Obama goes to bat for iran

[Agent11]

why shouldnt iran be allowed to have nukes? why should the u.s. govt be allowed to have them?

has iran ever threatened to impose sharia on america?

We were at the brink of MAD during the cold war when dealing with the atheist communists. . . Can you imagine a game of nuclear chicken with an Islamic theocracy?

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe you dont know about islam, and how it teaches that all non-muslims should be killed.

Its difficult for a logical person to be sympathetic to an idea that wants to see billions of people killed.

Islam does not teach that all non-muslims should be killed. It's quite clear you don't know about Islam.

By the way, how many Muslims do you know personally?

 

[momeNt]

This thread is absolutely outrageous.

There is no taming the chickenhawk.

I believe we should take a stance of peace in that region. Get soldiers out of the middle east, and interact economically with the countries. The leaders will be happy if their oil is flowing and money is coming in.

The alternative is constant war-time threat levels and a military that never stops growing until it's completely unsustainable.

 

[Brovane]

I really believe that Congress isn't the best place to make foreign policy. They should take a back seat and let's try diplomacy. Their has been progress made and it seems like Iran is finally coming to the table to negotiate in good faith. It is hard when the State Department and the Executive branch is out there trying to negotiate with Iran and the legelslative branch of the government is making a bunch of noise about more sanctions. It seems like right now it is more about making Obama look bad than good US policy. Lets get a deal on the table and decide what action to take.

 

[momeNt]

Maybe you dont know about islam, and how it teaches that all non-muslims should be killed.

Its difficult for a logical person to be sympathetic to an idea that wants to see billions of people killed.

I believe that you also would like to see billions (maybe just a billion) of people killed too though right? Namely the Muslims?

Instead of all-out war, maybe we should hedge our bets and wait until at least a couple of exterminations of non-muslims happens before we go all out in the region. Or wait until the first nuke is launched.

 

[Texashiker]

Islam does not teach that all non-muslims should be killed. It's quite clear you don't know about Islam.

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us"

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah."

By the way, how many Muslims do you know personally?

I know a few here and there.



It is kinda difficult for a logical person to sympathize with a group who shoots teenage girls in the head.

Even with islam aside, there is the human rights issue. How many nations execute gays? But obama is going to negotiate with iran?

 

[K1052]

I'd say that giving economic incentives not to pursue nuclear armament is merely financing their development of nuclear weapons. Still, the Iranian president requested the talks, and while he doesn't really rule the country, holding off on new sanctions until we see if these talks are going to be different makes some sense to me.

From a technical standpoint the question isn't "if" Iran can sufficiently enrich to an an acceptable bomb grade purity it is "when", regardless of further sanctions imposed. Since a diplomatic avenue apparently exists now where none did before keeping the status quo while seeing where the talks lead is a prudent choice. Given regional events and the last election in Iran I'm sure this effort has Khamenei's assent lest the hardliners cause him to be yet another casualty of a deeply unhappy populace.

 

[brycejones]

Even with islam aside, there is the human rights issue. How many nations execute gays? But obama is going to negotiate with iran?

Now suddenly you support gay rights? Or at least the right of gays not to be killed for being gay?

So you think a more productive way to deal with Nuclear proliferation would be to demand they stop doing everything we disagree with before we start to talk to them?

 

[Genx87]

Im at the point where these sanctions have no noticeable affect on Iranian decision making process. So why are we bothering to shove a circle into a square peg? To me it appears these sanctions are driving up the cost of energy with little reward. Iran will still get their bomb. And it is difficult to fault their logic. Saddam, Taliban, Khaddafi, now Assad. We are going one by one knocking out ME govts. The only way to stop us is to have a nuclear device to drop on our troops.

 

[Texashiker]

Now suddenly you support gay rights?

Or at least the right of gays not to be killed for being gay?

I disapprove of gays being killed.

Even though I do not approve of the gay lifestyle, killing them is a gross violation of human rights.

 

[Agent11]

You cannot be serious. Even if someone does not support gay marriage for whatever reason it's a significant jump from that stance to execution.

Personally I would rather we drop sanctions and tell Iran to careful, if they develop a bomb we will glass them immediately. Either remove our troops from Afghanistan or call a draft and do it right; remove the Afghan government and establish a governor and interim constitution based off of our own. They can govern themselves once they leave the stone age tribal mentality behind. Our soldiers have had to tolerate child rapists and all manner of savages in power in the Afghan government. . . Is that what we have been fighting for over there all these years?

 

[Mxylplyx]

So just as Iran appears to be flinching and willing to come to the negotiating table, which would not have happened had Obama not successfully organized the sanctioning regime in the first place, the Republican answer to some positive momentum on the Iranian nuclear issue is to levy more sanctions that will undoubtedly cause them to retrench?

Republicans seem to almost revel in the miserable reputation we have around the world.

 

[Texashiker]

So just as Iran appears to be flinching and willing to come to the negotiating table, which would not have happened had Obama not successfully organized the sanctioning regime in the first place, the Republican answer to some positive momentum on the Iranian nuclear issue is to levy more sanctions that will undoubtedly cause them to retrench?

Republicans seem to almost revel in the miserable reputation we have around the world.

Just like the government caught the people who were responsible for the car bomb under the world trade center.

Nothing like that could ever happen again,,,, right?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Just like the government caught the people who were responsible for the car bomb under the world trade center.

Nothing like that could ever happen again,,,, right?

So what are you suggesting? Should we just pass a law declaring Iran a permanent enemy of the United States? You think the internal politics of Iran will allow what amounts to a complete surrender to the demands of United States? With the right leadership, Iran could eventually become a friend of the United States over time, as it's people would be very receptive, yet you neocons want to fuck it up, thinking you can just bomb the shit out of everyone that disagrees with you.

 

[fskimospy]

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us"

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah."

You realize that Islam believes that Christians and Jews similarly believe in Allah, right? In Sharia they are considered 'People of the Book'. Even taken at face value without larger context this quote does not say to kill all non-Muslims.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I know a few here and there.

It is kinda difficult for a logical person to sympathize with a group who shoots teenage girls in the head.

Even with islam aside, there is the human rights issue. How many nations execute gays? But obama is going to negotiate with iran?

I have no idea why someone would argue that Obama should not negotiate about nuclear weapons with a country because of their human rights record. That's beyond dumb.

 

[fskimospy]

Im at the point where these sanctions have no noticeable affect on Iranian decision making process. So why are we bothering to shove a circle into a square peg? To me it appears these sanctions are driving up the cost of energy with little reward. Iran will still get their bomb. And it is difficult to fault their logic. Saddam, Taliban, Khaddafi, now Assad. We are going one by one knocking out ME govts. The only way to stop us is to have a nuclear device to drop on our troops.

Political science literature on sanctions is really interesting. It seems that the threat of sanctions can be effective in changing state behavior, but if a state is committed enough to their course of action to risk sanctions, their imposition will do very little to change their behavior. In order to credibly threaten sanctions however, you need to be willing to impose sanctions.

So long story short we have to impose stupid sanction policy in order to still be able to use them as a credible weapon later. I thought that was interesting/sad.

 

[yllus]

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us"

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah."

What I consider the Koran and Mohammed to certainly be more infused with violence than his Christian counterpart, the quotes you list above are simply out of context. One can do the same with practically any language - here, the Bible instructs Christians to kill all male children and all non-virginal women:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

That, of course, is taken entirely out of context from Numbers 31:17. But it's possible for the ignorant to be deluded if they decide that they don't want to lend any critical thinking to the subject.

 

[Texashiker]

You realize that Islam believes that Christians and Jews similarly believe in Allah, right? In Sharia they are considered 'People of the Book'. Even taken at face value without larger context this quote does not say to kill all non-Muslims.

Then why does islam say to kill jews? Death and jews are mentioned several times.

I have no idea why someone would argue that Obama should not negotiate about nuclear weapons with a country because of their human rights record. That's beyond dumb.

If a nation kills gays via public execution, who else are they willing to kill?

With irans record on human rights san fransico would be their first nuke target.


But either way, obama is more willing to talk to islam radicals than to balance the budget. Didn't you yourself call republicans terrorist?

If republicians are terrorist, what is a nuclear iran?

obama refused to negotiate with Republicans on the budget, but is willing to talk to radical islam. Something is wrong there.

 

[brycejones]

obama refused to negotiate with Republicans on the budget, but is willing to talk to radical islam. Something is wrong there.

You are correct something is very wrong, Iran looks more reasonable now than the GOP there might actually be hope for negotiations.

Obviously that's a joke...maybe

 

[fskimospy]

Then why does islam say to kill jews? Death and jews are mentioned several times.

I think it's quite clear at this point that you have no understanding of what you're trying to talk about.

If a nation kills gays via public execution, who else are they willing to kill?

With irans record on human rights san fransico would be their first nuke target.

But either way, obama is more willing to talk to islam radicals than to balance the budget. Didn't you yourself call republicans terrorist?

If republicians are terrorist, what is a nuclear iran?

obama refused to negotiate with Republicans on the budget, but is willing to talk to radical islam. Something is wrong there.

This is basically stream of consciousness babbling nonsense.

 

[PrinceofWands]

It's a crapshoot which impact it would have, if any at all. However, I'm not a fan of policing the world, interference with sovereignty, or American exceptionalism, so overall I'm a fan of backing off except in response to direct aggression.

 

[Texashiker]

I think it's quite clear at this point that you have no understanding of what you're trying to talk about.

This is basically stream of consciousness babbling nonsense.

Typical liberal gibberish.

You can not debate the facts so you insult the messenger.

 

[Ventanni]

Follow the money, that's what I keep saying at least. A nuclear Iran is an oil exporting Iran, at least much more than they do now since a good chunk of the oil they drill goes towards domestic production. And, an oil exporting Iran is competition for the Saudi regime, OPEC or not.

 

[fskimospy]

Typical liberal gibberish.

You can not debate the facts so you insult the messenger.

No, you have already displayed that you did not understand the passages of the Koran that you were quoting. You proved your own ignorance in this exact thread.

Again, I find it funny that you are complaining about people attacking the messenger when once again, in this exact thread you have done that yourself. Not only are you ignorant, but you're a hypocrite.

 

[Texashiker]

No, you have already displayed that you did not understand the passages of the Koran that you were quoting. You proved your own ignorance in this exact thread.

Prove me wrong.

You can't, so you insult me.