• 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!

President Obama sent 'secret letter' to leader of Iran

Forget Ebola. Get yourself checked out for Obama Derangement Syndrome. It mutated from the same family as Bush Derangement Syndrome, but seems to be far more virulent.

1. Bush derrangement syndrome featured the charge that George Bush had participated in the 9/11 attacks in order to create an atmosphere that would allow him to lie us into invading Iraq, thus directly murdering thousands of Americans and indirectly killing thousands more. Obama derrangement syndrome featured the charge that his long-form birth certificate was falsified. More virulent? Please.

2. I can link you the quote of Barack Obama describing Americans who disagree with him as "enemies". Can you do the same for Bush?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063952749 said:
Do you have proof of that? There is verifiable proof Iran funds Hamas and Hezbollah.


The Twenty-Eight Pages

“There’s nothing in it about national security,” Walter Jones, a Republican congressman from North Carolina who has read the missing pages, contends. “It’s about the Bush Administration and its relationship with the Saudis.” Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts Democrat, told me that the document is “stunning in its clarity,” and that it offers direct evidence of complicity on the part of certain Saudi individuals and entities in Al Qaeda’s attack on America. “Those twenty-eight pages tell a story that has been completely removed from the 9/11 Report,” Lynch maintains. Another congressman who has read the document said that the evidence of Saudi government support for the 9/11 hijacking is “very disturbing,” and that “the real question is whether it was sanctioned at the royal-family level or beneath that, and whether these leads were followed through.” Now, in a rare example of bipartisanship, Jones and Lynch have co-sponsored a resolution requesting that the Obama Administration declassify the pages.​
 
Not only do they have their people funding terrorism, they have their people participating in killing Americans and the Iranian government directly funds Hamas and Hezbollah.

Khobar Towers bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To say nothing of, the Beiruit Bombing, Lebanese Hezbollah and half a dozen other offshoots of the ITN.


Bingo. We actually captured senior Qods Force Leadership in Iraq giving out and training the Mahdi Army & Co. on these things.
 
BO's strategy for ISIS has failed.....moreover we are not making an ally out of Iran. CPW already pointed out one very good reason we can't be. Iran is a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

If other Leaders overseas don't believe it a good nuke deal.....why would the Left here think it is?

Big Regional Power against IS.....yet at the same time they are arming the Shia. Who have been assassinating, kidnapping, and killing Sunni Arabs.

I particularly like the authority with which you speak. It's as if you are in those top secret security meetings and everything. Face it, you are so desperate to slam obama its to the point where it's obvious that your comments on the topic exceed your knowledge on the topic... no matter how authoritatively you put it.
 
Why is Obama so keen to reach a compromise with a guy responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans who sponsors terror on a global scale, but not with Republicans? Who does he think are his enemies?

Yeah, I was listening to Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence committee, this morning on the radio and he was mentioning that there have been zero meetings between the House Int. committee and the White House in 6 years (even under Dem control). He said it would be nice if they could get a secret letter from the White house now and then.
 
They are indeed. Remind me again how the Green Movement, when that westernized populace came out, worked out again?



I think you may want to do some more research on Twelver Shi'ism.



You may have accidentaly written this twice - but the response is the same. Yes, they do. They simply want to be the ones in charge of it.



Iran's mullah's were supported against their people by the Obama administration. Literally as they were being pulled by the Basij into unmarked black vans they were chanting "Obama you are with us or you are with them" and we decided we were with them because the administration wanted to prove that only idiotic cowboys like George Bush believe in all that naive "freedom" stuff.

Obama backed the mullahs? link?
 
Yeah, I was listening to Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence committee, this morning on the radio and he was mentioning that there have been zero meetings between the House Int. committee and the White House in 6 years (even under Dem control). He said it would be nice if they could get a secret letter from the White house now and then.

:D I lol'd.
 
I particularly like the authority with which you speak. It's as if you are in those top secret security meetings and everything. Face it, you are so desperate to slam obama its to the point where it's obvious that your comments on the topic exceed your knowledge on the topic... no matter how authoritatively you put it.

The problem is that if these top secret meetings are happening then they are in an increasingly small circle of Obama confidants, and not involving Congress.
 
Obama backed the mullahs? link?

Yup. When the Green Movement hit it's peak, and students were being dragged into the black vans to "disappear", and Iranian security forces were engaging in a mass rape/torture intimidation campaign (we found out, for example, that gang rape is simply part of being inprocessed to Iranian prisons if you are a young woman), they reached out to us for support, they but we were too busy in secret meetings with Ahmadenijads' foreign policy people and so we chose instead to trust that process (which fell apart).

Because, you know, that neocon-democracy-stuff is just so George Bush. :roll:
 
Yup. When the Green Movement hit it's peak, and students were being dragged into the black vans to "disappear", and Iranian security forces were engaging in a mass rape/torture intimidation campaign (we found out, for example, that gang rape is simply part of being inprocessed to Iranian prisons if you are a young woman), they reached out to us for support, they but we were too busy in secret meetings with Ahmadenijads' foreign policy people and so we chose instead to trust that process (which fell apart).

Because, you know, that neocon-democracy-stuff is just so George Bush. :roll:


You are changing your story. First you said: (and these are your words.)

Iran's mullah's were supported against their people by the Obama administration

This implies an active role played by the Obama administration against Iran's green movement. Now you changing your tune and are saying that the Obama administration just ignored the movement. These are nowhere near the same accusation.

If you are going to change your story to the latter of the Obama administration not backing the democracy green movement, fine... I'd like to ask what you proposed America should've done? Start dropping bombs in Iran? Boots on the ground in Iran? Drone strikes in Iran? Funneling weapons of war into Iran?
 
Last edited:
The problem is that if these top secret meetings are happening then they are in an increasingly small circle of Obama confidants, and not involving Congress.

Proof of this shrinking meetings theory?
 
You are changing your story. First you said:

Iran's mullah's were supported against their people by the Obama administration

And that is correct, we did.

This implies an active role played by the Obama administration against Iran's green movement.

No it doesn't. It implies that we continued to support the Iranian government as they were suppressing the Green Movement, who had asked us for help.

Our response was to issue a mealy-mouthed statement that all sides should eschew violence, and then hurridly signal to the Iranian government that we didn't mean anything by it, we wanted negotiations to continue, etc. We made it clear to the Iranian regime that they had the greenlight from us so long as those negotiations continued, and so that is how they were able to exercise complete freedom of movement against the protestors, knowing that the one country that might make trouble for them if they did so had already told them they wouldn't.

In his finest tradition, the President here acted by voting "present" when the demand instead was for action.

If you are going to change your story to the latter of the Obama administration not backing the democracy green movement, fine... I'd like to ask what you proposed America should've done? Start dropping bombs in Iran? Boots on the ground in Iran? Drone strikes in Iran? Funneling weapons of war into Iran?

Communications Gear would have been better. Any kind of support whatsoever would have been better. Obama appearing on television with a green tie and announcing mere solidarity with those who struggle for freedom against thuggish theocratic rapists would have been better.
 
Proof of this shrinking meetings theory?

Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, also Leon Panetta, from Newsweek:

“It was clear to me - and many others,” Panetta wrote in his memoir, “Worthy Battles,” “that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together.”

Such arguments were rejected at the time inside the White House, where the foreign policy machine has grown dramatically in power under Obama and cabinet members and their departments have felt marginalized.
 
I particularly like the authority with which you speak. It's as if you are in those top secret security meetings and everything. Face it, you are so desperate to slam obama its to the point where it's obvious that your comments on the topic exceed your knowledge on the topic... no matter how authoritatively you put it.



Do you even keep up on what BO peep has going on or is doing overseas? What do you think I need to read his personal messages to know whether strategy and tactics against an enemy is working? Face it.....if I wanted to slam BO I could use all his time here in Chicago where Democrats didn't even care if he existed at the time.

Here let me show why my knowledge preceeds any comments I make on a topic. Wherein all that you just said.....gets put into its Right and proper place.


Iraq's Sunnis Won't Fight ISIS for U.S......

Iraq's Sunnis won't fight ISIS for the U.S. says NIQASH, a non-profit media organization operating out of Berlin. Without Sunni support, America's war in Iraq cannot succeed. Here's why.

According to NIQASH, a source at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad said there have been secret negotiations between various Sunni Muslim armed factions, via Arab and Iraqi Kurdish intermediaries, for the past three months. At the request of U.S. diplomats and military personnel, Shia officials from the Iraqi government have also been meeting with the leaders of these groups in Erbil, Kurdistan and Amman, Jordan.

The Sunnis seem to be choosing a middle ground, one which does not serve America's interests. According to a 1920s Revolution Brigades (Sunni militia) leader, various militias came to the decision "not to support the international coalition against ISIS. They also decided not to cooperate with ISIS either. If the [Iraqi] army or the [Shia] militias attack [Sunni] areas they control though, they will fight both groups."....snip~

Iraq's Sunnis Won't Fight ISIS for U.S. | Peter Van Buren


Now.....lets see how Bright you are and why don't you explain to all here that know about Foreign Policy. What this exactly means.....and how this brings BO's strategy to an end.
 
And that is correct, we did.



No it doesn't. It implies that we continued to support the Iranian government as they were suppressing the Green Movement, who had asked us for help.

Our response was to issue a mealy-mouthed statement that all sides should eschew violence, and then hurridly signal to the Iranian government that we didn't mean anything by it, we wanted negotiations to continue, etc. We made it clear to the Iranian regime that they had the greenlight from us so long as those negotiations continued, and so that is how they were able to exercise complete freedom of movement against the protestors, knowing that the one country that might make trouble for them if they did so had already told them they wouldn't.

In his finest tradition, the President here acted by voting "present" when the demand instead was for action.



Communications Gear would have been better. Any kind of support whatsoever would have been better. Obama appearing on television with a green tie and announcing mere solidarity with those who struggle for freedom against thuggish theocratic rapists would have been better.

You are still throwing stones and cannot even admit that there is a difference between active support that you implied and that not doing anything that actually happened. "Any kind of support whatsoever" isn't an answer. And all you've done is pretty much start a war with Iran. Great job!
 
Oh and the finality to it.....until they come up with a new plan.



Tragic Setbacks for U.S. Allies in Iraq and Syria.....


Western Iraq saw more brutal bloodshed this weekend after the Islamic State massacred 322 people of the Albu Nimr tribe, a Sunni group, including women and children. The Iraqi government confirmed the attack in the Anbar region, which began on Saturday and continued into Sunday, and was described as "systematic killings."Beyond the lives lost, the success of these "systematic killings" will have a long-term impact on the struggle between ISIS and the Iraqi government. "The fall of the village dampened the Shi'ite-led national government's hopes the Sunni tribesmen of Anbar—who once helped U.S. Marines defeat al Qaeda—would become a formidable force again and help the army take on Iraq's new, far more effective enemy," noted Reuters's Michael Georgy.

In Syria, the United States faced another setback in its battle against terrorist groups, when weapons distributed to anti-government rebels ended up in the hands of an al-Qaeda splinter group, Jabhat al-Nusra. The weapons provided by the United States included GRAD rockets and TOW anti-tank missiles. It is unclear if the moderate rebels who had been trained by the United States surrendered or defected to the terrorist group. The Independent reported that a U.S.-backed rebel group, Harakat Hazm, surrendered on Saturday night "without firing a shot" after al-Nusra attacked the villages it controlled. Some soldiers apparently defected, and the Syrian Revolutionary Front, another group receiving U.S. support, was driven from its strongholds.....snip~

Tragic Setbacks for U.S. Allies in Iraq and Syria
 
And we have a winner... DING DING DING!!!!

The next scandal in the Obama Administration. I want to know how this got out and... more importantly what the terms of "cooperation on the Islamic State" are. As well as what exactly this has to do with Iran and it's Nuclear Program?? How are the two even remotely connected in anyway? Unless...Iran is funding the Islamic State. But that's just conjecture on my part. Otherwise it looks like agenda-driven political nonsense from the leader of this nation. We've come a long way from let's never negotiate with terrorists. Also, why does this not seem to be within the best interests of the United States?? Hmmmm
Who would be the strong horse at the negotiation table? Barrack Obama or the Iranian Ayatollahs?
 
Why is Obama so keen to reach a compromise with a guy responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans who sponsors terror on a global scale, but not with Republicans? Who does he think are his enemies?
This needs repeating. And any Democrats should take notice.
 
Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, also Leon Panetta, from Newsweek:

“It was clear to me - and many others,” Panetta wrote in his memoir, “Worthy Battles,” “that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together.”

Such arguments were rejected at the time inside the White House, where the foreign policy machine has grown dramatically in power under Obama and cabinet members and their departments have felt marginalized.

From your article that you are quoting.. (that I had to googled up)

The National Security Council staff, which coordinates U.S. defense, diplomatic and intelligence policy from inside the White House, has nearly doubled in size on his watch. It has gone from about 50 under George H.W. Bush to 100 under Bill Clinton, 200 under George W. Bush and about 370 under Obama.​

So the meetings are growing in size but shrinking at the same time?
 
Who would be the strong horse at the negotiation table? Barrack Obama or the Iranian Ayatollahs?

The Ayatollahs hands down. Haggling and negotiation were invented in the ME. No one in the Obama administration currently would be up to the task. Certainly not FrankenKerry.
 
You are still throwing stones and cannot even admit that there is a difference between active support that you implied and that not doing anything that actually happened.

No - I did not say that we actively supported the Iranian government in cracking down on the Green Movement, only that we backed them instead of the Green Movement in that conflict. You are attempting to create a strawman out of that one point (I assume) because you went and looked up the apocalyptic nature of the Twelver Shia regime in Tehran and realized that most of your other arguments were crap.

And all you've done is pretty much start a war with Iran. Great job!

Ah. Are we at war with Russia currently due to our feeble, poor, semi-support of the Ukrainian government? How, given that Iran already perceives herself in a low-intensity war with us, do you forsee that our support for the Green Movement would neccessitate moving to a conventional kinetic conflict?
 
From your article that you are quoting.. (that I googled up)

The National Security Council staff, which coordinates U.S. defense, diplomatic and intelligence policy from inside the White House, has nearly doubled in size on his watch. It has gone from about 50 under George H.W. Bush to 100 under Bill Clinton, 200 under George W. Bush and about 370 under Obama.​

So the meetings are growing in size but shrinking at the same time?

....... you are conflating two unlike things. Yes, we've added additional staffers. That doesn't mean that policy is being crafted by a larger number of decision-makers, nor does it mean a wider set of decision-makers across governance.
 
Oh and the finality to it.....until they come up with a new plan.



Tragic Setbacks for U.S. Allies in Iraq and Syria.....


Western Iraq saw more brutal bloodshed this weekend after the Islamic State massacred 322 people of the Albu Nimr tribe, a Sunni group, including women and children. The Iraqi government confirmed the attack in the Anbar region, which began on Saturday and continued into Sunday, and was described as "systematic killings."Beyond the lives lost, the success of these "systematic killings" will have a long-term impact on the struggle between ISIS and the Iraqi government. "The fall of the village dampened the Shi'ite-led national government's hopes the Sunni tribesmen of Anbar—who once helped U.S. Marines defeat al Qaeda—would become a formidable force again and help the army take on Iraq's new, far more effective enemy," noted Reuters's Michael Georgy.

In Syria, the United States faced another setback in its battle against terrorist groups, when weapons distributed to anti-government rebels ended up in the hands of an al-Qaeda splinter group, Jabhat al-Nusra. The weapons provided by the United States included GRAD rockets and TOW anti-tank missiles. It is unclear if the moderate rebels who had been trained by the United States surrendered or defected to the terrorist group. The Independent reported that a U.S.-backed rebel group, Harakat Hazm, surrendered on Saturday night "without firing a shot" after al-Nusra attacked the villages it controlled. Some soldiers apparently defected, and the Syrian Revolutionary Front, another group receiving U.S. support, was driven from its strongholds.....snip~

Tragic Setbacks for U.S. Allies in Iraq and Syria

This is the tragic consequence of electing a bumbling leader with no foreign experience, little domestic experience and no experience at governing. Why the electorate ever gave this bumbler a second term will be questioned for generations to come.
 
Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, also Leon Panetta, from Newsweek:

“It was clear to me - and many others,” Panetta wrote in his memoir, “Worthy Battles,” “that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together.”

Such arguments were rejected at the time inside the White House, where the foreign policy machine has grown dramatically in power under Obama and cabinet members and their departments have felt marginalized.
It seems so remarkably conspiratorial but the question is raised ever more frequently as to whose side this really is on.
 
This is the tragic consequence of electing a bumbling leader with no foreign experience, little domestic experience and no experience at governing. Why the electorate ever gave this bumbler a second term will be questioned for generations to come.

Heya Grant. :2wave: Whats worse is.....it wasn't ISIS. It was al Nusra of AQ. They stormed the Syrian Rebels villages. The Syrian Rebels have been pretty much defeated. This is the second or 3rd time al Nusra has taken weapons from them. To top it off.....Al Nusra is now going after Hezbollah and Lebanon. In which BO just gave Lebanon arms and Hellfire Missiles.

Now the Sunni in Iraq wont fight for us.....the Shia doesn't want us in Iraq now either. Yet Tuesday BO stated.....It was to early to tell about the Strategy with ISIS. :doh

Naturally the Election covered that up.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-t...eatens-strikes-against-hezbollah-lebanon.html
 
Back
Top Bottom