• 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 calls for new start with Iran

Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
So you think equating the current recession as equal to the "great depression" isn't “chicken little” and an attempt to fear monger in an effort to promote a Liberal agenda that is sinking this nation into a 9.3 trillion deficit for the next nine years?

You have a funny definition of the term; but this can be explained by your "selective" outrage at those on the "right."

Carry on.

I'm technically on the right, so your statement is pretty amusing. I just call bull**** when I see it, and there are a few people in this thread who bitched when people were bashing Bush, only to turn around and lambaste Obama.

I see you continue to have difficulty answering questions to you and dealing with the issues. Your "selective" outrage is noted however.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
WRONG. It was the overthrow of the democratically elected government and installation of the Shah (so oil profits could continue) by the CIA which got us to where we are with them today... actually, that and Bush 43 labeling them as part of the axis of evil even when they were originally helping us with Afghanistan.

Your amusing revisionist history of Iran is trite but farcical.

Why do you fabricate the events that led up to the Shah’s taking power; because it fits your narrow and myopic political views?
 
Your amusing revisionist history of Iran is trite but farcical.

Why do you fabricate the events that led up to the Shah’s taking power; because it fits your narrow and myopic political views?

why dont you explain why its trite but farcical? [just for the novelty value if nothing else]
 
why dont you explain why its trite but farcical? [just for the novelty value if nothing else]

A simple google search on the history of Iran is all that is required Dave. Are you too lazy to do your own research?

It is trite and farcical to suggest that CIA manipulations were the primary reasons the Shah came to power, as he had already had that power long before the events that once again propelled him into that leadership role, and it ignores all the history of Europes intervention in the region and the modern Soviet Unions intentions in the region.

It is simplistic tripe to suggest that the Shah was in charge simply because of CIA intervention as postulated by a Liberal "hate America first" crowd in order to repeat the distortions and lies that America is the great evil in the world and everyone else is just being manipulated by us.

Why don't you start here and then get back to me:

Brief History of Modern Iran

Good source on the Shaw:
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I see you continue to have difficulty answering questions to you and dealing with the issues. Your "selective" outrage is noted however.

Carry on. :2wave:

You think that just because I dislike hyperpartisan parrots like Zimmer and yourself that I have "selected outrage" towards the right? :lol:
 
You think that just because I dislike hyperpartisan parrots like Zimmer and yourself that I have "selected outrage" towards the right? :lol:

You can't even be honest with your constant abuse, and tiresome use of the term "hyper-partisan." It is with equal absurdity that you selectively target the "right" on this forum as the ONLY ones who act "hyper-partisan".

Let's face it, your efforts can only be described as the typical and desperate emotional baiting and trolling so common on this forum usually coming from people who cannot support their partisan, or "non-partisan" (I have to laugh at this notion), views with coherent arguments and facts and feign selective ignorance to the REALITY that one can debate politics and not have a "partisan" view. It takes an equal level of willful denial or ignorance to suggest that the Conservatives on the forum are MORE "hyper-partisan" than the Liberals, Leftists and Communist who infest the place with their rabid anti-Bush hate America first BS.

:roll:
 
You can't even be honest with your constant abuse, and tiresome use of the term "hyper-partisan." It is with equal absurdity that you selectively target the "right" on this forum as the ONLY ones who act "hyper-partisan".
Hardly. Your counterpart on the left would be PeteEU.

Let's face it, your efforts can only be described as the typical and desperate emotional baiting and trolling so common on this forum usually coming from people who cannot support their partisan, or "non-partisan" (I have to laugh at this notion), views with coherent arguments and facts and feign selective ignorance to the REALITY that one can debate politics and not have a "partisan" view.
You can have a partisan view. The problem arrives when you take it a step further, entrenching yourself so far into your beliefs that you become a parrot for the party. Through confirmation bias, you simply digest what you want and spew out talking points. It's quite entertaining, but quite annoying.

It takes an equal level of willful denial or ignorance to suggest that the Conservatives on the forum are MORE "hyper-partisan" than the Liberals, Leftists and Communist who infest the place with their rabid anti-Bush hate America first BS.

:roll:
I'd say you guys are equal. I'm just glad you are small enough in number that you have not destroyed the fun factor of these forums.
 
Maybe his is just persuing all possible means to find agreement before he declares war. So he can say "I tried everthing".
 
Maybe his is just persuing all possible means to find agreement before he declares war. So he can say "I tried everthing".

Obama will never declare war on anyone in my opinion. Obama is more inclined to give into demands of despots and thugs before he uses any force and his party and constituents are the anti-war for any reason crowd.

I believe that his goal is to dismantle the military as much as possible like many of our allies have in order to pay for their social welfare programs and in our case, the monstrous deficit this congress and President have gotten us into.
 
Obama will never declare war on anyone in my opinion. Obama is more inclined to give into demands of despots and thugs before he uses any force and his party and constituents are the anti-war for any reason crowd.

I believe that his goal is to dismantle the military as much as possible like many of our allies have in order to pay for their social welfare programs and in our case, the monstrous deficit this congress and President have gotten us into.

We will see. Lucky for us, he is president so we don't really have to guess wether or not he will. Then again, we could guess, this is politics right? :mrgreen:
 
We will see. Lucky for us, he is president so we don't really have to guess wether or not he will. Then again, we could guess, this is politics right? :mrgreen:

Very true, and he has already shown a propensity for going back on issues and promises he has made or stated.
 
A simple google search on the history of Iran is all that is required Dave. Are you too lazy to do your own research?

It is trite and farcical to suggest that CIA manipulations were the primary reasons the Shah came to power, as he had already had that power long before the events that once again propelled him into that leadership role, and it ignores all the history of Europes intervention in the region and the modern Soviet Unions intentions in the region.

It is simplistic tripe to suggest that the Shah was in charge simply because of CIA intervention as postulated by a Liberal "hate America first" crowd in order to repeat the distortions and lies that America is the great evil in the world and everyone else is just being manipulated by us.

Why don't you start here and then get back to me:

Brief History of Modern Iran

Good source on the Shaw:
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Need a clue? Here's one...
New York Times Special Report: The C.I.A. in Iran
 
c6vb7.jpg


Notice US bases bordering Iran, if they try **** we will blow them to hell.
 
Well I'll admit I don't spend a lot of time reading conservative commentary, but when McCain said Obama's plan was like surrendering I don't think he was trying to appeal to the center.

McCain and Obama have nothing to do with Iraq. Like all of the politicians their role is to either get in the way of progress or take credit for those actually doing the job. McCain was caught being foolish, parading around the "time limits are a surrender" notion, which was no longer true and Obama merely jumped on the final days of the Iraq band wagon already in progress.

Marines were looking to stop deploying to Iraq in the front part of last summer because they largely do not have a job anymore (didn't get the media play that failure would have gotten). Iraqi troops and security forces were finaly standing up and the Al-Queda/insurgency element was crippled beyond repair. Bush had already instituted the retrograde order. And in the midst of this, the typical civilian was glued to his television listening to politicians boast about how the surge was ineffective (even though a "surge" later for Afghanistan is just the ticket) and how setting dates was like surrendering (even though the plan to begin deploying less to Iraq and more to Afghanistan with loose dates were already in the works).

Perhaps the "center" are those without a mouthpiece in Washington and prefer to actually educate themselves to these happenings beyond the ignorant speeches and headlines. Those that decided in 2003 that everything in this war was to be "failed" or "impossible" leaving no room for reality and good news were always the thorn in the effort's side (as they "supported the troops, not the war" slogan meant to fool the dumb, unfortunate little soldiers). Perhaps those who preferred to label any temporary outburst between tribes as an "Iraqi Civil War" or that because Vermont in the desert does not exist that all is "lost" are the real stooges. Because today they barely whisper about drones over Pakistan do they? And do you think the CIA is now out of a job? Or that Obama is open and honest about his affairs and duties in this region? Even he got slapped in the face with some truth when he took office and got exposed to the events.

Stooges come in all colors. Today, we are starting to see the other side point out every sentence structure or syllable out of Obama as the end of days or the coming of total disaster. Today, we get to see the left support what they criticized with Bush (bombings in Pakistan) and the right criticize what they used to support.

None of you were ever in a position of wisdom. Always only in a position of ignorance and always seeking ways to encourage your protests. And despite your efforts, Iraq is being praised by even the UN and the French. Of course, with the French dropping in a consulate building in Iraq two years after they protested for the preservation of the pain in the ass, who is really surprised that they would jump on the band wagon when international business started raising eyebrows.

And now this whole thing with Iran is taking focus too. Obama haters thinks that he is seeking a way from responsibility from this beats of a nation? Or that Bush haters have a man in office now that will snuggle up and make it all go away with a quick kiss and a handshake? Obama will give the international community and the global left what they need, which is to feel warm and cozy about kicking off in an enemy's ass, but in the end he will do exactly what Bush did without the rhetoric of "we are one." Our "friends" need this rhetoric to feel good about how they treat us and so does the left in America who gauge right and wrong according to the faces of Europeans.
 
Last edited:
Obama calls for new start with Iran

As the new President of the U.S. it is wise to take this kind of initiative instead of assuming that past rhetoric still stands, but I'm wondering what Obama will suggest if Iran does continue making threats.

Folks this is exactly why you were not supposed to vote for Obama.
 
Folks this is exactly why you were not supposed to vote for Obama.

Jerry to the Obama voters credit, McCain's stance on Iran was just as radical.

YouTube - Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

Bombing Iran would not sway them to our favor, in fact the opposite would happen. It would push them to buy even more old soviet weaponry, even more than they are already doing.
 
My sources had much more information and history. I see that you continue to prefer to wallow in willful denial rather than comprehend the whole story.

But of course you prefer a story that puts the entire event on the American CIA because it fits with your hate America first mentality.

Carry on. :2wave:
Yeah, YOUR sources. That's why I used the Times article, so you couldn't cry left wing media bias. So are you saying that something in that article is untrue?

Oh and I don't have a "hate America first mentality", I have a - hate when America does stupid **** - mentality. This mentality seems to be much different than yours which seems to be - sweep the naughty stuff under the rug and pretend it never happens, salute the flag and call a democrat a marxist.
 
Yeah, YOUR sources. That's why I used the Times article, so you couldn't cry left wing media bias. So are you saying that something in that article is untrue?

The New York Times is not biased? You have to be kidding me right? I provide unbiased sources and you provide an article from a News Organization that engaged in a campaign of ignorance, disinformation and character assassination against Bush thinking it is credible?

The problem with your source is not what facts are contained in them, but the major facts deliberately left out in an effort to impugn the American Government for the actions that led to the Shah taking back political power in a country which he maintained a significant level of political power and previously held.

It is as absurd to ignore the actions of the Communist controlled Soviet Union in the region and pretend the British were not complicit in also protecting their oil companies investments in the region.


Oh and I don't have a "hate America first mentality", I have a - hate when America does stupid **** - mentality.

Your “America does stupid” mentality requires the willful ignorance or denial of all other nations’ stupidity.

Once again, the reason is simple and obvious; you only like America if it is run by Socialists who want to drag this nation into the same morass as Europe currently finds itself in which fits your narrow partisan political views. It’s not the facts that matter to you, but how you can distort the facts to fit your “hate America first” mentality.

This mentality seems to be much different than yours which seems to be - sweep the naughty stuff under the rug and pretend it never happens, salute the flag and call a democrat a marxist.

Where am I sweeping anything under the rug? You are free to prove this with facts; but again, you won’t be able to find any.

I prefer the TRUTH and placing FACTUAL history into its proper context; something you obviously hate doing in order to promote your narrow partisan political views and “hate America first” attitudes.

I do salute the American flag in recognizing that all of America’s “naughty stuff” aside, it has been the greatest nation in the world which promotes the idea of freedom from tyranny, being a nation of laws and human rights and dignity and the freedom of choice free markets represent to it’s citizens versus the contrary. It is the shining beacon that the worlds people have escaped to in order to share in that dream; one which their own nations would not or could not provide.

You want to focus on America’s mistakes to promote an “anti-American” rhetoric that serves a political view that freedom of choice is bad unless it fits your narrow partisan agenda and ignores the participation and actions other nations have had in the decisions America has had to confront, engage in and compromise with.

Yes, we have done some things that were mistaken; but the goal has always been to promote Democracy, freedom and human dignity; things that are wanting in most other nations.
 
Your “America does stupid” mentality requires the willful ignorance or denial of all other nations’ stupidity.
So if the American government makes poor choices, are we in the wrong if we criticize them for it?
 
So if the American government makes poor choices, are we in the wrong if we criticize them for it?

That isn't the debate; but thank you for trolling. ;)

Read my comments and get back to me when you get it. :2wave:
 
I wander what would happen if a "tragic flaw" was found in the system which lead to a "cascading systemic failure" of their enrichment program at Natanz.
 
That isn't the debate; but thank you for trolling. ;)

Read my comments and get back to me when you get it. :2wave:
Your defensive response and Ad Hominems are noted. I only asked a question, which you avoided. Get back to me when you have an answer.
 
Your defensive response and Ad Hominems are noted. I only asked a question, which you avoided. Get back to me when you have an answer.

Anybody who stands up to you and calls you on your rhetoric is guilty of ad hom?

Get a grip man!
 
Back
Top Bottom