Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: Iranian leader: We'd support an Israeli-Palestianian peace agreement

  1. #21
    Professor
    WillRockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 09:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,950

    Re: Iranian leader: We'd support an Israeli-Palestianian peace agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    I don't see what is unreasonable about demanding the handing back of land occupied due to an invasion as a precondition for negotiations.

    Israel has never invaded any land without cause, yet has handed back land to achieve peace. Any land currently occupied by Israel is Israeli soil, earned fairly through conflicts begun against Israel by others.

  2. #22
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

    Re: Iranian leader: We'd support an Israeli-Palestianian peace agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Sorry but unlike you I don't support ANY alliance with scum like you mentioned including Israel. The hypocrisy is that you support it.
    "Hypocracy?" Is this the word meant to strike anger and discomfort towards me? Pal, we are all hypocrits. Even the high and mighty such as yourself. You may voice your opposition towards the oppression and lack of civil rights in China, yet goods from China infest your home don't they? You may voice your opinion on the brutal oppression and down right attrocities in human ritghs inside Saudi Arabia, yet you make your generous contribution into your local gas station, don't you? I'm sure your do it in protest.

    Hypocracy is a matter of reality in this world. Without it, we would be in a constant state of war. We would refuse business deals with tyrants and twisted regimes and in the process halt our own progress. We would constantly have to deal with the disruption of entire regions because we didn't have our thumbs in it. Kandahar likes the word "diplomacy." Well, diplomacy sweetens the tension between the West and the gutter. Diplomacy insists that we ignore and turn our backs on what we believe in to ease the pressures of the day. And in many cases, it merely stalls our responsibilities until the military man has a tougher job to deal with. So let's not pretend that some of us are above hypocracy simply because some of us have chosen to unfairly blast Israel for doing far less than those we ignore or turn our backs towards.

    The only difference between you and me is that I'm man enough to acknowledge the reality of our hypocracy and am willing to accept the price of "diplomacy."

    "Hypocracy." I love it when the pulpet preachers think themselves above the muck that delivers their comforts.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #23
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

    Re: Iranian leader: We'd support an Israeli-Palestianian peace agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    I don't see what is unreasonable about demanding the handing back of land occupied due to an invasion as a precondition for negotiations.
    It's not unreasonable. However, considering that their angers and rage and willingness to launch campaigns against Israel started before this occupation, what exactly is it supposed to do? And considering the destructive rhetorics of Iran, Hezbollah, and Arab nations for decades, how will all be well after Israel gives back land captured during Arab aggression?

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #24
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

    Re: Iranian leader: We'd support an Israeli-Palestianian peace agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Nope. The same can apply to Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, or Carter.
    YET...your criticism was specific towards Bush. You did not mention the other fellas that created this policy. You targetted Bush.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Yes, theoretically they could. And the United States could theoretically withdraw from the entire Middle East, and Israel could theoretically allow all Palestinian refugees the right of return. But the people demanding those things, in ALL of those cases, know perfectly well that they aren't going to happen.
    Oh give me a break. You are being desperate to prove an invalid point. No...theoretoically, America can not give into such demands. The demands were not to see Israel give back some land. It was to stop supporting Israel. Is America supposed to start choosing its allies in accordance to the demands of others? When do we start not supporting the Kurds? I hear the Arabs hate the Shia. When do we **** on them? Algerian terrorists, who hate France for their colonial BS and blatant public torture of hundreds of thousands of people just decades ago may as well make demands upon America to stop supporting France. Surely, we can allow all of them to choose our friends for us. And completely leaving the Middle East invites hell on earth. During the Cold War, we had the dictator and economic sanctions. As soon as the Cold War ended the dictator began a campaign to disrupt "peace" in the Middle East. Now, we are stuck making them behave for everyone's sake. Even ridding them of their dictators will see them destroy each other over barbaric stone age tribal conflict.

    These, among others, were demands impossible to meet. Somali pirates have a better chance of getting millions of dollars out of America before America could possibly even think about giving into Arab demands. The demands towards Iran and North Korea was about nuclear power and rocket launches. Something even the UN and the EU were actively engaged in. Our demands were and are not in the same category as those spewed out by those who's goal is destruction. Our demands are practical and are in keeping with global interests...not just our own. And our demands are meant to stay off destruction. Their demands gurantee it. There's your difference.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You can replace the name Bush with Bill Clinton if you like. The point still stands.
    Yet....your chose to put Bush on blast. And in a few sentences you will go on to state "previous administration" and "last 8 years." Once again showing that Bush is your point, not decades of necessary foriegn policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You are absolutely right, they make impossible, impractical demands. Which does not sound particularly different that what the US government does whenever it demands another nation abandon all its interests and do what the US wants before we'll even talk to them.
    The impractical demands by a terrorist organization vesus the practical demands of the world are no where in the same vicinity of being the same. And I know you seem to want to place Bush and America on blast, but your complaints are more about decades long policies and global demands.

