Yes this. Not just in politics but in many other things the mistake is believing that aggression and violence are the primary means of dealing with a hostile situation. In many cases that is the worst way of dealing with a situation. In politics this is the appeal to the angry low information voter.
Threats are the primary means of diplomacy. Iran wouldn't go along with the US's demands if the US had zero military presence in the region.
Iran spent 30 years feeding on military threats. The economic sanctions are what did them in. This scenario isn't true across the board, but in Iran, saying military threats made them bend could not be further from the truth.
Well, one of the big GOP complaints against Obama, Iran, and this deal - the 4 American prisoners - ends with their release today. No one will know for decades if it was part of the deal itself or a separately negotiated deal, but it's common to disassociate these things in agreements for individual parties to save face.
Just another part of the international state of crisis created by the Obama administration. Lord have mercy on our Obama-plagued selves. We need some old school belligerent over-simplification of a complex world to save us! Luckily, we have a good supply of candidates who could fit the bill. Whew.
Can someone break down exactly who is involved in this exchange? Haven't seen any info on that. If it is true we are trading hostages for criminal prisoners, this would set an incredibly dangerous precedent.
Yes. This is unprecedented. The United States has never exchanged political poisoners. Obama is the first. Dangerous precedent. The glorious Ronald Reagan would never do such a irresponsible thing. He would instead exchange firearms:grin:
Your post doesn't state who and how many we released? Do you know or just blowing smoke out your ass?
What are the very worst Iranian political prisoners the U.S. have in custody? Seriously? Oh... Let me guess. You are assuming it's going to be some sort of Islamic terrorist that is linked to ISIS or Al-Qaeda who had plans to attack the West. You know we are talking about Shias here, right? How many times have they attempted attacks on the West? Would it be ANY worse than trading arms to Iran? You're the one who is propagating false outrage based on pure conjecture about Obama setting a 'precedent' when Reagan topped your conjecture based worst case scenario by ten fold decades ago.
From my understanding, it's 7 Iranians held on charges of violating the sanctions which are likely to be lifted today.
Definitely worse than glorious all-American hero Reagan trading arms to Iran. Obama wants to destroy America.
So we have our confirmation. You're blowing smoke out your ass. There is precedent for bad prisoner exchanges from Obama. My question was realistic and serious. Meanwhile, from what I'm hearing, the 7 we are releasing are being described as those convicted of violating sanctions including weapons smuggling (unconfirmed).
It was criminal. That's why Oliver North was convicted. Reagan himself however was never directly linked. Ancient history though.
