Reason why Obama panders to Iran

[Bob]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-obama-panders-iran-throws-091500684.html

Here’s Why Obama Panders to Iran, Throws Israel Under the Bus
This week, Iran’s Supreme Leader didn’t even bother with the veil (http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-calls-death-to-america-as-kerry-hails-progress-on-nuke-deal/). A crowd attending a speech by Ali Khamenei in Tehran began the “Death to America” chant as the ruling mullah assented. “Of course yes, death to America,” Khamenei replied, “because America is the original source of this pressure” to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
This is, of course, the head of state in the high-stakes negotiations that President Obama has tried so hard to keep going. Furthermore, in the Iranian theocracy, it’s the ayatollah serving as Supreme Leader who counts for everything in a political sense. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have hitched the security of the US and the very existence of our allies in the Middle East – especially Israel – on the basis that we can trust Iran to stick to a deal and not produce nuclear weapons, even though it would give them a significant advantage in the region. And the only man whose opinions count publicly cheers, “Death to America.”



Related: How Iran Is Taking Over the Middle East (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/18/How-Iran-Taking-Over-Middle-East)
The response to Khamenei’s statement by the White House may have been even more unnerving. According to CNN and National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar (https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/580115106966736896), the Obama administration didn’t take it seriously. They said it was “intended for a domestic political audience.” The administration dismissed the idea that was significant in terms of the deal Obama and Kerry have pursued, and for which the US and its allies have spent months negotiating. It’s just the Ayatollah being the Ayatollah, in other words.
Funny, but the White House took a distinctly less charitable approach to the ally that opposed Iran the previous week. Benjamin Netanyahu, in fighting for re-election in Israel, told voters there that he could no longer support a two-state solution under the current conditions of Palestinian leadership. He also warned Israelis that outside activists had attempted to boost voting of Israeli Arabs in an attempt to defeat Likud, and urged Israel’s Jews to turn out more heavily for him. In the final days of the election, Netanyahu won handily.
Did the Obama administration shrug Netanyahu’s words off as “intended for a domestic political audience?”
Of course not (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/world/middleeast/netanyahu-apologizes-for-comments-about-israeli-arabs.html).
Ever since, the White House has been in high dudgeon, slamming Netanyahu’s campaign for both the comments about Arab turnout and the futility of negotiating with a Hamas-partnered Mahmoud Abbas. Netanyahu has tried making amends for both statements, but as late as Tuesday, State Department spokesperson Marie Harf sniffed (http://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-likes-netanyahu-apology-state-dept-not-so-much/) that the US didn’t find Netanyahu credible any longer. “Given his statements prior to the election, it’s going to be hard to find a path where people seriously believe, when it comes to negotiations, that those are possible.”
Related: Netanyahu Shows Obama’s Deal with Iran Is Lose-Lose (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/03/04/Netanyahu-Shows-Obama-s-Deal-Iran-Lose-Lose)
Let’s get this straight. Benjamin Netanyahu, the elected head of government of a US ally, defies Obama on a policy that impacts Israel’s security, then apologizes for it, and yet is considered someone who lacks credibility. However, when the head of state of a nation that has sponsored terrorism for decades openly says, “Death to America,” the Obama administration shrugs off the statement as mere domestic politics and considers him a credible partner for peace.
We are truly through the looking glass with this President.

[Cigar]

Yea Yea We Know ... :rollseyes:

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/danpeterson/files/2014/06/Obama-Muslim.jpg

[texan]

I do not believe his strategy is hidden well or devious......I believe its how he sees the world.

He is serious when he says we will not be the policeman of the world. You see the security we provided through those regions when we were policing, but we have ended those practices under his administration. He is not going to get involved unless it is forced politically or the UN does it together. Some people are okay with this, see the Ron Paul's of the world. It is not complete isolation but is is essentially the same thing.

He believes by putting some distance between Israel and the USA he can build some trust with the countries like Iran and others that we haven't had in the past. I am certain he told BiBi as much, that our approach had to change. BiBi says hell no! You are naive sir and there is your divide. It is a well thought out strategy that he put in play and will never utter aloud, but his actions say it is in full implementation. See we are not in bed with Israel anymore! We treat everyone the same, we are the new america. See the Cuba deal for more proof. He believes what we have done hasn't produced progress and this action will change the world.

That's my take.

[Mac-7]

It's difficult to decide if obumer hates America and wants to do us harm, or is he just stupid?

Every decision Obama makes in foreign policy hurts the US and makes us weaker.

[texan]

The problem is he thinks he can somehow befriend a bunch of backward ass lunatics in 8 years...........

[Common Sense]

He's not pandering to Iran. His government along with the governments of Russia, China, France, Germany and the UK are negotiating with Iran.

Is it just stupidity? Or does something special happen when stupidity is mixed with hatred and partisanship?

[Bob]

I do not believe his strategy is hidden well or devious......I believe its how he sees the world.

He is serious when he says we will not be the policeman of the world. You see the security we provided through those regions when we were policing, but we have ended those practices under his administration. He is not going to get involved unless it is forced politically or the UN does it together. Some people are okay with this, see the Ron Paul's of the world. It is not complete isolation but is is essentially the same thing.

He believes by putting some distance between Israel and the USA he can build some trust with the countries like Iran and others that we haven't had in the past. I am certain he told BiBi as much, that our approach had to change. BiBi says hell no! You are naive sir and there is your divide. It is a well thought out strategy that he put in play and will never utter aloud, but his actions say it is in full implementation. See we are not in bed with Israel anymore! We treat everyone the same, we are the new america. See the Cuba deal for more proof. He believes what we have done hasn't produced progress and this action will change the world.

That's my take.

I accept that in good faith and will proceed to explain Obama.

If you are Muslim, he likes you.

If you are a Jew, he is disgusted by you.

He kicks dirt into American faces in Cuba and all over the world.

That my friend is my take on the man.

[texan]

Common sense would you have a major disagreement on my thought above?

[Bob]

He's not pandering to Iran. His government along with the governments of Russia, China, France, Germany and the UK are negotiating with Iran.

Is it just stupidity? Or does something special happen when stupidity is mixed with hatred and partisanship?

Oh right. Kerry works for the Chinese and Russians.

LMAO

This country is definitely pandering to Iran.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by texan http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1015869#post1015869)
I do not believe his strategy is hidden well or devious......I believe its how he sees the world.

He is serious when he says we will not be the policeman of the world. You see the security we provided through those regions when we were policing, but we have ended those practices under his administration. He is not going to get involved unless it is forced politically or the UN does it together. Some people are okay with this, see the Ron Paul's of the world. It is not complete isolation but is is essentially the same thing.

He believes by putting some distance between Israel and the USA he can build some trust with the countries like Iran and others that we haven't had in the past. I am certain he told BiBi as much, that our approach had to change. BiBi says hell no! You are naive sir and there is your divide. It is a well thought out strategy that he put in play and will never utter aloud, but his actions say it is in full implementation. See we are not in bed with Israel anymore! We treat everyone the same, we are the new america. See the Cuba deal for more proof. He believes what we have done hasn't produced progress and this action will change the world.

That's my take.



I am not out of bullets since you want Common sense to explain things.

He would disengage with Iran if he did not believe he is the world's policeman. He would not be waging war in Iraq nor Syria.

He would shut his face to Russia who he thinks he needs with Iran.

He would not be using drones in various parts of the world to kill humans, some were citizens of the USA.

The claim he does not see himself as the world top cop is not how he sees it.

[Common Sense]

Common sense would you have a major disagreement on my thought above?

Yes. The fact is...even though the US is the major superpower, the world does not revolve around the US. These talks are multinational. The way they have been framed on this site, you'd think Obama was having dinner at the Iranians place every Friday night. By claiming he is trying to befriend them implies that all those other nations are as well.

It's times like this I am so glad a Republican wasn't elected president.

If people really knew anything about Iran, they'd understand that Iranians aren't as backward as people think they are. Their leadership are interested in staying in power and use vitriol and rhetoric to secure their base. They are all western educated people ruling a complex country.

Some choose to simplify this complex issue due to ignorance and partisan bullshit.

[Common Sense]

Oh right. Kerry works for the Chinese and Russians.

LMAO

This country is definitely pandering to Iran.

Are you being purposefully dense? Are you not aware of who is negotiating with Iran?

I love when people have strong opinions on topics they are ignorant of.

[Mac-7]

He's not pandering to Iran. His government along with the governments of Russia, China, France, Germany and the UK are negotiating with Iran.

Is it just stupidity? Or does something special happen when stupidity is mixed with hatred and partisanship?

The foreigner comes to our country and calls Americans names.

[Common Sense]

The foreigner comes to our country and calls Americans names.

If the show fits.

You do know that I am physically in Canada, don't you?

[nic34]

I do not believe his strategy is hidden well or devious......I believe its how he sees the world.

He is serious when he says we will not be the policeman of the world. You see the security we provided through those regions when we were policing, but we have ended those practices under his administration. He is not going to get involved unless it is forced politically or the UN does it together. Some people are okay with this, see the Ron Paul's of the world. It is not complete isolation but is is essentially the same thing.

He believes by putting some distance between Israel and the USA he can build some trust with the countries like Iran and others that we haven't had in the past. I am certain he told BiBi as much, that our approach had to change. BiBi says hell no! You are naive sir and there is your divide. It is a well thought out strategy that he put in play and will never utter aloud, but his actions say it is in full implementation. See we are not in bed with Israel anymore! We treat everyone the same, we are the new america. See the Cuba deal for more proof. He believes what we have done hasn't produced progress and this action will change the world.

That's my take.

Huh? That's a "thought"?

Hope it didn't hurt.....

[Mac-7]

If the show fits.

You do know that I am physically in Canada, don't you?

Thats what you keep telling us.

[nic34]

Are you being purposefully dense?


It's his way.

[Common Sense]

Thats what you keep telling us.

Because it's true.

By the way, I didn't call Americans names...I called idiots names because they are being idiotic.

Frankly I don't give a fuck if you don't want my comments. In fact, the more you bitch about it, the more I'll post.

[Bob]

Are you being purposefully dense? Are you not aware of who is negotiating with Iran?

I love when people have strong opinions on topics they are ignorant of.

Me too. When do you intend to get up to speed?

[Bob]

Because it's true.

By the way, I didn't call Americans names...I called idiots names because they are being idiotic.

Frankly I don't give a fuck if you don't want my comments. In fact, the more you bitch about it, the more I'll post.

Congratulations on admitting you plan to get more and more irritating.

[Common Sense]

Me too. When do you intend to get up to speed?

I am up to speed. Your comments indicate you are ignorant in regards to the subject.

Are the countries I listed in negotiations with Iran in conjunction with the US?

[nic34]

It's times like this I am so glad a Republican wasn't elected president.



We'd be cheering SHAWK-n-AWW in Tehran by now.... YEE-HAW!

[Common Sense]

Congratulations on admitting you plan to get more and more irritating.

I'm just getting started.

I find it's my duty to confront ignorance and idiocy.

[Common Sense]

It's amazing to what depths some will sink and how much logic they will toss out simply because they hate the president.

They will literally fuck up their own country and risk war, out of spite.

[Bob]

I am up to speed. Your comments indicate you are ignorant in regards to the subject.

Are the countries I listed in negotiations with Iran in conjunction with the US?

Yes, explain their role and why Obama and Kerry never tells us what they are doing?

[Bob]

I'm just getting started.
I find it's my duty to confront ignorance and idiocy.

When you show up to fight, best you know defense.

[Common Sense]

When you show up to fight, best you know defense.

When you show up to an argument, you should be armed with facts and not idiocy.

[Mac-7]

They will literally $#@! up their own country and risk war, out of spite.

Thats a very stupid thing to say.

letting Iran have the bomb means a nuclear war in ten years or less.

Preventing that is worth risking a conventional war now.

[Howey]

Lmao. Allahpundit rears his crazy head again!

[Common Sense]

Thats a very stupid thing to say.

letting Iran have the bomb means a nuclear war in ten years or less.

Preventing that is worth risking a conventional war now.

Who's letting Iran have the bomb?????

This ties into my thoughts on people arguing without knowing what the fuck they are talking about.

Some here would have us believe that negotiating with Iran and striking a deal that they don't build a nuke and in turn sanctions will be eased equals "Obama is givin dem da Nukes, derp". It's like arguing with a recording.

[Bob]

When you show up to an argument, you should be armed with facts and not idiocy.

Same back atcha

[Common Sense]

Same back atcha

Awesome retort.

[Bob]

Awesome retort.

You are here to fight. I am not. Huge difference.

[Common Sense]

You are here to fight. I am not. Huge difference.

I'm not here to fight...I'm here to discuss things. However when I'm confronted with idiotic statements and outright ignorance, I speak my mind.

[Bob]

I'm not here to fight...I'm here to discuss things. However when I'm confronted with idiotic statements and outright ignorance, I speak my mind.

Good, that must make us twins then.

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's difficult to decide if obumer hates America and wants to do us harm, or is he just stupid?

Every decision Obama makes in foreign policy hurts the US and makes us weaker. If anything, he's throwing the Sunnis under the bus. israel can take care of itself; they're upset about this because they want every extra advantage they can get, even if unnecessary.

American Presidents have been under this "good Iranians" delusion ever since Iran/Contra, so the Rethuglican hypocrites have nothing to squawk about. Obama has accomplished two things for Americans here (1) getting Iran to flood the market with oil, driving prices down, and thereby leaving a booming economy as his legacy to the Demwits in 2016. (2) Getting the Iranian military to crush ISIS, which would cost us plenty if we are pressured into doing it after the mythical "good Sunnis" take our money and run.

Also, if left unchecked, ISIS would exterminate Shiite Hezbollah and take its place. They would immediately start killing Israelis, no matter how unlikely that is for the partially sane Hezbollah to launch an all-out attack as long as they are holding the front line of the jihad.

[Common Sense]

Good, that must make us twins then.

Then do you care to clarify your comment on Kerry working for Russia and China?

Do you understand what my point is? That there are several countries involved with these negotiations? That the crux of the counter argument is that somehow Obama is trying to make friends with Iran? The fact is many nations are involved in said talks. When you level these charges against Obama...you level them at all the nations involved with talks with Iran.

[Howey]

Yes, explain their role and why Obama and Kerry never tells us what they are doing?

Because they're the President and Vice President????

der der!

http://i.imgur.com/VOUXcPJ.gif

[Bob]

Then do you care to clarify your comment on Kerry working for Russia and China?

Do you understand what my point is? That there are several countries involved with these negotiations? That the crux of the counter argument is that somehow Obama is trying to make friends with Iran? The fact is many nations are involved in said talks. When you level these charges against Obama...you level them at all the nations involved with talks with Iran.

Certainly I will.

Who is the big cheese in those meetings? Would it be Kerry?

Who wants the same things as Russia and China?

Would that be Kerry?

Even Obama gets into this by his petulance against Israel. Thinks he runs the world. That it is our way or the highway.

I believe this. That the rest of the countries are merely for show. I can't see China being threatened by Iran. I know the USA is not threatened.

What is almost amusing is how Kerry and Obama kick Russia to the curb then try to use them vs Iran.

[Bob]

Because they're the President and Vice President????

der der!

http://i.imgur.com/VOUXcPJ.gif


Thanks Howey. I have to admit, till today, I had not seen your photograph.

[Common Sense]

Certainly I will.

Who is the big cheese in those meetings? Would it be Kerry?

Who wants the same things as Russia and China?

Would that be Kerry?

Even Obama gets into this by his petulance against Israel. Thinks he runs the world. That it is our way or the highway.

I believe this. That the rest of the countries are merely for show. I can't see China being threatened by Iran. I know the USA is not threatened.

What is almost amusing is how Kerry and Obama kick Russia to the curb then try to use them vs Iran.

Russia is a major supporter of Iran. It's good to have them at the table. The same idea of having China at the table in talks with North Korea.

Like I said, the world does not revolve around the US. When you deride these talks, you are deriding the efforts by all these other nations as well. They are not there for show. There is a world outside of the US.

I contend that the outright hatred for your president has clouded your judgement. If Romney was negotiating with Iran under the exact same circumstances you'd be calling him a hero.

[Bob]

Russia is a major supporter of Iran. It's good to have them at the table. The same idea of having China at the table in talks with North Korea.

Like I said, the world does not revolve around the US. When you deride these talks, you are deriding the efforts by all these other nations as well. They are not there for show. There is a world outside of the US.

I contend that the outright hatred for your president has clouded your judgement. If Romney was negotiating with Iran under the exact same circumstances you'd be calling him a hero.

I am not clear that Russia is a supporter so much as they trade with Iran. Who craps on Iran the most? Russia or the USA?

What nation says it will destroy Israel? Good guess if you said Iran.

The way Kerry is doing this is like telling the crook, I demand you stop robbing the bank but I will walk out and you have to stop for a month. Then of course the banks still waiting to be robbed.

I am not clear why you defend Obama. I don't hate the man as the person. I can't stand how my own country is being messed over by him. He was elected to change. And his fans keep calling him Bush number 3.

I can't speculate about Romney, can I? He lost the election to the most transparent of all presidents.

The same president that keeps so much hidden from congress they subpoena his people.

[Mac-7]

Who's letting Iran have the bomb?????

This ties into my thoughts on people arguing without knowing what the $#@! they are talking about.

Some here would have us believe that negotiating with Iran and striking a deal that they don't build a nuke and in turn sanctions will be eased equals "Obama is givin dem da Nukes, derp". It's like arguing with a recording.

Obumer.

All he is getting from Iran is a vague promise not to build the bomb for 10 years.

[Common Sense]

Obumer.

All he is getting from Iran is a vague promise not to build the bomb for 10 years.

How is that "letting"? As opposed to the option of not engaging them and further pushing them to building a bomb?

Do you think that he's just going to take them at their word? That there would be no other options in place?

Come on.

[Mac-7]

How is that "letting"? As opposed to the option of not engaging them and further pushing them to building a bomb?

Do you think that he's just going to take them at their word? That there would be no other options in place?

Come on.

Dont let them build the bomb.

Tougher sanctions will slow them down and military action as a last resort.

but don't let them go nuclear.

[Common Sense]

Dont let them build the bomb.

Tougher sanctions will slow them down and military action as a last resort.

but don't let them go nuclear.

Yeah, that's sort of the point of the negotiations.

Sanctions will not stop them from building one. Sanctions have been in place since 1979.

[Bob]

Yeah, that's sort of the point of the negotiations.

Sanctions will not stop them from building one. Sanctions have been in place since 1979.

Sanctions also won't work on Russia so guess what Obama did?

This treaty by Obama won't stop Iran from building a nuke either.

[Common Sense]

Sanctions also won't work on Russia so guess what Obama did?

This treaty by Obama won't stop Iran from building a nuke either.

The world isn't black and white. Sanctions are a good idea sometimes and other times they are ineffective. Sanctions had their place in the 80's and 90's...but they didn't work in the long run against Iran.

Sanctions against Russia have been quite effective.

This agreement is better than doing nothing...which is the alternative being offered.

Do you always want an adversarial relationship with Iran? Or would it be better to have a dialogue with them? The current administration, the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China agree that dialogue is good. Republicans don't.

[Howey]

Sanctions also won't work on Russia so guess what Obama did?

This treaty by Obama won't stop Iran from building a nuke either.

They aren't, Bobby? I believe you're the only person on the planet claiming that.

https://news.vice.com/article/sanctions-and-the-war-in-ukraine-are-crippling-russias-economy


As the conflict in eastern Ukraine drags on, Western sanctions and the deepening flight of foreign capital are hitting Russia's currency hard — and leaving the country's citizens high and dry.

Since January, the ruble has fallen about 20 percent against the dollar — and 14 percent in the last three months alone. This week, in an attempt to buoy the currency, the Russian Central Bank purchased an estimated $1.75 billion worth of rubles, only to see the currency further depreciate. The ruble is hovering at its lowest point since Russia defaulted on roughly $40 billion worth of debt in 1998. Only the Argentine peso and the Ukrainian hryvnia have seen more drastic swings this year.

On Tuesday, the IMF downgraded their forecast for GDP growth in Russia from 3 percent to near zero in 2014.

After Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in March, the US, along with many European countries, levied sanctions on Russian individuals and companies — and ratcheted them up as the fighting in eastern Ukraine showed few signs of abating.

Russia celebrates Putin's birthday with bizarre video tribute, branded toilet paper. Read more here.

"In a matter of months, unless the sanctions are removed or eased, they will really start biting Russian consumers," Padma Desai, a professor of comparative economic systems at Columbia University and expert on Russia, told VICE News.

Russian inflation stands at 8 percent — well higher than the 4-5 percent the Kremlin aims for — meaning goods are increasingly expensive for the average consumer. Since last September, food prices have risen 11.4 percent across the board. The price of meat and produce climbed the most — more than 16 percent during the same period. A Russian ban on many agricultural and meat imports from the West has meant pricey foodstuffs are even more limited.

The ruble's descent has left foreign manufacturers, particularly car companies, struggling to turn a profit. Assuming the price in rubles stays the same, firms based abroad but who manufacture and sell vehicles in Russia are seeing 20 percent fewer dollars for cars sold domestically. Because new cars are one of the first things consumers shy away from in an economic downturn, Russia's automotive industry faces the double threat of falling demand and lack of production capacity.

[Bob]

The world isn't black and white. Sanctions are a good idea sometimes and other times they are ineffective. Sanctions had their place in the 80's and 90's...but they didn't work in the long run against Iran.

Sanctions against Russia have been quite effective.

This agreement is better than doing nothing...which is the alternative being offered.

Do you always want an adversarial relationship with Iran? Or would it be better to have a dialogue with them? The current administration, the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China agree that dialogue is good. Republicans don't.

I can't believe you claim sanctions worked on Russia.

I have to back up and try to look at that one more time.

Still says it does good.

My god, will you actually read your own comments.? I believe if one wants to end the Iran nuke program, and to relieve them of sanctions, first destroy the nuclear working places. This gives Iran one more chance and we can play nice to them by lifting sanctions.

This is akin to telling the neighbor you won't abide that tiger in their home and they promise you they won't open the door for a few months.

Iran can't be prevented from the nuclear bomb the way Obama does it. Obama wants to tie the hands of the USA to allow Iran time to complete making nuclear bombs. And you approve that?

I approve dialogue once the nuclear sites are gone.

[Common Sense]

I can't believe you claim sanctions worked on Russia.

I have to back up and try to look at that one more time.

Still says it does good.

My god, will you actually read your own comments.? I believe if one wants to end the Iran nuke program, and to relieve them of sanctions, first destroy the nuclear working places. This gives Iran one more chance and we can play nice to them by lifting sanctions.

This is akin to telling the neighbor you won't abide that tiger in their home and they promise you they won't open the door for a few months.

Iran can't be prevented from the nuclear bomb the way Obama does it. Obama wants to tie the hands of the USA to allow Iran time to complete making nuclear bombs. And you approve that?

I approve dialogue once the nuclear sites are gone.

"Nuclear working places"? You do know Iran needs "nuclear working places" to provide nuclear energy for its citizens, right? You also know that this agreement would have them destroy many centrifuges, right?

This agreemnet also does not "tie the hands" of the US at all. It rewards Iran by allowing it back into the international world by not perusing nuclear weapons.

I really wish some people would read sources other than RT or Fox.

As far as sanctions on Russia...yes, they are working. I know you love Putin, but the sanctions (again, not only by the US) have indeed impacted Russia's economy.

[Bob]

They aren't, @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013)by? I believe you're the only person on the planet claiming that.

https://news.vice.com/article/sanctions-and-the-war-in-ukraine-are-crippling-russias-economy

Look, does the USA buy our products spending Rubles?

Alert for you.

Russians spend Rubles inside Russia.

You need to watch more international news and not news spun to please the left wing american audience.

Russia still has trading partners.

I hear our guys claim Russian troops are in Ukraine.

So where are the photos? Kennedy showed us Soviet missiles. (Cuba crisis)

Where are these troops of Obama's imagination?

[Bob]

"Nuclear working places"? You do know Iran needs "nuclear working places" to provide nuclear energy for its citizens, right? You also know that this agreement would have them destroy many centrifuges, right?

This agreemnet also does not "tie the hands" of the US at all. It rewards Iran by allowing it back into the international world by not perusing nuclear weapons.

I really wish some people would read sources other than RT or Fox.

As far as sanctions on Russia...yes, they are working. I know you love Putin, but the sanctions (again, not only by the US) have indeed impacted Russia's economy.

At nuclear power plants, those are not designed for making bombs.

It seems to me that as much crude as Iran has, they will never run out of oil. Nobody says they are getting short of crude. If they can make nuclear bombs, they can have refineries.

I know of the centrifuges. Do you know how they work? I happen to know how they work.

If you have a basement to dry out and you have a 50 gallon container to fill to carry out the water, by making it 30 gallons all you did is slow progress. You can't prevent a nuclear bomb by just less ceittrifutes. If he got rid of all of them, that goes along with what i would approve.

But when you deal with lying governments, as the USA and Iran both are known as, how can you be sure either has made progress.

RT is just a source. So is DW from Berlin. Then we get a Japanese news site I see less.

You claim it does not tie the hands of the USA.

Well, I wish that is true.

It establishes the big deal. And we can't stop Iran from taking the remaining centifuges and getting the material to make bombs. We no doubt have no idea how much is there to be made into bombs as we type this.

It strikes me strange to read any poster in your country so approving of Obama.

It is as if you see him as a saint.

[Bob]

Oh my god, now I love Putin. I am reporting the truth found in Russia.

Where are the homeless of Russia and where are those starving citizens of Russia? I bet we have more in the USA than they have.

[Common Sense]

At nuclear power plants, those are not designed for making bombs.

It seems to me that as much crude as Iran has, they will never run out of oil. Nobody says they are getting short of crude. If they can make nuclear bombs, they can have refineries.

I know of the centrifuges. Do you know how they work? I happen to know how they work.

If you have a basement to dry out and you have a 50 gallon container to fill to carry out the water, by making it 30 gallons all you did is slow progress. You can't prevent a nuclear bomb by just less ceittrifutes. If he got rid of all of them, that goes along with what i would approve.

But when you deal with lying governments, as the USA and Iran both are known as, how can you be sure either has made progress.

RT is just a source. So is DW from Berlin. Then we get a Japanese news site I see less.

You claim it does not tie the hands of the USA.

Well, I wish that is true.

It establishes the big deal. And we can't stop Iran from taking the remaining centifuges and getting the material to make bombs. We no doubt have no idea how much is there to be made into bombs as we type this.

It strikes me strange to read any poster in your country so approving of Obama.

It is as if you see him as a saint.

I don't see him as a saint. You keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. What I do see are ridiculous charges against him and his administration. So ridiculous that I can't help but say something.

If you know so much about centrifuges, you know that you need them to enrich uranium for the use in nuclear power. Are you really trying to say Iran should burn oil to produce electricity????

RT is a source...a source of Russian propaganda. That's why their reporters quit on live television.

[Common Sense]

Oh my god, now I love Putin. I am reporting the truth found in Russia.

Where are the homeless of Russia and where are those starving citizens of Russia? I bet we have more in the USA than they have.

Like I said, you love Putin.

You think poverty in the US is worse than that in Russia???? Are you joking????

[PolWatch]

Maybe Putin handles the poor like he does the dissidents:

The murder of prominent Putin critic Boris Nemstov in a gangland-style killing steps from the Kremlin came just weeks after the dissident told a magazine his mother worried the Russian leader would have him bumped off for his outspokenness.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/28/russian-investigators-fail-to-mention-nemtsov-was-top-putin-critic/

[Bob]

I don't see him as a saint. You keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. What I do see are ridiculous charges against him and his administration. So ridiculous that I can't help but say something.

If you know so much about centrifuges, you know that you need them to enrich uranium for the use in nuclear power. Are you really trying to say Iran should burn oil to produce electricity????

RT is a source...a source of Russian propaganda. That's why their reporters quit on live television.

You are extremely defensive over Obama. Talk about him and you rush to defend.

We live this stuff. You read about it.

I understand centrifuges and enriching uranium to extract U235.

I realize that ten thousand can make a hell of a lot of U235, but 40 percent still makes 40 percent of the needed product.

Study Iran and try to persuade me Iran has not stored maybe tons of U235 in highly shielded places.

I believe Iran currently relies on oil products to produce energy. They have plenty inside the country.

Look, my papers in the USA and yours are great places for propaganda too. I can tell it by what you say.

[Bob]

Maybe Putin handles the poor like he does the dissidents:

The murder of prominent Putin critic Boris Nemstov in a gangland-style killing steps from the Kremlin came just weeks after the dissident told a magazine his mother worried the Russian leader would have him bumped off for his outspokenness.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/28/russian-investigators-fail-to-mention-nemtsov-was-top-putin-critic/

Those are insinuations is all.

[Bob]

Like I said, you love Putin.

You think poverty in the US is worse than that in Russia???? Are you joking????

Haven't you listened to Obama? Per him the poor really have it bad in this country. Ask him why he says that.

I don't get why you talk of the dollar vs the Ruble given the public there has jobs and they play in Rubles as we do Dollars.

I no more love Putin than you fell in love with Obama.

[del]

jesus

[Peter1469]

Does anyone have an idea what a military strike to take out Iran's nuclear facilities would look like?

[Common]

Oh right. Kerry works for the Chinese and Russians.

LMAO

This country is definitely pandering to Iran.

You consider negotiating with Iran to avoid a war with israel is pandering bob ?

I am actually an israel supporter and Ive always been. Not so much a netanyahou supporter.
But even being a supporter its plain to me there needs to be a change of approach, israel is in the same place today it was when I was a kid. Obviously something aint working.

[Bob]

You consider negotiating with Iran to avoid a war with israel is pandering bob ?

I am actually an israel supporter and Ive always been. Not so much a netanyahou supporter.
But even being a supporter its plain to me there needs to be a change of approach, israel is in the same place today it was when I was a kid. Obviously something aint working.

If you notice, Israel is excluded.

Don't you wonder why?

I agree with the change, but make it a real change.

If you catch Jesse James with a hundred bullets, you don't fix the problem by saying it is ok to keep 50 bullets. Obama is doing this half assed.

[MisterVeritis]

Who's letting Iran have the bomb?????

This ties into my thoughts on people arguing without knowing what the $#@! they are talking about.

Some here would have us believe that negotiating with Iran and striking a deal that they don't build a nuke and in turn sanctions will be eased equals "Obama is givin dem da Nukes, derp". It's like arguing with a recording.
What do you believe Obama's end game is?

I believe his end game is the Islamic bomb first to be used against Israel and secondly against the US. This is also why the IslamoNAZIs are perfecting ballistic missile technology. I am beginning to see Obama as a reborn Hitler-figure out to finish the first Hitler's Final Solution. And you support him. Anti-Semitism is alive and well in Europe, the Middle East, the US and Canada.

[MisterVeritis]

Thanks Howey. I have to admit, till today, I had not seen your photograph.
It explains a lot. It does not explain his anti-Semitism. It does not explain his anti-Americanism. It does explain his lack of clear thought.

[MisterVeritis]

Does anyone have an idea what a military strike to take out Iran's nuclear facilities would look like?
I do.

[Peter1469]

I do.

Let's discuss the unclassified version. It would be a massive effort. Not only do you attack the nuclear sites you also attack the coastal forces that could cause chaos in the Gulf. And take out their air force.

Some of the nuclear sights are below cities and it is questionable as to whether our conventional munitions can reach them. Lots of civilians would die.

[MisterVeritis]

Let's discuss the unclassified version. It would be a massive effort. Not only do you attack the nuclear sites you also attack the coastal forces that could cause chaos in the Gulf. And take out their air force.

Some of the nuclear sights are below cities and it is questionable as to whether our conventional munitions can reach them. Lots of civilians would die.
Okay. There are a variety of weapons and delivery platforms that would be needed. The deep underground facilities would need to be attacked in phases. The unclassified version is to use the first attack to seal the facility under attack. The follow-on phases would use other weapons to destroy the underground facility. I believe this would require nuclear fires.

It is a large target set. It is very likely to be defended by up to date, modern air defenses. Yes, civilians would be killed intentionally as well as a by-product of the attack itself.

I views the target set from the eyes of a nuclear war planner. All of the targets fall within a few categories. I shall not state them but if you are familiar with nuclear war planning you will be familiar without me typing them. Some of the targets will be easily suppressed or destroyed. Others will take far more effort and perhaps multiple strikes over a period of days.

I would put operators on the ground during the chaotic days following the initial strikes. They can aid in battle damage assessment and in other direct action tasks.

We can destroy their command and control. We can use conventional strikes against their anti-ship missile sites, their anti-ship air forces and their naval assets. My preference would be to collapse their electrical grid with a combination of special weapons hinted at on the Internet along with electromagnetic pulse weapons detonated above 120K feet.

I leave the use of conventional attacks as an exercise to the reader.

[Peter1469]

Is this why Israel has not attacked? They could not mount an attack of this size on their own.


Okay. There are a variety of weapons and delivery platforms that would be needed. The deep underground facilities would need to be attacked in phases. The unclassified version is to use the first attack to seal the facility under attack. The follow-on phases would use other weapons to destroy the underground facility. I believe this would require nuclear fires.

It is a large target set. It is very likely to be defended by up to date, modern air defenses. Yes, civilians would be killed intentionally as well as a by-product of the attack itself.

I views the target set from the eyes of a nuclear war planner. All of the targets fall within a few categories. I shall not state them but if you are familiar with nuclear war planning you will be familiar without me typing them. Some of the targets will be easily suppressed or destroyed. Others will take far more effort and perhaps multiple strikes over a period of days.

I would put operators on the ground during the chaotic days following the initial strikes. They can aid in battle damage assessment and in other direct action tasks.

We can destroy their command and control. We can use conventional strikes against their anti-ship missile sites, their anti-ship air forces and their naval assets. My preference would be to collapse their electrical grid with a combination of special weapons hinted at on the Internet along with electromagnetic pulse weapons detonated above 120K feet.

I leave the use of conventional attacks as an exercise to the reader.

[Bob]

Is this why Israel has not attacked? They could not mount an attack of this size on their own.

It seems to me that at home base, Netanyahu would catch a lot of hell for an unprovoked attack.

He would need to prove imminent danger.

You two have hands on experience at planning wars.

I simply was in HQ/HQ in the stone age of combat.

I wonder this from both of you.

Why not a tactical strike to get at the centrifuges?

Why does it have go be balls out?

[texan]

Yes. The fact is...even though the US is the major superpower, the world does not revolve around the US. These talks are multinational. The way they have been framed on this site, you'd think Obama was having dinner at the Iranians place every Friday night. By claiming he is trying to befriend them implies that all those other nations are as well.

It's times like this I am so glad a Republican wasn't elected president.

If people really knew anything about Iran, they'd understand that Iranians aren't as backward as people think they are. Their leadership are interested in staying in power and use vitriol and rhetoric to secure their base. They are all western educated people ruling a complex country.

Some choose to simplify this complex issue due to ignorance and partisan bullshit.


I think that is a reasonable response. I guess I was talking more about the global policy with this fitting into the equation. But you are right supposedly other countries are involved. I will disagree on the backward ass statement. The younger generation is not in charge, the backward ass far right religious nuts are in charge. The only reason you would have to use that vitriol is if you cultivate those people. BTW no one said they were stupid or uneducated Some of our crazies are not uneducated. I also am not willing to give them passes for bad behavior by saying well its complicated................I don't mind them negotiating and trying, but I don't trust them nor do I believe Iran. you will know when they are close to a bomb, Israel will blow up the plant, so they don't have it yet.

[MisterVeritis]

Is this why Israel has not attacked? They could not mount an attack of this size on their own.
In my opinion the Israelis could destroy the nuclear facilities. I believe they will.

I do not know if they would attempt to destroy the anti-ship surface and air assets. Given the shooting war between Iran and Saudi Arabia they might not need to. The nuclear facilities and ICBM development and production facilities have to be destroyed.

The US is no longer trustworthy. Obama has done far more damage to the US than most realize. I believe the US is finished.

[MisterVeritis]

It seems to me that at home base, Netanyahu would catch a lot of hell for an unprovoked attack.

He would need to prove imminent danger.

You two have hands on experience at planning wars.

I simply was in HQ/HQ in the stone age of combat.

I wonder this from both of you.

Why not a tactical strike to get at the centrifuges?

Why does it have go be balls out?
In my view any strike on Iran that will kill civilians will be a strategic strike. It does little good to destroy a small portion of the Iranian capability. Go for the whole thing culminating in regime change. Or simply have Kerry deliver the surrender note.

[Mac-7]

Lib peaceniks fail to understand that dropping the tough economic sanctions against Iran avoids a conventional war now but practically guarantees a nuclear war later.

[Tahuyaman]

He's not pandering to Iran.

I agree. He's not pandering. He's simply an incompetent boob with no credibility with any other world leader.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Does anyone have an idea what a military strike to take out Iran's nuclear facilities would look like? Piece of cake, just like eliminating the nukes in Pakistan and North Korea would be. It is in the interest of the ruling class to keep these threats hanging over us.

[Mac-7]

Is this why Israel has not attacked? They could not mount an attack of this size on their own.

There are reports that obumer threatened to shoot down Israeli aircraft attacking Iran.

[Bob]

In my view any strike on Iran that will kill civilians will be a strategic strike. It does little good to destroy a small portion of the Iranian capability. Go for the whole thing culminating in regime change. Or simply have Kerry deliver the surrender note.

I keep thinking of when the Japs did that at Pearl Harbor as to the ships, it took time but the USA fought back.

If we destroy Iran, we caused a society to perish. I think it would suck if the USA waged war on the whole of the country no doubt meaning they would hate our guts.

If the problem is the centrifuges, and it is, I thought a good idea is a tactical strike.

Who knows, perhaps Israel has that same idea.

[Bob]

In my opinion the Israelis could destroy the nuclear facilities. I believe they will.

I do not know if they would attempt to destroy the anti-ship surface and air assets. Given the shooting war between Iran and Saudi Arabia they might not need to. The nuclear facilities and ICBM development and production facilities have to be destroyed.

The US is no longer trustworthy. Obama has done far more damage to the US than most realize. I believe the US is finished.

That is why I was thinking if israel can make tactical strikes, we could to. It appears we need it to be Israel and not us. I am sure that since his team is not transparent, we know much less than we need to know.

We are not told our troops are in Ukraine for instance. We are told of the so called Russian army there though.

From what I can tell, given the large percentage of Russians in the East Ukraine, no doubt they have relatives living in Russia who gladly will go to Ukraine to help family. As to it being done by Putin, seems doubtful to me in any formal military sort of operation.

[MisterVeritis]

I keep thinking of when the Japs did that at Pearl Harbor as to the ships, it took time but the USA fought back.

If we destroy Iran, we caused a society to perish. I think it would suck if the USA waged war on the whole of the country no doubt meaning they would hate our guts.

If the problem is the centrifuges, and it is, I thought a good idea is a tactical strike.

Who knows, perhaps Israel has that same idea.
I think you mean a limited strike.

What makes you believe that destroying known and suspected nuclear facilities would destroy Iran? It is a very big country. There are about 20 sites that would need to be struck. The important work is being done in deep underground facilities. The equipment and the scientists need to be destroyed.

In addition to the facilities the IslamoNAZI regime must be destroyed. I would target all known and suspected government control facilities. Any place where someone with a beard wears a turban and pronounces "Death to America" needs to be struck. I would help them to see that we can change that saying into "Death from America". Since IslamoNAZISM is a political religious problem I would obliterate every mosque used by government officials. A one ton JDAM arriving right about the time of the call to prayer seems appropriate.

But don't worry about it Bob. Obama has entered into an alliance with Iran to secure the destruction of Israel and hegemony over the middle east. I would not be that surprised to hear of US-Iranian joint plans to destroy Israel's nuclear weapons storage areas and facilities.

[Mac-7]

I keep thinking of when the Japs did that at Pearl Harbor as to the ships, it took time but the USA fought back.

If we destroy Iran, we caused a society to perish. I think it would suck if the USA waged war on the whole of the country no doubt meaning they would hate our guts.

If the problem is the centrifuges, and it is, I thought a good idea is a tactical strike.

Who knows, perhaps Israel has that same idea.

Now you know why I don't like bush.

he fought the right war but in the wrong place.

We should have taken out Iran instead of Iraq.

[Bob]

I think you mean a limited strike.

What makes you believe that destroying known and suspected nuclear facilities would destroy Iran? It is a very big country. There are about 20 sites that would need to be struck. The important work is being done in deep underground facilities. The equipment and the scientists need to be destroyed.

In addition to the facilities the IslamoNAZI regime must be destroyed. I would target all known and suspected government control facilities. Any place where someone with a beard wears a turban and pronounces "Death to America" needs to be struck. I would help them to see that we can change that saying into "Death from America". Since IslamoNAZISM is a political religious problem I would obliterate every mosque used by government officials. A one ton JDAM arriving right about the time of the call to prayer seems appropriate.

But don't worry about it Bob. Obama has entered into an alliance with Iran to secure the destruction of Israel and hegemony over the middle east. I would not be that surprised to hear of US-Iranian joint plans to destroy Israel's nuclear weapons storage areas and facilities.

I do mean that. Thank you. I understand it is a large country. I don't mean what you think I mean. Sorry for my not being totally clear.

Do you think the sites in Iran are beyond the reach of our bunker busters?

You present a frightening view of Obama ganging up on Israel and attacking them.

Sure hope we get the man out of office quickly enough so it does not happen.

I hear that some of the countries that Obama counts on with his deal with Iran are as unhappy with the deal as is the republicans. Do you think that is true?

You might get a lot of kickback from the congress trying to use your solution. Can it be sold to them?

[Bob]

Now you know why I don't like bush.

he fought the right war but in the wrong place.

We should have taken out Iran instead of Iraq.

Bush tried to sell his invasion of Iraq as an invasion to free Iraqis. Most Iraqis accepted that. It was a few of them that refused and raised hell. Most think all Iraqis hated Bush. But that can't be true. Most of them were the very depressed Shia. And they at long last got freedom.

I have long felt Bush ought not invade iraq. I speak of his freedom campaign only because he was open in calling for it. Most ignore that to get riled up by Democrats who tried to claim the only mission was WMD. That would not matter much once Saddam is gone. The weapons can't harm you in a country with no harmful ruler or leader. For instance we don't fear England. They are our friends. Now we don't fear China. This bond is cash and not ideology.

Iran is run by zealots. I won't claim to know the solution. But to invade, probably a bad idea.

MisterVertitis speaks of selected strikes to end the nuclear program. Why not? Might just work.

[MisterVeritis]

I do mean that. Thank you. I understand it is a large country. I don't mean what you think I mean. Sorry for my not being totally clear.

Do you think the sites in Iran are beyond the reach of our bunker busters?
I have my suspicions about some of them. Target and strike the entire target set. Even if one or two facilities manage to "survive" the program itself will be ended.


You present a frightening view of Obama ganging up on Israel and attacking them.

Sure hope we get the man out of office quickly enough so it does not happen.

I hear that some of the countries that Obama counts on with his deal with Iran are as unhappy with the deal as is the republicans. Do you think that is true?
Yes.


You might get a lot of kickback from the congress trying to use your solution. Can it be sold to them?
Any targeteer can lay in the details right down to which munitions will be carried by which platforms.

[MisterVeritis]

Bush tried to sell his invasion of Iraq as an invasion to free Iraqis. Most Iraqis accepted that. It was a few of them that refused and raised hell. Most think all Iraqis hated Bush. But that can't be true. Most of them were the very depressed Shia. And they at long last got freedom.

I have long felt Bush ought not invade iran. I speak of his freedom campaign only because he was open in calling for it. Most ignore that to get riled up by Democrats who tried to claim the only mission was WMD. That would not matter much once Saddam is gone. The weapons can't harm you in a country with no harmful ruler or leader. For instance we don't fear England. They are our friends. Now we don't fear China. This bond is cash and not ideology.

Iran is run by zealots. I won't claim to know the solution. But to invade, probably a bad idea.

MisterVertitis speaks of selected strikes to end the nuclear program. Why not? Might just work.
Invading Iran is not within our capabilities.

Destroying their military and nuclear capabilities is within our capabilities. However, since Obama has allied himself with the IslamoNAZIs no strike will be forthcoming.

[Peter1469]

There are reports that obumer threatened to shoot down Israeli aircraft attacking Iran.

Do you have any links? I heard about that too, but found nothing credible. Obama doesn't have the balls to do it, wouldn't you agree?

[Peter1469]

Invading Iran is not within our capabilities.

Destroying their military and nuclear capabilities is within our capabilities. However, since Obama has allied himself with the IslamoNAZIs no strike will be forthcoming.

http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/4395623/iran_nuclear_facilities_israel_strike_2009_reuters _crop.jpg

I will start a thread later and link to where I got this from.

[Mac-7]

Do you have any links? I heard about that too, but found nothing credible. Obama doesn't have the balls to do it, wouldn't you agree?

There are no intercepted emails from the White House or a Pentagon whistle blower so I'm not sure what would meet the test as credible.

Fox reported that the info came from kuwait over which Israeli jets planned to fly.

[Peter1469]

There are no intercepted emails from the White House or a Pentagon whistle blower so I'm not sure what would meet the test as credible.

Fox reported that the info came from kuwait over which Israeli jets planned to fly.

The link that I saw was from Haarezt (http://www.haaretz.com/). Western media didn't pick it up at least when I was looking around.

[Mac-7]

The link that I saw was from Haarezt (http://www.haaretz.com/). Western media didn't pick it up at least when I was looking around.

Its known by everyone who are interested in knowing.

But I believe the White House denied it.

[MisterVeritis]

I will start a thread later and link to where I got this from.
There are many such maps. There is more than one strategy. Do we assure destruction of the program? That requires killing the scientists and engineers. It also requires killing the Iranian leadership.

Do we minimize non-involved civilian casualties? Well that would require a completely different kind of strike. For a period of about five years this was my favorite game.

[The Sage of Main Street]

There are reports that obumer threatened to shoot down Israeli aircraft attacking Iran. In 1967, Israeli retaliation on the spy ship, USS Liberty, aborted that precedent.

[The Sage of Main Street]

http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/4395623/iran_nuclear_facilities_israel_strike_2009_reuters _crop.jpg

I will start a thread later and link to where I got this from. Let Putin seize their oilfields. Then the ShiiteHeads won't have enough money left to finance even a firecracker. Next we seize Saudi oil, to "protect it from the Russians," charge $5 a barrel for it, and forget to give it back.