    This is not a world absent of enemies. We do not live in a warm, cozy environment where everyone's intentions are pure or even fair. America is the superpower and Russia is not because we saw the world for what it was and "fairness" is not a part of the equation. "What we want" is aleways in the world's best interests. You and others may complain that the immediate deals and diplomacies is about America's interests, but our interests have benefitted the world for over two centuries.

    I could care less about the interests of nations, which won't even ultimately serve to benefit the world's prosperity but just their own oppressive agendas over others in their region.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Uhh well it's been all of, what, 100 days? The truth of the matter is that it's probably too late. The previous administration ......
    And here it is again. Despite your attempts to re-define your criticisms towards not just Bush, Bush continues to be on your agenda to blame. In 100 days, North Korea launched a rocket. North Korea and Iran have been thorns for a very very long time. To suggest that "Bush" made everything too late, thereby setting Obama apart from every President before him with his hands tied is pointless....unless your point is to place Bush on blast.

    It was too late the moment Iran chose to place their religion and destiny in the hands of a madman instead of the future. The ball has always been in their court.

    Nations are like people. We all have natures about us. Iran's nature has always been to control the region. This is historical. Our nature is to control the world's path. To think one can change the nature of another simply by having a few good conversations is stupid. North Korea's nature is to disrupt the feeling of security in their region. Russia's nature is to pretend to power.

    President after president has dealt with these issues over and over and all have come to same conclusions. Simply blaming the world's policies and natures on the one single President you lose sleep over does not reflect honesty upon the subject. And considering that they have insights and intels far beyond the FOX or CNN news channel, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. Even Obama has stipulated that we should talk with Iran.....but nuclear power is not acceptable. Talks after they comply or talks with the understanding that they are going to comply is very much the same thing. The only difference is that Europeans and weak Americans get to have their warm false feelings about America's openess to compromise on these matters. Illusion is for the weak.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Fine, replace "Bush" with "Bill Clinton" in my previous post then.
    Replace "Bush" with "decades of policy" and you would have been accurate instead of merely head hunting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And what did we accomplish by shunning them for the past eight years?
    The same thing talking to them will. And didn't the UN and the EU talk to Iran? You mean to tell me that without America doing the talking that the UN and the EU are useless? Don't tell them that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It certainly didn't help that the United States was not a part of those negotiations.
    You mean "conducting" the negotiations. Screw that. The world wants their UN in charge and the EU fancies themselves better than the US. They spent 8 years proving incapable to the task. Let the UN take responsibilities for its failures for a change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    What exactly do you want to do about Iran? Shun them some more until they cry and give up their nukes?
    Short of a bombing campaign and invasion there's nothing anybody can do to stop their quest. All this BS about talks, negotiations, and diplomoacy is fruitless effort. Ahmenadejed knows this. America knows this. The only ones that don't seem to know this are the UN, the EU, and the average earth citizen waiting to blame America for not talking or for not invading.

    Some things are inevitable. Change from this current path will only come from within Iran and no one else.
    Last edited by MSgt; 04-27-09 at 03:07 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #25
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Iranian leader: We'd support an Israeli-Palestianian peace agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    YET...your criticism was specific towards Bush. You did not mention the other fellas that created this policy. You targetted Bush.
    I don't know why you keep focusing on that instead of addressing the actual point that was made. You're the one who keeps bringing up the fact that I mentioned Bush, not me. I mentioned him because he is the most recent example and because he is the worst example...not because he is the ONLY example. All presidents from Carter through Bush practiced this ridiculous policy of treating American diplomacy as a prize to be won by foreign countries in exchange for doing what we want, instead of treating American diplomacy as a means to GET what we want.

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt
    Oh give me a break. You are being desperate to prove an invalid point. No...theoretoically, America can not give into such demands. The demands were not to see Israel give back some land. It was to stop supporting Israel. Is America supposed to start choosing its allies in accordance to the demands of others? When do we start not supporting the Kurds? I hear the Arabs hate the Shia. When do we **** on them? Algerian terrorists, who hate France for their colonial BS and blatant public torture of hundreds of thousands of people just decades ago may as well make demands upon America to stop supporting France. Surely, we can allow all of them to choose our friends for us. And completely leaving the Middle East invites hell on earth. During the Cold War, we had the dictator and economic sanctions. As soon as the Cold War ended the dictator began a campaign to disrupt "peace" in the Middle East. Now, we are stuck making them behave for everyone's sake. Even ridding them of their dictators will see them destroy each other over barbaric stone age tribal conflict.

    These, among others, were demands impossible to meet. Somali pirates have a better chance of getting millions of dollars out of America before America could possibly even think about giving into Arab demands. The demands towards Iran and North Korea was about nuclear power and rocket launches. Something even the UN and the EU were actively engaged in. Our demands were and are not in the same category as those spewed out by those who's goal is destruction. Our demands are practical and are in keeping with global interests...not just our own. And our demands are meant to stay off destruction. Their demands gurantee it. There's your difference.
    You're equivocating here on the meaning of "practical." No, the demands of previous US administrations that Iran unconditionally give up its entire nuclear program before we'll even talk to them are NOT practical, because the people making the demands know perfectly well that the other party will never comply. Just like the demands of Al-Qaeda that the United States withdraw from every Muslim country are NOT practical, for the same reason.

    US presidents knew perfectly well that Iran wasn't about to capitulate just for the privilege of being graced by our magnificent American presence. Yet they made that a precondition for negotiation anyway.

    That isn't how negotiations work...Let's say you're going to buy a car, so you go to the dealership. The dealer names his price, you make an offer, he makes a counter-offer, until you have an agreement (or until you're at an impasse). You don't walk into the dealership and tell the dealer "I refuse to even talk to you until you give me a free car."

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt
    Yet....your chose to put Bush on blast. And in a few sentences you will go on to state "previous administration" and "last 8 years." Once again showing that Bush is your point, not decades of necessary foriegn policy.
    Once again, you are the one who keeps dwelling on this, not me.

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt
    The impractical demands by a terrorist organization vesus the practical demands of the world are no where in the same vicinity of being the same. And I know you seem to want to place Bush and America on blast, but your complaints are more about decades long policies and global demands.
    I never said that they weren't.

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt
    This is not a world absent of enemies. We do not live in a warm, cozy environment where everyone's intentions are pure or even fair. America is the superpower and Russia is not because we saw the world for what it was and "fairness" is not a part of the equation. "What we want" is aleways in the world's best interests. You and others may complain that the immediate deals and diplomacies is about America's interests, but our interests have benefitted the world for over two centuries.
    Straw man. I never said that American interests don't benefit the world. I said that refusing to even talk to other nations is not in America's interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt
    I could care less about the interests of nations, which won't even ultimately serve to benefit the world's prosperity but just their own oppressive agendas over others in their region.
    And this is exactly the problem. You expect other nations to recognize American interests, but you refuse to recognize that THEY have interests of their own. Are Russian, Chinese, and Iranian interests automatically non-negotiable? If so, then the United States will isolate itself and get no cooperation at all from those nations.

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt
    And here it is again. Despite your attempts to re-define your criticisms towards not just Bush, Bush continues to be on your agenda to blame. In 100 days, North Korea launched a rocket. North Korea and Iran have been thorns for a very very long time. To suggest that "Bush" made everything too late, thereby setting Obama apart from every President before him with his hands tied is pointless....unless your point is to place Bush on blast.
    Again, you are the one dwelling on the fact that I mentioned Bush...not I.

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt
    It was too late the moment Iran chose to place their religion and destiny in the hands of a madman instead of the future. The ball has always been in their court.
    Ahmadinejad has absolutely no control over whether or not Iran develops nukes, and he will have absolutely no control over when, where, and why they are used.

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt
    Nations are like people. We all have natures about us. Iran's nature has always been to control the region. This is historical. Our nature is to control the world's path. To think one can change the nature of another simply by having a few good conversations is stupid. North Korea's nature is to disrupt the feeling of security in their region. Russia's nature is to pretend to power.
    Who said anything about changing the nature of another nation? Iran could be a useful ally some day...if we would talk to them. Talks with North Korea are not likely to prove useful, but they're certainly better than not even trying and instead doing nothing. Talks with Russia can be (and are) extremely useful, given the multitude of issues on which the US and Russia can cooperate or compromise.

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt
    President after president has dealt with these issues over and over and all have come to same conclusions. Simply blaming the world's policies and natures on the one single President you lose sleep over does not reflect honesty upon the subject. And considering that they have insights and intels far beyond the FOX or CNN news channel, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. Even Obama has stipulated that we should talk with Iran.....but nuclear power is not acceptable.
    Well he has to say that. He isn't going to come out and publicly state "It's OK if Iran gets nukes" before they actually do. Nevertheless I'm sure he acknowledges (as you seem to have done) that the world will have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt
    Talks after they comply or talks with the understanding that they are going to comply is very much the same thing. The only difference is that Europeans and weak Americans get to have their warm false feelings about America's openess to compromise on these matters. Illusion is for the weak.
    "Talks after they comply" doesn't even make sense. Look at this from an Iranian diplomat's perspective: What is so wonderful about us talking with the United States anyway? Why should we give up ANYTHING for this "privilege"...let alone our entire nuclear program? For that matter, do we even WANT to talk to the United States since anti-Americanism has become a part of our reason for being in power?

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt
    The same thing talking to them will. And didn't the UN and the EU talk to Iran? You mean to tell me that without America doing the talking that the UN and the EU are useless? Don't tell them that.
    It certainly doesn't help if the United States is not present at the negotiations.

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt
    You mean "conducting" the negotiations. Screw that. The world wants their UN in charge and the EU fancies themselves better than the US. They spent 8 years proving incapable to the task. Let the UN take responsibilities for its failures for a change.
    That's funny, I thought this was about pursuing American interests, rather than assessing blame.

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt
    Short of a bombing campaign and invasion there's nothing anybody can do to stop their quest. All this BS about talks, negotiations, and diplomoacy is fruitless effort. Ahmenadejed knows this. America knows this. The only ones that don't seem to know this are the UN, the EU, and the average earth citizen waiting to blame America for not talking or for not invading.

    Some things are inevitable. Change from this current path will only come from within Iran and no one else.
    I agree. At this point, an Iranian nuke seems to be inevitable. The world will have to learn to live with it. Therefore, why not reach out to Iran so that we aren't bitter enemies when they do become a nuclear power? The animosity won't disappear overnight, but eventually it will. Just look at how much better Sino-American relations are now than they were in the 1970s...and it might've not happened at all if Nixon hadn't gone to China and talked with Mao.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    07-18-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: Iranian leader: We'd support an Israeli-Palestianian peace agreement

    US can't make demands for talks but everyone else can and should.


    Its funny how Irans style of "diplomacy' is a-ok to you but not the USA's.

    Maybe if the USA calls for the extermination of the Jew?

  7. #27
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,610

    Re: Iranian leader: We'd support an Israeli-Palestianian peace agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by WillRockwell View Post
    Israel has never invaded any land without cause, yet has handed back land to achieve peace. Any land currently occupied by Israel is Israeli soil, earned fairly through conflicts begun against Israel by others.
    So if England had started a war against France in 1770, and thereby lost the American colonies to France, you would gladly accept being occupied by France even to this day. Because hey France "won" the American colonies "fair and square" in a war against England. The same logic can be used by the Soviet union. Why all the fuss about the oppression of the east germans during the Soviet occuption, because Soviet won" the territory "fair and square" in WW2?

    No why should people be oppressed or have to leave the land their the ancestors lived for centuries just because some people they didn't elected lost a war fifty years ago.
    Last edited by Bergslagstroll; 04-28-09 at 07:00 AM.

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Iranian leader: We'd support an Israeli-Palestianian peace agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    I don't see what is unreasonable about demanding the handing back of land occupied due to an invasion as a precondition for negotiations.
    Of course you don't.

    You LIKE Hamas.

  9. #29
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

    Re: Iranian leader: We'd support an Israeli-Palestianian peace agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Triad View Post
    Maybe if the USA calls for the extermination of the Jew?
    Well, half the world that hates us would automatically love us.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  10. #30
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

    Re: Iranian leader: We'd support an Israeli-Palestianian peace agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I mentioned him because he is the most recent example and because he is the worst example...not because he is the ONLY example. All presidents from Carter through Bush practiced this ridiculous policy of treating American diplomacy as a prize to be won by foreign countries in exchange for doing what we want, instead of treating American diplomacy as a means to GET what we want.
    You are a smart fella. I know this about you. And this is why I can be relatively sure that you are aware of our behavior during the Clinton years. The Pentagon's 1992 Planning Guidance (a very wise document) forecasted the future quite well. It argued that the U.S. would have to rely more on "coalition of the willing" and "should be postured to act independently." The expectation was that countries would go their own way after the Cold War and that it would be harder to forge international concensus. This argument would be proven correct throughout Clinton's terms.

