Obama and Iran

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Obama and Iran

Postby kiryan » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:19 pm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258656 ... TopStories

So Obama pushed the reset button with Iran. Went on an apology tour. Is talking to Iran and all we've done is let Iran get 1 year closer to the bomb and taken away excuses from Russia and China who aren't going to force Iran to do squat anyways especially as long as Iran continues to treat USA as enemy #1.

Obama criticized Bush, but if Obama doesn't get results with his talks and has to rely on sanctions, doesn't that validate Bush's decision not to waste time in diplomacy that everyone knows is just buying Iran more time?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:22 pm

Seriously, can you at least pace yourself? I can't keep up with your nonsense in a single thread, let alone 20.

That said, I must have missed the chapter on sanctions in How to Win Friends and Influence People.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby kiryan » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:42 pm

Sorry, there is a bunch of stuff at work I don't feel like doing.

plus, this government task force recommendation got me really going.

--

Its nice to talk academically about the best way to win friends and influence enemies, its quite another matter when a country like Iran who supplies arms to terrorist organizations who hate the USA get a nuclear bomb. If you don't get that, then we might as well sell them a bomb or just take a lump sum to detonate one on ourselves. Bush Cheney McCain Republicans say a weak president will invite attack. There is no negotiating with someone who gets their authority from God who has labeled you the great satan, who wants to destroy you and your allies (Israel, UK ect). But Obama the academic, doesn't understand that. Lets have a beer and agree to disagree.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:47 pm

kiryan wrote: Bush Cheney McCain Republicans say a weak president will invite attack.


Yes, and since you don't need to know any of the facts it's good that they are willing to tell you what to think.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby kiryan » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:56 pm

Talking is a good policy, but you are a fool if you spend a year talking to a stone statue especially when 25 years of administrations have documented for you that it is indeed a stone statue.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Ragorn » Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:28 pm

I recognize this is a bit of an unpopular stance.

The fact is: Given enough time, every country on the globe is going to advance their technology enough to produce weapons of mass destruction. We're being foolish if we think that sanctions are going to prevent North Korean and Iran from building nuclear weapons indefinitely. We can slow them, we can make it difficult, we can threaten and sanction them. But eventually, like India and Pakistan, if these countries want a bomb, they're going to build a bomb.

So think about the best way to handle a world where everyone has nukes. Do we take a hardline, cowboy stance now? Do we open the lines of diplomacy and negotiation? Do we invade and occupy? Ignore them? Strengthen our alliances? Pre-emptive strike?

My opinion is that diplomacy is never wasting time. We keep eyes on them, but we talk first. If they show signs of aggression towards us, we invoke military wrath on them, but we talk first. We don't bomb them. We don't build a wall around their country and point missiles at them. We talk. And if they take a swing at us, THEN we knock them the fuck out.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby kiryan » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:07 pm

The problem with your position is the assumption they are normal rational people despite having shown otherwise. That they desire a world of peace where different cultures and countries get along. You don't understand that they are promised in the Koran that they will rule this Earth.

Really, I'm just taking a pot shot at Obama cuz I'm pissed off at healthcare. Talking is the right thing to do (although I'd argue they did the talking 30 years ago, and probably have done it throughout just not officially). Talking to Iran is naieve, but your right, what else do you do? Bomb the fuk out of them in a pre-emptive strike? That doesn't seem very mature.

and I would also point out that sometimes talking is counterproductive... especially when its seen as weakness and or capitulation or can be made out to be capitulation by Iran's propaganda team... In 20 years, we'll know whether Obama was right or wrong to take our status down with nearly every country in the world on his apology tour, his bows ect... If he doesn't run a 2nd term, that would really cement it for me how foolish he was. Go in for 4 years and take us off our pedestal and leave? Damage 200 years of reputation that America will go it alone and is powerful and cavalier enough to do so? Turn his back on the previous administration so drastically that every country has to now add, wait the president out, to their playbook? He could be the best, or the worst president of all time.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:43 pm

kiryan wrote:The problem with your position is the assumption they are normal rational people despite having shown otherwise.


They are just as rational as anyone else.

That they desire a world of peace where different cultures and countries get along. You don't understand that they are promised in the Koran that they will rule this Earth.


Doesn't the Bible tell us something similar? Have you already forgotten that Cheney is a member of an organization that wants to create an new American Empire? Starting with the middle east no less...

Really, I'm just taking a pot shot at Obama cuz I'm pissed off at healthcare. Talking is the right thing to do (although I'd argue they did the talking 30 years ago, and probably have done it throughout just not officially). Talking to Iran is naieve, but your right, what else do you do? Bomb the fuk out of them in a pre-emptive strike? That doesn't seem very mature.


Mature? Maturity, logic and reason have never bothered conservatives before. Why start now?

and I would also point out that sometimes talking is counterproductive... especially when its seen as weakness and or capitulation or can be made out to be capitulation by Iran's propaganda team... In 20 years, we'll know whether Obama was right or wrong to take our status down with nearly every country in the world on his apology tour, his bows ect... If he doesn't run a 2nd term, that would really cement it for me how foolish he was. Go in for 4 years and take us off our pedestal and leave? Damage 200 years of reputation that America will go it alone and is powerful and cavalier enough to do so? Turn his back on the previous administration so drastically that every country has to now add, wait the president out, to their playbook? He could be the best, or the worst president of all time.


Yep, THAT's the conservative mindset we've all come to love! You went from "talking is the right thing to do" to "apology tour... foolish... take us off our pedestal... damage 200 years of reputation."

Yep. That was consistent. Or you're just still angry that McCain was a shitty candidate and lost.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:51 pm

Sarvis wrote:Doesn't the Bible tell us something similar?

How is this relevant? We're not a theocracy or live under religious law.

Sarvis wrote:Have you already forgotten that Cheney is a member of an organization that wants to create an new American Empire?

Your poor words, not theirs.


Sarvis wrote:Yep, THAT's the conservative mindset we've all come to love! You went from "talking is the right thing to do" to "apology tour... foolish... take us off our pedestal... damage 200 years of reputation."

Yep. That was consistent. Or you're just still angry that McCain was a shitty candidate and lost.

That is consistent - what is the inconsistency? Are you blind?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby kiryan » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:55 pm

McCain was a shitty candidate, I could barely bring myself to vote for him.

Religious fanatics are not rational. You've been arguing with me for how many years and you still don't get that? Imagine I am Iran. You gonna keep talking to me while I keep building my bomb and spewing crap about how I'm going to use it once its ready?

The Bible does not tell Christians to rule the world. It calls for them to spread the good news (the gospel). Our treasure is in heaven where we will have new bodies although some scholars created an argument that paradise will be on the Earth after its remade. The koran on the other hand tells them to convert the other nations to islam or kill them, you are allowed to subjugate the ones that submit to rule by islam and pay taxes (this is basically what the barbary pirates were doing collecting taxes from non islam nations).

Consistent or not, Obama has done it. The Nobel peace prize committee dared to think they can influence his actions by giving him an award (and they're probably right). Obama is supposed to be president of the USA, not finding out how he can diminsh the USA to make the rest of the world a better place. What other American president has gone around the world apologizing to people who want to see us fail for their own benefit?
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:58 pm

Obama is supposed to represent us to the world. Instead he's gone around representing the interests of everyone else.

In the meanwhile, he can't even keep his own promises and leaves us unemployed and in the lurch. While he can apologize to the rest of the world, he can't summon the decency to apologize to the American people - instead sending his stooge, Biden, to bumble some crap about how they were too incompetent to realize that they shouldn't have made that promise.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:42 pm

kiryan wrote:Religious fanatics are not rational. You've been arguing with me for how many years and you still don't get that? Imagine I am Iran. You gonna keep talking to me while I keep building my bomb and spewing crap about how I'm going to use it once its ready?


You may not have noticed, but I have been trying that for years.

The Bible does not tell Christians to rule the world. It calls for them to spread the good news (the gospel). Our treasure is in heaven where we will have new bodies although some scholars created an argument that paradise will be on the Earth after its remade. The koran on the other hand tells them to convert the other nations to islam or kill them, you are allowed to subjugate the ones that submit to rule by islam and pay taxes (this is basically what the barbary pirates were doing collecting taxes from non islam nations).


You know what, I don't know the Bible well enough to say. I do know, however, that it was used to justify the Crusades. You know the Crusades right? The time when we went to war to "convert the heathen nations or kill them?" Oddly enough, those are the same people who now hate us. Funny, that.

Consistent or not, Obama has done it. The Nobel peace prize committee dared to think they can influence his actions by giving him an award (and they're probably right). Obama is supposed to be president of the USA, not finding out how he can diminsh the USA to make the rest of the world a better place. What other American president has gone around the world apologizing to people who want to see us fail for their own benefit?


What other American President has had to follow up on the travesty of foreign relations that was Bush?

By the way, apologizing does not make one smaller. In fact, quite often taking the high road can make you look like the better person.
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Pril » Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:11 pm

Ragorn wrote:I recognize this is a bit of an unpopular stance.

The fact is: Given enough time, every country on the globe is going to advance their technology enough to produce weapons of mass destruction. We're being foolish if we think that sanctions are going to prevent North Korean and Iran from building nuclear weapons indefinitely. We can slow them, we can make it difficult, we can threaten and sanction them. But eventually, like India and Pakistan, if these countries want a bomb, they're going to build a bomb.

So think about the best way to handle a world where everyone has nukes. Do we take a hardline, cowboy stance now? Do we open the lines of diplomacy and negotiation? Do we invade and occupy? Ignore them? Strengthen our alliances? Pre-emptive strike?

My opinion is that diplomacy is never wasting time. We keep eyes on them, but we talk first. If they show signs of aggression towards us, we invoke military wrath on them, but we talk first. We don't bomb them. We don't build a wall around their country and point missiles at them. We talk. And if they take a swing at us, THEN we knock them the fuck out.


Rags,
There's a serious flaw in your theory. This isn't a street fight where they take a swing at us we knock the the fuck out and go home with a black eye. This is a weapon of mass destruction if they launch first millions die. End of story yeah after that we can wipe them out (although I personally don't think Obama would have the balls to) but the basic truth is if they launch a nuke at us first and it hits we're talking about lots of death and many years of illness. And before you ask no I don't have a good solution to the problem because I don't think there is one, but at least slowing them down enough for us to beef up our defenses in a way that will help us prevent a nuke going off anywhere in the world is a good start.
muma
Sojourner
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Seoul, South Korea

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby muma » Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:14 pm

America has done far worse with WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION than Iran. America is The Terrorist of all time. Just look at Iraq (after Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein were funded by the american government beforehand). Look at Vietnam and all the other wars beginning with the invasion of this country by Europeans.

Here you guys go, instead of blowing up Iran, how about blowing up the moon? LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csj7vMKy4EI
Last edited by muma on Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:17 pm

Pril wrote: to beef up our defenses in a way that will help us prevent a nuke going off anywhere in the world is a good start.


Didn't we spend an entire decade creating defenses against nuclear attack? Are we really capable of getting MORE prepared?

Some say the best defense is a good offense. I say the best defense is making sure there's no reason for anyone to attack you. Or better yet, are better off NOT attacking you.

What's the risk of war between us and any European country these days? Practically nil, right? Not because we're such good friends, not because we're so much more powerful than them... but because we have so much trade that our economies are all but inextricably linked to each other.

We want to make sure Iran never attacks us? Sanctions are the absolute opposite of what we need to do.
Todrael
Sojourner
Posts: 1454
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:01 am
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Todrael » Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:26 pm

Joseph Cirincione wrote:Countries have given up nuclear weapons and programmes in the past only when [territorial, political and religious] disputes have been resolved. The pattern of the past should be a template for the future. Avoiding nuclear war in South Asia requires continuing the progress in normalizing relations between India and Pakistan and achieving a permanent resolution of the Kashmir issue. Ridding the Middle East of nuclear weapons and new nuclear programmes requires normalization of relations between Israel and other regional states and groups based on a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[...]

Suggestions for further reading:

* Campbell, K., Einhorn, R., Reiss, M. (eds.). (2004) The Nuclear Tipping Point: Why States Reconsider Their Nuclear Choices
* Cirincione, J. (2007) Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons
* Office of Technology Assessment. (1979) The Effects of Nuclear War
* Rhodes, R. (1986) The Making of the Atomic Bomb
* Shute, N. (1957) On the Beach
* The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission. (2006) Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms

Bostrom, N., Cirkovic, M. (2008) Global Catastrophic Risks. Page 399.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby kiryan » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:17 pm

"By the way, apologizing does not make one smaller. In fact, quite often taking the high road can make you look like the better person."

In America, you might look like the better person, but everywhere else you look like a mark.

There was a quote in the newspaper regarding Obama's visit to China made by Chinese officials I believe. It was somethign to the effect of good diplomacy is putting on a smile while your hand is in their pocket. You have to remember who you are dealing with and stop transferring what we take as normal civilized behavior and applying it to their nations and cultures and people.

Some of them want to beat us anyway they can, whether economically like China or diplomatically through global warming and the UN or through terror, if we offer to let them in the front door with smiles, they'll smile back as they detonate their suicide vest. The rest of the world thinks we are plundering their resources so we can all have SUVs, big fancy houses and every luxury they don't. How can the rest of the world raise their standard of living without reducing ours? You can't, our wealth comes from the rest of the world and from borrowing and they are ALL trying to change that however they can.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:22 pm

Could you possibly be any more afraid Kiryan? Bush's propaganda has done it's job well.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:26 pm

kiryan wrote:whether economically like China


Oh, and this part is just hilarious considering it's your vaunted free market ideals that are letting China have it's way with our economy. Let's move some MORE manufacturing over there while we're at it! It's cheaper after all, and the savings are passed on to the yacht makers (also Chinese, soon!)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby kiryan » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:32 pm

Politicians over spending and not adhering to free market principles is what is responsible for what is happening with China... The fed issue treasuries that China buys...
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:37 pm

kiryan wrote:Politicians over spending and not adhering to free market principles is what is responsible for what is happening with China... The fed issue treasuries that China buys...



Really? It's the government's fault that <a href-"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19508453/">just about everything</a> is made in China these days?

Huh. And here I thought it was Corporations chasing profit margins. Silly me.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Ragorn » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:11 pm

Pril wrote:Rags,
There's a serious flaw in your theory. This isn't a street fight where they take a swing at us we knock the the fuck out and go home with a black eye. This is a weapon of mass destruction if they launch first millions die. End of story yeah after that we can wipe them out (although I personally don't think Obama would have the balls to) but the basic truth is if they launch a nuke at us first and it hits we're talking about lots of death and many years of illness. And before you ask no I don't have a good solution to the problem because I don't think there is one, but at least slowing them down enough for us to beef up our defenses in a way that will help us prevent a nuke going off anywhere in the world is a good start.

Well, yeah. So what do we do? Again, do we continue to stomp on their fingers and poke them in the eyes until they finally scrape a bomb together? And what happens then? Hopefully we have some kind of laser cannon that can protect us from nuclear warheads?

How did we handle the Soviets during the Cold War who already had nukes? Did we beat them into submission, or did we talk with them and finally de-escalate our respective nuclear threats?
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:57 pm

muma wrote:America has done far worse with WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION than Iran.

Stop facism?
muma wrote:America is The Terrorist of all time. Just look at Iraq (after Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein were funded by the american government beforehand).

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archiv ... y-pullout/
muma wrote:Look at Vietnam and all the other wars beginning with the invasion of this country by Europeans.

America is not Europe?
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:59 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:Image



Look, it's a graphical representation of Teflor's thought processes! ;)
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:01 pm

Sarvis wrote:Look, it's a graphical representation of Teflor's thought processes! ;)

I had to replace the photo and provide credits, edited above.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:03 pm

Sarvis wrote:I say the best defense is making sure there's no reason for anyone to attack you. Or better yet, are better off NOT attacking you.


Due to the limitations of natural resources, this is not possible unless you counter with overwhelming force and power. Meaning: you're better off starving to death than trying to fight America.

Obama said it himself, when he told Asian nations not to depend on American consumers to drive their economies anymore.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:06 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Look, it's a graphical representation of Teflor's thought processes! ;)

I had to replace the photo and provide credits, edited above.


And still broken.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:08 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:Politicians over spending and not adhering to free market principles is what is responsible for what is happening with China... The fed issue treasuries that China buys...



Really? It's the government's fault that <a href-"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19508453/">just about everything</a> is made in China these days?

Huh. And here I thought it was Corporations chasing profit margins. Silly me.

You do realize that when the government alters the market, the market responds by changing, right? If a government promotes a much higher price for labor than say... in China, then what exactly do you think happens after that?
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:09 pm

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Look, it's a graphical representation of Teflor's thought processes! ;)

I had to replace the photo and provide credits, edited above.


And still broken.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archiv ... y-pullout/
Fixed. And oh look, you're still a moron Sarvis.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby kiryan » Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:21 pm

Hillary warns that Iran is becoming a military dictatorship. MIND BLOWING that she didn't know Iran was a military dictatorship. Yes yes not technically but actually.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/fe ... ctatorship

Obama gets tough on China. No success with talking so now he's getting tough.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8497422.stm


You know I was caught up in the whole talking to our enemies thing instead of GWB's nope we aint gonna talk until you agree to x y and z. It sounded good, but the problem is that first of all it portrays you as weak, second of all we had already talked to them. If every administration has to start over with every country in the world, you dramatically weaken and diminish your power. You start the negotiation over every 4 or 8 years. Other governments can wait out your president for a more favorable one. I think its important for us to understand that although the president has wide latitude to direct foreign policy, to some degree he should constrain himself to the direction it is going and the points that have and are being negotiated so the US can remain strong and consistent over time. The president should not over commit to heavily partisian issues.

I'll give Obama a pass on this because he ran on starting new with the rest of the world so its hard to start new when you just continue the old policies. but now that we've tried starting over, I don't want to see the next president start over with "talking to our enemies" Republican or Democrat. We've had our generational reset button pushed, now its time to stand relatively firm for the next 15-25 years.
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Disoputlip » Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:45 pm

I think one of the very first speaches Obama held about Iran was extremly diplomatic.

I am fairly sure most americans would expect that speach to be couter productive. But I think it was very well seen by Obama.

The revolution from Iran must come from within as I see it.

Here is a link to the speach I'm talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY_utC-hrjI

This is the new approach compared to GWB, and I am certain it has helped the moderate voices in Iran.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Corth » Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:14 am

What would really help the moderate voices in Iran would be the ability to speak out without fear of being beaten or worse. Not about to happen any time soon. I agree revolution has to come from within. The problem is when their president starts threatening to destroy other countries, and at the same time begins a nuclear enrichment program. It's almost like the country is begging for GWB style preemptive warfare.
Nurpy Fuzzyfeet
Sojourner
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:28 am

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Nurpy Fuzzyfeet » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:20 am

Well,

I'm a member of the U.S. Military and we've already been told in my squadron by the commander himself to expect to be in Iran within 18 months. This isn't speculation, these orders have been received due to what's coming.

Iran will be occupied, for better or worse. I don't know how long this pattern will continue, but it's not stopping now.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Corth » Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:36 am

Isn't there the minor issue of Congress needing to vote in favor of granting authority to go to war? Remember how GWB had to get permission from Congress? Your CO is blowing smoke up your ass if he is telling you anything is a sure thing. The odds of the US going to war against Iran with this president after what happened in Iraq in the previous administration are slim to none. Only way it happens is if there is an unprovoked attack upon Israel. Otherwise they will just keep going the diplomatic route. Of course, once Iran gets nukes it will be able to extort the UN into dropping sanctions.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby kiryan » Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:11 am

president does not need congress' permission to deploy the marines in a de facto war.

what your co said sounds like a personal view or a "boy scout be prepared" type thing. If there was serious plans, I'd be very surprised if your co knew it and if he was dumb enough to share it.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:15 am

Diplomacy is a vital tool for protecting our national interests. So are the United States Armed Forces.

The problem is that what is being touted is "diplomacy." Diplomacy isn't always soft talking and happy gestures of gathering around a table. Sometimes it is also harsh criticism, sanctions, and a boot to the ass. The previous administration was plenty diplomatic to Iran, perhaps in time, this administration will learn which type of diplomacy is most effective.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Corth » Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:59 am

The power to wage war is actually a bit of a grey area. Congress has the Constitutional power to declare war, raise and fund armies etc. The President, per the same Constitution is deemed commander in chief and could theoretically attack first and then ask Congress for funding and a war declaration one the whole thing is a moot point. Then you have the War Powers Act which is a Congressional attempt to limit the power of the President in this area, but has been deemed unconstitutional by all subsequent Presidents and has not yet been sufficiently interpreted by the Supreme Court. As a matter of Constitutional law, the relative powers of the two branches vis a vis each other in this context are broadly undetermined.

Realistically, a planned war could not occur without Congressional approval. If memory serves me right it took at least a couple of months for the millitary to prepare for it's invasion of Iraq. Certainly Iran, which is a stronger potential enemy than Iraq, would be given as much thought and planning. Congress would be in a position to cut off funding if the president did an end run around it. Or alternatively enjoin the president in court while the constitutional issue of war powers is hashed out.

So the jist of it is a surprise attack like libya under Regan, Sudan under Clinton etc... kind of a one off thing, can be done without consulting Congress. An invasion would almost definitely require Congressional approval.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:58 pm

There is the issue of Public Law 107-40

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,
or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons.

Of course, the President would still be constrained by the war powers act, but with troops committed in the field, the people would rip Congress a new one for trying to stop their President.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby Corth » Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:03 am

To the contrary, I think a president that committed us to a major war without first obtaining a consensus from the people and Congress would be justifiably lambasted.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby kiryan » Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:16 pm

agree and he should be even if it was a justified war. I've never been very comfortable with the power of a president to effectively start or engage in a war without congressional approval...
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:07 am

That's not to the contrary. Presidents that drag us into wars will be lambasted and Congress will not dare to defy the war. That, so much, is history.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby kiryan » Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:46 pm

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33158.html

Remember the partsian hack job, essentially setting policy by reporting that Iran had stopped all pursuit of nuclear arms back in the early 2000's that came out right after Bush started ramping up the rhetoric? Everyone in the world was looking at it going seriously, they really think Iran stopped trying to master / weaponize nuclear technology? Took the wind right out of Bush's sails.

We should investigate the people responsible for that report. It was clearly meant to tie Bush's hands and set policy.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Obama and Iran

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:57 pm

They might have stopped officially. One should not forget, however, that Iran is a country of two minds. Its government, and the revolubullshit guard.

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest