• 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!

Who do you trust more to deal with Iran?

Who do you trust more to deal with Iran?

  • Total voters
    54
Thrilla said:
"most of the arms"?

were/are you upset that Iran wasn't allowed to take over Iraq?
Click to expand...

Obviously Reagan worship has you impaired!

The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980.

Iran
 
Montecresto said:
So ignore Mossads comments on Iran, as well as US intelligence conclusions, and listen to this freak from Israel, with his black octopus map and cartoon bomb, dribble about. He's been crying wolf on Iran for twenty five years! You can't put Iraq back on the shelf, (remember colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule) and now you want to pull Iran down and handle it!
Click to expand...

Nobody wants conflict with Iran. But as it is going, we might soon wish we had been more mindful of a growing danger.

PS: Good old Colin. Didn't he demonstrate the Peter Principal so wonderfully. I loved his performance at the UN.
 
tres borrachos said:
How the hell did this thread become about Bush, Reagan, Rumsfeld, etc.?
Click to expand...

Probably because in retrospect it seems it might have been better to go into Iran at the time instead of Iraq. So all it is is people being sentimental. ;)
 
Orly?

1992 - Netanyahu - Iran is "three to five years" away from reaching nuclear weapons capability
1995 - Netanyahu - Iran will have a nuclear weapon in "three to five years"
1996 - Netanyahu - Iran is "extremely close" to creating nuclear weapons
2009 - Netanyahu - Iran is "probably one or two years away" from developing nuclear weapons
2009 - Netanyahu - Iran "has the capability now to make one bomb" and Iran can "make several bombs in a year or two."
2012- Netanyahu - Iran is "a few months away" from making a nuclear bomb

hmmmmmmmmm
 
I don't care for either man but I think Obama is a bit more likely to prevent a war with Iran than Netanyahu because, at least in this case, Obama seems to favor diplomacy. Despite their rhetoric sometimes, I do believe Iran is a "rational actor".

But I am also inclined to just pull out of that region altogether and let them deal with things themselves. But that could just be my frustration talking.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Orly?

1992 - Netanyahu - Iran is "three to five years" away from reaching nuclear weapons capability
1995 - Netanyahu - Iran will have a nuclear weapon in "three to five years"
1996 - Netanyahu - Iran is "extremely close" to creating nuclear weapons
2009 - Netanyahu - Iran is "probably one or two years away" from developing nuclear weapons
2009 - Netanyahu - Iran "has the capability now to make one bomb" and Iran can "make several bombs in a year or two."
2012- Netanyahu - Iran is "a few months away" from making a nuclear bomb

hmmmmmmmmm
Click to expand...

Seems a lot like those rapidly rising sea level predictions that are always said to be coming soon to a coast near you. As with that threat, we are told that we must act now because when we actually see it happen then it will be too late to avoid it. ;)
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Orly?

1992 - Netanyahu - Iran is "three to five years" away from reaching nuclear weapons capability
1995 - Netanyahu - Iran will have a nuclear weapon in "three to five years"
1996 - Netanyahu - Iran is "extremely close" to creating nuclear weapons
2009 - Netanyahu - Iran is "probably one or two years away" from developing nuclear weapons
2009 - Netanyahu - Iran "has the capability now to make one bomb" and Iran can "make several bombs in a year or two."
2012- Netanyahu - Iran is "a few months away" from making a nuclear bomb

hmmmmmmmmm
Click to expand...

Yep, he's been crying wolf for a long time. Hopefully the Israelis do as the former chief of Mossad said, and **** can this freak on March 17th.
 
tres borrachos said:
The force is strong with them Yoda.

There are 3 things we can count on always existing - death, taxes, and BDS.
Click to expand...

4 if you now include Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) - which is now becoming clearly visible in many threads and posts around here.
 
Montecresto said:
Obviously Reagan worship has you impaired!

The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980.

Iran
Click to expand...

I don't mind Reagan overall, but to say I worship him is far from the truth.
if he were alive today, i'd probably thank him for being the kind of President we needed at the time.... right before I punched him in the mouth.

in any event, I don't worry about what exaggerations idiot liberal ideologues concoct in their heads (no one takes them seriously anyways).. but it's still a good idea to challenge them when they start spewing their rhetoric.

the US was not the major arms supplier for Iraq... we did not provide him with most of his arms.
the Soviet Union, France, China, and .. oddly enough.. Chile.. provided Saddam with his armaments... US support, in the grand scheme, was minor.

as for the Iran-Iraq war... i'm fairly familiar with it... familiar enough to know it found it's footing in long held border disputes ( primarily the Shatt al Arab) , and the assassination of an Iraqi foreign minister... of course, the tyrants Saddam wish to gain more oil lands coupled with the Ayatollahs hated of the ba'athist regime on religious grounds didn't help matters much either.

if I had my druthers, I would have preferred Saddam taking Iran... he's an evil **** who deserves to reside in several levels of hell... but he wasn't as crazy as the lunatics in charge of Iran.
IMO, taking Iran would have also hastened his demise.... which would have brought me delight ( as opposed to seeing him being allowed to breath for several more decades)

while it's great Saddam has left the gene pool, it's still sucks the Islamic lunatics in Iran are still alive, kicking.. and ruling the roost.
 
Dragonfly said:
4 if you now include Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) - which is now becoming clearly visible in many threads and posts around here.
Click to expand...

At least when someone is talking about Obama, it's in the present.

Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Colonel Sanders aren't trying to make a deal with Iran now. Obama is.
 
BrewerBob said:
I don't care for either man but I think Obama is a bit more likely to prevent a war with Iran than Netanyahu because, at least in this case, Obama seems to favor diplomacy. Despite their rhetoric sometimes, I do believe Iran is a "rational actor".

But I am also inclined to just pull out of that region altogether and let them deal with things themselves. But that could just be my frustration talking.
Click to expand...


I would like to see a list where his "diplomacy" has actually changed anything for the better.

He had one war in one nation at one point, about three years into his mandate. Now he has seven. He has not had any impact on Putin to speak of, and even the Canadians are pissed off, which is almost impossible to do. The last time Canada-US relations were this bad Nixon was in power and we were sheltering draft dodgers....

I don't see how "diplomacy" is working at any level.
 
Montecresto said:
You're denying his criticism of the deal (that he hasn't seen) that the P-5+1 is working on? Do you think he was here to give Obama moral support and a pat on the back for a job well done. Why don't you try to disguise your dishonesty a bit?
Click to expand...

I dispute that his agenda was to undermine negotiations... his agenda was to tell us the position of Israel.... the ally that actually has to deal with the realities of the issue.
Bibi's not an idiot... he knows he has no power to undermine our negotiations.(for my money, Obama will probably be more favorable to Iran now that bibi's presence hurt his feelings)

in any event, it wouldn't have mattered what he had to say ... Obama's minions had their marching orders to oppose him and anything he had to says weeks before Bibi ever set foot in the country.
and now democrats ( specifically proglibs) find themselves in the awkward position of allying themselves with a common enemy and ****ting all over a constant ally..... for no other reason other than Obamas feelings getting hurt.... petulant children, the lot of them
 
Fearandloathing said:
I would like to see a list where his "diplomacy" has actually changed anything for the better.

He had one war in one nation at one point, about three years into his mandate. Now he has seven. He has not had any impact on Putin to speak of, and even the Canadians are pissed off, which is almost impossible to do. The last time Canada-US relations were this bad Nixon was in power and we were sheltering draft dodgers....

I don't see how "diplomacy" is working at any level.
Click to expand...

yeah.. there hasn't been much in the way of diplomatic successes with this administration...we've even blown the easy calls with strong allies ( keystone come immediately to mind)

well, I guess strengthening the Cuban regime could be viewed as a diplomatic success by some..
 
Thrilla said:
yeah.. there hasn't been much in the way of diplomatic successes with this administration...we've even blown the easy calls with strong allies ( keystone come immediately to mind)

well, I guess strengthening the Cuban regime could be viewed as a diplomatic success by some..
Click to expand...

Maybe as a by product through stumbling...

But that has to be the best example of failure yet.

A year of Canadian led preliminary talks to get Cuba and the US to agree on what to talk about...one day of talks and the Cubans storm out in anger because Obama changed the agenda.....

More smoke and not even mirrors
 
Fearandloathing said:
I would like to see a list where his "diplomacy" has actually changed anything for the better.