    - The U.S. and Britian were virtually alone in containing Saddam's Iraq nearly a decade after the Gulf War.

    - The U.S. and its European allies could not get U.N. Security Council approval to act in Kosovo, so they used NATO to go to war.

    The concept that outside powers might together decide to use force to strip a state of its right to govern took shape in 1991, when the U.S. forces occupied northern Iraq and established no-fly zones to protect the Kurds. It evolved further in 1994 when American diplomatic and military action removed the military junta in Haiti and restored to power the democratically elected president.

    We learned lessons throughout the '90s. From the pain in the ass cooperation of our allies in Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia and the behaviors of the whimsical apathetic attitude of the UN, we learned that future wars should be fought in a way that reduced the necessity for seeking consensus with allies. This proved the case the next time the U.S. launched attacks after 9/11.


    Ignorance is what fueled people to tag Bush as the soveriegn killer. Ignorance is what fueled people to complain about Bush's attitude towards the UN. And ignorance is what keeps people complaining about America's policiy to shun and dismiss obvious never-to-change enemies. For the ignorant of the country, Bush prescribed this new American policy. But they were and are still very wrong. Bush merely carried on the foriegn policies set before him. And these were policies born from the lessons the world (more specifically our own allies) taught us post Cold War.

    You call him the worse. He didn't start any of this. Like most people who target in on blast, your problems are truly with our policies, which were shaped from reality's lessons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Are Russian, Chinese, and Iranian interests automatically non-negotiable?
    Depends on the subject matter. Iran's quest for nukes is non-negotiable. Even Obama isn;t budging on this. We can talk all day and make the world feel all warm inside, but in the end, Iran will only gain nukes if we allow it. Russia and China aren't looking to cause global disruption. And the fact that we conduct business with China quite openly suggests that we do negotiate. Hell, Bush negotiated with North Korea too. But Iran? It is a wolf in wolf's clothing. The Soviet Union pretended to power and threatened the course of the free world for 40 years. We are supposed to refuse the lesson and jump into another Cold War, but this time against religious freaks? All to satisfy negotiations and people's (who don't matter) perception of us? Iran's history tells us of their agenda for the region. A region that provides energy resource ot the world. A region that constantly threatens to bring the world to another global disaster.

    No. This is non-negotiable. If they wish to give up their nuke quest to satisfy the fears of the entire Arab nation, Asia, and the West in exchange for less sanctions or a bucket of bananas, then we can negotiate. But they have one demand - nuclear capabilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Ahmadinejad has absolutely no control over whether or not Iran develops nukes, and he will have absolutely no control over when, where, and why they are used.
    of course not. Its the same exoneration they give themselves every time aterrorist strikes. Some how, despite the prescribed culture of oppression and brutality throughout the region, they aren't responsible for their creations and rage within their populations. It's always the same. And if Iran gains nuclear capabilities and some dirty bomb goes off in Israel or Riyadh or India, Iran's President and govermnment will send condolensces and ensure the world that this was a tragedy orchestrated by some "rogue" of Islam. And the American hunt will be begin for the perpetrators while Middle Eastern governments sit back and do nothing.

    The thing about China, Russia, or even North Korea is that they are accountable for their behaviors and at least understand where that line is drawn. North Korea may play with rockets and the ocean, but they are harmless. Religious nuts with big toys are far more dangerous than any enemy anybody could ever face because they are unpredictable and impractical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Talks with Russia can be (and are) extremely useful, given the multitude of issues on which the US and Russia can cooperate or compromise.
    Sure..like not doing Kosovo and Bosnia, which was in accordance to Russia's demands (Milosevich was an ally). In the end, cooperation and compromise got America what it wanted and Russia what it didn't want. Proving that some cooperation and compromise are meant for the every day citizen who needs to feel warm about relationship.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Nevertheless I'm sure he acknowledges (as you seem to have done) that the world will have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.
    Correction..the "U.S." has to live with it. We are the ones they turn to in order to prevent it and we will be who they all turn to in order to play watch dog. And in the end, we will be the ones expected to handle any distaster.

    So when people complain about our unilateral path, I simply remind myself that we are the ones that ultimately deal with it anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    That's funny, I thought this was about pursuing American interests, rather than assessing blame.
    It's in America's interests to force the world's organizations to take responsibility for it's duties. But they aren't held accountable are they? The U.S. always comes to hold their hands and flex muscle. Instead of assuming all blame for all things when others prove incapable, maybe its time blame should go where it belongs for a change.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •