Duck Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Agreed. I think his daily intel briefs cover your last sentence though. Who knows, maybe he is being idealistic, or maybe he knows something we don't. If these talks can bring about a greater chance for change so that Iran reverts back to pre-revolution ways then by all means go for it. If we continue on the road we're on I don't see any hope of Iran going back to its moderate ways which only means more headaches from this country in the future. Unless we nuke them and then just start over. (kidding) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjackson82 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Nothing wrong with what he's attempting to do. Better than trying to start fights with everyone and having people hate us. I know it's not about pleasing everyone and letting them walk over our interests. But I don't mind trying the diplomatic way first before taking military action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hueypilot812 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 (edited) Gents, seems Obama is being schooled on how things work in the "real world"...I hope he really takes a step back and realizes that Iran's only interest in diplomacy is in suckering other nations to give in to their demands while they secretly continue with their agenda. Iran dismisses Obama Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed overtures from President Barack Obama on Saturday, saying Tehran does not see any change in U.S. policy under its new administration. "Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged," Khamenei said. Khamenei, wearing a black turban and dark robes, said America was hated around the world for its arrogance, as the crowd chanted "Death to America." I know it's not about pleasing everyone and letting them walk over our interests. But I don't mind trying the diplomatic way first before taking military action. Let me know how that works out for ya... Edited March 21, 2009 by Hueypilot812 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjackson82 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Gents, seems Obama is being schooled on how things work in the "real world"...I hope he really takes a step back and realizes that Iran's only interest in diplomacy is in suckering other nations to give in to their demands while they secretly continue with their agenda. Iran dismisses Obama I have a buddy that's from Iran and he says many people over there love Americans. Sucks that the government has to ruin it for an entire populace. As for the crowd chanting "Death to America", I'm sure we can find our share of American crowds saying some crazy shit as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hueypilot812 Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 I have a buddy that's from Iran and he says many people over there love Americans. Sucks that the government has to ruin it for an entire populace. As for the crowd chanting "Death to America", I'm sure we can find our share of American crowds saying some crazy shit as well. That may be true...but it's not the everyday Iranian who's setting their foreign policy goals, is it? That government you speak of that's "ruining it"...they are in control, and it doesn't matter what the "people" think. If the Ayatollah wants to push the trigger and start a war, or develop a nuke, or plan policies of eradicating Israel, then that is what Iran the nation is going to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsplayr Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Khamenei says "screw you America" just like we say "We don't negotiate with terrorists." For political reasons, it appears clear-cut, Iran doesn't want to be friends with the US. On the other hand, Khamenei knows America isn't ever going to lift sanctions or unfreeze assets without dialogue of some kind, so I guaran-freakn'-tee back channels are being worked. One Option "Visit Raises Speculation Over Turkish-mediated U.S.-Iran Talks" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyusaf83 Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Khamenei says "screw you America" just like we say "We don't negotiate with terrorists." For political reasons, it appears clear-cut, Iran doesn't want to be friends with the US. On the other hand, Khamenei knows America isn't ever going to lift sanctions or unfreeze assets without dialogue of some kind, so I guaran-freakn'-tee back channels are being worked. One Option "Visit Raises Speculation Over Turkish-mediated U.S.-Iran Talks" Some people just don't get it. No amount of talk is going to appease Iran. This reeks of the Munich Agreement. If we lift our economic sanctions on Iran, then what? Do we really think they will suddenly stop their nuc program and stop funding terrorism? Really? And if we lift the sanctions, what will they want next? They'll want us to end our alliance with Israel. Are we going to do that too? Khamenei said, ""They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change." Obama doesn't get it. The Iranians aren't going to get weak in the knees like our media does when they hear him talk about hope and change. They want results. Unless Obama is willing to lift economic sanctions, allow terrorism to be openly funded and supported by Iran, and screw Isreal, he should shut up. His celebrity status and hope talk may work wonders with the American media and public, but it will screw him in situations like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Some people just don't get it. No amount of talk is going to appease Iran. This reeks of the Munich Agreement. If we lift our economic sanctions on Iran, then what? Do we really think they will suddenly stop their nuc program and stop funding terrorism? Really? And if we lift the sanctions, what will they want next? They'll want us to end our alliance with Israel. Are we going to do that too? Khamenei said, ""They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change." Obama doesn't get it. The Iranians aren't going to get weak in the knees like our media does when they hear him talk about hope and change. They want results. Unless Obama is willing to lift economic sanctions, allow terrorism to be openly funded and supported by Iran, and screw Isreal, he should shut up. His celebrity status and hope talk may work wonders with the American media and public, but it will screw him in situations like this. So instead we'll continue to isolate Iran until they get their nuclear weapon and use it and then we will go in and take action... OOPS to late! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperWSO Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 So instead we'll continue to isolate Iran until they get their nuclear weapon and use it and then we will go in and take action... OOPS to late! Its never too late for an ass whoopin'. Personally, I think we're going to continue to send sternly worded telegrams to them until Israel does whatever they think is necessary to survive. That will probably force the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsplayr Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 So instead we'll continue to isolate Iran until they get their nuclear weapon and use it and then we will go in and take action... OOPS to late! Exactly...I'm not advocating lifting sanctions or parting ways with Israel or anything like that...my point was exactly this. What we're doing ain't working b/c they're closer to having the bomb than ever and that's not gonna turn out well for anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfargin Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Exactly...I'm not advocating lifting sanctions or parting ways with Israel or anything like that...my point was exactly this. What we're doing ain't working b/c they're closer to having the bomb than ever and that's not gonna turn out well for anyone So, should we go in now and stop them?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyusaf83 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 So, should we go in now and stop them?? No, lets just keep honoring thier holidays, speaking their language, and kissing their asses. That will work just fine. Vertigo, did I say I advocated Bush's policy of ignoring them? All I'm saying is Obama has zero clue on how to deal with Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Vertigo, did I say I advocated Bush's policy of ignoring them? All I'm saying is Obama has zero clue on how to deal with Iran. So what's your solution to the problem then? You say your against isolating them with sanctions, but you also say that opening a dialogue won't work either. So in your mind the only solution would be __________ ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 So what's your solution to the problem then? You say your against isolating them with sanctions, but you also say that opening a dialogue won't work either. So in your mind the only solution would be __________ ? "It shall be the policy of the United States Government that a nuclear weapon detonation upon any target in the Middle East shall be considered an attack on the United States' vital national interests. Further any such nuclear weapons use will be considered as originating from Iran and thus will draw retaliation to the full measure of our capability." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsplayr Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) "It shall be the policy of the United States Government that a nuclear weapon detonation upon any target in the Middle East shall be considered an attack on the United States' vital national interests. Further any such nuclear weapons use will be considered as originating from Iran and thus will draw retaliation to the full measure of our capability." I'm pretty sure that goes without saying. The problem with that policy is that if Iran is crazy enough to actually use a nuke then it's too late. The other problem is if they just get a bomb but don't actually use it. Then what...your statement doesn't do any good at actually stopping Iran from getting a bomb. P.S. - I'm not saying I have the answer or that there is an easy answer...I think I'm with Vertigo though since isolation & sanction aren't working, an invasion isn't really viable, and an honest stab at real diplomacy won't hurt... Edited March 24, 2009 by nsplayr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vettepilot Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 IMO Isreal is going to take care of itself. No matter what we do with Iran, if they get close enough to having a nuke and a way to use it then Isreal isnt going to sit and wait for the US to do something. They'll take away Iran's capability, but who knows what'll happen next and I think that is more of a concern to us than the nuke itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyusaf83 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 So what's your solution to the problem then? You say your against isolating them with sanctions, but you also say that opening a dialogue won't work either. So in your mind the only solution would be __________ ? Am I limited to believing we should do exactly what Bush did or what Obama is doing? I'm all for the economic sanctions, though its not enough. Iran is still going through with its nuclear program despite Bush's sanctions and Obama's fuzzy talk. So what do we do? First of all, stop kissing thier asses. No more honoring their holidays, oogling over their history, and speaking their language. Stop the damn lovefest. Seriously, who does Obama think he is talking to? He comes off as weak and open to intimidation and manipulation. A pitiful weakling. Then, continue with economic sanctions. When they continue with their nuc program, bomb them. That simple. For pc purposes, give them an ultimadem first that they will promptly ignore. I'm not saying we invade or send in ground troops, just stategically take out their nuc program for them. What do you think we shoud do Vertigo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjackson82 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Just a scenario I'm throwing out there. But if Israel were to attack Iran and we were to get involved, what do you guys think Russia's position in this would be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) Am I limited to believing we should do exactly what Bush did or what Obama is doing? I'm all for the economic sanctions, though its not enough. Iran is still going through with its nuclear program despite Bush's sanctions and Obama's fuzzy talk. So what do we do? First of all, stop kissing thier asses. No more honoring their holidays, oogling over their history, and speaking their language. Stop the damn lovefest. Seriously, who does Obama think he is talking to? He comes off as weak and open to intimidation and manipulation. A pitiful weakling. Then, continue with economic sanctions. When they continue with their nuc program, bomb them. That simple. For pc purposes, give them an ultimadem first that they will promptly ignore. I'm not saying we invade or send in ground troops, just stategically take out their nuc program for them. What do you think we shoud do Vertigo? I don't know what the answer is but I'm willing to at least TRY to have a sit down with them to see where it leads. I could care less if Obama comes off as a "weakling". The purpose isn't to puff up his image as a bully, it's to open up a dialogue in an attempt to prevent something drastic from happening. Last I checked I didn't get Ramadan off; can't say I'm very well versed in their history- wasn't taught at my public school; and when I called up my credit card company I got the option of 1 for English and 2 for Spanish- must've missed the 3 for Farsi. edit fur spelin errers Edited March 24, 2009 by Vertigo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyusaf83 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) I don't know what the answer is but I'm willing to at least TRY to have a sit down with them to see where it leads. I could care less if Obama comes off as a "weakling". The purpose isn't to puff up his image as a bully, it's to open up a dialogue in an attempt to prevent something drastic from happening. Last I checked I didn't get Ramadan off; can't say I'm very well versed in their history- wasn't taught at my public school; and when I called up my credit card company I got the option of 1 for English and 2 for Spanish- must've missed the 3 for Farsi. edit fur spelin errers Just like Ol' Chamberlain found peace in his time by talking to Adolph, right? I wonder why Hitler thought Europe was for the taking after the Munich Conference... there could be a connection there. Seriously man, go read the rhetoric that Iranian leaders spew. It would be one thing if we were dealing with a secular government that had rational desires for prosperity. But that ain't Iran. Mahmoud has said Israel needs to be "wiped from the map" and "wiped from the pages of history". He also said, ""Israel is about to crash. This is God's promise and the wish of all the world's nations." Also calls the holocaust a "myth" and a "legend". In 2005 Mahmoud said publicly that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. I could go on. My point is, what in the hell are you going to talk to this man about? "Please Mahmoud, don't build nukes. Don't try and start Armageddon. Please, don't start another Holocaust." Good freaking luck. Talking to that ugly jacket wearing bastard only gives him more power. But if that gives you hope for change and quibling knees and fuzzy feelings, have fun with it. Edited March 24, 2009 by flyusaf83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yerfer Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Just like Ol' Chamberlain found peace in his time by talking to Adolph, right? I wonder why Hitler thought Europe was for the taking after the Munich Conference... there could be a connection there. Seriously man, go read the rhetoric that Iranian leaders spew. It would be one thing if we were dealing with a secular government that had rational desires for prosperity. But that ain't Iran. Mahmoud has said Israel needs to be "wiped from the map" and "wiped from the pages of history". He also said, ""Israel is about to crash. This is God's promise and the wish of all the world's nations." Also calls the holocaust a "myth" and a "legend". In 2005 Mahmoud said publicly that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. I could go on. My point is, what in the hell are you going to talk to this man about? "Please Mahmoud, don't build nukes. Don't try and start Armageddon. Please, don't start another Holocaust." Good freaking luck. Talking to that ugly jacket wearing bastard only gives him more power. But if that gives you hope for change and quibling knees and fuzzy feelings, have fun with it. I would be my guess that Obama has his hands tied. He may be a bit of a pussy, but think about it. Can we really afford to light the fire with Iran? It isn't just nuclear weapons that is pushing the envelope. Iran has been dealing arms to bad guys since the beginning of this war. The very weapons killing Americans are funded by Iran in many cases. We are aware of their impact on the American interest, but we can't afford to handle Iraq, Afghanistan, and THEN Iran all at the same time. Aside from that, Russia would throw a shit fit and use it as an excuse to get back in the game. The whole middle east is in to frail of a position to have full waged chaos come down on them. It doesn't help to have a extreme temperamental attitude that Israel has shown forever. It's going to be hard for Obama to keep things under control with them. Trying to keep them from pulling the trigger seems more so the real challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Just like Ol' Chamberlain found peace in his time by talking to Adolph, right? I wonder why Hitler thought Europe was for the taking after the Munich Conference... there could be a connection there. Seriously man, go read the rhetoric that Iranian leaders spew. It would be one thing if we were dealing with a secular government that had rational desires for prosperity. But that ain't Iran. Mahmoud has said Israel needs to be "wiped from the map" and "wiped from the pages of history". He also said, ""Israel is about to crash. This is God's promise and the wish of all the world's nations." Also calls the holocaust a "myth" and a "legend". In 2005 Mahmoud said publicly that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. I could go on. My point is, what in the hell are you going to talk to this man about? "Please Mahmoud, don't build nukes. Don't try and start Armageddon. Please, don't start another Holocaust." Good freaking luck. Talking to that ugly jacket wearing bastard only gives him more power. But if that gives you hope for change and quibling knees and fuzzy feelings, have fun with it. Ahmadinejad isn't the leader of Iran, don't forget about Ayatollah Ali Khamenei- Iran's supreme leader. He'll let Mahmoud rattle the saber and then reel him in when needed. Who cares what Mahmoud has to say- Khameni is the real power in Iran. If we went with your logic I guess we could save a few bucks on the budget by eliminating the diplomatic corps altogether. No need to talk when we can just bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vettepilot Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 I would be my guess that Obama has his hands tied. He may be a bit of a ######, but think about it. Can we really afford to light the fire with Iran? It isn't just nuclear weapons that is pushing the envelope. Iran has been dealing arms to bad guys since the beginning of this war. The very weapons killing Americans are funded by Iran in many cases. We are aware of their impact on the American interest, but we can't afford to handle Iraq, Afghanistan, and THEN Iran all at the same time. Aside from that, Russia would throw a shit fit and use it as an excuse to get back in the game. The whole middle east is in to frail of a position to have full waged chaos come down on them. It doesn't help to have a extreme temperamental attitude that Israel has shown forever. It's going to be hard for Obama to keep things under control with them. Trying to keep them from pulling the trigger seems more so the real challenge. If Iran is supplying the weapons that kill other Americans then can we afford to not do something? And its true that with the military's current situation trying to cover each area would be a big stretch of resources. But I'd rather they would have thrown a good chunk of money toward the military to help with that lack of resources rather than all the bailouts. Though i'll concede that a part of the problem is also recruiting and just expensive toys wont fix a lack of personnel. and I think its hard to fault Isreal for their attitude toward the countries around them. if we had countries bordering us saying they wanted to wipe us off the map with a nuke program running I am not sure that we wouldnt have already pulled the trigger. Maybe a solution is for someone to talk to Iran and lay out pretty much what would happen. They get ready with a nuke, Isreal hits them, they all try to hit Isreal, we defend Isreal with a few other allies, China or Russia jump in for fun... in the end it cant be good for Iran by itself. maybe they just need someone to walk in with a good estimate of the final outcome and spread that around not only the top levels of government but even the lower levels somehow so they realize what their leaders could be getting them into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hueypilot812 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 One of the major problems with the Israel issue are the misconceptions that abound. While it's true that prior to 1948, there was no "Jewish state" in the area, and Palestine was primarily run by Arabs, there was a significant Jewish population in the area, and they had been secondary in political power ever since the middle ages when Islam overran the area. If seen from a Jewish perspective, that area has been and always was theirs. If you see things from the Arab standpoint, they adopt a sort of myopia, where their "history" of the region only goes back several hundred years...according to them, that area was always theirs, and the Jews suddenly sprung out of obscurity to claim it for themselves. The thing is, the Jewish population of Palestine had always wanted to reclaim their position in the region, but had been politically powerless to do so. It was WWII and the holocaust that gave them political clout to get away with making Palestine into Israel. I personally take Israel's side in the issue, simply because they have existed there as a people far longer than any others. However, the Palestinian Arabs shouldn't be automatically kicked out, because they've been there for a long time too. The only reason why I don't condemn Israel for their actions towards the Palestinian Arabs is because of the behavior of the Arab factions...if Israel tried to let them live peacefully within their country, they would still commit acts of terror, and still try to topple and remove the Jewish government. The Arab factions that hold the power in the region have no interest in sharing the spotlight with Jews in any capacity. It's really too bad because both sides are guilty of omitting certain histories to suit their own picture. Iran only complicates things...and their role in this saga is more along the lines of regional domination, rather than actual resolution of the Arab/Jewish issue. In fact, in my experience most Arabs outside Palestine don't even like the Palestinian Arabs...the Iraqis here make fun of them, unless they're getting bombed by Israel, which then they turn serious and act as though the very people they were saying jokes about are now their brothers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjackson82 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 One of the major problems with the Israel issue are the misconceptions that abound. While it's true that prior to 1948, there was no "Jewish state" in the area, and Palestine was primarily run by Arabs, there was a significant Jewish population in the area, and they had been secondary in political power ever since the middle ages when Islam overran the area. If seen from a Jewish perspective, that area has been and always was theirs. If you see things from the Arab standpoint, they adopt a sort of myopia, where their "history" of the region only goes back several hundred years...according to them, that area was always theirs, and the Jews suddenly sprung out of obscurity to claim it for themselves. The thing is, the Jewish population of Palestine had always wanted to reclaim their position in the region, but had been politically powerless to do so. I'm not saying it is exactly the same, but that'd be like Mexico trying to claim the Southwest back because it was theirs a while ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now