He had one war in one nation at one point, about three years into his mandate. Now he has seven. He has not had any impact on Putin to speak of, and even the Canadians are pissed off, which is almost impossible to do. The last time Canada-US relations were this bad Nixon was in power and we were sheltering draft dodgers....

I don't see how "diplomacy" is working at any level.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you bold the "at least in this case" part of my text?
 
Thrilla said:
I don't mind Reagan overall, but to say I worship him is far from the truth.
if he were alive today, i'd probably thank him for being the kinYd of President we needed at the time.... right before I punched him in the mouth.

in any event, I don't worry about what exaggerations idiot liberal ideologues concoct in their heads (no one takes them seriously anyways).. but it's still a good idea to challenge them when they start spewing their rhetoric.

the US was not the major arms supplier for Iraq... we did not provide him with most of his arms.
the Soviet Union, France, China, and .. oddly enough.. Chile.. provided Saddam with his armaments... US support, in the grand scheme, was minor.

as for the Iran-Iraq war... i'm fairly familiar with it... familiar enough to know it found it's footing in long held border disputes ( primarily the Shatt al Arab) , and the assassination of an Iraqi foreign minister... of course, the tyrants Saddam wish to gain more oil lands coupled with the Ayatollahs hated of the ba'athist regime on religious grounds didn't help matters much either.

if I had my druthers, I would have preferred Saddam taking Iran... he's an evil **** who deserves to reside in several levels of hell... but he wasn't as crazy as the lunatics in charge of Iran.
IMO, taking Iran would have also hastened his demise.... which would have brought me delight ( as opposed to seeing him being allowed to breath for several more decades)

while it's great Saddam has left the gene pool, it's still sucks the Islamic lunatics in Iran are still alive, kicking.. and ruling the roost.
Click to expand...

To the bolded, that's funny!

US foreign policy in the Middle East has nothing to do with improvements to the Middle East for the sake of the inhabitants of the Middle East. US foreign policy is about what's good for a select few, wealthy elites that support politicians and foreign policy that is beneficial to them. Sometimes that means installing dictators, sometimes that means knocking them down. Sometimes but rarely, it means avoiding war, and often it means starting them, or provoking them. When it's advantageous to those ends, human rights abuses are highlighted, and when highlighting human rights abuses run counter to those ends, then they aren't. We fight terrorism and we use terrorism towards those ends. If it's advantageous for a country and a people's to be demonized, that will happen, if it's advantageous for a country and a people to be regarded as victims, that will happen, if need be, a country and people will be villains. Almost everybody is a villain and a victim. Which one to exploit depends upon its advantage. Yesterday Hussein was the Villain , today it's Putin and Khomeni. I'm frankly tired of it. But, that's nothing profound.
 
Thrilla said:
I dispute that his agenda was to undermine negotiations... his agenda was to tell us the position of Israel.... the ally that actually has to deal with the realities of the issue.
Bibi's not an idiot... he knows he has no power to undermine our negotiations.(for my money, Obama will probably be more favorable to Iran now that bibi's presence hurt his feelings)

in any event, it wouldn't have mattered what he had to say ... Obama's minions had their marching orders to oppose him and anything he had to says weeks before Bibi ever set foot in the country.
and now democrats ( specifically proglibs) find themselves in the awkward position of allying themselves with a common enemy and ****ting all over a constant ally..... for no other reason other than Obamas feelings getting hurt.... petulant children, the lot of them
Click to expand...

He said Obama's deal "doesn't prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, it paves the way", and for that, and for his false claims for twenty five years now, he's a god damn liar and a freak that should never be allowed in the halls of congress. Btw, I have opposed Netanyahu since before Obama was ever heard of. He doesn't give any marching orders to me. I only hope that we don't witness a democratic controlled congress do the same thing some day and point the detractors to Boehner and the 114th congress.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
To the bolded, that's funny!

US foreign policy in the Middle East has nothing to do with improvements to the Middle East for the sake of the inhabitants of the Middle East. US foreign policy is about what's good for a select few, wealthy elites that support politicians and foreign policy that is beneficial to them. Sometimes that means installing dictators, sometimes that means knocking them down. Sometimes but rarely, it means avoiding war, and often it means starting them, or provoking them. When it's advantageous to those ends, human rights abuses are highlighted, and when highlighting human rights abuses run counter to those ends, then they aren't. We fight terrorism and we use terrorism towards those ends. If it's advantageous for a country and a people's to be demonized, that will happen, if it's advantageous for a country and a people to be regarded as victims, that will happen, if need be, a country and people will be villains. Almost everybody is a villain and a victim. Which one to exploit depends upon its advantage. Yesterday Hussein was the Villain , today it's Putin and Khomeni. I'm frankly tired of it. But, that's nothing profound.
Click to expand...

we might agree on some details here and there... but i pretty much wrote this post off when you started talking about " a few wealthy elites blablabla"... populist conspiracy theories aren't my thing, i'm afraid.

but don't worry too much about it... one day this country will collapse or get taken out and we'll be done with all the ugly foreign policy/realpolitik stuff.
 
Montecresto said:
He said Obama's deal "doesn't prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, it paves the way", and for that, and for his false claims for twenty five years now, he's a god damn liar and a freak that should never be allowed in the halls of congress. Btw, I have opposed Netanyahu since before Obama was ever heard of. He doesn't give any marching orders to me. I only hope that we don't witness a democratic controlled congress do the same thing some day and point the detractors to Boehner and the 114th congress.
Click to expand...

I don't mind if a Democratic congress calls someone to speak before them... I'm a big big fan of 3 co-equal branches...
the imperial presidency bull**** is getting pretty old, though


Bibi isn't giving marching orders... Obama is ... and his lil minions have all fallen in line predictably.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Saying after this:
"A new assessment by American intelligence agencies released Monday concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting a judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/world/middleeast/04intel.html?pagewanted=all

"Less than a month after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 2012 warning to the UN General Assembly that Iran was 70 percent of the way to completing its "plans to build a nuclear weapon", Israel's intelligence service believed that Iran was "not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons".
Mossad contradicted Netanyahu on Iran nuclear programme - Al Jazeera English

"(Reuters) - The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran's nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead."
Special Report: Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent | Reuters

"Despite this heady rhetoric, Netanyahu’s estimates of an imminent Iranian nuclear bomb have consistently been at odds with analyses made by his own intelligence agency. In 2011, departing Mossad intelligence chief Meir Dagan said in his final intelligence summary that, contrary to Netanyahu’s repeated statements at the time, an Iranian nuclear weapon is in fact not imminent, and that any military action against the country could end up spurring the development of such a weapon.... The conclusion from this history is inescapable. Over the course of more than 20 years, Benjamin Netanyahu has made false claims about nuclear weapons programs in both Iran and Iraq, inventing imaginary timelines for their development, and making public statements that contradicted the analysis of his own intelligence advisers."
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...y-netanyahu-crying-wolf-iranian-nuclear-bomb/

"Iran is continuing to comply with the conditions of the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), an interim deal that Iran and the P5+1 reached in November 2013. In total, these actions have halted Iran’s nuclear progress and rolled back key elements of proliferation concern...Iran is continuing to implement all of its commitments under the JPOA. Iran is making progress on the new actions it pledged to take as part of the agreement to extend its negotiations with the P5+1. Iran has completed three of five actions it pledged to take as part of its cooperation with the IAEA’s investigation into past military actions." IAEA Report Shows Iran’s Nuclear Program Remains Frozen |

After Netanyahu's Speech, A Reality Check : Parallels : NPR

I'm gonna say not the crazy war hawk, who is running for an election, who has been making the same erroneous claim since 1992, who's own intelligence agency contradicts him.... Yea Bibi. Not that guy
Click to expand...



US: Iran uranium enrichment a 'further escalation' ......
01.07.2015 <<<<< !

State Department says IAEA confirmation that Iran enriching uranium up to 20% at underground Fordow facility represents further violation of UN obligations.

"The fact that the IAEA has made clear that they are enriching to a level that is inappropriate at Fordow is obviously a problem," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters at her daily briefing. "If they are enriching at Fordow to 20 percent, this is a further escalation of their ongoing violations with regard to their nuclear obligations," Nuland said, referring to a series of UN Security Council resolutions calling on Iran to halt its enrichment-related activities....snip~

US: Iran uranium enrichment a 'further escalation' - Iranian Threat - Jerusalem Post


Obama: Iran more than a year away from developing nuclear ...
Obama: Iran more than a year away from developing nuclear weapon - CNN.com <<<<< March 14 2013.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom