I'm starting to agree with Obama's middle east policies and it may avoid war

[ScienceRocks]

Lets be friends with Iran...yes, lets do what Ron Paul said and work things out with Iran for once. We could be buddy's. Obama hates Israel, so we could side with Iran. That way we could have PEACE! Obama will be happy and Iran will be happy. Not a single American troop will have to die as we could pull them all out of the middle east.

Lets look at Obama's foreign policies and we can see that the middle east is always going to be Islamic in nature. So Obama should complete his policies by allying with Iran...Once on Irans side we will be on the side of the middle east in general and will avoid WWIII. Yes they may attack Israel, but why is it our problem? Is it worth a million or more troops dieing in a world war? Lets alley with the people that control the middle east instead of fighting against them...In the mean time bring our troops home and build a huge fucking wall across our borders.

Elect Ron Paul!!! 2012!!! Lets have peace!

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

You're the idiot running around this forum claiming to be a conservative. You're no fucking conservative.. you're the typical lying liberal. Who befriends a mass murderer ( AchmidinJIHAD, the blood of Americans stains his hands) hellbent on obtaining nuclear capability with the sole purpose of blowing Israel off of the map, the US being next?? A FUCKING IDIOT LEFTIST.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Tiny Israel isn't worth a possible world war and decades of nation building all over the middle east. We need to start caring more about our own nation for once. Why do you want our troops to go through more WAR?

We should always fight for a peaceful way out with only war as the last resort.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Tiny Israel isn't worth a possible world war and decades of nation building all over the middle east. We need to start caring more about our own nation for once. Why do you want our troops to go through more WAR?

We should always fight for a peaceful way out with only war as the last resort.

I can't imagine you have any friends.. Guess what? America doesn't throw her allies, ie friends under the bus.. just you leftist pukes who have an ingrained HATRED for tiny Israel..

 

[Mr.Nick]

Lets be friends with Iran...yes, lets do what Ron Paul said and work things out with Iran for once. We could be buddy's. Obama hates Israel, so we could side with Iran. That way we could have PEACE! Obama will be happy and Iran will be happy. Not a single American troop will have to die as we could pull them all out of the middle east.

Lets look at Obama's foreign policies and we can see that the middle east is always going to be Islamic in nature. So Obama should complete his policies by allying with Iran...Once on Irans side we will be on the side of the middle east in general and will avoid WWIII. Yes they may attack Israel, but why is it our problem? Is it worth a million or more troops dieing in a world war? Lets alley with the people that control the middle east instead of fighting against them...In the mean time bring our troops home and build a huge fucking wall across our borders.

Elect Ron Paul!!! 2012!!! Lets have peace!

Ron Paul never said "lets be friends."

He has a problem with government intervention only because it costs the taxpayers money...

I support Paul, however it will be funny when he has a Cuban Missal Crisis with Iran..

Ahmadinejad is no different than a suicide bomber - he is a radical Islamist .....

Ahmadinejad is a terrorist clothed as a president or leader - dictator .....

 

[Old Rocks]

You're the idiot running around this forum claiming to be a conservative. You're no fucking conservative.. you're the typical lying liberal. Who befriends a mass murderer ( AchmidinJIHAD, the blood of Americans stains his hands) hellbent on obtaining nuclear capability with the sole purpose of blowing Israel off of the map, the US being next?? A FUCKING IDIOT LEFTIST.

The USS Liberty Cover-Up

 

[Mr.Nick]

You're the idiot running around this forum claiming to be a conservative. You're no fucking conservative.. you're the typical lying liberal. Who befriends a mass murderer ( AchmidinJIHAD, the blood of Americans stains his hands) hellbent on obtaining nuclear capability with the sole purpose of blowing Israel off of the map, the US being next?? A FUCKING IDIOT LEFTIST.

The USS Liberty Cover-Up

Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah your original messiah was a nut case to every extent to the definition..

The guy was so obsessed with offing Castro that he even had the audacity to commit a terrorist attack on the mainland...

Anyone that claims Kennedy is a hero is ignorant to the idiots antics..... The guy was a basket case...

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. So states a classical basket case.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Lets be friends with Iran...yes, lets do what Ron Paul said and work things out with Iran for once. We could be buddy's. Obama hates Israel, so we could side with Iran. That way we could have PEACE! Obama will be happy and Iran will be happy. Not a single American troop will have to die as we could pull them all out of the middle east.

Lets look at Obama's foreign policies and we can see that the middle east is always going to be Islamic in nature. So Obama should complete his policies by allying with Iran...Once on Irans side we will be on the side of the middle east in general and will avoid WWIII. Yes they may attack Israel, but why is it our problem? Is it worth a million or more troops dieing in a world war? Lets alley with the people that control the middle east instead of fighting against them...In the mean time bring our troops home and build a huge fucking wall across our borders.

Elect Ron Paul!!! 2012!!! Lets have peace!

Ron Paul never said "lets be friends."

He has a problem with government intervention only because it costs the taxpayers money...

I support Paul, however it will be funny when he has a Cuban Missal Crisis with Iran..

Ahmadinejad is no different than a suicide bomber - he is a radical Islamist .....

Ahmadinejad is a terrorist clothed as a president or leader - dictator .....

Or maybe because of a little known document called the Constitution.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

LOL. So states a classical basket case.

Troll much?

 

[Mr.Nick]

LOL. So states a classical basket case.

Don't acknowledge......

JFK was a freak show just like you..

He was willing to kill millions of people just to blame Castro and you hold that fuck as a hero????

I suppose its OK because its a progressive idea?????????????

Funny how your progressive press does everything in its power to hide operation northwoods...

Bay of pigs...

Kennedy was shit for brains and evil er narcissistic.

 

[editec]

Bay of Pigs was a disasterous idea...one that was already in place waiting to go when JFK took office.He was a young POTUS and he trusted the CIA. Like so many other Presidents before and since, Kennedy never trusted the CIA again.

AS to Iran?

We ought to be supporting those antiestablishment elements in Iran who are moderates. That's the extent to which we ought to mess with that nation. Wait for the next IRAN SPRING, because it will come.

Eventually the folks in Iran, will replace their current government because their government's Moslem fundmentalism does not jibe with the mindset of Iran's better educated more modernistic techocratic class.

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says ya gotta watch dem Chinese - dey sneaky lil' Shiites...

China: Iran's New Best Friend
November 10, 2011 | Following this week's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report concluding that Tehran appears to be well on its way to developing the possibility of manufacturing a nuclear weapon, the next step for world powers is to seek tougher sanctions in the United Nations Security Council.

But meaningful restrictive measures are not likely to happen, say many analysts, considering China's close relationship with Iran, in part to satisfy China's great thirst for oil. Today, Chinese and Russian diplomats announced that they believe no new sanctions on Iran are necessary. “The Chinese-Iranian relationship has, in fact, been deepening over the last few years,” notes Michael Singh, a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council during the Bush administration. The Chinese government not only dilutes the sanctions in the United Nations Security Council by sort of providing Iran with diplomatic cover, but it doesn't enforce the sanctions it even does agree to in the Security Council."

China is Iran's largest trading partner, and this year alone business between the two is estimated at $40 billion, enough of an incentive, say analysts, to block any meaningful Security Council action. Some in Congress are calling on the Obama administration to try and do more. "What China's doing, as I understand, it is avoiding the kind of economic squeeze we want to put on Iran that could force it not to go forward on nuclear weapons and that's a disgrace and we ought to be much tougher with China than we've been," New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer told Fox News.

The influential and powerful senior senator blasted the Chinese, saying they "keep putting themselves first, they keep ignoring the danger to the world of their actions. They even ignore the danger to themselves in the long run, as long as they get a quick benefit in the short run. I think we need to be much tougher with China up and down the line. They are not a positive force in the world scene, whether it comes to Iran, trade, intellectual property or human rights.” Walid Phares, a Fox News Middle East analyst, says "by not containing the Iranians we are allowing the Iranians to tell the Chinese that they have interest in backing them." He tells Fox News that "Beijing, by sustaining a sort of a support of any form to the Iranian regime, is basically damaging not just the national security of the United States with its own interests in the region, but in the long term they are damaging their own interests as well."

Yet a number of Chinese firms have been accused of secretly helping Iran build its nuclear program. In New York, one Chinese company was indicted on 118 counts of providing illicit missile and nuclear technology to Tehran, while other Chinese companies have been sanctioned by the U.S and its allies for aiding the Iranians. Michael Singh tells Fox News that "Chinese companies have been found supplying Iran with critical parts like carbon fiber, for example, for its centrifuges. In addition, China has been involved in Iran's ballistic missile program -- which remember, is part of a nuclear weapons program which is part of a nuclear weapons program, according to the IAEA reports." Yet the Chinese say they are doing nothing illegal.

Read more: China: Iran's New Best Friend | Fox News

See also:

Analysts: Russia, China Ready to Block New UN Sanctions on Iran
November 11, 2011 - This week, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency released its toughest report yet on Iran’s nuclear program, saying it appearsTehran has worked on designing an atom bomb. While Russia and China seem to agree there are legitimate concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the two powers appear ready to block any new move to impose additional sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.

The U.N.’s most powerful organ, the 15-member Security Council, has imposed four rounds of sanctions on Iran from 2006 to 2010. The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency has raised the prospect that Iran’s nuclear file could come back to the Security Council for a possible fifth round of economic, financial or military sanctions. But Moscow and Beijing have already tried to head off any move in that direction. The Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the IAEA report as having no new information and warned that it is being used to undermine efforts to reach a political and diplomatic resolution to the issue. While Beijing has repeated its call for dialogue and said sanctions would not resolve the matter. Analysts say the two powers do not necessarily want to see Iran become a nuclear weapons state, but preventing it is not their top priority.

Matthew Kroenig is the Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, DC. He says Russia and China are less threatened by the thought of a nuclear armed Iran than the United States for several reasons. “When the United States is thinking of all the things that could go wrong if Iran got nuclear weapons, it is thinking about how it is going to affect its Gulf partners -- whether it is going to have to extend security guarantees to countries like Saudi Arabia; what it means for Israel’s security - a close partner; what it means for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Kroenig said. But he says Russia and China have a much shorter list of concerns, so they are less willing to take tough measures to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. They also have close economic and trade ties with the Islamic Republic, which is the world’s fourth largest oil producer, and would be wary of jeopardizing those interests.

American University International Politics professor David Bosco says the U.N. Security Council is running out of sanctions options and only the toughest remain - including targeting Iran’s Central Bank or its oil and gas exports. “We are at the stage where the natural next steps would really be quite coercive steps that could be aimed at crippling Iran’s entire economy and I don’t think Russia and China would go along with that,” Bosco said. Russia and China did not use their veto power on the previous four rounds of sanctions, but they also used their influence to make sure the sanctions were not as strong as Western powers wanted them to be. In an effort to avert new measures, Russia is promoting a plan where Iran would cooperate on inspections to alleviate questions about the nature of its nuclear program in return for a gradual lifting of existing sanctions. Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful and has dismissed the IAEA report as a “fabrication”, calling the agency a “tool” for U.S. political objectives. Iran has also said recently it is willing to return to the negotiating table to settle the matter.

But after several bad experiences with Tehran, is there enough trust in the international community to engage the Iranians in dialogue? Ilan Berman of the conservative Washington research organization, the American Foreign Policy Council, says the time for talk has passed, especially after the latest IAEA report. “There is a sense that Iran is attempting through all these different measures -- working through China and Russia and also by offering negotiations only to complicate them later down the road -- is trying to run out the clock on its nuclear effort. I think the time for returning to negotiating table with the Iranians has passed. The question is now that we know that the clock is ticking, what are we willing to do to really put the screws to the Iranians?,” Berman said. The analysts agree that there are unilateral measures the United States and its European partners could take to try to slow Iran’s proliferation progress - such as an economic embargo or sanctions on Iran’s oil and gas exports -- but they say strong, unified action is unlikely soon at the United Nations.

Source

 

[waltky]

Overthrowing Ahmadinejad and passing sanctions on Iran's nuclear program...

How to overthrow Iran's regime without war or sanctions
November 9, 2011 : Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, first president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, warns that military intervention and economic sanctions only strengthen Iran’s regime, whose grip on power depends on maintaining a crisis. He offers 14 ways to hasten democratization in Islamic countries.

It seems the “success” of the Libyan campaign has again whetted the appetite of Western powers to intervene more aggressively in Iranian affairs. However, the threat of military intervention and the use of economic sanctions that bring suffering to ordinary Iranians only strengthens the grip of Iran’s mafia regime on its power. Any leader who implicitly or explicitly advocates such policies therefore, in effect, plays into the hands of a fragile regime that can only sustain itself through keeping the country in a state of permanent crisis. So the question is, how might outside governments play an effective role in helping Iranians, and in general the people in Islamic countries, to overthrow the regime and secure a democratic outcome without resorting to such policies?

As we all know, democracy is a culture that develops in part through the struggle to accomplish it. This means not only that it cannot be imposed or imported, but also that external intervention can undermine its development. However, as the Iranian regime cannot sustain itself without its relations with outside powers, there are certain things that can be done to undermine these relations and enable the development of democratic processes within Iran. Here are some pointed suggestions for what can be done to hasten the process of democratization of Iran and other Islamic countries.

In the political and military domain, foreign governments could:

1. Withdraw their recognition of the oppressive regime, or at least decrease it to the level of a consular relation.

2. Withdraw their recognition of the opposition groups and (unlike the situation in Libya) resist providing them with political, financial, propaganda, and military support – for by creating alternatives in their pocket, they deprive the development of the independent alternatives that are necessary for democratic process.

3. Abandon policies of supporting one faction of the regime against another – which, in the case of Iran, the West has systematically done by lending support to pragmatists or moderates.

MORE

See also:

Iran's nuclear program: Will oil ties prevent China from backing tough Iran sanctions?
November 9, 2011 - China's growing gas and oil ties to Iran are testing its oft-stated commitment to nuclear nonproliferation as fresh international calls for harsh Iran sanctions multiply in the wake of a new UN report on Iran's nuclear program.

Iran’s largest trading partner, China, is bracing itself for renewed international pressure to dial back its ties with Tehran in the wake of a United Nations report that Iran appears to have worked on a nuclear weapon. French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe called Wednesday for a meeting of the UN Security Council, threatening “sanctions on an unprecedented scale” if Iran refuses to cooperate with the international community over its nuclear program. Beijing is caught between its growing energy reliance on Iran, its third largest oil supplier, and its oft-stated commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.

As Israel signaled that it may be prepared to launch a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei stressed the importance of “avoiding fresh turmoil in the Middle Eastern security environment.” He urged Tehran to “demonstrate flexibility and sincerity, and engage in serious cooperation with the agency,” referring to the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency. But he called for “dialog and cooperation to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue” when asked about the prospects for further unilateral US sanctions.

China has voted for four rounds of limited UN sanctions against Iran, but has resisted any embargo that might damage its oil and gas ties with Iran. Official Chinese figures show that Iran shipped over 20 million tons of crude oil to China in the first nine months of this year – nearly a third more than the same period last year – and that overall trade rose 58 percent from 2010 to $32.9 billion. China is also an important supplier of gasoline to Iran, which lacks refining capacity. At the same time, however, Chinese analysts say, a spate of major oil and gas exploration contracts between Iran and Chinese state owned companies such as China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has slowed over the past two years. In an apparent bid to stave off wider international economic sanctions, “China is behaving very cautiously in its bilateral ties,” says Yin Gang, a Middle East expert with the China Academy of Social Sciences. “Deals have been frozen.”

“The Chinese seem to have disengaged further from Iran,” agrees Willem van Kamenade, a Beijing based analyst of Sino-Iranian relations. “They have yielded to pressure by not engaging in major new oil and gas deals for the last year.” With an outright embargo on Iranian oil sales unlikely, given the impact such a move would have on oil prices and the world economy, China may be ready to consider further sanctions of some kind, says Mr. Yin, though the Foreign Ministry spokesman made no mention of them Wednesday. “China has backed sanctions in the past,” says Yin. “If the Security Council debates the issue again, China may continue to support them.”

Source

 

[editec]

Its NOT the war with Iran that troubles me.

It's the AFTERMATH of that war.

What?

How many here republican or democrat actually wants to station still more troops in a foreign land, an fireogn land where the occupioed people will HATE OUT GUTS?

Come on folks, let's get real here.

There's a limit to the police STATE that America has become.

WE are reaching it due to economics.

 

[WatertheTree]

You're the idiot running around this forum claiming to be a conservative. You're no fucking conservative.. you're the typical lying liberal. Who befriends a mass murderer ( AchmidinJIHAD, the blood of Americans stains his hands) hellbent on obtaining nuclear capability with the sole purpose of blowing Israel off of the map, the US being next?? A FUCKING IDIOT LEFTIST.

Na he isnt a leftist, he is a neocon. A corporate liberal. He thinks government size and spending is ok as long as its in control of a few cronies instead of everyone. Even in his own post he is ready to commit us to building a huge expensive wall running across our southern border.

Spending is ok with these people so long as the spending is government buying second rate services or products from private capitalists at insanly high prices.

 

[waltky]

Pentagon denies its enormous bunker-busting bomb is intended for Iran nukes...

Pentagon Receives Massive Bunker-Busting Bombs, Denies Targeting Iran
November 16, 2011 | Pentagon officials speaking publicly about new 30,000-pound 'massive ordnance penetrator'

Pentagon officials are speaking publicly about the military's new 30,000-pound massive ordnance penetrator, or MOP, known now as the biggest "bunker-busting bomb" in the world. The Air Force has already received an undisclosed number of these bombs from Boeing, all designed to fit exclusively with the B-2 and B-52 bombers. "It gives us a far greater capability to reach and destroy an enemy's weapons of mass destruction that are located in well protected underground facilities... to a magnitude far greater than we have now," Pentagon Spokesman Capt. John Kirby said at a briefing Wednesday.

But, strangely, Kirby denied these bombs are designed to target Iran, the only country known to have buried its nuclear weapons program. "The system is not aimed at any one country, it's to develop a capability we believe we need," Kirby said. That remark was met by audible groans and various comments of disbelief from the Pentagon press corps. It has been widely reported that Iran has buried it's nuclear weapon production facilities at least 90 meters underground at locations in Natanz and Qom. This new bomb is ideal for addressing that threat.

According to Boeing’s website the MOP includes a GPS navigation system and more than 5,300 pounds of explosives. It measures 20 feet long and is “designed specifically to attack hardened concrete bunkers and tunnel facilities.” Boeing successfully tested the bomb on March 17, 2007 at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Pentagon Spokesman George Little says the MOP is far more powerful than its predecessor, the BLU-109. Some estimate it’s as much as 10 times more powerful. The Pentagon says it has contracted for a total of 20 bombs from Boeing, some of which were delivered in the fall. But, for purposes of operational security it won’t disclose how many.

On August 2, 2011 the Air Force signed a contract for eight more, meaning it's unlikely it has more than 12 bombs. News that this new 15-ton MOP is now ready for use comes just days after it was revealed that the U.S. sold the United Arab Emirates smaller, but very lethal bunker buster bombs. Public saber rattling from Israel about potentially conducting a strike of its own against Iran also has Pentagon officials deeply concerned, forcing them to make contingency plans of their own.

Read more: Pentagon Receives Massive Bunker-Busting Bombs, Denies Targeting Iran | Fox News

 

[editec]

Seems to me if current leadership of IRAN is the nightmare of mismanagment and inefficiency that we are informed them to be?

The best foreign policy we could forge regarding that nation is to LET THEM DESTROY themselves.

 

[waltky]

Granny says cut `em off...

Of Top Ten U.S. Aid Recipients, Only One Voted for U.N. Resolution on Iran’s Human Rights Abuses
November 22, 2011 – A U.N. General Assembly committee has passed a draft resolution condemning the human rights situation in Iran by a larger margin than in past years, although there are still more countries either opposing the measure or abstaining than there are willing to vote in favor.

By 86 votes to 32, with 59 abstentions, the committee on Monday approved a text that “expresses deep concern at serious ongoing and recurring human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The text also cites a wide range of violations. The 32 countries voting against the resolution were Arab, Islamic, communist and autocratic states, along with Tehran’s left-wing Latin American allies, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua (full list below).

Of the ten countries that received the most U.S. foreign aid in fiscal year 2011, only one – Israel – voted for the resolution critical of Iran’s human rights record. Afghanistan and Pakistan, the two biggest aid recipients in FY2011, voted against the resolution. Six of the other seven biggest beneficiaries of U.S. aid – Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa – abstained. The remaining country among the top ten U.S. aid recipients, Iraq, did not vote (although Iraq’s representative did take part in other votes during Monday’s session.) The Shi’ite-led government in Baghdad balances its relationship with the United States with close ties to neighboring Iran.

Egypt’s decision to abstain marked a shift from a year ago, when then President Hosni Mubarak’s government led opposition to a similar resolution, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Also of note was the fact that Libya and Tunisia, both with new administrations following uprisings this year, voted in favor of the resolution. They were joined in doing so by three other members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the 56-country Islamic bloc – Albania, the Maldives and Senegal.

In total 17 OIC members voted “no,” 25 abstained, and nine – including Iraq, Turkey and Yemen – did not vote. During Monday’s session, a number of countries tied voting intention to their opposition to country-specific” resolutions at the U.N. – critical resolutions focusing on a single country. They included Kazakhstan, speaking on behalf of the OIC, as well as Cuba, and Malaysia (which abstained).

MORE

 

[Rocko]

Lets be friends with Iran...yes, lets do what Ron Paul said and work things out with Iran for once. We could be buddy's. Obama hates Israel, so we could side with Iran. That way we could have PEACE! Obama will be happy and Iran will be happy. Not a single American troop will have to die as we could pull them all out of the middle east.

Lets look at Obama's foreign policies and we can see that the middle east is always going to be Islamic in nature. So Obama should complete his policies by allying with Iran...Once on Irans side we will be on the side of the middle east in general and will avoid WWIII. Yes they may attack Israel, but why is it our problem? Is it worth a million or more troops dieing in a world war? Lets alley with the people that control the middle east instead of fighting against them...In the mean time bring our troops home and build a huge fucking wall across our borders.

Elect Ron Paul!!! 2012!!! Lets have peace!

Ron Paul never said "lets be friends."

He has a problem with government intervention only because it costs the taxpayers money...

I support Paul, however it will be funny when he has a Cuban Missal Crisis with Iran..

Ahmadinejad is no different than a suicide bomber - he is a radical Islamist .....

Ahmadinejad is a terrorist clothed as a president or leader - dictator .....

yes he did actually.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W8MDjU2zgk]Ron Paul Wants To Be Friends With Iran To Talk Them Out Of Developing Nukes - YouTube[/ame]