... Disarmament of nuclear weapons.... c'mon everyone would agree that could it actually become reality we would all be better off.

Click to expand...

What is fascinating is the rhetoric that this is NEWS or something new. We have been working towards dismantling nuclear arms and preventing nuclear proliferation for decades. Ever since good ole Ronny Reagan spent the Soviet Union into oblivion.

Thinkforyourself said:

Oh and first off to all of you that don't think that WE, THE UNITED STATES aren't the main impetus for nations to develop nuclear arms.... ESPECIALLY in light of the BUSH DOCTRINE and the policy of striking first to protect our nation interests. What a self absorbed people we have become.

Click to expand...

What another specious and absurd statement. There was no "Bush Doctrine". That was a fabrication of the leftists and the leftist media in their attempt to impugn a President who actually did something good and meant what he said.

The notion that Bush stuck first is also specious and absurd. It is telling that those who choose to bash Bush and admire Obama's march to failure have to fabricate their own version of actual events and history.

It is much the same as declaring failure before the fight is over and arguing for failure in Iraq for partisan political gain.

Carry on. :roll:

Thinkforyourself said:

Ahhhh correct good sir..... but the bush doctrine was the thing that made it American Policy

EDIT: Let me exemplify what I mean..... Judging by how we reacted to Iraq... knowing that their only defense against US invasion should they piss us off or we determine them to be a threat would be a nuclear option.... it only makes good strategic sense for Iran to develop nukes. Or at least one could draw the logical conclusion that this is what they are doing. were so paranoid about the world attacking us again what makes you think that based off our past actions parts of the rest of the world are paranoid about invasion from the US?

Besides we said NK/Iran and Iraq were in the axis of evil..... we invade Iraq and wham.... NK and Iran kick start their Nuclear program into high gear.... coincidence? I think not.

Click to expand...

You would be wrong again with this assertion; but then, your record for being wrong is safe.

The FACT is that now that the threat of an Iraq run by a treacherous dictator has been LEGALLY removed by the UN Coalition led by the USA, Iran safer than it has ever been. Iran is much safer NOW than where they would have been had we continued doing NOTHING and allowing Saddam to re-constitute his military and WMDs.

One of the primary reasons Saddam allowed the false perception that he had WMDs, and thus ended up being removed, was that he feared IRAN more than he did the UN.

Thinkforyourself said:

sorry edited my previous post.... no not for 1st strikes but to prevent an unwanted US invasion

Click to expand...

Another specious and false assertion; the US does not invade nations unless they have attacked the US, pose an imminent threat to US citizens and/or have attacked UN member nations without provocation and then defied UN resolutions for decades after they are defeated.

Thinkforyourself said:

Let me see if I get this straight... for decades we have been going to countries with nuclear arms and suggested they disarm themselves.... that fine right. But the minute someone else follows our lead and does the same thing they are insane?

Click to expand...

I think you'll recall that in doing so, we have also offered to disarm ourselves in the process. We (and by we, I mean the US, the UK and France) have them because the Russians and Chinese have them, and vice-versa.

Oh and first off to all of you that don't think that WE, THE UNITED STATES aren't the main impetus for nations to develop nuclear arms...

Click to expand...

Can you show that India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons because of the US?

Thinkforyourself said:

Thats not what I am suggesting.... let me try it this way:

1 us gets attacked (9/11)
2. Bush declares Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil"

Click to expand...

Bush CORRECTLY declared Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “Axis of Evil.”

To suggest otherwise requires willful denial or ignorance.

Thinkforyourself said:

3. we briefly enter Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden

Click to expand...

Briefly? Last time I looked, we are still there and will be there for the long haul. We didn’t just go into Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden; we went after a rogue regime who chose to protect Bin Laden and actually treated terrorists as welcome guests.

Thinkforyourself said:

4. then we enter Iraq selling the notion of Iraq being in possession of WMD's

Click to expand...

This is again a false ans specious argument. Obviously you have never actually read the UN resolutions and the Joint Resolution passed on a nearly unanimous bi-partisan basis on Iraq for the REAL reasons.

Here is a link so that you can READ and become INFORMED:

Text of Joint Resolution On Iraq Passed By The United States Congress [Octover 11, 2002]

I want you to count how many references to WMDs this 1,850 plus word document contains.

I know it is convenient for Liberals to ignore the REAL reasons we went in and want to FALSLEY believe that the region was better served with Saddam in charge rather than a freely elected Democracy, but those with brains would tend to disagree based on Saddams history.

Thinkforyourself said:

5. After not finding any we decide to stay.... Much of the world could construe this as the US simply trying to manufacture reasons to enter and invade a country who's regime we have designated as evil

Click to expand...

The only ones in the world trying to construe this are terrorists, leftists and Liberals who think that forcing a rogue regime to comply with UN resolutions with force is NEVER an option and anyone who does, especially a US President, should then be impugned and the historic record constantly re-written to fit their narrow and myopic partisan point of view.

Iraq led by Saddam was an evil regime that threatened its neighbors and peace in the region. To suggest otherwise once more requires willful denial or ignorance.

Thinkforyourself said:

6. NK and Iran realize they cannot really defend against a US invasion they need a reliable deterrant..... they jump start a relitively dusty nuclear arms program....

Click to expand...

Once again you take the false and specious arguments of rogue regimes and terrorist sympathizers to make the absurd rationalization that Iran and North Korea need to develop nukes to protect them from the mean old USA.

But this absurd and false argument requires the belief that the US just wantonly invades nations for no reason at all. Iran has never invaded a neighboring nation in modern times and there is no reason to invade. Better to isolate them for the support of terrorists. North Korea can’t feed it’s people let alone successfully invade their neighbor to the South; better to isolate them.

The REALITY and TRUTH is that by developing nuclear weapons, they deliberately place their citizens and neighbors at far greater risk.

Does anyone in the world with a brain think that a few nukes would prevent the USA from imposing its will if it chose to do so with nukes? What an idiotic notion and one that can only be expressed by ignorance or despotic nations who need an enemy to exert total control over their citizens.

Thinkforyourself said:

I dunno..... seems to me to be a relitively logical progression especially once you consider the fact that we basically refused to talk to either of these nations at this particular point in time besides sending relatively threatening press releases their way

Click to expand...

More absurdity and specious lies to support a purely partisan point of view; the US was actively engaged with the UN and Iran just as it has been with North Korea to force them to comply with the treaties they signed against nuclear proliferation and to get them to come to the table.

I guess when you find yourself in the wilderness avoiding the historic record and facts, you have to continually fabricate your own version of reality to support such specious claims.

Carry on; I look forward to correcting more of your false perceptions and outright lies to support an obvious partisan bias for purely partisan political purposes. :2wave:

Thinkforyourself said:

1 us gets attacked (9/11)
2. Bush declares Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil"

Click to expand...

Rightfully so, given their actions both before and after 9-11.

3. we briefly enter Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden

Click to expand...

If by 'briefly' you mean 'from October 2001 to present, then yes'
And, to be clear, we didnt go there just to get ObL.

4. then we enter Iraq selling the notion of Iraq being in possession of WMD's

Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that there were several additional reason we went into Iraq - which is made clear in the 2002 resolution that authorized force...

This 'selling' had been going on since at least 1998. It was only once it was clear that GWB was actually going to DO something about it that those 'selling' the threat or Iraqi WMDs questioned them.

5. After not finding any we decide to stay...

Click to expand...

The US has a tradition or rebulding the countries it defeats in war.
Why do you suppose we would do anything different in Iraq?

Much of the world could construe this as the US simply trying to manufacture reasons to enter and invade a country who's regime we have designated as evil

Click to expand...

They could. But then, there's nothing to support this.

6. NK and Iran realize they cannot really defend against a US invasion they need a reliable deterrant..... they jump start a relitively dusty nuclear arms program.

Click to expand...

Given the shortcomings in your supporting arguments, your conclusion is unsound.

Truth Detector said:

What an absurd statement considering the grief Leftists gave Bush over his CORRECT labeling Iran as part of the "axis of evil".

Click to expand...

How is it absurd? What benefit came out of Bush's foreign policy of "don't acknowledge they exist"?

Gibberish said:

So giving the countries a pointless label makes it OK to just ignore them? What exactly is the benefit of ignoring Iran or North Korea?

Not to say they need our undivided attention, but pretending they don't exist is not the correct path to take to alleviate the problems they cause.

Click to expand...

I agree. We don't advance the prospects for peace by ignoring our potential adversaries.

Gibberish said:

How is it absurd? What benefit came out of Bush's foreign policy of "don't acknowledge they exist"?

Click to expand...

Once more you use absurd descriptions that are not based in REALITY; the statement that Bush did not acknowledge Iran, Syria or North Korea requires willful denial or willful ignorance of the facts.

Which is it for you? The only thing more laughable than your absurdities is the Liberals who railed about Bush wanting to invade Iran.

As is typical, you want to take BOTH sides of the issue; Bush was too involved and planning to go to war, but yet he also didn't acknowledge their existence. What a vast pile of BILE.

Truth Detector said:

Once more you use absurd descriptions that are not based in REALITY; the statement that Bush did not acknowledge Iran, Syria or North Korea requires willful denial or willful ignorance of the facts.

Click to expand...

The REALITY is that Bush made it point to NOT talk with Iran in any instance. He had the ridiculous idea that the US having diplomatic discussion with Iran somehow validated Iran's ideals.

Truth Detector said:

As is typical, you want to take BOTH sides of the issue; Bush was too involved and planning to go to war, but yet he also didn't acknowledge their existence. What a vast pile of BILE.

Click to expand...

When did I say Bush was too involved with Iran?

While I think Obama's intentions are good, it's probably too late to change the past 10-15 years worth of foreign policy geared towards ignoring, blocking, or aggravating Iran. Now they're just firing political pot shots back and forth.

The REALITY is that Bush made it point to NOT talk with Iran in any instance. He had the ridiculous idea that the US having diplomatic discussion with Iran somehow validated Iran's ideals.

Click to expand...

Reality is Bush had agreed with the EU that the EU would head talks and that if those came to fruition the USA at later stage would become more directly involved.
Those talks after about 7 years failed.

The policy Bush set clearly demonstrates he wanted to have a multi-party solution to the problem.

IoW reality doesn't support your contentions.




He set a similar (though more direct US involvement) policy with North Korea. Its yet to be seen if that did much at all. Funny thing with this is that during the campaign the Democrats bashed multi-national talks in favor of bi-lateral talks. After years of bashing bi-lateral only talks on the issue.

///////


Iran should be told in no uncertain terms the development by their nation of a nuclear weapon will be deemed an act of war.

Diplomatically it has reached that point.

Orius said:

While I think Obama's intentions are good, it's probably too late to change the past 10-15 years worth of foreign policy geared towards ignoring, blocking, or aggravating Iran. Now they're just firing political pot shots back and forth.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's too late to change relations with any nation, the problem is the world may have decided that American foreign policy is inconsistent, changing with each election, and has the potential to become irrational depending on who is in charge.

Gibberish said:

The REALITY is that Bush made it point to NOT talk with Iran in any instance. He had the ridiculous idea that the US having diplomatic discussion with Iran somehow validated Iran's ideals.

Click to expand...

Wrong again Gibberish, Bush decided that the consensus was against unilateral negotiations with Iran so his diplomacy relied on the UN to negotiate with Iran just as the Liberals wanted to see happen.

How did that work for us?

Gibberish said:

When did I say Bush was too involved with Iran?

Click to expand...

My comments were general and related to the Leftist media and the Liberals who railed about Bush's "unilateralism" which in itself was a gross exaggeration and distortion not about anything you may have stated.

Again, I could bombard you with the PROOF of the Bush administrations involvement in world affairs but it would fall on blind eyes and your desperate desire to avoid REALITY and the TRUTH.

Orius said:

While I think Obama's intentions are good, it's probably too late to change the past 10-15 years worth of foreign policy geared towards ignoring, blocking, or aggravating Iran. Now they're just firing political pot shots back and forth.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, and by all means let us willfully ignore Iran’s complicity in the poor relations not only with America but with the UN as well.

Carry on. :roll:

Truth Detector said:

Wrong again Gibberish, Bush decided that the consensus was against unilateral negotiations with Iran so his diplomacy relied on the UN to negotiate with Iran just as the Liberals wanted to see happen.

How did that work for us?

Click to expand...

Bush made it quite clear he wouldn't hold diplomatic talks with any country (Syria and Iran in this case) that didn't support his vision of Iraq. He told Iran specifically that if they wanted to have diplomatic talks with the US then they must meet Bush's demands. He fully knows that no country would voluntarily do such things just to have diplomatic talks that would most likely only lead to more demands they would need to meet. He might as well of asked Iran to pay the US $100 million dollars per hour that they meet.

Talks are about political negotiations, not demand meeting.

I also find it humorous that Bush is praised for seeking multi-national support and discussions on the matter but Obama is attacked as been weak for doing that same.

Truth Detector said:

My comments were general and related to the Leftist media and the Liberals who railed about Bush's "unilateralism" which in itself was a gross exaggeration and distortion not about anything you may have stated.

Click to expand...

And commenting on the general leftist media has what to do with my statements?

Truth Detector said:

Again, I could bombard you with the PROOF of the Bush administrations involvement in world affairs but it would fall on blind eyes and your desperate desire to avoid REALITY and the TRUTH.

Click to expand...

That would be a refreshing change from your empty rhetoric and hyperbole of liberals and why they hate America.

Gibberish said:

Bush made it quite clear he wouldn't hold diplomatic talks with any country (Syria and Iran in this case) that didn't support his vision of Iraq. He told Iran specifically that if they wanted to have diplomatic talks with the US then they must meet Bush's demands. He fully knows that no country would voluntarily do such things just to have diplomatic talks that would most likely only lead to more demands they would need to meet. He might as well of asked Iran to pay the US $100 million dollars per hour that they meet.

Talks are about political negotiations, not demand meeting.

I also find it humorous that Bush is praised for seeking multi-national support and discussions on the matter but Obama is attacked as been weak for doing that same.



And commenting on the general leftist media has what to do with my statements?


That would be a refreshing change from your empty rhetoric and hyperbole of liberals and why they hate America.

Click to expand...

Asking Iran to cease nuclear activities as a precursor to talks is not an unreasonable request.

Iran is owned and operated by terrorists called the Mullahs. These Mullahs are the bitches of a turd called the Ayetioletbowl Komonkeyboy.

Religious zealots who punish children for stealing bread by running their arms over with a truck are BEYOND mentally unstable. People of this sort ... DO NOT need to have nuclear toys of ANY kind.

Iran MUST be stopped by whatever means necessary.