• 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
DA60 said:
Are you saying that everyone that voted for Obama in this poll is a 'bigoted jew hater'?
Click to expand...

Yes, he is. If you don't agree with Netanyahu you are a Jew hater, even if you are a Jew. That is what NP is saying.
 
shrubnose said:
The USA has already said that it won't let Iran have nukes so all we can do is wait and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Anyone who believes that is either stunningly naive or willfully blind. But it does make a good excuse for doing nothing but continue to appease the jihadists in Tehran. This president is a shameless, habitual liar, and he does not wish this country well.
 
shrubnose said:
If you use your Google you can find a photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein shaking hands when all that was going on. :roll:
Click to expand...

What of it? That does nothing to support the falsehood about arms you are trying to peddle.
 
disneydude said:
Sorry. History doesn't lie...and although you would love to only focus on the right-wing created myth of Reagan....his blemishes will always be there.
Click to expand...

The point is, we can easily find historical boogiemen on the Left if we want to, but what you did was purposely go off topic just for the sake of taking a jab at Reagan, relevant or not.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah and despite all his faults he was a far better president than the affirmative action idiot we have now
Click to expand...

They both have their positive attributes and their flaws. We are still paying the price today for some of the actions that Reagan took...just as I'm sure that Obama's legacy will contain the same.
 
American said:
The point is, we can easily find historical boogiemen on the Left if we want to, but what you did was purposely go off topic just for the sake of taking a jab at Reagan, relevant or not.
Click to expand...

It wasn't off topic at all. You cannot look at Iran/Iraq in a vacuum. The reality is, Iraq became what it did in large part to the arms that the US supplied to them under Reagan. That isn't "taking an unrelated jab" at Reagan....it is putting it into perspective.
 
Dragonfly said:
Iran is a saber-rattling country. They don't have a suicidal death wish to end the world, or start a nuclear world war, which they know would happen if they ever tried to unleash a nuke on Israel.
Click to expand...

And Adolf Hitler had no further territorial ambitions in Europe. After all, he made that promise, when Britain and France agreed at Munich in 1938 to let him swallow Czechoslovakia.

Your imaginings about a nuclear world war have a sort of drama queen ring to them. There is no reason to believe that a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel would cause any nation other than Israel to use its nuclear weapons.

I doubt the Khomeinist murderers who rule Iran have the stomach for an overt nuclear attack Israel, if they get the bomb, but they would not need to use a missile and leave no doubt where it had come from. Iran has many willing suicide squads in Hizballah that could hide an atom bomb in an ordinary truck, drive it into a city, and go up with it. That would leave no clear proof Iran was behind the attack, and it's at least questionable if any Israeli government would be willing to kill millions of Iranians in a counterstrike based only on strong suspicion.
 
matchlight said:
And Adolf Hitler had no further territorial ambitions in Europe. After all, he made that promise, when Britain and France agreed at Munich in 1938 to let him swallow Czechoslovakia.
Click to expand...
Really? What countries has Iran gobbled up?

These Nazi and appeasement references are so ludicrous they are funny.
 
PoS said:
Really? What countries has Iran gobbled up?

These Nazi and appeasement references are so ludicrous they are funny.
Click to expand...

The urge to appease the jihadists in Tehran is obvious. And your president, Neville Obama, is leading the appeasement efforts.
 
matchlight said:
The urge to appease the jihadists in Tehran is obvious. And your president, Neville Obama, is leading the appeasement efforts.
Click to expand...
Like the other neocons here you seem to have no idea what the word appeasement means. What exactly is the West conceding to Iran?

And I didnt vote for Obama, btw. So thats another thing you got wrong.
 
Neither. I don't trust the government of Israel as far as I can throw each of it's members. However, the US has no place interfering in Middle Eastern affairs.
 
disneydude said:
It wasn't off topic at all. You cannot look at Iran/Iraq in a vacuum. The reality is, Iraq became what it did in large part to the arms that the US supplied to them under Reagan. That isn't "taking an unrelated jab" at Reagan....it is putting it into perspective.
Click to expand...

Foreign policy changes with the times, and the Russians were supporting Iran in that war; so what do you think we were going to do? Just sit around looking pretty? But you want to make Reagan at fault now for what he did then, and play Monday morning quarterback.
 
PoS said:
Like the other neocons here you seem to have no idea what the word appeasement means. What exactly is the West conceding to Iran?

And I didnt vote for Obama, btw. So thats another thing you got wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you think a "neocon" is, but I assume you mean it as a personal insult. No surer way to show everyone reading that your game is weak.

I have a pretty good knowledge of the history of British and French appeasement of Hitler and Mussolini from 1934 to 1939, and I know very well what appeasement means. President Pinocchio does not wish this country well, and he has been kowtowing to the Khomeinist murderers in Tehran for six years. Not surprising for a man who had a Muslim father and stepfather, went to Muslim schools and had a Muslim college roommate, and counted the former PLO propagandist Rashid Khalidi among his closest friends in Chicago.
 
disneydude said:
Iraq became what it did in large part to the arms that the US supplied to them under Reagan.
Click to expand...

That assertion grossly overstates the amount of arms the U.S. helped Iraq obtain during the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq acquired very few of the heavy weapons it had in the Gulf War--tanks, artillery pieces, fighter aircraft--because of anything President Reagan did. Most of its arsenal came from the USSR, France, and other countries, not from the U.S. But your specious claim makes good anti-American propaganda.
 
matchlight said:
Anyone who believes that is either stunningly naive or willfully blind. But it does make a good excuse for doing nothing but continue to appease the jihadists in Tehran.
This president is a shameless, habitual liar, and he does not wish this country well.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Could you provide some proof that you're not exactly what you accuse the President of being?

IOW: Why should anyone believe a single word that you say? :roll:
 
matchlight said:
That assertion grossly overstates the amount of arms the U.S. helped Iraq obtain during the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq acquired very few of the heavy weapons it had in the Gulf War--tanks, artillery pieces, fighter aircraft--because of anything President Reagan did. Most of its arsenal came from the USSR, France, and other countries, not from the U.S.
But your specious claim makes good anti-American propaganda.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



It's not anti-American. It's anti-Reagan. Reagan isn't the whole USA. :roll: The USA has a population that's way over 300 million.
 
shrubnose said:
Could you provide some proof that you're not exactly what you accuse the President of being?

IOW: Why should anyone believe a single word that you say? :roll:
Click to expand...

I'll leave it up to other posters here to judge how credible my posts are. If you don't believe something I say, that's fine by me. It's not you I'm trying to convince of anything.
 
shrubnose said:
It's not anti-American. It's anti-Reagan. Reagan isn't the whole USA. :roll: The USA has a population that's way over 300 million.
Click to expand...

I do not agree. It is a grotesquely false claim that is meant to slander not only President Reagan, but also the United States. That has always been the aim of leftist propaganda. Leftists don't like America any more than the disloyal leftist liar now occupying the White House. I don't claim that every person who spreads this nonsense does it with that bad intent--I think they are often ignorant of the facts and are just parroting tripe that someone told them.
 
matchlight said:
That assertion grossly overstates the amount of arms the U.S. helped Iraq obtain during the Iran-Iraq war.
Iraq acquired very few of the heavy weapons it had in the Gulf War--tanks, artillery pieces, fighter aircraft--because of anything President Reagan did. Most of its arsenal came from the USSR, France, and other countries, not from the U.S.
Click to expand...
But your specious claim makes good anti-American propaganda.
Click to expand...



You're wrong. Iraq got a lot of arms from countries other than the USA because Reagan made that happen. The USA,at Reagan's direction, provided a huge amount of aid to Iraq.

Learn about U.S. aid to Iraq here: United States support for Iraq during the Iran

You can ignore the truth but that doesn't make it go away. :roll:
 
time for and actual count on the poll

Obama 28
PM 19
 
Can I get a third choice please?
 
shrubnose said:
You're wrong. Iraq got a lot of arms from countries other than the USA because Reagan made that happen. The USA,at Reagan's direction, provided a huge amount of aid to Iraq.

Learn about U.S. aid to Iraq here: United States support for Iraq during the Iran

You can ignore the truth but that doesn't make it go away. :roll:
Click to expand...

The U.S. provided Iraq enough military help to keep it from losing to Iran, just as provided Iran enough military help to keep it from losing to Iraq. As Henry Kissinger put it, the only pity was that they both couldn't lose.

The lie comes in implying that Saddam Hussein only got the thousands of tanks and artillery pieces and other heavy, expensive weapons like fighter planes--the major pieces in the arsenal that confronted the U.S. in the Gulf War--because of Ronald Reagan's efforts. That is anti-American propaganda worthy of the KGB's efforts during the Cold War.
 
American said:
Foreign policy changes with the times, and the Russians were supporting Iran in that war; so what do you think we were going to do? Just sit around looking pretty? But you want to make Reagan at fault now for what he did then, and play Monday morning quarterback.
Click to expand...

History and legacy are ALL about playing "Monday Morning Quarterback". Sometimes you don't know how really stupid someone's actions are until you see the ramifications for those actions years down the road. This is the case with many things that Reagan did. And just to be clear...I'm not criticizing everything that Reagan did in office. He did some very positive things. However, many right-winger practically want to make the man a saint...and when you evaluate his presidency in the course of history, he made some really bad moves that have cost us dearly in the long run. That is all I am saying.
 
disneydude said:
History and legacy are ALL about playing "Monday Morning Quarterback". Sometimes you don't know how really stupid someone's actions are until you see the ramifications for those actions years down the road. This is the case with many things that Reagan did. And just to be clear...I'm not criticizing everything that Reagan did in office. He did some very positive things. However, many right-winger practically want to make the man a saint...and when you evaluate his presidency in the course of history, he made some really bad moves that have cost us dearly in the long run. That is all I am saying.
Click to expand...

The man is a saint and you are just jealous when all you have is the crooked Clintons. That is all I am saying....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom