• 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!

Obama warns US will 'isolate' Russia if Putin doesn't pull back in Ukraine

As far as the so called "red line" with Syria, that's an issue that has been way over inflated for political purposes. First of all, it hasn't been proven that Assad ordered the attacks. That's one thing. Next even if we assume that he did, something was done about it. There was an agreement reached where Assad would destroy his chemical weapons. So you can't say he did nothing substantial in response.
 
First of all I didn't say he was ALL responsible. So that was not an assumption.

Second of all Iran's nuclear program is not in FULL SWING. Why? Because they ARE NOT enriching uranium to 20 percent anymore. So you are wrong there.

Sorry, my ommision, I corrected it right away, it should read "at all responsible". As to that last, that's not a change and has been the case since 2003 (according to National Intel Estimates), so that has zero to do with the Obama admin. Though both the US and Israel believe some "weaponization-related activities" have continued, and still do.
 
As far as the so called "red line" with Syria, that's an issue that has been way over inflated for political purposes. First of all, it hasn't been proven that Assad ordered the attacks. That's one thing. Next even if we assume that he did, something was done about it. There was an agreement reached where Assad would destroy his chemical weapons. So you can't say he did nothing substantial in response.

With absolutely NO assurance they've been destroyed. Besides, that was a multi-national effort, one that included nations that still have some pull with the Syrians.
 
You said he lacked political and diplomatic capital and I'm disputing that. Furthermore you have no strong, credible evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon
Iran is doing the exact same thing now as it was before Obama. It has curtailed nothing. I suppose that Iran refining uranium to levels far above those needed for nuclear power, while developing nuclear detonators and missiles capable of nuclear delivery are purely coincidental, huh?


I didn't say Obama doesn't have problems. And this one in Ukraine didn't have to happen if he was on top of what Victoria Nuland was doing.

Weak leaders tend to run into problems.
 
First of all I didn't say he was ALL responsible. So that was not an assumption.

Second of all Iran's nuclear program is not in FULL SWING. Why? Because they ARE NOT enriching uranium to 20 percent anymore. So you are wrong there.

They can be back to 20% in under a month. Its a plot to wring more handouts from the west while very quickly being able to resume. North Korea did the EXACT same thing.
 
Sorry, my ommision, I corrected it right away, it should read "at all responsible".

OK, no problem.

As to that last, that's not a change and has been the case since 2003 (according to National Intel Estimates), so that has zero to do with the Obama admin.

That's not my understanding. And to back it up, here's a part of an article from the NY Times from Oct 30, 2013

“Twenty percent uranium and nuclear plates are being produced inside the country and there has never been a halt in the production trend,” the official, Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, was quoted as saying by the Icana news agency, which is the mouthpiece of Iran’s Parliament.

Here's the URL
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/world/middleeast/iran.html?_r=0
 
They can be back to 20% in under a month. Its a plot to wring more handouts from the west while very quickly being able to resume. North Korea did the EXACT same thing.

Whether or not it's a plot, the program is not in FULL swing. That was the point.
 
Iran is doing the exact same thing now as it was before Obama. It has curtailed nothing. I suppose that Iran refining uranium to levels far above those needed for nuclear power, while developing nuclear detonators and missiles capable of nuclear delivery are purely coincidental, huh?

The point is that there is NO WAY such an agreement could have been reached with Iran IF Obama lacked political and diplomatic capital.

Weak leaders tend to run into problems.

Having problems as President of the United States is no criteria for being a weak leader. It's a position where you are constantly confronted with problems.
 
OK, no problem.



That's not my understanding. And to back it up, here's a part of an article from the NY Times from Oct 30, 2013



Here's the URL
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/world/middleeast/iran.html?_r=0

Great, so I was correct. My original source for the 2003 info was the wiki:

In a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, the United States Intelligence Community assessed that Iran had ended all "nuclear weapon design and weaponization work" in 2003.[11] In 2012, U.S. intelligence agencies reported that Iran was pursuing research that could enable it to produce nuclear weapons, but was not attempting to do so.[12]

In November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors criticized Iran after an IAEA report concluded that before 2003 Iran likely had undertaken research and experiments geared to developing a nuclear weapons capability.[13] The IAEA report details allegations that Iran conducted studies related to nuclear weapons design, including detonator development, the multiple-point initiation of high explosives, and experiments involving nuclear payload integration into a missile delivery vehicle.[14] A number of Western nuclear experts have stated there was very little new in the report, that it primarily concerned Iranian activities prior to 2003,[15] and that media reports exaggerated its significance.[16] Iran threatened to reduce its cooperation with the IAEA.

Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, the link below shows they've been trucking along at 20% and still are. The agreement to [slowly] ramp it down starting Jan this year was made between Iran and a group of nations, some which Iran respects and has good diplomatic relations with. Either way, this has nothing to do with Obama's efforts.

Iran's Nuclear Timetable | Iran Watch
 
The problem here is not that Obama is a weak leader, the problem, at least in this case, is that he made a serious error in judgement in two ways:

1. He gave Victoria Nuland to much leeway
2. He miscalculated how Putin would respond

You think Nuland was calling the shots on such an important issue.
 
Don't kid yourself, the "missile shields" contain every bit as much, if not more, offensive capability as they do defensive.

Yep. Which accounts for understandable stiff Russian opposition.
 
The point is that there is NO WAY such an agreement could have been reached with Iran IF Obama lacked political and diplomatic capital.

Nonsense, the agreement wasn't reached between the US and Iran. Rather it was the P5+1 group of countries that made the agreement with Iran (Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States). Some of those countries Iran respects diplomatically.

Having problems as President of the United States is no criteria for being a weak leader. It's a position where you are constantly confronted with problems.

Indeed, and his handling of those problems has been weak. Face it, he has about as much respect on the international scene as Carter did when he was POTUS (as in none).
 
I disagree. What I described were errors in judgement. Even strong leaders make errors in judgement. Abraham Lincoln was a strong leader, but he misjudged the level of difficulty that was necessary to defeat the South.



If lack of credibility were a symptom of weak leadership, then politicians in general are all weak leaders because, in general, they are liars. FDR was a strong leader, but he produced a totally fabricated map of Nazi plans for conquest of the US. Any person with sense should view what they say as suspicious.

As far as diplomatic capital is concerned, Obama should be credited with making significant progress with diffusing tensions with Iran. If he had little or no diplomatic capital AND/OR little or no political capital that would simply not be possible.

Conservatives are going to continue to insist that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb. Always keeping some bull**** threat out there is good for the MIC, simply.
 
Great, so I was correct. My original source for the 2003 info was the wiki:

No you were not correct. I said Iran had stopped enriching uranium to 20 per cent. You said there had been no change since 2003. That wiki article states that:

Iran had ended all "nuclear weapon design and weaponization work" in 2003.

It doesn't say they stopped enriching uranium to 20 percent in 2003.

However, the link below shows they've been trucking along at 20% and still are.

Iran's Nuclear Timetable | Iran Watch

No, it doesn't say they are still enriching uranium to 20 percent. What is says is:

On January 20, 2014, the IAEA verified that Iran was implementing the restrictions on its nuclear program set forth in the “Joint Plan of Action,” an interim accord between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries (Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States). These restrictions include a suspension in the production of 20 percent enriched uranium, a freeze on manufacturing, installing, and operating additional centrifuges, and a commitment to either downblend or convert part of its 20 percent enriched uranium stockpile.
 
You think Nuland was calling the shots on such an important issue.

It is hard to believe. At the very least she was playing a very active role. If some of the phone calls, that I read about, are to be believed she appeared to be spearheading the effort and had Biden's ear, who had a direct line to the Obama.
 
Does Iran have the ability to make up a part of Russia's portion of Natural gas to Europe?
The POTUSA will be vetoing the Iranian sanction bill, which I support him on .
Conservatives are going to continue to insist that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb. Always keeping some bull**** threat out there is good for the MIC, simply.
 
As far as the so called "red line" with Syria, that's an issue that has been way over inflated for political purposes. First of all, it hasn't been proven that Assad ordered the attacks. That's one thing. Next even if we assume that he did, something was done about it. There was an agreement reached where Assad would destroy his chemical weapons. So you can't say he did nothing substantial in response.

Yep. The "nothing" in response means he didn't use our military on president Assad. And as you mentioned, its far from a given that president Assad's forces even used chemical weapons. Also, with two or three failed attempts to secure a UN resolution for use of force, with the UK backing out, and his failure to secure authorisation from congress, and with 70% of Americans saying no, his only option for using the military was to be a belligerent, and they know this, but then they like belligerents. They loved George Bush for lying about Saddam's WMD's and then telling the UN to support his plan to attack Iraq, or get out of the way.
 
Nonsense, the agreement wasn't reached between the US and Iran. Rather it was the P5+1 group of countries that made the agreement with Iran (Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States). Some of those countries Iran respects diplomatically.

Obama helped lead the effort for the agreement to take place. And if it had not been for Obama, it would not have taken place. In his first term, Obama specifically stated his intent to reach out to Iran. Remember?

Indeed, and his handling of those problems has been weak. Face it, he has about as much respect on the international scene as Carter did when he was POTUS (as in none).

No respect? Then why did Assad agree to destroy his weapons. If he had no respect for Obama he would have said to hell with it. I don't have to listen to you.

If Netanyahu had no respect for Obama, then why is the government of Israel now trying to see how they can leverage the agreement and talks with Iran? If they had no respect, they would say to hell with it, we will do as we please.
 
It is hard to believe. At the very least she was playing a very active role. If some of the phone calls, that I read about, are to be believed she appeared to be spearheading the effort and had Biden's ear, who had a direct line to the Obama.

Well I'm just saying that diplomats in such positions receive their instructions from DC, the level of intrigue used by the US to support the overthrow of the elected government, the use of protester snipers as provocateurs, aren't decisions made on the ground.
 
Yep. The "nothing" in response means he didn't use our military on president Assad. And as you mentioned, its far from a given that president Assad's forces even used chemical weapons. Also, with two or three failed attempts to secure a UN resolution for use of force, with the UK backing out, and his failure to secure authorisation from congress, and with 70% of Americans saying no, his only option for using the military was to be a belligerent, and they know this, but then they like belligerents. They loved George Bush for lying about Saddam's WMD's and then telling the UN to support his plan to attack Iraq, or get out of the way.

Right on mark here. Good post.
 
Well I'm just saying that diplomats in such positions receive their instructions from DC, the level of intrigue used by the US to support the overthrow of the elected government, the use of protester snipers as provocateurs, aren't decisions made on the ground.

You may be right. If Obama was spearheading that thing, that's a very big problem. Very big.
 
I get that this is a popular meme for many hysterical rightie tighties, and I'm not even a tiny bit patriotic, but seriously who do you think is more relevant than the USA? Seriously, let's hear 'em. Another country is the global financial currency? Good, bad, or indifferent, which other country is first and most in the news globally looking for our reaction to most global issues, which country is first on the list when "freedom fighters" want financial and logistic support, which country is first on the list when a country needs humanitarian aid after a disaster???

This idea that we are reducing ourselves hopefully is true, because we could be reduced 10fold or more and still be more relevant than any other country. Stop with the trying to put shame on it. The real shame is the fact that our military spending is more than the next 13 countries combined. Then because we don't, what?, start a war over Crimea, some whiny citizens bemoan our weakness.

The World's Most Powerful People List - Forbes
 
Obama helped lead the effort for the agreement to take place. And if it had not been for Obama, it would not have taken place. In his first term, Obama specifically stated his intent to reach out to Iran. Remember?

Indeed, but Russia and China and France had already been "reaching out". Obama just can't be given the credit for that agreement and yes, it would have happened without him. In fact Russia could have done it on their own.

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/722265

No respect? Then why did Assad agree to destroy his weapons. If he had no respect for Obama he would have said to hell with it. I don't have to listen to you.

Partly because we paid him and partly because it wasn't the US but the UN security council that was willing to give armed entry into the country the nod if he didn't.

If Netanyahu had no respect for Obama, then why is the government of Israel now trying to see how they can leverage the agreement and talks with Iran? If they had no respect, they would say to hell with it, we will do as we please.

No matter how incompetent they think Obama is, they still need the bucks to keep flowing from the US. And again, that agreement has little to nothing to do with the US.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom