How long have you people been watching US Presidents? Hell no he won't make an "agreement" with Iran. Now is the time you push'em. They're scared because we are truly crazy, and armed to the teeth. Oh no they could close the Persian Gulf! Who do you think would starve first? (It wouldn't be Exxon)
A storm here wiped out my long response. However, I will try to recap without losing any salient points. First, your assertion that Chamberlain's appeasement policy had no effect on Hitler's ambitions, that is conjecture that is moot. The only provable conclusions can only be based on the actual results of his decisions. Second, you assume that I would have championed a military solution. The truth is I wanted the U.S. to avoid involvement in the Syrian quagmire. The same was true for Libyan involvement but that discussion belongs in a different thread. Whether Assad is removed is irrelevant. The winner will still hate us IMO ultimately form an alliance with Iran. Obama's incautious agreement further bogs down his Middle East policy ... or lack of policy. Russia is already waffling on their involvement, and years, if ever, may be needed before Syria's chemical weapons actually are eliminated. If so, Obama gave away the farm without receiving anything in return. Remember, once Iran has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, they are very capable of starting another world war. As their economy weakens ... and I agree with any policy that keeps them weak ... they are more inclined to remain bellicose.
Syria was never our problem, Syria was always Russia's problem. Just having them step up on the world stage and get involved (and committed) is the best we could do. The Red line was always for them, do something or we will (get all up in your ****)
Obama is now the first Democrat that conservatives have compared to both Hitler and Chamberlain. As if you needed any more evidence of how far into Wingnutia they've sunk.
You are the one most deeply mired in wingnutia. Criticism of Obama is all over the place because Obama's policies and decisions are all over the place.
Iran is supplying troops and equipment to Assad, but you claim that if the anti-Assad forces win, they will immediately turn around and ally with the guys who were supplying their enemies. If it really was like that, why would Iran even bother to supply Assad in the first a place, especially given their economic problems? No. Assad losing would be very problematic for Iran, and their quotes and actions make it very apparent. Now, as for your point on the chemical weapons, you claim Obama "gave away the farm". I'd ask what he gave up at all, especially since he has explicitly refused to rule out the threat of military action should Syria fail to comply. He'll give Assad time to comply. If Assad does not, well, we'll see what happens next.
I know. He's black and comparing him to Hitler and Chamberlain is just an accurate assessment of his policies. I get it.
Would a tepid question elicit divergent responses? Would a tepid question elicit an intelligent response from someone like you? The answer to the second question, of course, is: unlikely.
A debate starts off with an agreed upon set of facts. a murder trial starts an agreement that someone was murdered. you want people to agree that obama is dishonest. that will not spur honest debate. i would hope you could undetstand that
I view this as good. It's partly the results of sanctions of both the Bush and Obama administration. The new Iranian president and their leaders, hopefully, is feeling economic pressure and see no good outcomes if they continue pursuing nuclear weapons. An agreement is of course one where Iran give up nuclear weapons ambitions. The US and its allies aren't stupid enough to take any chance with an agreement that doesn't guarantee that. To suggest that the US will simply allow Iran to do whatever, lift sanctions that's clearly impacting them heavily is intellectually dishonest and simply silly. A chance of this happening is probably close to zero, but hey, when you have the right leaders in place and the stars line up.. Never know. Look at Gorbachev / Reagan and end of the cold war. If there weren't a willingness to shift to diplomacy toward the Soviet Union the evil empire, it wouldn't have happened.
Out of curiosity, what was the goal of US policy towards Iran for the last 15-20 years if not to get them to the negotiating table? Were we just pretending to want to talk to them? What was the purpose of sanctions?
You see, that's the thing. Obama's policies are not "all over the place". He is a centrist as you can get for traditional American politics. It's the GOP that has ventured off to wingnut land. "Obamacare" is a republican policy that was promoted as a compromise for the democrat's 'single payer plan'; that's how it passed in the first place. It is heavily weighted to benefit the insurance industry to the detriment of middle class Americans. Congress stopped Mr. Obama from closing Gitmo, we are carefully drawing down combat troops from two existing wars, we are attacking terrorist wherever we can while minimizing the exposure of American troops,. We are using the The Fed to to foster along the American economy to recover from the most dangerous financial meltdown since 1929, and making the 1% fantastically rich while doing it. We are taking baby steps in the biggest civil rights issues since 1969. He wasn't culpable of anything at Benghazi, he didn't direct the IRS to audit the teabags, and he is surfing the sweet spot in the very very complicated issues of the Arab Spring. He is engaging and cajoling Russia to become a true ally of world peace and stringing along Iran while the youth opposition builds for their eventual 'Spring"; and it will happen. I just don't see the problem other than the Koch Brother's and Rove minions want the power for themselves and FAUX news and conservative radio have found a massively profitable niche inciting adrenaline in a low information audience. come on back to reality thumbs, things are OK, running about normal
No, my OP was a serious question then. As of today, with the opening of high level talks between the United States and Iran, that question is even more serious question now.
That took about a nanosecond: Iran’s President Calls on Israel to Join Nuclear Treaty http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/w...t-calls-on-israel-to-join-nuclear-treaty.html
Ofcourse Iran want Israel to join the treaty. In their minds they are enemies. So if you want to hamstring your military might you also want you enemie to do the same. How would the US respond if they had to get rid of their nuclear weapons, but Russia, china and north korea could keep them. It is good that there are meetings between Iran and the west. The only way to solve these problems is through diplomacy.
