Obama's decision to talk to Iran is NOT appeasement!

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: Thanatos Very carefully, and to calm down and shut up while people with more sense than them try to defuse the situation in such a way that they don't all die from radiation poisoning. You see, removing Israel is on their to-do list, but they could already do it; if you can think about refining uranium you can build a bunch of dirty bombs with lots of pretty isotopes and get rid of your enemies the slow and painful way. Stall them like the U.S. did the Soviets until the more oppressive regime implodes. Keep them from feeling too cornered and entrapped because then they really will turn into the suicidal nightmare nation the Israelis are daydreaming of.

Iran could not wiped out Israel; although, Israel could wipe out Iran.

The collapse of the Soviet Union came from their pigheaded determination to keep up an arms' war with the elite United States that took all from that country.

Economic sanctions in the Middle East do not work, either. The people rally around their inept leader, thrilled that their country is sticking up to the bully, the United States.

Obama cannot meet with Iran and expect Israel to take it calmly. Israel's very existence in the Middle East is not welcomed and the country has every right to fear any nuclear advances by those countries set out to destroy it. It's probably tempting to Israel to take out the facilities in Iran suspected to be cultivating that technology . . . Obama's inexperience makes him foolish . . .

If there were some solution to the puzzle, greater minds would have discovered it . . .

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Sweet Katie Iran could not wiped out Israel; although, Israel could wipe out Iran. The collapse of the Soviet Union came from their pigheaded determination to keep up an arms' war with the elite United States that took all from that country. Economic sanctions in the Middle East do not work, either. The people rally around their inept leader, thrilled that their country is sticking up to the bully, the United States. Obama cannot meet with Iran and expect Israel to take it calmly. Israel's very existence in the Middle East is not welcomed and the country has every right to fear any nuclear advances by those countries set out to destroy it. It's probably tempting to Israel to take out the facilities in Iran suspected to be cultivating that technology . . . Obama's inexperience makes him foolish . . . If there were some solution to the puzzle, greater minds would have discovered it . . .

Well Sweetie. That is why we need intelligent women like your self in charge of things in our government. The gender factor I believe is a very important aspect when I cast my ballets. And your sound reasoning on topics here has all but encouraged my blief that female politics will become the wave of the future.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Sweet Katie If there were some solution to the puzzle, greater minds would have discovered it . . .

How blindingly refreshing to hear someone state the obvious, given that everyone here seems to have a sure fire solution, if only the world's leaders would just listen to them.

Welcome.

However...

Quote by: Sweet Katie Obama cannot meet with Iran and expect Israel to take it calmly. Israel's very existence in the Middle East is not welcomed and the country has every right to fear any nuclear advances by those countries set out to destroy it.

Israel's unwelcome standing in the Mideast is nothing new and isn't going to change any time soon, so while talking to Iran may not change anything, if we use North Korea as an example, it certainly can't hurt anything either, and Israel knows that.

For all his bellicose blather, I have to assume that Ahmadinejahd is not actually clinically insane. If nothing else, talks could determine that. Beyond that, as with North Korea, how much of the rhetoric is for domestic and regional consumption and how much is bargaining chip? Is there something else they really want?

Israel can grouse all they want for their own public consumption but they actually have little to lose from U.S. talks with Iran, since Obama is not clinically insane either, nor as monumentally incompetent as his predecessor.

.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: GHook93 Talking to Alamnutjob, Assssad or Hugo Fata$$ (sorry I couldn't resist on a slow day at the office) is not the same as Chamberlain signing the Munich Agreement (or him sending Hailfax over to meet with Hitler and proclaim the Nazis are go people). Appeasement is letting Hitler take Austria against that treaty and then sign the Munich Agreement allowing Hitler to take Sutterland from the Czechs and then allowing Hitler to steamroll the Czechs and take the whole country. Obama is doing that! What he is doing is opening dialog between 2 countries with britter pasts. Alamnutjob is not a saint, in fact he is a nutjob, but Iran is no where as dangerous as Nazi Germany and its disingenious to suggest that they are. The smartest thing we could do is start dialog with them directly.

Apparently, Obama no longer agrees with Obama because he is now stating that he would ONLY sit down with these leaders if it was beneficial to the United States. Also, he is now stating that Ahmendinijad is NOT a powerful leader in Iran, as though this is information he just now discovered . . . The President of the United States should know this information . . . not learn it and take the message to the people . . . Ahmendinijah's lack of power in Iran is well documented . . . It's not uncommon for the United States government to put a single face to a problem, such as Hussein or Ahmendinijad . . .

[Milton Bradley]

This guy sounds more, and more like Hillary all the time.


First he thinks one thing, then it's something else.


When are people going to learn it's hard to pin these people down because their skilled liars?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley This guy sounds more, and more like Hillary all the time. First he thinks one thing, then it's something else. When are people going to learn it's hard to pin these people down because their skilled liars?

Are you suggesting we all sound like skilled liars because we sound like Hillary? Can you elaborate on those claims?

[Technosoul]

If I were someone who would become the President I would arrange for talks with anyone who has a major influence on international concerns, the good, bad, and ugly. And likewise concering domestic problems.

We do not own the world, we cannot just slap a warning notice on Iran "stay on track and don't respond to this notice" thingie. We must debate them, like it or not, if any resolution is possible.

It is not like we have the right to kick them out our "our" international debate forum, and that is where Bush errored, we do not own the U.N. or the world.

I think the main concern Obama might have, as well as HIlliary perhaps, is to try to calm down the debates between countries ( and wanna-be countries ) so that they are not so heated up as they are right now. To get the "hot heads" to chill out somewhat so that more logical debates can follow.

What is wrong with talking with Cuba? They have not been a threat to us for generations and so why not lift the embargos and let their little socialist country do their little thing without being able to blame us for any failrues in their philosophy.

And why not talk to the reconized leader, in our country many speical interest groups and religions have more influence then our President, yet he still is the guy to talk too. Same with Iran.

Bush has created a "big problem" between the USA and Iran and the next President must find a way to ease that needless conflict.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul Are you suggesting we all sound like skilled liars because we sound like Hillary?

No, most of you guys cheering for them just sound pathetically uninformed, and confused.


It's getting to be a problem because you don't even seem willing to entertain that is a possibility, let alone work to correct it.

Quote by: Technosoul Can you elaborate on those claims?

I was saying all these misunderstanding exist because none of the establishment candidates can speak to their true intent, so much of it is left to speculation, and the opinions of the pundits.


You're just witnessing crooks revealing as little of their plan as possible.


Just like your hero Bill Clintons asking for the "definition" of the word "is" while using it in a sentence, I just can't believe anybody is that dumb.

[Matt W]

Milton, how about you stay on-topic? Again.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Technosoul]

Anyway, the bottom line is that McCain will continue the verbal attacks on Iran until we end up in another war and Obama will attempt to "give peace a chance".

I would support Obama's way of thinking over that of McCain.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul Anyway, the bottom line is that McCain will continue the verbal attacks on Iran until we end up in another war and Obama will attempt to "give peace a chance". I would support Obama's way of thinking over that of McCain.

So, if a Democrat gets elected, something like the Iraq War will not be allowed to occur again? I doubt it. Obama is appealing to people on a deeper level, but there's no good reason to believe he's the polar opposite of McCain. McCain is a really weak campaigner, which is why he seems more pro-war. He's too upfront about his ambitions.

Grandpa h.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul Anyway, the bottom line is that McCain will continue the verbal attacks on Iran until we end up in another war and Obama will attempt to "give peace a chance".

That is a leftist slanderous attack. War is not inevitable. America's relationship with Iran will take a nice surprising turn in 2009. Alamnutjob is doing to the Iranian conservative party what Bush has done to the Republican party, make them so unpopular they are getting voted out of office. Either way a more moderate and less confortational cpnservative figure in Larjani will overtake Alamnutjob!
Khaleej Times Online - Rival wins seat, plays down row with Iran president

[Charlatan]

So the basis of this thread is to see if there is anything that anyone can do to stop Hezbollah and Hamas from doing what they are doing. Why do they hate America? Why do they seek America's destruction? Has America done anything to make them less wealthy? No. Has America said that they hate them? No. Has America dones anything to them? No.

With rebels you find they need something to rebel against, and they choose America because it is the decision maker for the western world... more or less. It is recognised as the entity that passes what will happen to the rest of the world, and they feel hard done by. What are they fighting for? If you offered them everything they wanted, they would be appeased, but then they would want more, newer thing. They are, if my guess is correct, fighting for land. They want Jews to leave the land, or for it to be given back to them. They do not want political things because then they would be fighting each other, so you could say they are patriots, fighting for their people, and land of course. They do not riot in the streets because they have no problem with those around them, so it might be fear of outsiders that makes them so hard towards them. America has a prescence all over the world, so they are fighting the American prescence there.

What do they know about America? It is rich and successful, so they are fighting the rich and successful. Maybe they see themselves as revolutionaries, but then they would target politicians in their homeland. So they are fighting against the machine, a machine that provides jobs there and many material goods. So why are they fighting? My guess would be because they want more, for themselves and those around them, targetting the fattest cat they know for it. That and land that they feel should be vacated by people they feel uncomfortable with, but basically, they are being foolish, in my opinion.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: grandpa Well, why wouldn't American nuclear weapons be on the table? As I've mentioned here before, America is the only country to have actually nuked another. So, unless our weapons are discussed, America's officially declared motives are false on sight. Grandpa h.

It's true that America is the only country to have nuked another country. We are also the oldest power to have them and not use them in many military situations. We didn't use them in Korea, or Viet Nam, Panama, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq. If Iran develops a nuclear weapon and can demonstrate a similar resumé of restraint, then there might be an equivalence between the US and Iran in terms of nuclear responsibility. We will have to wait and see in the long run.

The US also had a reciprocal nuclear policy, MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), which stated that "if the US or its allies were attacked with nukes we would respond in kind." This was a non-aggression policy vis-à-vis nukes. Has Iran made similar policy statements of non-aggression with regard to the state of Isreal that we have missed here?

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: maximdewinter It's true that America is the only country to have nuked another country. We are also the oldest power to have them and not use them in many military situations. We didn't use them in Korea, or Viet Nam, Panama, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq. If Iran develops a nuclear weapon and can demonstrate a similar resumé of restraint, then there might be an equivalence between the US and Iran in terms of nuclear responsibility. We will have to wait and see in the long run. The US also had a reciprocal nuclear policy, MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), which stated that "if the US or its allies were attacked with nukes we would respond in kind." This was a non-aggression policy vis-à-vis nukes. Has Iran made similar policy statements of non-aggression with regard to the state of Isreal that we have missed here?

I like the way you think!

[Thanatos]

Quote by: maximdewinter It's true that America is the only country to have nuked another country. We are also the oldest power to have them and not use them in many military situations. We didn't use them in Korea, or Viet Nam, Panama, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq. If Iran develops a nuclear weapon and can demonstrate a similar resumé of restraint, then there might be an equivalence between the US and Iran in terms of nuclear responsibility. We will have to wait and see in the long run. The US also had a reciprocal nuclear policy, MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), which stated that "if the US or its allies were attacked with nukes we would respond in kind." This was a non-aggression policy vis-à-vis nukes. Has Iran made similar policy statements of non-aggression with regard to the state of Isreal that we have missed here?

Why Sweet Katie thinks its a great idea when you talk about treating them like the Soviets yet thought I was an idiot when I brought up MAD is beyond me. You have a way with words.

One thing though: Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Arguably that was in the service of the greater good, but don't forget about it.

[grandpa]

Quote by: maximdewinter It's true that America is the only country to have nuked another country. We are also the oldest power to have them and not use them in many military situations.

True, but it's hardly anything to rave about. The US still has killed many people in the wars you mention, and will likely continue to do so, unless prevented. Remember, the only solution ever found in Ireland was through political process. I suspect it's the same regarding Iran, Iraq and other countries.

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: grandpa So, if a Democrat gets elected, something like the Iraq War will not be allowed to occur again? I doubt it. Obama is appealing to people on a deeper level, but there's no good reason to believe he's the polar opposite of McCain. McCain is a really weak campaigner, which is why he seems more pro-war. He's too upfront about his ambitions. Grandpa h.

As long as one of the current Democrats is in office we will not have a another war based on deceptions and lies, but that does not mean that defending our nation when need be would not occur. We would see more concentrated activity in Afganistan or where ever Bin Laden might be hiding out at. And less activity in Irag. We can simply let the U.N. deal with Iran.

McCains ambitions to do what? How can he promote four more years of bushism when he knows no one is in favor of that ambitsion.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: GHook93 That is a leftist slanderous attack. War is not inevitable. America's relationship with Iran will take a nice surprising turn in 2009. Alamnutjob is doing to the Iranian conservative party what Bush has done to the Republican party, make them so unpopular they are getting voted out of office. Either way a more moderate and less confortational cpnservative figure in Larjani will overtake Alamnutjob! Khaleej Times Online - Rival wins seat, plays down row with Iran president

Obama or Hillary would promote that outcome, McCain would not. I did not see anything "leftist" or "slanderous" about my opinion.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Charlatan So the basis of this thread is to see if there is anything that anyone can do to stop Hezbollah and Hamas from doing what they are doing. Why do they hate America? Why do they seek America's destruction? Has America done anything to make them less wealthy? No. Has America said that they hate them? No. Has America dones anything to them? No. With rebels you find they need something to rebel against, and they choose America because it is the decision maker for the western world... more or less. It is recognised as the entity that passes what will happen to the rest of the world, and they feel hard done by. What are they fighting for? If you offered them everything they wanted, they would be appeased, but then they would want more, newer thing. They are, if my guess is correct, fighting for land. They want Jews to leave the land, or for it to be given back to them. They do not want political things because then they would be fighting each other, so you could say they are patriots, fighting for their people, and land of course. They do not riot in the streets because they have no problem with those around them, so it might be fear of outsiders that makes them so hard towards them. America has a prescence all over the world, so they are fighting the American prescence there. What do they know about America? It is rich and successful, so they are fighting the rich and successful. Maybe they see themselves as revolutionaries, but then they would target politicians in their homeland. So they are fighting against the machine, a machine that provides jobs there and many material goods. So why are they fighting? My guess would be because they want more, for themselves and those around them, targetting the fattest cat they know for it. That and land that they feel should be vacated by people they feel uncomfortable with, but basically, they are being foolish, in my opinion.

I guess calling a nation evil (axes of evil) and claiming they are terrorists, as Bush and McCain does, is not cause for a response form those guys in Iran?