Obama determined to pursue an 'aggressive diplomacy' with the Islamic Republic

135

Comments

  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    NCfan wrote:
    The rhetoric of Amedinijad is equally troubling, as is the Islamic revolution in Iran. Now, you were saying something about unbiased eyes...


    You don't think he has a right to tell the US to bugger off and stop meddling in the region?

    hmm...crack open any history books lately?
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    Correct me if i am wrong, but was America not discussing the option of dropping nuclear bombs on Iran last year?

    Hmm.

    I can't seem to remember the last time ANYONE in the Iranian government came forward suggesting using arms, especialy fucking nuclear arms, against America.

    You are free to have an opinion on the legitimacy of Iran's world views, but the fact remains they have done nothing to warrant agression.

    The US on the other hand has OPENLY suggested dropping "tactical" nuclear missles on production facilities in Iran.

    I'm not sure how you get off saying that Iran is on the wrong side of this one.

    What is the problem exactly?
    Because Iran feels the same way about Israels policy towards the Palestians as it feels about the US policy towards they themselves?

    You know what, NONE of that is supposed to be the concern of the US.

    And you are probably refering directly to the thoroughly debunked "wipe israel off the face of the map" quote, aren't you?

    Please.

    No one is saying Iran has a great ideology.
    All we are saying is that it is the UNITED STATES that is eager for war with Iran. NOT the other way around.

    There is no way you can spin that one.

    Sheesh.

    Oh and by the way, the "islamic revolution" was by and large a creation of US Foregn Policy to begin with! Had we not overthrown and then assassinated their first publicly elected president in HISTORY back in the 50s, and then used the CIA to install a murderous and cruel puppet dictator, and THEN interfered with their region for the next 50 years, they probably wouldn't have much to be pissed off about.

    On the other hand, what exactly is the United States crying about?
    We pissed someone off, and now they are holding a grudge?

    Hahah.


    No, the onus is on you to provide evidence that U.S. statesmen officially discussed the use of nucelar weapons against Iran. All I have heard the U.S. say is that all options are on the table.

    I don't think either side is eager for a war. I just don't think you look at the situation unbiasedly. Amedinijad is a disturbing individual, and world leader. I don't think many people would argue with that.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    NCfan wrote:
    No, the onus is on you to provide evidence that U.S. statesmen officially discussed the use of nucelar weapons against Iran. All I have heard the U.S. say is that all options are on the table.

    Honestly man. What the fuck are you talking about?

    It was ALL OVER the fucking news ... i mean the TELEVISION ... probably the prefered source of news for sheeple, right ... isn't that good enough? A year or so ago it was ALL they could talk about, you don't remember the fucking hype?

    If the tube isn't a good enough source for you ... how bout the Jews themselves ... Yaweh knows the Jews would never lie:

    Ynet News - A Jewish News Source
    From Ynet in 06 wrote:
    Bush 'planning nuclear Iran strike'


    Article in New Yorker says that U.S. government is preparing a massive campaign to neutralize Iranian nuclear sites. Iranian President Ahmadinejad is compared in the White House to Hitler

    Ynet Published: 04.08.06, 13:19 / Israel News




    The U.S. government is planning to carry out massive bombardment against Iran and using bunker-busting nuclear bombs in order to destroy facilities and development centers in which nuclear weapons exist. These details will be exposed in a new report as part of an investigation in the New Yorker, to be publicized April 17.

    I could find you a half dozen more easy, but instead i'm going to go over to my cousins house and talk with her about peaceable things.

    You people just keep on with the head in the sand.

    Jesus.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    here. you want hard document proof?
    Praise Be To FIRs!

    [haven't checked this out, just clicked and linked. looks good, if not slightly dated from 02]
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    A year or so ago it was ALL they could talk about, you don't remember the fucking hype?

    "The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, and their power of forgetting is enormous." - Adolf Hitler

    ....enormous
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    here. you want hard document proof?
    Praise Be To FIRs!

    [haven't checked this out, just clicked and linked. looks good, if not slightly dated from 02]


    Chill out man, what is your problem?

    This isn't proof that the US publicly talked about using nuclear weapons in Iran. Just becuase the talking heads on cable TV talk about it, doesn't mean its US policy.
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    "The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, and their power of forgetting is enormous." - Adolf Hitler

    ....enormous

    No need to attack my intelligence because I disagree with you okay?

    Seriously, doesn't that say more about you than me?
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    NCfan wrote:
    No need to attack my intelligence because I disagree with you okay?

    Seriously, doesn't that say more about you than me?

    It's not directed towards you specifically it's just a phenomena in general that you happen to be a part of.

    I'm talking about a lot of people. It's epidemic really.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    It's not directed towards you specifically it's just a phenomena in general that you happen to be a part of.

    I'm talking about a lot of people. It's epidemic really.

    LOL, doesn't make much difference if you specifically target me or if I'm just one of a million. You are still targeting me, no?

    And why? You think I'm somehow ignorant, under-educated or lack your intellegence becuase I disagree with your point of view.

    I'm the one here trying to debate. You're the one here trying to insult me. George Bush has been a poor statesmen on the issue of Iran, but he still deserves the credit for being a statesmen and not a war-monger.

    The United States has vigorously attempted a multilateral approach to dealing with Iran. We are not threatening them with anything other than ecomonic sanctions.

    The world has good reason to be weary of the Iranian regime, okay? Any government that rules unchecked according to religious edict is subject to some scrutiny.
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    NCfan wrote:
    George Bush has been a poor statesmen on the issue of Iran, but he still deserves the credit for being a statesmen and not a war-monger.

    The United States has vigorously attempted a multilateral approach to dealing with Iran. We are not threatening them with anything other than ecomonic sanctions.

    The world has good reason to be weary of the Iranian regime, okay? Any government that rules unchecked according to religious edict is subject to some scrutiny.
    Thats a whole lot of bullshit.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    NCfan wrote:
    George Bush [...] still deserves the credit for being a statesmen and not a war-monger.

    Wow.
    W not a war-monger !?!
    You wanna talk about warped world views.
    Sweet mother... !
    NCfan wrote:
    The United States has vigorously attempted a multilateral approach to dealing with Iran. We are not threatening them with anything other than ecomonic sanctions.

    Yup.
    You are right.
    The United States has vigorously tried to impose its unwarrented and unwanted will upon Iran. Not just this decade, but since at least the 1950's. Praise be to America for trying so hard to twist the arm of Iran through "tuff talk" and only threatining to stop them from receiving basic goods, because they fail to conform to our social norms or to give us as much oil as we want, or sell it in dollars. Praise be to America.
    NCfan wrote:
    The world has good reason to be weary of the Iranian regime, okay?

    Wow. Again, based on what exactly !?!
    Iran hasn't done shit. What should we be so scared of?
    Besides ourselves? It is America that is digging itself in to a hole with respect to it's own relations with Iran. Iran has never been the agressor with the US. Unless you want to try and bring up a hostage incident which was a response to the US killing off an elected leader and installing a brutal tyrant which it supported with money and arms.
    NCfan wrote:
    Any government that rules unchecked according to religious edict is subject to some scrutiny.

    Oh okay.
    You know, you're right.
    We should drop tactical nukes on Iranian power facilities, because they are muslim and they oppress women and homosexuals.

    That makes sense to me.

    Who should we drop nukes on next, do you suggest?

    :thumbsdown:
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    NCfan wrote:
    Chill out man, what is your problem?

    This isn't proof that the US publicly talked about using nuclear weapons in Iran. Just becuase the talking heads on cable TV talk about it, doesn't mean its US policy.

    You're right.
    A declassified official US Government document released due to a Freedom of Information Request which specificaly iterates US Policy regarding tactical nuclear strikes against Iranian "proliferation" facilities isn't proof.

    I'm so sorry.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    Wow.
    W not a war-monger !?!
    You wanna talk about warped world views.
    Sweet mother... !



    Yup.
    You are right.
    The United States has vigorously tried to impose its unwarrented and unwanted will upon Iran. Not just this decade, but since at least the 1950's. Praise be to America for trying so hard to twist the arm of Iran through "tuff talk" and only threatining to stop them from receiving basic goods, because they fail to conform to our social norms or to give us as much oil as we want, or sell it in dollars. Praise be to America.



    Wow. Again, based on what exactly !?!
    Iran hasn't done shit. What should we be so scared of?
    Besides ourselves? It is America that is digging itself in to a hole with respect to it's own relations with Iran. Iran has never been the agressor with the US. Unless you want to try and bring up a hostage incident which was a response to the US killing off an elected leader and installing a brutal tyrant which it supported with money and arms.



    Oh okay.
    You know, you're right.
    We should drop tactical nukes on Iranian power facilities, because they are muslim and they oppress women and homosexuals.

    That makes sense to me.

    Who should we drop nukes on next, do you suggest?

    :thumbsdown:


    Dude, get over yourself. There is no reason to come down on me becuase I share a different view than you.

    You say things like the U.S. sanctions are unwarranted. That is highly debatable, so don't act like it's out of the realm of discussion. Make your points, and I'll make mine.

    This is about much more than social norms and you know it. So use some judgement, and quit just letting off steam at me.

    As if becuase you are upset, it makes you right. Jesus, you make me sound like a liberal.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    NCfan wrote:
    This is about much more than social norms and you know it.

    I'm letting off steam because in a half dozen posts i have shown you legitimately why you are most likely wrong on all counts, and all you come back with is unsubstantiated claims.

    You have yet to make one valid assertion about Iran that would warrant anything. Talk or otherwise.

    So what is it.

    Formulate a thought for fucks sake and tell me what it is that bothers you so fucking bad about Iran that you think the US is justified in forcing them to a table to talk about something that they don't seem to think they need to talk about.

    We want them to stop doing something they have a right to do, and they rightly don't want to stop doing it.

    Yet you think we are right to threaten them if they dont "talk" with us. "Talk" being code for "agree and conscent to our unreasonable demands" that they stop doing what they have a right to do.

    So you tell me, Mr. Offended,
    what the hell has Iran done that warrants such posturing?

    And do you really think it is justified for us to be discussing dropping nuclear bombs on them for fucks sake?

    -still not over myself-
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    I'm letting off steam because in a half dozen posts i have shown you legitimately why you are most likely wrong on all counts, and all you come back with is unsubstantiated claims.

    You have yet to make one valid assertion about Iran that would warrant anything. Talk or otherwise.

    So what is it.

    Formulate a thought for fucks sake and tell me what it is that bothers you so fucking bad about Iran that you think the US is justified in forcing them to a table to talk about something that they don't seem to think they need to talk about.

    We want them to stop doing something they have a right to do, and they rightly don't want to stop doing it.

    Yet you think we are right to threaten them if they dont "talk" with us. "Talk" being code for "agree and conscent to our unreasonable demands" that they stop doing what they have a right to do.

    So you tell me, Mr. Offended,
    what the hell has Iran done that warrants such posturing?

    And do you really think it is justified for us to be discussing dropping nuclear bombs on them for fucks sake?

    -still not over myself-

    The world is divided into spheres of influence. Weak countries are influenced by powerful countries. Welcome to geopolitics 101.

    Iran is attempting to spread its influence and export the Islamic revolution across the Middle East. This can be seen through its support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria and Israel to aiding the insurection in Iraq.

    Iran's interest in the region are at odds with those of the United States. Just let me know if I need to expain this to you or provide examples.

    If Iran controls the Middle East, they will control the supply and distribution of the most precious and important commodity on earth - oil.

    They can then use this as leverage to influence the region, and the world for that matter; culturally, politically and regiously.

    Obtaining a nuclear weapon, or the means to make one is a threat the US becuase in doing so - Iran makes itself immune from conventional attack. We need Iran to be vulnerable in order to check their influence in the region.

    If Iran is immune from a military attack, then the government just bought itself life insurance. You won't see an American army topple the Islamic revolution like it toppled Saddam's goverment.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    NCfan wrote:
    If Iran is immune from a military attack, then the government just bought itself life insurance. You won't see an American army topple the Islamic revolution like it toppled Saddam's goverment.

    Okay so besides saying that we need to nuke Iran to stop their spreading relgion around the world, you are now saying that if Iran goes nuclear we can't take them out like we did Iraq ... which by the way we invaded specificaly BECAUSE we said they had WMDs ?!?!

    Do you see anything incongruous with that logic?

    ???????????????????????????????????????????????

    OH and by the way, way to make a perfect claim for US Imperialism in the top portion.
    There is legitimate protection of "US interests" and there is blatant imperialism where you FORCE your will upon another country because you feel yourself some how morally superior and because your army is better you get to blow them up.

    If that is your opinion,
    then we have just concluded this debate,
    because IMHO, youre view is as "evil" as those in the alleged "Axis of Evil".
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    Okay so besides saying that we need to nuke Iran to stop their spreading relgion around the world, you are now saying that if Iran goes nuclear we can't take them out like we did Iraq ... which by the way we invaded specificaly BECAUSE we said they had WMDs ?!?!

    Do you see anything incongruous with that logic?

    ???????????????????????????????????????????????

    OH and by the way, way to make a perfect claim for US Imperialism in the top portion.
    There is legitimate protection of "US interests" and there is blatant imperialism where you FORCE your will upon another country because you feel yourself some how morally superior and because your army is better you get to blow them up.

    If that is your opinion,
    then we have just concluded this debate,
    because IMHO, youre view is as "evil" as those in the alleged "Axis of Evil".


    The world is not carved up into little countries that exist individually in a vacuum. Nations influence other nations, this is the reality of our planet. What gives Iran the right to meddle in the affiars of the Palestinians, the Lebonese and the Iraqi's? I don't see you condeming their effort to exert their views on politics, religion and culture in these places. They are blatantly trying to otherthrow the government in Lebanon and would launch another war against Israel in a heartbeat if they thought they could overthrow their government.

    The fact is, if the U.S. leaves the Middle East entirely - this game will still be played. It would be shear stupidity for the United States to sit this one out, in the hopes that other nations will join our utopian vision for the world. They will all laugh at us as they continue to solidify their agendas.

    I do not see the United States forcing our will on anybody. In regards to Iraq, we are simply trying to support a democratically created government. A government that is unfortunately dominated by Shities (much to the dismay of the US) and is hardly a puppet for Washington, as evidenced by a $3 trillion dollar trade agreement signed earlier in the week with Iran.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    NCfan wrote:
    LOL, doesn't make much difference if you specifically target me or if I'm just one of a million. You are still targeting me, no?

    And why? You think I'm somehow ignorant, under-educated or lack your intellegence becuase I disagree with your point of view.

    I'm the one here trying to debate. You're the one here trying to insult me. George Bush has been a poor statesmen on the issue of Iran, but he still deserves the credit for being a statesmen and not a war-monger.

    The United States has vigorously attempted a multilateral approach to dealing with Iran. We are not threatening them with anything other than ecomonic sanctions.

    The world has good reason to be weary of the Iranian regime, okay? Any government that rules unchecked according to religious edict is subject to some scrutiny.


    If people forget what's in the media, and what has transpired in the past how exactly is that my problem?

    If people feel offended...what would you like done about it? Should I lie about the situation to make people feel better?

    This is totally a connect the dots exercise from the past 100+ years.

    If you disagree well then history disagrees with you as well.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    Oh okay.
    You know, you're right.
    We should drop tactical nukes on Iranian power facilities, because they are muslim and they oppress women and homosexuals.

    That makes sense to me.

    Who should we drop nukes on next, do you suggest?
    The Vatican.
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    If people forget what's in the media, and what has transpired in the past how exactly is that my problem?

    If people feel offended...what would you like done about it? Should I lie about the situation to make people feel better?

    This is totally a connect the dots exercise from the past 100+ years.

    If you disagree well then history disagrees with you as well.

    What are you talking about here? I'm pretty confused. What is it that I have forgoten in the media? Please explain.

Categories